India, Ireland, Arlon discussed on The Tel Aviv Review

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Our assumption is that it did grow out from very specific conditions of the early nineteen twenties and thirties, and the way the global order reformulated itself and also very specific imperial British imperial infrastructure. This is also why we thought it's important, not simply to put them side by side. This is where we're trying to do known. That's a mouthful. A transnational history and connect the dots between these partitions not simply put them. Side and do a comparative study. The similarities are will noon, and the historians are will versed and trained in in studying the local cases. What we tried to do here to say, how come we have the similarity. So this is just to elaborate on the spot a bit more. You see petition is really a an imperial exercise. Predominantly British that would was just the inevitable outcome of previous imperil exercise exercise, which was divided rule. Well, whenever historian, here's the word inevitable. Nothing is inevitable. It's all about contingency, but I think that part of what makes partition extremely complicated to study is the fact that there's a big gap between two original intentions and the final outcome. So partition as we studied them and especially when we're thinking about British into Israel Palestine context, and we're looking at from the vantage point of nineteen forty eight. And so on ended up being a system in which of of of separation of independent sovereign nation states that are separating themselves from an empire that is very quickly collapsing. But this is the post World War Two scenario which I would argue is actually counterintuitive. That's almost the opposite from the original meaning of partition as it emerged in the nineteen twenties and thirties, and I will try to explain why the case. I think that unlike earlier cases of imperial divide and rule, d. Assumption behind the early partition plans head to do a no imagined the British empire would ever disappear. So unlike the partition in India, ninety forty seven, India, Pakistan, and in our region, that ended up being sort of disquiet kinderg- exit stretch, the four, debris dish that were sick and tired, and the empire was no longer. The main project in the nineteen twenties and thirties partition emerged as a system of maintaining differences within the empire which they had been cultivating already since late nineteenth century. Anyway, since they began like ruling when the British empire began governing some of these places following the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Certainly in Cyprus, we have records that they started categorizing people and you know, using that as their implicit social, divide and rule. So you're saying this is an extension of that. Well, there's absolutely echoes of these earlier experiences and you cannot explain the partition of India. You cannot explain the partition of Ireland without looking at the earlier. Prehistory. For instance, the partition of Arlon is rooted in the earlier settlement of Protestants in Northern Ireland dates, all the way back to the seventeenth century and a force to famous home rule debates that color the chronicles of nineteenth century Irish history, Irish, British history. But yeah, I behind partitioned into twentieth century is that a, you suddenly have periods of imperial anxiety and weaknesses? It's not a coincidence that the Irish east revolt is taking place in nineteen sixteen during the war. So there is an assumption that there's sort of a a very vocal Republican party that is using or the fact that the British now are week to demand something to separate. But at the same time, the way to maintain this differences already versus not only religious terms. I mean, there's something about the way the differences are conceptualize into twentieth century. In a more s no national language and not only a religious divide that ends up in that case. And Indian, that respect becomes very interesting. I'm trying to stand. This is the central claim of your book that these empires do lead to partition for whatever reason, either unintended consequences or as a tool, or is it actually the what they intended gone horribly wrong. Because all these partitions happened when the empire collapsed and actually we know about these empires in ways. You know, conceptually we think, well, when everybody was living together under the British empire, actually we, you know, we had squabbles and struggles, but we managed to keep it together. And now we sort of joke about it and say, oh, we're married. British just come back..

Coming up next