What do you think?
Rate this book
Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of the Modern Asia
A history of modern South Asia told through five partitions that reshaped it.
As recently as 1928, a vast swathe of Asia ― India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait ― were bound together under a single imperial banner, an entity known officially as the ‘Indian Empire’, or more simply as the Raj.
It was the British Empire’s crown jewel, a vast dominion stretching from the Red Sea to the jungles of Southeast Asia, home to a quarter of the world’s population and encompassing the largest Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian communities on the planet. Its people used the Indian rupee, were issued passports stamped ‘Indian Empire’, and were guarded by armies garrisoned forts from the Bab el-Mandab to the Himalayas
And then, in the space of just fifty years, the Indian Empire shattered. Five partitions tore it apart, carving out new nations, redrawing maps, and leaving behind a legacy of war, exile, and division.
Shattered Lands, for the first time, presents the whole story of how the Indian Empire was unmade. How a single, sprawling dominion became twelve modern nations. How maps were redrawn in boardrooms and on battlefields, by politicians in London and revolutionaries in Delhi, by kings in remote palaces and soldiers in trenches.
Its legacies include civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka, ongoing insurgencies in Kashmir, Baluchistan and north-east India and the Rohingya genocide. It is a history of ambition and betrayal, of forgotten wars and unlikely alliances, of borders carved with ink and fire. And, above all, it is the story of how the map of modern Asia was made.
Sam Dalrymple’s stunning debut is based on deep archival research, previously untranslated private memoirs, and interviews in English, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic, Burmese. From portraits of the key political players to accounts of those swept up in these wars and mass migrations, Shattered Lands is vivid, compelling, thought-provoking history at its best.
As recently as 1928, a vast swathe of Asia ― India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait ― were bound together under a single imperial banner, an entity known officially as the ‘Indian Empire’, or more simply as the Raj.
It was the British Empire’s crown jewel, a vast dominion stretching from the Red Sea to the jungles of Southeast Asia, home to a quarter of the world’s population and encompassing the largest Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Zoroastrian communities on the planet. Its people used the Indian rupee, were issued passports stamped ‘Indian Empire’, and were guarded by armies garrisoned forts from the Bab el-Mandab to the Himalayas
And then, in the space of just fifty years, the Indian Empire shattered. Five partitions tore it apart, carving out new nations, redrawing maps, and leaving behind a legacy of war, exile, and division.
Shattered Lands, for the first time, presents the whole story of how the Indian Empire was unmade. How a single, sprawling dominion became twelve modern nations. How maps were redrawn in boardrooms and on battlefields, by politicians in London and revolutionaries in Delhi, by kings in remote palaces and soldiers in trenches.
Its legacies include civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka, ongoing insurgencies in Kashmir, Baluchistan and north-east India and the Rohingya genocide. It is a history of ambition and betrayal, of forgotten wars and unlikely alliances, of borders carved with ink and fire. And, above all, it is the story of how the map of modern Asia was made.
Sam Dalrymple’s stunning debut is based on deep archival research, previously untranslated private memoirs, and interviews in English, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic, Burmese. From portraits of the key political players to accounts of those swept up in these wars and mass migrations, Shattered Lands is vivid, compelling, thought-provoking history at its best.
528 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews
June 24, 2025
A genuinely remarkable read. I learned things about India and the Middle East I'd never known (Yemen was considered part of Bombay), and it changed how I see global politics. It's also one of those books that lets you see patterns in history, and much of what this book covers is still relevant today.
March 24, 2026
I started this book with great expectations but this has turned out to be a mere average.
The only positive thing about this book is that it is able to bring all partitions in one place. Otherwise there are way better books available on each subject which covers the issue intricately in an unbiased way. For ex. The Blood Telegram by Gary J bass, Bose by Chandrachur Ghosh, Savarkar series by Vikram Sampath, Revolutionaries by Sanjeev Sanyal, etc.
Additionally, the author has cherry picked the data at many instances to paint a biased narrative in terms of what drove the partition between India and Pakistan. He has moderately tried to paint Muslim league in positive colors and thereby driving the assertion that somehow their actions were a mere 'reaction' to the actions taken by Hindus (whereas the truth is starkly opposite).
Summarising, this book can be taken as an additional source, not the only source to know the history.
In my view, it should only be referred to for the Burma and Dubai separation from the Indian Empire.
The only positive thing about this book is that it is able to bring all partitions in one place. Otherwise there are way better books available on each subject which covers the issue intricately in an unbiased way. For ex. The Blood Telegram by Gary J bass, Bose by Chandrachur Ghosh, Savarkar series by Vikram Sampath, Revolutionaries by Sanjeev Sanyal, etc.
Additionally, the author has cherry picked the data at many instances to paint a biased narrative in terms of what drove the partition between India and Pakistan. He has moderately tried to paint Muslim league in positive colors and thereby driving the assertion that somehow their actions were a mere 'reaction' to the actions taken by Hindus (whereas the truth is starkly opposite).
Summarising, this book can be taken as an additional source, not the only source to know the history.
In my view, it should only be referred to for the Burma and Dubai separation from the Indian Empire.
October 31, 2025
God!!!!
If propaganda had a face, it would certainly resemble Sam Dalrymple. Having read almost all of Dalrymple Sr’s books, I can summarise that this bloke should move on to something else since serious history is not his forte.
The premise of the book’s cover is interesting: 5 partitions that shaped the Indian subcontinent. But when you take a closer look inside - all you find is this long yearning for the Good Ol Empire and a cliched representation of the ‘vile’ Hindus and the treacherous Congress. Almost all tropes have been applied here in copious amounts.
