The Untold Story Of India Partition: The Shadow Of The Great Game

- at the role of cold war geopolitics in shaping the post-colonial era. The insights Singh Sarila offers here could only be offered by an Indian on the inside of things: Brit and American accounts dwell, as expected, on their own self-congratulating nobility in permitting decolonization rather than the Western advantages extracted from the process. Singh Sarila makes stark and persuasive cases: that the Congress Party's insistence on its own vanguard role drove the Muslims and Jinnah closer to the British than they might have gone; that the US was interested in India's freedom as a way to weaken Britain's postwar influence and keep the UK under American leadership; that a Nehruvian India was not seen as a trustworthy partner in the new chapter of the Great Game opening after 1945, but a separate Pakistan would be.The outcome would have deadly repercussions beyond the trauma of Partition. The bloodbath of Bangladesh twenty-five years later is the child of the misbegotten pairing of the Punjab and Bengal, in one Pakistan on two sides of the subcontinent, with the resulting communal cleansing, neo-genocide, and war that could have made Vietnam a mere sideshow. Reading Singh Sarila along with Gary J. Bass' "The Blood Telegram" one will develop a very thorough understanding of not only the cold war Great Game, but its continuing legacy in the "War on Terror;" why Nixon and Kissinger continued their sponsorship of Pakistan despite the cost to South Asia; why the US today insists on its "friendship" with Pakistan despite much evidence to the contrary. More proof that the past is not only present, but often not truly past.

A wonderful movie "Viceroy's House" based on this novel.

Very informative. Author has done done a great job. Was impressed with the chapter on Americas role in Indian independence. The book breaks the myth that the partition was to give a homeland for the muslim minority. It was actually a conspiracy between Churchill and Jinnah. Jinnah for his ego and Churchill for his hatred towards India.SSB

An interesting and detailed analysis based on historical documents that sheds light on the british machinations to encourage, even engineer the partition. lots of other fascinating facts and details are brought to life as well.

Lots of minor mistakes and broad based assumptions. The overall theme should not be a surprise to most who know about the Great Game and British occupation of Greater India.

