On the 10th February 1947, Prime Minister Clement Atlee made a historic speech to the Commons chamber stating that India would be granted independence by June the following year. He also confirmed the appointment of Viscount Mountbatten as Viceroy whose responsibilities would be to oversee Britain leaving India and facilitate constitutional self-government.
Mountbatten had been a naval commander throughout World War 2 but he found the choppy waters of Indian politics more difficult to navigate. Nehru and Jinnah's adherence to the wishes of their respective parties tested his powers of mediation, ultimately leading to his decision to hasten the Government's exit strategy. In a climate of increasing communal violence and repatriation Mountbatten decreed that the transfer of power and the partition to create the states of India and Pakistan would come into effect on the 15th August. He would remain as Governor-General of India for another tumultuous year before returning to the familiar environs of the Admiralty.
The 1947 partition of the Subcontinent divided Punjab into two parts – the West Punjab, belonging to Pakistan and the East Punjab, which became part of India. It was associated with massive violence within the six month time frame, large exchanges of population (approximately ten million), and significant involvement of the government in evacuating and protecting the refugees.
The enforced movement of the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim populations of Punjab has been described as by the historians ‘on a scale absolutely unparalleled in the history of the world’. Around five-and-a-half million Muslims migrated to West Punjab, and around four-and-a-half million Hindus and Sikhs moved to east Punjab. Violence is regarded as the main cause of the mass migrations that occurred in Punjab and it became notorious in history as the “bloody battlefield of the Partition whereby far the greatest number of massacres of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims occurred.” According to Ian Talbot, a renowned British historian, "on both sides of the 35-mile-long road between Amritsar and Lahore, there were heaps of corpses. It appeared as if the entire territory had been converted into an extensive graveyard.”
One of the main reasons for the violence was the partition of India into two separate states-India and Pakistan. The issues of transfer of power and partition of India are well known and adequately covered by academic literature. However, it is rarely discussed that what role did the Mountbatten, the last viceroy of India, played in the partition. He, as the viceroy of India was given, the duty to peacefully transfer power to Indians and protect the His Majesty Government’s interests in India. This article looks at how and why he materialised this task.
The intimate story of a unique partition not only ends the heights of British glamour and power but also descends into infidelity, manipulation, and disaster through the heart of the twentieth century India. Mountbatten, an instrumental figure behind this unparalleled historical trajectory became the last Viceroy of India, in March 1947, with the mandate to hand over ‘the jewel in the crown’ of the British Empire within one year. Mountbatten worked with Nehru, Gandhi and the leader of the Muslim League, Jinnah, to devise a plan for partitioning the empire into two independent sovereign states; India and Pakistan, on 15 August 1947.
Dr Chawla argues that it was spectre of violence and insurmountable communal strife that convinced Mountbatten to withdraw from his idea of unity of India and reluctantly accept the partition. Arguably, the creation of Pakistan cannot be solely attributed to the collaboration between Congress and British authorities
Professor Muhammad Iqbal Chawla, one of the finest historians in Pakistan is known as a magnetic historiographer of modern South Asia has explored in his work titled Mountbatten, Cabinet Mission and Provincial Boundaries: Insight and Controversies that what is the true story behind controversies such as Indian Partition, the political relations between Mountbatten, Nehru, and Jinnah? Was Mountbatten one of the outstanding leaders of his generation, or a man over-promoted because of his royal birth, high-level connections, film-star looks and ruthless self-promotion?
The main objective of the book, as explained by the author, is to present fresh insight into Mountbatten’s decisions regarding the partition of India and their socio-political impact on the state apparatus and society of the two states-India and Pakistan. The books take into account the significant historical events that took place during Mountbatten’s viceroyalty such as outbreak of violence, partition of India and partition of Punjab and Bengal subsequent Radcliff Award and his actions as Indian Governor General regarding Princely States of Jammu and Kashmir.
Professor Chawla offers a candid account of Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of British India, reveals his frank, and often astounding, assessment of the events, personalities and issues of the time. He has utilised revelatory documents, primarily Viceroy’s Personal Reports to the Secretary of State for India, and also other interesting documents such as Jinnah Papers detailing his emotional reaction to the draft plan for transfer of power.
He argues that the Partition of India was an expedited process that resulted in significant turmoil. Lord Mountbatten had to push for independence, appointing Sir Cyril Radcliffe to draw the boundaries between India and Pakistan. Radcliffe, unfamiliar with the region, was influenced by political pressures, leading to lasting controversy and tragic consequences, affecting millions.
Dr Chawla argues that it was spectre of violence and insurmountable communal strife that convinced Mountbatten to withdraw from his idea of unity of India and reluctantly accept the partition. Arguably, the creation of Pakistan cannot be solely attributed to the collaboration between Congress and British authorities. It was, in fact, a response to the prevailing ground realities, which encompassed widespread violence. The author is of the opinion that, amongst others, it was Redcliff Award combined with mass massacres in the result of partition has eventually contributed to the present day rivalry between India and Pakistan relations.
Historians hold two divergent perspectives on the role of Mountbatten in the transfer of power process; one group of the historian argues that he implemented the partition plan impartially whereas other group is of the view that he exhibited prejudices against Muslim and engineered an unfair partition plan. Contrary to these two divergent perspectives on the biases of Mountbatten in the transfer of power process, Dr Chawla asserts that Lord Mountbatten tried to become a neutral umpire as he neither exclusively favoured Congress nor vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan. Further, the author maintains that Mountbatten made sincere efforts, to the best of his abilities, to uphold the position of neutrality without compromising on the economic and political interests of British in South Asia.
On communal violence, in contrast to the critics of Mountbatten who portrays Mountbatten as indifferent or ignorant of the pains of violence, Professor Chawla opines that he partially managed to mitigate the riots through Punjab Boundary Force. In other words, he appreciates the role Mountbatten as an overseer of the transfer of power processes. Such appreciation augmented by the documentary evidence differentiates that book from the conventional portrayal of Lord Mountbatten in the nationalist historiography of Pakistan.
From British institutional legacy to the South Asian modern politics, from the battlefields of Pakistan Movement to the partition of Indian, Mountbatten, Cabinet Mission and Provincial Boundaries: Insight and Controversies is a rich and classic and a powerful account of Indian partition that reveals the truth behind this historical trajectory. It is first full-length account of the remarkable man, Mountbatten, and the partition legacy. It is useful for all audiences, but voiced towards university students and independent researchers of modern South Asia alike or any citizen who is interested in a concise and authoritative exploration of partition studies.