Take a look at what the author refers to Mr VP Menon as: chain smoking indentured labourer civil servant. This is not mentioned just once but driven home to the reader at least thrice in as many pages. Why this special treatment reserved for him? Since Mr Sam feels that Mr Menon was responsible for snatching away the ‘sovereign rights’ of the rajahs and the maharajahs and the sultans. There are much more such snippets that make this book feel more like an oral history project gone horribly wrong.
The Indian Army, Indian Government, Congress and its leaders are shown as devious crooks while the Muslim League and Mr Jinnah spout rainbows from (well you know from where).
A badly written book, undeserving of the fawning it’s received so far.
If propaganda had a face, it would certainly resemble Sam Dalrymple. Having read almost all of Dalrymple Sr’s books, I can summarise that this bloke should move on to something else since serious history is not his forte.
The premise of the book’s cover is interesting: 5 partitions that shaped the Indian subcontinent. But when you take a closer look inside - all you find is this long yearning for the Good Ol Empire and a cliched representation of the ‘vile’ Hindus and the treacherous Congress. Almost all tropes have been applied here in copious amounts.
Take a look at what the author refers to Mr VP Menon as: chain smoking indentured labourer civil servant. This is not mentioned just once but driven home to the reader at least thrice in as many pages. Why this special treatment reserved for him? Since Mr Sam feels that Mr Menon was responsible for snatching away the ‘sovereign rights’ of the rajahs and the maharajahs and the sultans. There are much more such snippets that make this book feel more like an oral history project gone horribly wrong.
The Indian Army, Indian Government, Congress and its leaders are shown as devious crooks while the Muslim League and Mr Jinnah spout rainbows from (well you know from where).
A badly written book, undeserving of the fawning it’s received so far.
April 7, 2026
An interesting but deeply biased book, written from a British-colonial perspective with a deep-seated anti-Hindu and anti-India slant.
In discussing the partition of Burma from India in 1937, Sam Dalrymple neatly avoids mentioning the crucial fact that Ba Maw (leading the party that opposed the separation of Burma from India) overwhelmingly won both the elections held across Burma in the 1930s. Thus the democratic thing to do in Burma (the nation now labelled 'Myanmar') was NOT to have separated it from India. But the British ignored the democratic choice of Burma's electorate, and partitioned Burma from India nonetheless -- as a culmination of British Divide and Rule, which had entailed the British rulers deliberately fomenting anti-Indian violence in Burma for a decade before 1937. That the president of the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1930s was a Burmese Buddhist (Mahatma U Ottama) was the strongest evidence of the deep connections that Brahmadesh (Burma) had with India.
Similarly, later, the author doesn't even mention the BBC's investigative report that established the British complicity in the assassination of Aung San and five of his colleagues in his multi-hued and multi-ethnic coalition cabinet.
In discussing the partition of Pakistan from India in 1947, Sam Dalrymple slyly avoids mentioning the thousands of Hindu women who were forced to convert to Islam (although he later briefly mentions a few such cases when discussing how a Sikh contacted his Pakistani PoW cousin in 1972, someone whose family had been forced to convert in order to stay on in Pakistan). The author alleged that this happened to thousands of Muslim women in Hyderabad (almost certainly a fabrication), while ignoring the reality of how less than 1% of Pakistani Punjab is Sikh or Hindu (while Lahore had a non-Muslim majority in 1946) -- mainly because Hindus and Sikhs who stayed behind in Pakistani Punjab as well as PoK were forced to all become Muslims (with the rape of Hindu/Sikh women playing a big part in this eventuality). This is an aspect of Sam Dalrymple's persistent attempt to draw a moral equivalence between what happened in India and Pakistan during that partition, and to downplay the genocide of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh (the latter so ably documented by Gary Bass).
There are some interesting aspects about the links between Hyderabad and the al-Qu'aiti sultans in Yemen. That Abu Dhabi and Dubai were tiny and unimportant relative to al-Qu'aiti (not to be confused with Kuwait), while the vicissitudes of post-colonial history have completely reversed the picture was a fascinating nugget.
Broadly, however, Sam is even more anti-Hindu than his father William. It's extraordinary that such people dominate India's literary festival circuit while writing such gibberish masquerading as the 'history' of British India and its successor states.
In discussing the partition of Burma from India in 1937, Sam Dalrymple neatly avoids mentioning the crucial fact that Ba Maw (leading the party that opposed the separation of Burma from India) overwhelmingly won both the elections held across Burma in the 1930s. Thus the democratic thing to do in Burma (the nation now labelled 'Myanmar') was NOT to have separated it from India. But the British ignored the democratic choice of Burma's electorate, and partitioned Burma from India nonetheless -- as a culmination of British Divide and Rule, which had entailed the British rulers deliberately fomenting anti-Indian violence in Burma for a decade before 1937. That the president of the Hindu Mahasabha in the 1930s was a Burmese Buddhist (Mahatma U Ottama) was the strongest evidence of the deep connections that Brahmadesh (Burma) had with India.
Similarly, later, the author doesn't even mention the BBC's investigative report that established the British complicity in the assassination of Aung San and five of his colleagues in his multi-hued and multi-ethnic coalition cabinet.
