The false premise of partition

Abstract

Partitions are based on two fundamental assumptions: identity groups exist that can be located, named and categorized, and these categories are attached to distinct territories. Drawing on the Partition of British India, this paper analyses how the differences between the categories “Hindu” and “Muslim” were developed through narratives and events such as the creation of maps and censuses, the emergence of religious revivalist movements, and the use of violence. The article argues that the perception of sharp boundaries between what are termed “territorial groups of meaning” is the result of these events and narratives, not the cause of them.

Keywords:

• partition
• borders
• nations
• India
• Bangladesh

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Ned Bertz for comments on an earlier version of this paper. The paper was originally presented at the “Partitions: Towards Transnational History of Twentieth Century Territorial Separatism” workshop at Stanford University. Thanks to the organizers and participants for useful comments. The findings are based in part on work supported by the US National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0602206, the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies, and the Political Geography Specialty Group of the American Association of Geographers. Any errors that remain are mine.

Notes

1 The interview data were collected in 2006 and 2007 in Bangladesh and India. One hundred and one interviews and fifteen focus groups were held in Dhaka, Calcutta and along the border in Dinajpur, Bangladesh and Dakshin Dinajpur, India. The majority of the interviews were conducted in Bengali and translated by the author in collaboration with a research assistant in Bangladesh. The historical documents are drawn from British government documents and census reports.

2 Rafiuddin Ahmed writes that,

At the level of the masses, the social difference between the two communities was not so obvious; they were both part of the same agricultural community and generally followed the same professions. They both shared a common pattern of rural life, spoke the same language (perhaps with minor variations in vocabulary) and even participated in the same rituals.