The subject of this book is stated only in its subtitle: "The Untold Story of India's Partition", and the main title suggests that the author will see the story in the context of the Great Game, the name given by Kipling in 1901 to the rivalry between Britain and Russia, with the Russians trying to expand their empire towards India, and the British doing their utmost to hold them back.The opening chapter shows how, immediately after the end of the Second World War, when disagreements with the Soviet Union had already surfaced, the British saw the Soviet Union renewing Russia's threat to India. During the Second World War the Congress Party had wanted a guarantee from Britain that after the war India should be independent, and when it failed to secure that promise, had not backed the war effort and adopted a policy of non-cooperation with Britain, whereas the Muslim League, fearful of a Hindu-ruled India, had given full support to the British war effort. By the end of the war, British statesmen had come to the conclusion that independence was unavoidable, but also that an independent India ruled by the Congress Party was unlikely to support Britain's resistance to Russian advances in the region, whereas a separate Muslim state in Pakistan would continue the Muslim alliance with Britain. So, while officially having the position that they were willing to give independence to a united India, this would be conditional on an agreement between Muslims and Hindu, which they knew was by that time impossible since the Muslims were now set on the creation of Pakistan. By early 1947 the British military in particular welcomed a separate Pakistan. The British therefore accepted Jinnah as the official spokesman of the Muslims, although there was serious opposition to his separatist policies even within the Muslim League, and the League itself had never won an absolute majority in Muslim-majority provinces right up to Partition: the Muslim governments in the North West Frontier Province and in the Punjab supported a united India. Muslims in Hindu-majority provinces clearly also did not want separatism which would leave them stranded in India.The book then goes back to the beginning of the BEGINNING of the Second World War and, in great detail over the next 360 pages or so, traces the story from there to the Partition. There are now so few direct references to the Soviet threat that I think that the title of the book, with its emphasis on the Great Game, is seriously misleading: there were enough other reasons to make Britain favour Pakistan - notably the trouble that Congress had caused Britain throughout the war and which had led to most of Congress leadership to be imprisoned in 1942. The Russian dimension hardly figures in the documents until after the war, and then only once or twice. (The worry about American pressure on Churchill to come to terms with Congress is much more prominent.)In August 1945 Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, advised his government that the partition of India would have to be accepted. The Attlee government did indeed accept it, but was anxious not to be seen to impose it and hoped that, if partition were to happen, it would be Congress and the League who would make that decision. Britain did manage not only to set up in September 1946 an Interim Government of which Nehru was the head, but to persuade Jinnah to let representatives of the League join it. But Jinnah accepted only in order to work against the Interim Government from within, while rejecting any participation by the Muslim League in a Constituent Assembly in which it would be outnumbered by Congress. When the Constituent Assembly met in December 1946, Nehru introduced and carried the resolution that India should become an Independent Sovereign Republic (i.e. not a Dominion), and his wider anti-colonial policies confirmed the British view that an independent Congress India would continue to work against British interests, whereas an independent Pakistan would protect British interests on the North-West frontier and in the Persian Gulf.And so Attlee made the momentous announcement in February 1947 that Britain would withdraw from India by June 1948 whether Congress and the League had come to an agreement or not. As it was clear that the League would never accept a united India, this was an implicit acceptance of partition; and indeed Congress had accepted it, too, in principle. It fell to Mountbatten, the new Viceroy, to preside over the negotiations about the details - and immensely complex these were. Most intricate of all were those that would allocate the North West Frontier Province to Pakistan. In this instance Mountbatten used his influence to strengthen Pakistan; but he pressured almost all the princely states to join India rather than to remain independent or, in the case of one of two of them, to join Pakistan.There remained the problem of Kashmir, whose Sikh Maharajah had acceded to India although the population of the North and West - about two thirds of the state - was Muslim. British officers in Gilgit, in the north of the country carried out a coup in October 1947 and declared Gilgit as part of Pakistan, strengthening that country against the Soviet Union to the North-West and Sinkiang, now under Maoist control, to the North-East. Pakistan then sent troops into Kashmir. The British government hoped for a partition of Kashmir agreed by India and Pakistan; but in the absence of this tended to support Pakistan, (though not to the extent of driving India into open hostility).Sarila was a distinguished member of the Indian foreign service after independence. He has many criticisms of Congress tactics, but he sympathises with the idea of united India, and he has a very unfavourable view of Jinnah, whom he describes as vain, personally ambitious, intransigent, opportunistic, and, as an entirely secular Muslim, breaking away from the Congress Party mainly because he could make no headway in it. (And, though he criticizes Gandhi's tactics, too, he refers respectfully to him as Gandhiji throughout the book.)