In discussing the partition of Pakistan from India in 1947, Sam Dalrymple slyly avoids mentioning the thousands of Hindu women who were forced to convert to Islam (although he later briefly mentions a few such cases when discussing how a Sikh contacted his Pakistani PoW cousin in 1972, someone whose family had been forced to convert in order to stay on in Pakistan). The author alleged that this happened to thousands of Muslim women in Hyderabad (almost certainly a fabrication), while ignoring the reality of how less than 1% of Pakistani Punjab is Sikh or Hindu (while Lahore had a non-Muslim majority in 1946) -- mainly because Hindus and Sikhs who stayed behind in Pakistani Punjab as well as PoK were forced to all become Muslims (with the rape of Hindu/Sikh women playing a big part in this eventuality). This is an aspect of Sam Dalrymple's persistent attempt to draw a moral equivalence between what happened in India and Pakistan during that partition, and to downplay the genocide of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh (the latter so ably documented by Gary Bass).
There are some interesting aspects about the links between Hyderabad and the al-Qu'aiti sultans in Yemen. That Abu Dhabi and Dubai were tiny and unimportant relative to al-Qu'aiti (not to be confused with Kuwait), while the vicissitudes of post-colonial history have completely reversed the picture was a fascinating nugget.
Broadly, however, Sam is even more anti-Hindu than his father William. It's extraordinary that such people dominate India's literary festival circuit while writing such gibberish masquerading as the 'history' of British India and its successor states.
January 12, 2026
A masterful dive into the transformation of South Asia from British India encompassing a swathe from Myanmar to Yemen from an agglomeration of princely kingdoms and territories under direct British control to the nation states of today. A transition that’s vastly simplified in the histories we are typically taught.
This complex tapestry of stories involving individuals, families, tribes, religious and linguistic groups, consequential and those simply at the receiving end successfully conquers the challenge of being detailed and intimate enough to be highly engaging while holding the big themes coherently.
A compelling, meticulously researched narrative that shows just how the fates of peoples and nations can be determined by prejudice, hubris, negligence, serendipity, personal histories and relationships, mistrust, misunderstandings, miscommunication, and force of personalities as much as by history, geography, culture, language, geopolitics, or legality.
This complex tapestry of stories involving individuals, families, tribes, religious and linguistic groups, consequential and those simply at the receiving end successfully conquers the challenge of being detailed and intimate enough to be highly engaging while holding the big themes coherently.
A compelling, meticulously researched narrative that shows just how the fates of peoples and nations can be determined by prejudice, hubris, negligence, serendipity, personal histories and relationships, mistrust, misunderstandings, miscommunication, and force of personalities as much as by history, geography, culture, language, geopolitics, or legality.
Read
June 16, 2026It was only when I read the following:
"one day our entire village took off to a nearby...village on a killing spree. We simply went mad. And it cost me fifty years of remorse, of sleepless nights - I cannot forget the faces of those we killed."
that I really knew what I felt about this book - which is that it is a failure but a failure that tells so many truths that it is impossible to condemn too harshly. In presenting the history of England's long sordid with drawl from its Indian Empire as series of partitions beginning with Burma in 1937 Dalrymple tries to forge a new story of the Indian empire and of a different future for its constituent parts. I am not convinced and his placing such emphasis on Burma is at the core of everything I find wrong with the book.
Burma was many things but it was never part of 'India' - it was part of the Indian Empire because it was annexed to that empire by Randolph Churchill, father of Winston, who also helped create the Ulster imbroglio by his cynical playing of the 'Ulster Card' and spouting of phrases like 'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right'. Winston's baleful tactics of undermining every attempt to address the desire of Indians for a role in government contributed significantly to the Götterdämmerung of the 1947 India/Pakistan partition. It is all very well to look back and find missed evidence of different ways, if so-and-so had lived or this or that event had not happened or had been addressed differently. But they weren't because what was at the heart of all the missed chances and broken lives was the British empire which was created and maintained for one thing only - the needs of England.
Mr Dalrymple brings back into focus many marvellous and important events but to try and rewrite, or discover, an alternate history is futile. We can regret and weep for those who fled forever and the dead who failed to escape the flames that consumed Thessolonika, Breslau, or Smyrna. We can acknowledge that the world lost something when Lviv, Lemberg, Leopolis, Lwów, Lvov settled on one name and identity and discarded all the others, but counterfactual history is not another history only wishful thinking.
The 'Indian Empire' was never a unity, only an administrative convenience during England's momentary moment in the sun. It was never created for, nor did it exist for the people of the Indian empire - only for the military and administrative paladins who used its resources, wealth and manpower to allow England to compete with its sclerotic but more populous continental empires. There is much history to learn from this book but there are better books to read such as:
'Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945' by C.A. Bayly & Tim Harper
'Forgotten Wars: The End Of Britain's Asian Empire' by C.A. Bayly & Tim Harper
'Dethroned: Patel, Menon and the Integration of Princely India' by John Zubrzycki (2023/2024)
'The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947' by Ian Copland
'The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide' by Gary J. Bass
I could go on and on - all of these are more important and better read then this book but I do respect what Sam Dalrymple has tried to do - but he really should go back and read his father's books again to learn what real history is.
Finally I can't help seeing parallels between the way the UK used their 'responsibility' to 'minorities' leading up to independence in India and USA's concern about, for example, LGBQT+ people in Taliban Afghanistan. As if the UK in India or the USA in Afghanistan had cared about any of these people at any time.
use following quote:
"one day our entire village took off to a nearby...village on a killing spree. We simply went mad. And it cost me fifty years of remorse, of sleepless nights - I cannot forget the faces of those we killed."
