Viceroy’s House – More fake history from the left

Fake History

Picture 'The Muslim Issue"

Earlier this year Viceroy’s House – about Mountbatten and the partition of India – played to packed cinemas.

The climax of the film comes when, with only three days to go, the judge who has been drawing up a boundary line between India and the new state of Pakistan, tells Ismay, the British chief of staff, that he needs more time. Ismay, played by Michael Gambon, gives him a conspiratorial smile. He opens his desk drawer and hands him a report together with a map of the Punjab showing a boundary line.“ This may be everything you need. It is a policy document drawn up by Churchill two years ago. Mountbatten knows nothing about it.“

In other words the British had decided on the partition of India two years before and had even drawn up the boundary lines. All the judge had to do was adopt their map.This he reluctantly does.

When Mountbatten finds out he confronts Ismay. “So Jinnah was promised Pakistan two years ago ! Why did you not tell me it was all a foregone conclusion.” Ismay explains that Jinnah would be a more reliable ally than Nehru and that we needed the naval base at Karachi to protect our Middle East interests. “So we divided India for oil.” exclaims the Viceroy. “We have blood on our hands.”

Scenes of the terrible intercommunal violence conclude the film. The audience go out of the cinema shocked at this latest example of British perfidy.

This is all high drama, brilliantly acted.

There is only one flaw: none of it actually happened.

The judge , Sir Cyril Radcliffe, drew up the boundary, assisted by his commissioners, without any influence from Ismay or anyone else in the British government – with one exception :Mountbatten, egged on by of Nehru tried to persuade him to change an award that he had made of a district to Pakistan .

Partition had been urged on the Labour government by Mountbatten after talks in India had broken down.

The story in the film existed only in the imagination of  Gurinder Chadha, the film’s director. It turns out that she  got the idea from a book called ‘The Shadow of the Great Game‘ by Narendra Singh Serila. It refers to the 1945 plan marked “War Cabinet – Post Hostilities Planning.” This looked at the strategical implications for Britain of an independent India and examines – as civil service memos always do – a number of options; one of these is keeping the naval base of Karachi. The book also contains letters from Wavell, the previous viceroy, to HMG setting out what would happen if there was to be partition and included a map of a likely boundary. The book’s author infers that Wavell is actually advocating partition in this letter but there is no evidence for this.

While the book suggests (wrongly) that Britain welcomed partition it provides no evidence at all for the episodes in the film. The hapless Pug Ismay, the film’s villain, is not even mentioned .

The film is fake history – but sadly more influential in shaping our attitudes than any number of authoritative books or documentaries.

4 Comments on Viceroy’s House – More fake history from the left

  1. And last night we were treated by the BBC, of course, to a film of the Director of “Viceroy” in which she recycles the same myths backed up by one Dr Shashi Kapoor with an all to obvious agenda. Nowhere in the film does she confront why Muslims murdered Hindus, Sikhs murdered muslims etc except to say that oit was religiously inspired. She stopped short of saying that British soldiers killed indiscriminately, just that we stood by and let them get on with it. William Dalrymple had some interesting and sensible things to say but was not called on to comment on or to rebut the charges. The film perhaps should have had a declaration at the start saying that events and characters are fictitious.

  2. May I tell you what sensible Indians think? That Partition was the best thing that could happen to Indians. Every historical event has multiple actors and they have their own motivations. It turns out that the actual map of Partition was crafted not by Radcliffe, but based on a postulated map of partitioned India prepared by one VP Menon, a senior civil servant.

    The violence of Partition is to be blamed fully on the leaders of the various political groups who did not take into account and prepare for the violence that would be the obvious fallout of political division – an idiot could tell that the kettled resentment of the communities would spill over into outright violence.

    Chadha, Tharoor et al have made a career out of hiding away from the fact that Muslims hate non-Muslims. This is a fact that proves itself time and again. Clear and simple as that. This is why they wanted a separate nation state for themselves after WW2. Well, they got it. The non-Muslims of the Indian subcontinent moved on; only the socialists with their blaring horn of secularism forcibly includes the remnant Muslims in India into the political conversation. The rest really want nothing to do with them.

    And 70+ years on the proof is in the pudding. Indeed, in nation-state terms, the Muslims had precisely one more day to get things right. The stats on the diaspora speak for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.