Partitioned histories and beyond: a semi-automated approach to identification and mitigation of linguistic biases in 1947 partition narratives

Abstract

The 1947 Partition of the subcontinent resulted in the largest migration in human history and violence across the borders of India and the newly formed state of Pakistan. Mushirul Hasan, in his introduction to The Partition Omnibus (2002) writes “Both as an event and memory, it [Partition] has to be interpreted and explained afresh in order to remove widely held misconceptions. This is both a challenge and a necessity and it is indeed a theme where the historian’s craft must be used deftly”. Partition literature originates from official histories in India and Pakistan, where narratives either celebrated independence, downplayed Partition's disruptions, or attributed responsibility for the violence that occurred on the ‘other’. Much of the early historiography was concerned with the political process that accompanied the process of transferring power. Indian nationalists see Partition as the outcome of divisive colonial policies eroding cultural unity, while Pakistani writers often viewed the establishment of a separate homeland as a response to the aspiration to preserve community values in the face of what they perceived as a tyrannical Hindu majority (Virdee,2013). In the early 1980s, a transformative historiographical movement, led by scholars like Ranajit Guha, known as the Subaltern Studies School, emerged to provide an alternative history from the prevailing populist nationalist narrative. By the 1990s, this approach influenced Partition Studies, shifting from a 'great men of history' focus to a 'history from below,' especially prompted by the regional studies' move.