"one day our entire village took off to a nearby...village on a killing spree. We simply went mad. And it cost me fifty years of remorse, of sleepless nights - I cannot forget the faces of those we killed."
that I really knew what I felt about this book - which is that it is a failure but a failure that tells so many truths that it is impossible to condemn too harshly. In presenting the history of England's long sordid with drawl from its Indian Empire as series of partitions beginning with Burma in 1937 Dalrymple tries to forge a new story of the Indian empire and of a different future for its constituent parts. I am not convinced and his placing such emphasis on Burma is at the core of everything I find wrong with the book.
Burma was many things but it was never part of 'India' - it was part of the Indian Empire because it was annexed to that empire by Randolph Churchill, father of Winston, who also helped create the Ulster imbroglio by his cynical playing of the 'Ulster Card' and spouting of phrases like 'Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right'. Winston's baleful tactics of undermining every attempt to address the desire of Indians for a role in government contributed significantly to the Götterdämmerung of the 1947 India/Pakistan partition. It is all very well to look back and find missed evidence of different ways, if so-and-so had lived or this or that event had not happened or had been addressed differently. But they weren't because what was at the heart of all the missed chances and broken lives was the British empire which was created and maintained for one thing only - the needs of England.
Mr Dalrymple brings back into focus many marvellous and important events but to try and rewrite, or discover, an alternate history is futile. We can regret and weep for those who fled forever and the dead who failed to escape the flames that consumed Thessolonika, Breslau, or Smyrna. We can acknowledge that the world lost something when Lviv, Lemberg, Leopolis, Lwów, Lvov settled on one name and identity and discarded all the others, but counterfactual history is not another history only wishful thinking.
The 'Indian Empire' was never a unity, only an administrative convenience during England's momentary moment in the sun. It was never created for, nor did it exist for the people of the Indian empire - only for the military and administrative paladins who used its resources, wealth and manpower to allow England to compete with its sclerotic but more populous continental empires. There is much history to learn from this book but there are better books to read such as:
'Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941-1945' by C.A. Bayly & Tim Harper
'Forgotten Wars: The End Of Britain's Asian Empire' by C.A. Bayly & Tim Harper
'Dethroned: Patel, Menon and the Integration of Princely India' by John Zubrzycki (2023/2024)
'The Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947' by Ian Copland
'The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide' by Gary J. Bass
I could go on and on - all of these are more important and better read then this book but I do respect what Sam Dalrymple has tried to do - but he really should go back and read his father's books again to learn what real history is.
Finally I can't help seeing parallels between the way the UK used their 'responsibility' to 'minorities' leading up to independence in India and USA's concern about, for example, LGBQT+ people in Taliban Afghanistan. As if the UK in India or the USA in Afghanistan had cared about any of these people at any time.
use following quote:
"one day our entire village took off to a nearby...village on a killing spree. We simply went mad. And it cost me fifty years of remorse, of sleepless nights - I cannot forget the faces of those we killed."
May 24, 2026
Borders can really be arbitrary and contingent. The Arab Gulf, Burma, can be India. This is the history of how the British Raj evolved or devolved into nation and states within nations. Sam Dalrymple focuses on the human stories of separation. So many tragedies.
This is a vital history of the region. His historical tellings meets and often exceeds his father's. Read it.
This is a vital history of the region. His historical tellings meets and often exceeds his father's. Read it.
July 21, 2025
Sam Dalrymple's debut book this is and it is a fascinating historical journey that takes us to the British Raj state and how that state through various political partitions or separation resulted into formation of over 12 modern day States that we see today in our world. Back in the day. Mahatma Gandhi could go to Aden in Yemen to Rangoon in Burma without any update on your passport and rupee used to be a common currency. This book traces and helps us to understand how Indians were spread out across the region and the hard boundaries of nation States that exist today did not existed at that time. The first partition was the one of Burma which separated Burma from India at that time which was British Raj state. How the concept of Burma and who Burmese is led to racial tensions and violence against Indian people living there , working there... How when the Japanese invaded in 1942, it lead to the mass migration of Indians from Burma to India. It was known as the Long March... Before partition of India, this was easily the biggest refugee movement in our region. This separation itself became the basis on which the famous partition of India itself happened between India and the new state of Pakistan. That idea itself was because first this partition of Burma had happened. It was also important to understand how at that time they were voices for example in Burma which talked about how they should be part of India only and they are part of India only ... U Ottama talks about that. It also talks about how integrated the Arabian States were to British Raj India and not only that but for example the interconnected relationship between the state of Hyderabad and Qu'aiti sultanate is fascinating to understand and how close the relationship was. This sultanate eventually becomes part of Southern Yemen republic. Outside of politics, the people and how people identity change is very important to understand many peoples nationality changed from a British Indian to East Pakistani to Bangladeshi. In a lifetime many people had many nationalities. This just shows how new the concept of nation state was. How people have gotten divided because of these modern lines that have been drawn upon in the last century or so which became our borders... And inside of those borders because of politics & how the State wanted and the majority of people wanted to define that State as resulted in various people groups becoming a target. In Burma rohingya people became a target... In Bangladesh Urdu speaking Bihari people became a target... In India, Bengali speaking people or the Muslim people itself become the fifth column in the eyes of some powerful entities(political figures)let's Just say that similarly the violence Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan... Even today the idea of CAA & NRC threatens people all because we have tried to cement the idea that some people belong to this region only we have trying to impose and idea of ethno national state which is not very healthy in a diverse historically fluid society that ours is. This book will tell you the struggle of such various communities the, the hardships they faced and the violence (deaths and sexual violence)they faced. The story of princely States is also very interesting... And how they played such a crucial role in defining the border of modern state of India and Pakistan. How different those borders could have been and how such princely states were incorporated. And this did not ended in 47... The question of Hyderabad was taken in 1948... The Gwadar Port city was still a part of Oman till 1958. Interestingly, other than Jinnah...the only time Pakistan has expanded is under another civilian leader who was Feroz Khan Noon who got Gwadar from Oman. In the end, it is so important to understand how fluid and different our history is then we will like to understand. One more fascinating thing...For example, this book also highlights that how some of the ex INA aka Subhash Chandra Bose Indian national Army ec soldiers who became Pakistanis..Actually had a prominent role in leading the tribal Militia enter Kashmir.... Khurshid Anwar the officer's name was... Just shows the complicated history which is not told usually. Similarly in 1971 war the Pakistani is were using Chittagong Buddhist soldiers in East Pakistan and the Indian state against them had used strikingly enough Tibetan Buddhist refugee battalion which was formed for China actually... So two different Buddhist communities for fighting for Pakistan and India in a region of Bengal... Such are the complex human stories that we have. I have tried telling you some aspects of this book... But this book is very vast and it is a definite read to understand our region and people's history better.
