|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting the
Partition of the Punjab 1947: Press, Public and other Opinions
‘Resting squarely on a careful if detailed scrutiny of a wide spectrum of news publications not only- albeit predominantly- in English but also in Urdu, Hindi and Panjabi, it bids fair to be a definitive study of the genre. To say all this is not to unsay that a plethora of other sources- archival, personal memoirs, private letters, relevant Transfer of Power volumes and contemporary accounts of men of considerable probity and understanding- have not been used. In essence though, it is the Panjab of 1947 ‘as seen through the columns’ of important newspapers; other sources playa part that is ‘merely supportive’ and therefore ‘limited and selective.’ To stress the obvious, it is not a chronicle of the complex negotiations, political intrigue and rhetoric that preceded the division of the Panjab much less on the how and why of the Partition itself. Understandably, the book starts when Panjab's partition had become inevitable and deals with the havoc that it wrought- the tragic, if tumultuous weeks and months of death and desolation in the aftermath of August 15 and the Radcliffe award. The first three chapters concentrate on the 'Partition Background', 'Pointers to Disaster' in early 1947 Panjab and the June 3, Plan. The next three are full of the Boundary Commission which the Panjabis had ‘rejected’. Taken completely unawares, they were to pay an exorbitant price retailed vividly in the ‘early dimension’' of what was to follow. The last two deal with the 'corruption and greed' which peace brought and the aftermath of the Mahatma's assassination (January 1948). In all this there is nothing new much less earth-shaking except perhaps the depth, and dimension, of the crises that come out so graphically. In fact that is precisely here the strength and uniqueness of this study lies: piecing together newspaper reportage, letters to the editor, cartoons, write-ups to bring to life the grey, grisly and grim if also gory tale of a by-gone age, best forgotten. The book rightfully emphasises that the ‘widespread’ riots of March 1947 made Panjab's partition 'a certainty'; more, by the end of May the 'tragic' direction in which the state was moving was clear to one and all, both in New Delhi as well as Whitehall. In the event . to bring forward the date of transfer of power—from February 1948 to August 1947—was ‘an error of judgment’ both on the part of Mountbatten as well as 'his friends' in the Congress Party. That the dimensions of the Panjab crisis in terms of the mass migration of population in both directions took 'everyone by surprise' is no secret. The paradox is that even though predicted 'by everyone' from Governor Jenkins downwards, nothing was done about it; there was 'no general plan' to handle the situation. Above all, the 'police' and even 'sections of the army' displayed a singular lack of discipline while 'widespread indifference and insubordination' permeated 'especially' the lower revenue staff. A major difficulty with Tanwar's book is that there is no sum-up; the author confesses he found it ‘exceedingly difficult’ to draw any conclusions. One is not so sure if in doing so he has not shirked a responsibility that was inherent to the undertaking. As one who sorted out and sifted this mass of data, he must no doubt have pondered over all that it meant. And if firm conclusions were hard to draw, some tentative suggestions as to where it allied should have been spelt out. In failing to do so, he has, sad to say, let down his readers and, in the bargain, left his excellent work somewhat in the limbo! A volume of such massive dimensions calls for extra care which oddly has been denied it. A more rigorous editing and attention to errors of omission and commission, especially in grammar and spellings, would have enhanced its value. So also short biographical sketches of the more important dramatis personae, a catalogue of the cartoons (some invaluable) and a couple of good maps to explain the intricacies of the boundary award. These, however, are small quibbles and one hates to carp. Nor do they detract from the importance of a work of which Professor Tanwar, who teaches history at Kurukshetra University, may be legitimately proud. |
To
