Though I have a series of focal texts on my reading list—and all tie back to the central issue of Partition—I don’t think I’ve ever taken a moment to look at the primary evidence that announced the division of the British Raj.
I’ve chosen a brief article from The Times titled “Broadcast by Viceroy.” It’s simply a printing of Lord Mountbatten’s radio broadcast made the day before announcing the plans for Partition (the broadcast aired on June 3rd, 1947 and the speech was reprinted on June 4th, 1947). This is likely one of the first times this announcement appeared in print, so I’m counting it as a primary source. Lord Mountbatten, Viceroy of India, planned the Partition of India and Pakistan; in this speech, he explains the original plans, the final decision, and how he hopes the Indian people will react to the news of the transfer of power.
It is this final section, here subtitled “Indian States,” that is of particular interest to me. Lord Mountbatten consistently stresses the need for this transfer of power to occur “in a peaceful and orderly manner,” and he states that “every single one of us must bend all his efforts to the task;” these choices of wording suggest that the responsibility for the prevention of violence is a communal task passed onto the now-citizens of the newborn nation. Though Mountbatten is attempting to generate a sense of responsibility, it comes off as a transfer of blame.
In the rest of the speech, his tone is extremely patronizing: “This is no time for bickering, much less for the continuation in any shape or form of the disorders and lawlessness of the past few months” (“Broadcast by Viceroy”). “Bickering” carries connotations of petulant schoolchildren, and his references to “the disorders and lawlessness of the past few months” carefully covers up British complicity in inciting said lawlessness.
It’s the last three lines that feels especially condescending: “Do not forget what a narrow margin of food we are all working on. We cannot afford any toleration of violence. All of us are agreed on that” (“Broadcast by Viceroy”). Lord Mountbatten, from his position of food security, likely refers to the Bengal Famine of 1943. It’s essential to note that famines are engineered—it’s not the absence of available food, it’s a withholding of available food.
If anything, looking into colonial documents makes me question tone and word choice—it’s also important to note that these declarations are first broadcast in English, a language only accessible to the colonial elite and a South Asian ruling class with an Anglophone education. These are the kinds of official documents women writers are responding to, and this inherently accusatory tone fits with the same kinds of “victim-blaming” enacted upon fictional women by the men in their lives.
Works Cited
Mountbatten, Lord Louis. “Broadcast by Viceroy.” The Times, London, 4 June 1947, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/indian-independence/mountbatten-radio-broadcast/.
househuntersinternational, this is a sobering and detailed analysis of this speech. Your careful attention reminds me of a class I took where we analyzed rhetoric, particularly in wartime or military speeches, to see how wartime events were portrayed. I also think of the connections between British causation of the Bengal Famine and British causation of the Irish Great Famine. Though natural disaster and disease did influence the Irish Famine, the British government often cited them and overpopulation as the causes of the crisis. I recall reading a report by the 1838 (in the time leading up to the main years of the famine) English Poor Law Commissioner at one time that I’ve gone back and found. He says, “If it be asked how this [a previous report of the Irish nation faring well] accords with the apparent increase of misery and destitution among a large portion of the people, the answer I think is obvious. The capital of the country has increased, but the increase of the population has been still greater” (“Condition and Habits of the Irish” 7). By exhibiting a similarly confident and condescending tone as Mountbatten, Nicholls transforms any discussion of the famine into a comparison against monetary gain, and swiftly places the blame on rapid population growth. There are other sections of his reports that scarily mirror your chosen quotations of the “Broadcast by Viceroy.” The nuances of the Partition, the Bengal Famine, and the Irish Famine are many and different. However, they share some similarities when it comes to fiction writer responses to British violence (I think of a number of writer depictions of the “changeling” myth meant to resemble the horrific starvation of what should have been healthy young babies and children).
Less related to the topics of famine and starvation, you mention in your other blog post how poetry and literature are essential in responding to partition and violence, especially sexual violence. The lack of a specific word for “rape” in Urdu or Bangla, and therefore the importance of word choice and punctuation for these women writers in describing sexual violence, is an important reminder of literacy and language as a tool of power. While the announcement of the division of the British Raj exemplifies how oppressors utilize the power of language, “Interview with a Birangona” and the Bangla term of birangona itself exemplify using language to give explicit voice to women that oppressors’ language seeks to cover up.
Works Cited: Nicholls, George. “First Report.” Three Reports by George Nicholls, Esq., to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department. W. Clowes and Sons, London, 1838, https://brittlebooks.library.illinois.edu/brittlebooks_open/Books2009-07/nichge0001poolaw/nichge0001poolaw.pdf