July 2, 2025
Sam Dalrymple's non-fiction, Shattered Lands, is one of the best debut works I have ever read. I would be remiss if I didn't say it is probably one of the best non-fiction books I've read in recent times.
It covers the five partitions that changed South Asia during the British Raj - beginning with Aden and Burma being separated from the Indian Empire and culminating in West and East (now Bangladesh) Pakistan's division.
There was much to learn while reading this book. I had absolutely no idea that Dubai, Aden, etc. were once part of the Indian Empire and there was a possibility that they, and Burma, could have been India's Western and Eastern most states (goes to show how poor the history we were taught in school is).
The whole Junagadh/Kashmir/Hyderabad sagas are now oft told - yet they never stop being incredulous. Reading of the Nizam of Hyderabad's desire, and subsequent actions, to make Hyderabad the seat of the global Islamic Caliphate was fascinating, and then to realise it was considered of equal importance as Jerusalem and Mecca - my mind was blown.
I enjoyed how Dalrymple built up the complex tapestry that is South Asia and delved into the myriad connections, many of which were strange and unexpected - such as that between social reformist Sultan and Osama bin Laden, or of how Jinnah's grandson was instrumental in the rise of the BJP, or then how the fall of Aden lead to the rise of Dhurubhai Ambani.
South Asian history has been kind to Mountbatten, but this book really drives home how badly he and the Empire handled the 'Great Partition'. While not getting into whether or not it could have been avoided, it certainly could have been done better with less bloodshed, more intelligence, and a great deal more empathy.
I could write paragraphs more on the book, but naturally, there is only so much space, so just do yourself a favour and go read it.
It covers the five partitions that changed South Asia during the British Raj - beginning with Aden and Burma being separated from the Indian Empire and culminating in West and East (now Bangladesh) Pakistan's division.
There was much to learn while reading this book. I had absolutely no idea that Dubai, Aden, etc. were once part of the Indian Empire and there was a possibility that they, and Burma, could have been India's Western and Eastern most states (goes to show how poor the history we were taught in school is).
The whole Junagadh/Kashmir/Hyderabad sagas are now oft told - yet they never stop being incredulous. Reading of the Nizam of Hyderabad's desire, and subsequent actions, to make Hyderabad the seat of the global Islamic Caliphate was fascinating, and then to realise it was considered of equal importance as Jerusalem and Mecca - my mind was blown.
I enjoyed how Dalrymple built up the complex tapestry that is South Asia and delved into the myriad connections, many of which were strange and unexpected - such as that between social reformist Sultan and Osama bin Laden, or of how Jinnah's grandson was instrumental in the rise of the BJP, or then how the fall of Aden lead to the rise of Dhurubhai Ambani.
South Asian history has been kind to Mountbatten, but this book really drives home how badly he and the Empire handled the 'Great Partition'. While not getting into whether or not it could have been avoided, it certainly could have been done better with less bloodshed, more intelligence, and a great deal more empathy.
I could write paragraphs more on the book, but naturally, there is only so much space, so just do yourself a favour and go read it.
February 28, 2026
By making history not just readable, but immensely enjoyable and rewarding to read, Sam has achieved a rare feat. The book reveals so much about histories of current geopolitical and sociopolitical issues facing our part of the world. I feel more enriched by reading Shattered Lands. Would definitely recommend to Indian readers with a keen interest in their past and present social political realities.
February 12, 2026
Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia is a widely-acclaimed history book by Scottish-Indian historian and filmmaker Sam Dalrymple. It tells the big, sweeping story of how the British Indian Empire—the Raj—broke apart in the 20th century and gave rise to the modern nations of South and parts of West Asia. As recently as the late 1920s, a vast region stretching from the Red Sea to Southeast Asia—comprising India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma (Myanmar), Nepal, Bhutan, Gulf states like Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait—was part of a single dominion known as the Indian Empire under British rule. Over the next five decades, this empire fragmented through a series of political ruptures and partitions, reshaping the map of Asia. The book traces these major break-ups, including:
Burma’s separation in the 1930s
The Arabian Gulf states becoming independent
The infamous 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan
The integration and dissolution of hundreds of princely states
The 1971 birth of Bangladesh from Pakistan.
Dalrymple shows how these changes were driven by decisions made in distant boardrooms and mess halls (in London, Delhi, palaces and battlefields alike), not just by grand nationalist myths. Borders were negotiated with ink and enforced with conflict. The book explains how the legacy of these divisions continues to shape the region today—with conflicts in Kashmir, Baluchistan, Northeast India, Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, and civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka. Dalrymple’s narrative combines deep archival research, previously untranslated memoirs, and hundreds of interviews in languages including English, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic and Burmese. This gives the history both a macro geopolitical sweep and vivid human detail.
