After the end of the Second World War, Calcutta was a hotbed of intrigue, fervour and violence. My father had come to Calcutta from a small town in West Bengal to study medicine, and at this time was General Secretary of his students’ union. He was involved in independence activities to such an extent that he was targeted by Special Branch. This was one family legend I know is true since an uncle later became a very high ranking policeman.
Calcutta had been a major military centre during the Second World War, been bombed by the Japanese, and its populace had suffered grievously during the famine of 1943. Bengali independence sentiment had been emboldened by learning of the exploits of the Bengali Subhas Chandra Bose in leading an army, the Indian National Army (INA) - supported by the Japanese - to fight the British. Bose’s army was composed of all religions and he himself was an avowed critic of Gandhi. It was in this context that Calcutta had to endure periodic bouts of communal violence pitting Muslims against Hindus.
The rest of India was also in ferment: a trial of INA officers, one from each of the major religions, at the symbolic Red Fort in Delhi had galvanised the country. There were mutinies among sections of the Indian armed forces and Gandhi appeared to be able to turn protests on and off at will. Meanwhile at home the UK was still suffering from the restrictions of rationing: it was feeding Germany, the Fascist enemy had been replaced by the Communist one, there was industrial upheaval with nationalisations, the NHS was created, and there was an economic crisis with the US unwilling to bail us out. In this political, social and economic environment the British people and government had lost the will to maintain it's Indian colony.
'Drawing the Line' starts almost comically with Sir Cyril Radcliffe being summoned to 10 Downing Street by Prime Minister Clement Atlee to be told he is to literally draw the borders between India and Pakistan in the run up to independence and do so within 5 weeks. Radcliffe is a senior judge praised for his intellect but with no experience of India, or cartography. These “attributes” are presented as an advantage in being able to rise above the fray and not be influenced by prior knowledge and experience. From the outset however, Radcliffe knows that he has been presented with a Gordian Knot. It’s rather a good analogy since Alexander the Great realised he couldn’t untie the knot.
Moving swiftly to India the scenes are set for the tragedies to come. The enmities between Muslims and Hindus make it clear why the creation of two countries is necessary. Radcliffe meets the major stakeholders from Mountbatten, Nehru of Congress, to Jinnah of the Muslim League - but not Gandhi. He has a limited staff tainted by prior associations and friendships. The affair between Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru is presented as an open secret with Edwina acting as a conduit for information to Nehru.
This first half of the play shows the limits of Radcliffe’s knowledge: while he is aware of some of the major events such as the Amritsar massacre, salt marches and the hangings following Ferozpur, he didn’t know Nehru had been imprisoned for most of the war. He calls some events “blots” which justifiably irritate his Indian interlocutors. Radcliffe also talks about a “level playing field” between Hindus and Muslims which again is the source of irritation. In briefing Radcliffe Mountbatten mentions an “acceptable number of deaths” of 100,000 during the Partition process which shows that the British knew that the latent enmities could not be controlled. In the event the number of killings was far higher. The British had lit the blue touch paper and wanted out as soon as possible.
It’s difficult to consider what else both the British government and Radcliffe could have done differently during the 5 WEEK process of independence. There was no “win-win” solution and all parties would have felt aggrieved. The warlike postures of both India and Pakistan could not have been foreseen. Given the cultures of Bengal and Punjab/Sind it is difficult to contemplate the two as separate parts of one country and the independence of Bangladesh could perhaps have been foreseen. The British failed miserably in keeping some semblance of order during the Partition process and a great deal of the blame for the killings must rest with them. But there are also mitigating circumstances: both Congress and the Muslim League had to some extent fanned the flames of religious hatred and the UK did not have enough troops to effectively police the country.
The playwright Howard Brenton has done an outstanding job in bringing the multifaceted events of 1947 to the stage but in such a short time frame, ironically, it is difficult to present a comprehensive picture. One’s enjoyment of the play is dependent on some prior knowledge of the background. The major characters, in particular Radcliffe (Tom Beard), Nehru (Silas Carson) and Jinnah (Paul Bazely) are well portrayed and believable although only Beard is allowed sufficient opportunity to give depth to his character. Mountbatten and his wife are not allowed sufficient time to develop their characters, nor is Gandhi. Although one is distracted by the presence of important historical figures and the Edwina-Nehru affair one should not forget that the main focus should be on Radcliffe and his role. Tim Hatley deserves great credit for sets that require quick changes and take one from Downing Street to the heat of Government House in Delhi. 'Drawing the Line' is a play I enjoyed immensely and I would hope it might benefit from a longer run and greater exposure. The play has certainly encouraged me to re-read some of my books on the period.
No comments:
Post a Comment