sirThe best book on partition of India is V P Menon^s 2 volume Transfer of Power 2 Integration of Indian States. Second best book is Larry Collins^s Freedom at Midnight. Then comes^ India Divided^ by late Dr Rajendra Prasad former President of India. The Shadow of the Great Game : The untold story by Narendra Singh Sarila is very informative and deals with very clearly the great game of Britishers. There is no written proof of their complicity in partition of India and creation of Mohd Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League. The procees started since Lord Minto in 1909 and ended with Lord Wavell.When I was student in year 1970-1971 I used to doubt about the role of Britishers but Mr Sarila researched on grand scale, he was ADC to the Last Viceroy of India Lord Mountbatten subsequently he switched to Indian Foreign Service and studied well the subject. The Main contributors or I must say the Villains of the drama or I must say Indian Tragedy are Winston Churchill, Lord Linlithgo, Lord Wavell, Sir Olaf Caroe(ICS) the all three advisers of Lord Mountbatten - Lord Ismay, Sir George Abell and Sir Eric Mieville last Viceroy. they all three worked for Muslim League, and worked India..All the British Civil Servants in India and Defence Personnels were responsible for the partition of India, Massacre of Indian people, and worked tirelessly against India..One British writer in ^ Churchillians^ hassquarely blamed Lord Mountbatten for the great massacre and rightly said that he was not capable and unfit for the job. Unfortunately his end also came with Violence. Entire high ranking officers contributed to the tragedy of Indian People. Really Mr Sarila has done a commendable job to clear the mist. The congress party and particularly Pt Jawahar lal Nehru committed many mistakes and were not capable to grasp the conspiracy of Britishers. The Britishers governed India very splendidly but they used divide and rule since 1857 and were not happy with Congress and very adroitly exploited their mistakes.On page 410 of the book the writer has well written ^However, Linlithgow and Wavell cannot escape the responsibility for the Punjab massacres. They ignored the warnings of their governors, Henry Craik and Bertrand Glancy, that strengthening Jinnah^s Muslim League in the Punjab at the expense of Unionist Party, who were opposed to the partition - Shaukat Hayat used to call it Jinnahsthan - would result in blood bath in the province.Wavell did forward the Glancy^s warning to London, but the policy to build up Jinnah as the sole spokesman of the Muslims continued.^Likewise at page 411 the writer comments the role of Lord Mountbatten ^ While Viceroy of India, he prized away the North West Frontier Province from the Congress Party^s Control and, while India^s Governor General after Independence, he restrained it from occupying the whole, or more areas of Kashmir. This made it possible for Pakistan to be formed as a defense bastion.^ The book does not cover the problem of Hyderabad, Junagarh and Travoncore and Kochin states. This may be due to the shortage of the space or lack of information with the writer. Likewise Punjab and Bangal boundries were drawn in haste and made maximum sufferings to the people of Indian Sub Continent.Our great Cyrill Redcliff made lines on maps. The one example of his blunder is CHT(Chittogaon Hill Tract) comprised only 3% Muslims and 97 % of Hindu and Buddhists but he allotted this area to Pakistan without knowing that boundaries of the District are adjacent to Lushai Hills of Assam(now Mizoram) He got scott free from India without any responsibility. The partition of the Bangal is not given in detail and book should cover it detail. India was fortunate enough to have Calcutta and that too due to Sardar Patel and his wisdom.The book is very good and I strongly recommend for the persons interested in study of this crucial period and history students. The printing is good and legible and price is in the reach of the common reader.k s chaturvediMathura

A fascinating insight into the true events underlying the Partition and Independence of India and Pakistan. In contrast to "official" line as it appears in British History, it reveals the manipulations and almost evil intent of Britain, encouraged my the USA to deliberately engineer yje Partition, with the disastrous consequences it had at the time, in the millions of lives deliberately sacrificed on the altar of Western politics, and even now with the instability in Pakistan.

The author of this book Narendra Singh Sarila himself being an ADC to Lord Mountbatten, is eye witness to the events that unfolded and eventually shaped the history and geography of our country as well as our neighbor's. No doubt this is as unbiased and factual description as possible...many facts and events described by the author are very little or not known to everyone. This makes this book highly readable (although at times the descriptions are in too details, which makes the book a little heavy to read) if one is really interested to know the real history of our nation and its makers.

Till now I had wept over the partition of India blaming our leaders and their selfish interests. I might have been right.But it never struck me that what was the vested interest of the so called retreating British power which took the extra pain in dividing the country into two, and conduct the grand migration.Now this book opened my eyes; today I know how the partition could not have taken place, if the players of the Great Game did not want it.This book will help to review and reconsider our history knowledge.

This is a fresh look at India's freedom struggle though published about a decade back. Sareela, however, could not avoid taking unjustified digs at the nationalist leaders and presenting a rather favourable picture of Lord Mountbatten. It examines a crucial period in the 1930s when Congress governments were formed in several provinces and the impact of their resignations on events leading upto India's partition