In short, Shattered Lands doesn’t just recount dates and treaties—it tells how the world’s most populous region was remade through upheaval, negotiation, violence, and migration, and how that legacy still resonates today. A well researched and written book for those like me and maybe a few others that highlights forgotten stories and the fragility of national borders that many people assume have always existed !! It’s 4 stars from my side !
Dr. Javed Rasheed
Burma’s separation in the 1930s
The Arabian Gulf states becoming independent
The infamous 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan
The integration and dissolution of hundreds of princely states
The 1971 birth of Bangladesh from Pakistan.
Dalrymple shows how these changes were driven by decisions made in distant boardrooms and mess halls (in London, Delhi, palaces and battlefields alike), not just by grand nationalist myths. Borders were negotiated with ink and enforced with conflict. The book explains how the legacy of these divisions continues to shape the region today—with conflicts in Kashmir, Baluchistan, Northeast India, Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, and civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka. Dalrymple’s narrative combines deep archival research, previously untranslated memoirs, and hundreds of interviews in languages including English, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic and Burmese. This gives the history both a macro geopolitical sweep and vivid human detail.
In short, Shattered Lands doesn’t just recount dates and treaties—it tells how the world’s most populous region was remade through upheaval, negotiation, violence, and migration, and how that legacy still resonates today. A well researched and written book for those like me and maybe a few others that highlights forgotten stories and the fragility of national borders that many people assume have always existed !! It’s 4 stars from my side !
Dr. Javed Rasheed
October 5, 2025
um livro realmente interessante e bem escrito sobre as partições do império britânico entre Adem e a Birmânia e o conturbado nascimento de novas nações, algumas cujas fronteiras foram criadas a régua e esquadro por desconhecedores do terreno e história.
entre nacionalidades, fés, grupos étnicos e linguísticos, que definiram um desenvolvimento conturbado.
inevitável não pensar em como a história se repete!
entre nacionalidades, fés, grupos étnicos e linguísticos, que definiram um desenvolvimento conturbado.
inevitável não pensar em como a história se repete!
August 29, 2025
An incredible exploration of a critical, yet hugely overlooked and relevant piece of global history. Masterfully written - immensely informative yet engaging throughout. Bravo to this new historian, can’t wait to see what comes next !!
August 20, 2025
What a remarkable book. I am a newbie to the history of Partition, with my only real prior knowledge from the short story Toba Tek Singh, the film Earth, the boardgame Gandhi, an A-level history project on Bangladeshi independence and conversations of better-informed friends. In any case, this book was a tour-de-force introduction and in the span of just 50 years and 450 pages, Dalrymple guides you along every cut of the dismemberment of the Raj. His thesis of five partitions is compelling and the connections between Sultan Ghalib al-Qu'aiti and Mir Osman Ali Khan especially struck me - having met the former living and the latter in his grave.
The book begins with the partition of Burma, where nationalism first rears its bloodthirsty, barbaric head, and proceeds through the partitioning off of the Arabian Raj before dealing with 'Partition' as we know it and ending in the aftermath of 1971. This is a painful book. Dalrymple's artful writing bears one through it, and his talented interweaving of interviews, diaries and other first-hand accounts deeply illuminates and personalises his narrative, but none of this dulls the agony. As the violence of Partition and its irrevocable consequences continue to compound, I found myself having to stop sometimes simply to try and process the sickening numbers of dead and crimes committed that follow in rapid succession.
What seemed most apparent was how absolutely unnecessary, and in many cases avoidable, so much of the disaster was, and three figures in particular stood out: Jinnah, Mountbatten and Patel. Jinnah cuts a tragic figure, both in his personal and political life, and Dalrymple depicts a man beset by a mistrust which repeatedly leads him in error, even as he achieves his mission. Mountbatten, meanwhile, is revolting in his overconfidence and cavalier attitude, all the while self-pitying and self-congratulating. His utterly shortsighted and simpleminded approach further dashes any chance of a successful withdrawal, while Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - whose cruelly ironic "Statue of Unity" now towers 600 feet over the Narmada River - appears an entirely hateful and odious creature, whose malice gladly plays off the initial Muslim League and Pakistani disadvantage and incompetence, while playing Nehru for a fool.
That was only my impression from a first reading however and I felt Dalrymple gave an on the whole sincere, balanced and deeply sympathetic account of the whole story, keen as always to flesh out and personalise his subjects. I really enjoyed this book and would heartily recommend it. I am so glad to have picked it up at Bradford Literature Festival and greatly look forward to reading more from Dalrymple father and son.
The book begins with the partition of Burma, where nationalism first rears its bloodthirsty, barbaric head, and proceeds through the partitioning off of the Arabian Raj before dealing with 'Partition' as we know it and ending in the aftermath of 1971. This is a painful book. Dalrymple's artful writing bears one through it, and his talented interweaving of interviews, diaries and other first-hand accounts deeply illuminates and personalises his narrative, but none of this dulls the agony. As the violence of Partition and its irrevocable consequences continue to compound, I found myself having to stop sometimes simply to try and process the sickening numbers of dead and crimes committed that follow in rapid succession.
