An Indian historian was on his visit to Pakistan and met a number of people in order to understand the mind of Pakistani people. In one meeting somebody asked him:” what do you think about partition?” He replied” a sense of loss”. The immediate response was” your sense of loss is our sense of achievement”. This is how the history of freedom movement and partition is written on both sides. The Pakistani historians write it with a sense of pride that how the Muslims of India (believing as they were a monolith community) fought on two fronts: the British and the Hindus, and finally achieved their separate homeland on the basis of two nation theory. The nationalist historians of India concentrate on the struggle against colonialism rather than partition which is the last part of the whole drama. Negating the two Nation theory, they emphasize on composite culture and the concept of one nation They argue that the Muslims, dividing the nation into two, subverted the struggle against the British and instead of joining national struggle, involved in communal politics, which subsequently complicated and delayed the freedom of India. On the other hand, they regard the freedom struggle as a mass movement that included all sections of society irrespective of their ideology and social status. As a result of it, they seized power through people’s struggle, which was based on moral, political and ideological values. They also particularly emphasize that the whole movement was constitutional and non violent in nature (ignoring the contribution of the terrorist and the Ghadar movements).

 After the independence and partition, historians of different schools of thought have studied and analysed this phenomenon with different points of view. The British historians are very much concerned about the anti-colonialist and anti imperialist approaches and therefore, made attempts to justify the positive role of British during the freedom struggle. The traditionalist historians focus their attention on the frustrated European educated class that used nationalism to mobilize people against the British Raj to fulfil their political ends. This approach denies that the struggle was a mass movement or against the colonial rule or there was any economic exploitation in India. The Cambridge school of historiography that emerged in the 1960s deals with the issue of freedom movement and imperialism with a different perspective. Their point of view is that there was no anti imperialist struggle in India, neither was there any people’s movement, nor were people against the British Raj.They argue that during the British rule India was in the process of nation building and yet not achieved the status of a nation. It was, as a matter of fact, a conglomeration of castes, religious, linguistic and ethnic communities. As there was no existence of any nation, how any struggle could be national? Denying it as national and mass movement, they assert that in actuality it was a movement of elite class, which used different political strategies to achieve their selfish motives. Nationalism was their most effective and useful instrument to hide their ulterior interests and activate people for support.

It is to be noted, the British historians use the term of ‘transfer of power’, which denies any resistance or struggle against the colonial power. It indicates that the transfer was made peacefully by negotiations.

Historians from the Subaltern school of thought see the whole freedom struggle as a conflict between local and foreign elite classes against the subaltern or subordinate sections of society. To them, it was not the struggle between the Indian people and the colonial power. There was no unity of Indian people against imperialism. Exploring and emphasizing the people’s struggle, they point out that instead getting any fruit of their struggle; the elite classes used it for their advantage and successfully seized power depriving them from all benefits of independence. On the basis of their study, they call the nationalist leaders as brokers and agents who negotiated with the colonial government to transfer power to them on behalf of people

These two interpretations bring us to a third one: Did majority of Indians want freedom or there was a fear of independence in some sections of society? The Muslim elite had the fear that if the British left India, they would come under the domination of the Hindus. That was the fear that led the separation of these two communities and finally culminated on the demand of Pakistan. Like Muslim minority, the lower castes were also afraid of the hegemony of the upper castes in case of independence. The leader of the non-Brahman movement of Maharashtar, Jotiro Phule was afraid “ that political freedom might mean a return to Peshwa rule.” In 1917, a delegation of the untouchable (now they call themselves as the Dalit) met Edwin Montague, Secretary of State of India, and expressed their concern:” we should fight to the last drop of our blood against any attempt to transfer the seat of authority in this country from British hands to the so-called high caste Hindus.” Similarly, all those ethnic or religious minorities that flourished under the British rule were not in favour of independence such as Parsis, Anglo-Indians, and the Christians. Included in this group were the rulers of the native states whose number exceeded more than 500. They were loyalists and pro-British. One can also count the landlords against freedom struggle. They were collaborators to the Raj and as such were protected and rewarded by the government

It shows that during the movement for freedom, masses were only involved to serve the cause of the elite classes in the name of nation and national interests while the leaders negotiated around the table how to get political concessions. In the Provincial election of 1946 when the freedom struggle was on its height and independence was within reach, three fourth of the adult people were excluded from right of vote on the reason that they were not literate or had not enough property. The result was that the common people who participated in the Quit India movement, agriculture labourers who were the victims of Bengal famine of 1943,and other propertyless labourers and peasants denied playing any role in the election. S. Kuwajima in his study ‘Muslims Nationalism, and the Partition’ writes that there were two people’s movements:”the movement against the trial of the Indian National Army in November 1925 and February 1946, and the Royal Indian navy strike in February 1946.But the Congress and the Muslim League had already decided to contest the election…and on the occasion of RIN strike both Congress and League advised the naval ratings to surrender, and promised to solve constitutionally the problems that they were facing.” Both the Congress and the league discouraged and opposed people’s movements whenever their interest and their leadership was in danger.

Partition is also interpreted as the clash of personalities. Gandhi and Jinnah both came into conflict as a result of their political and personal ambitions Jinnah, finding it difficult to respond the tactics of Gandhi, decided to carve his own political role in the Muslim league which subsequently struggled for separate homeland for the Muslims. In another perception of partition, Girilal Jain described it as:” a victory of Hindu civilization” because it ended the” stalement between Hindus and Muslims in favour of Hindus in three forth (undivided) India.” On the other hand it is said that partition is “ a withdrawal of the Muslim community from the Indian subcontinent.” In a sense that they left their rich cultural heritage in India and confined themselves to a limited area. Some historians doubt that Jinnah genuinely wanted a separate homeland. To them it was just a card to get more concessions for the Muslims. His acceptance to the Cabinet Mission Plan is the proof of his readiness to remain within the united India. By accepting the Plan, he wanted to protect the interest of those Muslims who were in minority in the Hindu dominated provinces

Recently, some historians begin to probe the new sources to write the history of partition. They base their writings on literature and interviews of those who experienced the ordeal of partition. These writings also focus on gender, children and the Dalits.Urvashi Butalia’s “The Other Side of Violence” and Ritu Menon’s “ Border and Boundaries” deal with women and partition. Alok Bhalla translated the stories on partition written in Urdu and Hindi in into English in three volumes as ‘ Stories About the Partition of India’. The stories show the intense feelings of those who experienced the killing, rape, abduction, and loot and plunder during partition. Through the mirror of this literature, partition appears as holocaust and catastrophe. One must remember it in order not to repeat it.

In Pakistan, the historiography of partition has been completely distorted when it is said that the demand for new homeland was to establish an Islamic state. Hamza Alavi, analysing the movement, calls it an effort of the ‘Salariat Muslim class’ and the landlords of Sindh and Punjab who wanted to have a separate Muslim homeland for the protection of their interests and privileges.  The correct perspective of partition is very important to determine the future of Pakistan.