The Tired Men of India and the Partition Massacres of 1947

Abstract

India‟s Partition has in the recent years conjured some major debates concerning its incidence and aftermath. The architects of this Partition in particular come under serious scrutiny of the scholar‟s pen for the occurrence of this momentous event, remembered as „an intersection time‟ that seems to be never forgotten, moving in a circle and calling all other times “to standby as it moves in beyond time and space.”1 Not only did it mark a new beginning for the two divided nations, it made them write and re-write the biographies of their leaders in a whole new light influenced largely by socio-cultural, political and religious nuances. To account for a respectable position in the tumultuous history of Partition, the respective leaders of the communities fighting and struggling for Independence need to be evaluated in the context of their roles and impact. If taken in its entirety the British too assume a part in the discourse of leadership as they bear the responsibility of bringing down the edifice of not only a united India but also of their own grandeur. To them it was the loss of their pre-eminence, of a defining characteristic reminiscent of the Victorian and Edwardian years, of their glorified civilizing mission and perhaps of their identity and credibility as a superior people.2 The fact that they tried to portray this aspect of their “national bereavement”3 by disguising the retreat as a plane of moral high ground when they bequeathed freedom on the Indian nation, has been deliberated upon already in a number of scholarly works. Whether it was an act compelled by circumstances or it was a voluntary deed of magnanimity towards the Indian cause does bring to the fore the place and part of the last Viceroy of India Lord Louis Mountbatten. His role no doubt assumes a lead in the story of India‟s Partition as he was the face of British administration in the final hours of its working in India, but to dwell upon him or his administrative responsibility does not fall in the ambit of this study. An understanding of the part played by Indian leaders in winning over independence would repeatedly bring his response and his governments reaction, but only as the third party on whom rested the burden of a peaceful and orderly transfer of Power.