What seemed most apparent was how absolutely unnecessary, and in many cases avoidable, so much of the disaster was, and three figures in particular stood out: Jinnah, Mountbatten and Patel. Jinnah cuts a tragic figure, both in his personal and political life, and Dalrymple depicts a man beset by a mistrust which repeatedly leads him in error, even as he achieves his mission. Mountbatten, meanwhile, is revolting in his overconfidence and cavalier attitude, all the while self-pitying and self-congratulating. His utterly shortsighted and simpleminded approach further dashes any chance of a successful withdrawal, while Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - whose cruelly ironic "Statue of Unity" now towers 600 feet over the Narmada River - appears an entirely hateful and odious creature, whose malice gladly plays off the initial Muslim League and Pakistani disadvantage and incompetence, while playing Nehru for a fool.
That was only my impression from a first reading however and I felt Dalrymple gave an on the whole sincere, balanced and deeply sympathetic account of the whole story, keen as always to flesh out and personalise his subjects. I really enjoyed this book and would heartily recommend it. I am so glad to have picked it up at Bradford Literature Festival and greatly look forward to reading more from Dalrymple father and son.
April 25, 2026
(4.5) honestly I knew very little about the partition (let alone all 5)/how present-day south asia came to be, and I’m SO annoyed with myself for waiting this long to learn. was especially interesting to learn more about bangladesh, burma, and aden. if anyone has more recs on books and documentaries about partition, the aftermath, the rise of nationalism, etc etc i’m all ears. i’ve found my new fixation.
May 24, 2026
eminently readable work with a much broader canvas and a more expansive scope. The research is clearly there and shows in the authority of the writing. Learned many of the finer details of the assimilation of princely states in India, Pakistan and Burma and improved my perspective. This book is a keeper and worth reading as a reference book. It helps that the style is easy and engaging. Definitely a book worth reading and recommending.
April 17, 2026
there's so much history that's been hidden from us
May 18, 2026
Another overlooked piece of history. What is a nation-state? What is nationalism? What is genocide? Who has the right to govern? This book asks these questions and recognizes just how complex they are to answer.
January 18, 2026
The book begins with a shock to most Indians and students of Indian history. I have always thought the British Indian Empire spanned what are India, Pakistan and Bangladesh today. The partition of India meant the act of carving Pakistan out of India. Historian Sam Dalrymple's well-researched book reveals the vast expanse of the British Indian Empire, stretching from Aden to Myanmar. Covering present-day territories, it included Aden, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Myanmar. Besides its expanse, the other surprise the author springs on us is that the Indian Empire was partitioned five times, not just once in 1947. Burma separated first in 1937, and then came the partition of the Arabian Peninsula, which included Aden and the Persian Gulf states in 1937 and 1947. The third was the Great Partition, creating Pakistan in 1947. Next was the partition of the Indian princely states between India and Pakistan starting in 1947. The fifth was to create Bangladesh in 1971. British India split across twelve states between 1937 and 1971, thirteen if we include Britain! This is the story of how the British Indian Empire unraveled. We learn how politicians in London, revolutionaries in Delhi, kings in remote palaces, and soldiers in trenches redrew its map in boardrooms and on battlefields. When I got to the end, I felt like I had woken up to the truth about India’s 20th-century history. It left me wondering whether the Indian school and university system had lied to me about what British India was and how it broke up. However, after the initial confusion passed, I had some questions about Dalrymple’s portrayal and realized that I could not agree with all the book’s conclusions without further discussion.
Dalrymple’s research is extensive, and it allows him to present a sweeping and ambitious view of historical events. A concise book review cannot perhaps do it full justice. Readers must explore this volume to unearth the complex details recounting the empire’s collapse. I will therefore focus only on a few key topics I found interesting. The initial problem I had with Dalrymple was classifying everything as partitions, implying they were alike. If we use the term ‘Partition’ to refer to the Great Partition of 1947, our perspective on others needs to shift. The Great Partition of India formed a key event in history, involving substantial violence, trauma, and tragedy affecting millions. Other partitions felt unlike the powerful emotions connected to India’s Great Partition. Not even the breakup of Pakistan comes close. To illustrate, separating the Arabian Peninsula amounted to an administrative reorganization in comparison. The partition of Burma witnessed racial riots and the forced ‘long march’ of 600,000 Indians to the mainland under horrendous conditions. But the Congress Party was quite happy to let Burma go. Even Mahatma Gandhi said in 1927 that Burma cannot form part of India on independence and that the Burmese must decide on their future by themselves. Indian elites were concerned with freedom only for the region called ‘Bharat’, which comprised today’s India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Burma’s emergence as a sovereign state was a voluntary, though not altogether peaceful, separation from the British Indian Empire. The resolution regarding the princely states does not seem like a “fourth partition”. Out of the almost six hundred princely states, only Hyderabad and Kashmir suffered military violence in their integration with India or Pakistan. The remaining states unified with either India or Pakistan because of circumstance, or pressure or plebiscites, without bloodshed.
The most recent partition that created Bangladesh did not happen through an agreement involving Punjabis and Bengalis. If there was ever a partition of Bengal, it occurred in 1905, engineered by Viceroy Lord Curzon. It is surprising that Dalrymple has not referred to it. Curzon divided the vast province of Bengal, creating East Bengal for Muslims and West Bengal for Hindus. He marketed it as an “administrative convenience,” but Indian nationalists were furious, protesting that it was “divide and rule”. The protests were fierce and persistent, forcing the colonial rulers to revoke the decision in 1911. What happened sixty years later in 1971 was the breakup of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh through the Bengali revolt and military intervention by India. Therefore, I believe there was just one partition - India’s Great Partition.
