Reflections on Fault-lines of Partition Historiography: Venkat Dhulipala responds to critics

NB: The essay below contains a detailed rebuttal of the critical reviews of Venkat Dhulipala's seminal book Creating a New Medina: State Power, Islam and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India; Delhi, 2015. The book was the product of meticulous research and received critical praise as well as much criticism. (Some reviews may be read here). The author's response is thorough and speaks for itself; however, given the tone and content of some of the criticisms levelled at him and his work, I have the following observations to make.

I have commented on the overall bent of this hostile reception in a prefatory note to this review. A more recent attack ('attack' is the right word for it, unfortunately) on his work was made by some academicians who seized upon his attendance at a recent conference in Chicago. I have commented on this at length here. Finally let me add that since the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 has been for many years the most oft-cited line of defence for apologists of the Pakistan scheme, it would be appropriate for them to read the Communist Party of India's characterisation of that plan as a scheme for Princistan, and a device to perpetuate imperial control even as the Empire collapsed. (In 1942, the CPI had supported the 'just essence' of the Pakistan demand). More on this may be read in Anil Nauriya, Some Portrayals of Jinnah: A Critique; in Minority Identities and the Nation- State, ed. D. L. Sheth and Gurpreet Mahajan (Delhi, 1999). There is a great deal more to be said on the matter of the communal partition, but it is best for interested readers to go through the essay for themselves. DS

Here is the abstract of the essay:
This essay responds to various questions and criticisms that have been articulated regarding my book, Creating a New Medina, over the last nearly four years since its publication. It locates the book in the field of Partition studies and clarifies its arguments and contributions to the debates on Partition and Pakistan. It then addresses the most prominent criticisms—be they methodological, historiographic or political—by choosing four reviews by scholars in the field. These reviews have appeared in a variety of venues- an online news portal, a long form narrative journalism magazine, and a literary journal devoted to reviews of books in India, besides a professional scholarly journal in the U.S. 

In the process of replying to critiques, the essay also indexes a range of extensive and thoughtful comments by scholars in various fields thus pointing to the nature of conversations that have happened in the aftermath of the book. It concludes that arguments on the Partition are by no means over and bound to continue. It consequently calls for a civil debate based on careful historical research that is communicated in clear writing, to keep up the robust conversation on what remains a compelling subject in which not just scholars but the general public at large in the subcontinent along with its far-flung diaspora remain passionately interested and invested.

Read the essay

see also
The law of killing - a brief history of Indian fascism
What is to be Undone
Communist Party of India's resolution on Pakistan and National Unity, September 1942

Popular posts from this blog

Third degree torture used on Maruti workers: Rights body

Haruki Murakami: On seeing the 100% perfect girl one beautiful April morning

Albert Camus's lecture 'The Human Crisis', New York, March 1946. 'No cause justifies the murder of innocents'

The Almond Trees by Albert Camus (1940)

Etel Adnan - To Be In A Time Of War

After the Truth Shower

James Gilligan on Shame, Guilt and Violence