Blaming Gandhi and the Congress for the Great Partition is my next concern. During the partition fiasco, Churchill and Lord Attlee showed greater sympathy toward Muslim Pakistan than Hindu India. The ready explanation is that the British love the underdogs, and Indian Muslims were the underdogs in India. Dalrymple too reflects it as he blames the Congress party and Gandhi for partition. One reason he gives is that the Congress party adopted Vande Mataram as India’s national song in 1937. It alienated Jinnah because this act viewed the nation as the Hindu goddess Durga, making him see Congress as a vehicle for Hindu majoritarianism. This laid the ideological groundwork to create Pakistan. Dalrymple also blames Gandhi for bringing religion into the politics of India’s freedom struggle, alienating the secular Jinnah. These are valid arguments, but I have come across more convincing alternative explanations for Jinnah’s focus on partition. Jinnah was a member of the Indian Muslim elite. Indian Muslim journalist M.J. Akbar identifies a ‘theory of distance’ amongst the Muslim elite in India from the 18th century onwards. This theory contends that Hindus and Muslims are different people. It posits that Indian Muslims can protect their interests and way of living only through independent nationhood. It was the Muslim educated-elites’ view and not that of the Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom, the primary Islamic clergy of South Asia. The Muslim League leadership included large landowners. They wanted the partition of India so they could seize more land by driving out big Hindu and Sikh landowners from Punjab and Bengal. The Muslim educated elite and middle-class also had a vested interest in partition. They hoped to advance more easily in the Pakistani bureaucracy without the more numerous Hindu elite competing with them. So, there were more objective pressures on Jinnah than just Gandhi’s religious asceticism or India being worshipped as Goddess Durga.
The book explores alternate histories, considering several “what if” scenarios. Some are in the realms of fantasy, some hypothetical, while others are genuine possibilities. We start with the Arabian Peninsula. Dalrymple hypothesizes that had the colonial authorities not divided the Arabian Peninsula into princely monarchies, most of them, excluding Saudi Arabia, might have integrated into India or Pakistan. This would have brought with it the immense wealth of their hydrocarbons. It is a tantalizing thought for today’s Hindu nationalists and the Pakistani military, who may salivate at the thought of all this forsaken oil wealth. It lives within the realm of fantasy. Even if the Arabian Peninsula had affiliated itself with India, its quest for independence would soon have followed it. The Great Partition showed us we could not co-exist even with fellow Indian Muslims, whose culture, language, food, and many other traditions were the same. What chance did India have of coexisting with Arabs under their rule?
Kashmir posed another ‘if only’ experiment. Before Raja Hari Singh signed his accession, militant lashkar raiders from Pakistan advanced on Kashmir in October 1947 to Baramullah, just an hour from Srinagar’s airport. But they camped there, looting, killing and raping for three days, which gave India enough time to move troops to defend Kashmir. Dalrymple states that, given an advance upon Srinagar that same night, the lashkar would have conquered it. Kashmir would now be under Pakistan. This was a realistic ‘what if’ scenario. Another plausible scenario for Kashmir occurred when Mountbatten offered Jinnah a tempting proposition in November 1947. If Jinnah convinced the lashkar to withdraw, Britain would then organize a joint plebiscite in Kashmir and other similar states. This would resemble Junagadh’s plebiscite, involving the UN with joint Indian-Pakistani supervision. Had Jinnah accepted it, the Kashmir problem could have ended there with Pakistan winning the plebiscite. India’s Sardar Patel admitted later that India would have agreed to Kashmir if Pakistan had agreed to Hyderabad right there. Instead, Jinnah rejected it over a technicality, leaving Mountbatten incredulous! What if Jinnah had agreed?
One more alternative scenario presents a possibility that is quite astonishing. In 1946, to solve the deadlock between the Congress and the Muslim League, Viceroy Wavell’s cabinet mission proposed an ingenious solution. This vision would grant Pakistan to the Muslim League, not as a separate nation, but as part of a loose Indian federation. It was like Scotland and Wales being bound to the UK. Astonishingly, Jinnah accepted it. But the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) was Congress-dominated. So, Nehru and Gandhi wanted it excluded from Pakistan. It was a trivial amendment, but it made Jinnah furious, and he rescinded his acceptance. He saw it as Congress’ betrayal. The mission collapsed. What if Congress had condemned the Pashtuns to Pakistan against their wishes? What if Jinnah had allowed the NWFP to be part of India? Yet another minor counterfactual was that Jinnah died just thirteen months after Indian independence. He had suffered for years from tuberculosis and lung cancer. Mountbatten remarked after Jinnah’s death that had he known about his serious condition, he would have delayed Indian independence, which may have prevented the Great Partition. It was more fantasy, less possibility. The momentum towards Pakistan as a Muslim homeland had progressed too far by 1948 for Jinnah’s death to have any reversing impact.
While looking at the British Indian Empire disintegrating, the author’s sympathies and concern are with the small states, underdogs and ethnic minorities, as befitting a young liberal westerner. On the flip side, this leads to a detached, colder view of the majority population and their concerns. Dalrymple writes with empathy, discussing the distress of small ethnic minorities like the Nagas, Mizos, and the Rohingya. However, he does not mention Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in this context. Khan opposed partition until the end, desiring an undivided India where the Pashtuns would have autonomy or merge with Afghanistan. Dalrymple’s take on the princely states reflects a strong nostalgia for a bygone era of pomp, glamour and splendour of the Maharajahs. He longs for the patronage of the age-old traditions of music, dance, art and crafts and how the Nawab protected the wildlife in Junagadh. The princes employed thousands of bards, artists, courtesans, camel trainers and courtly cooks. They became unemployed because of these states’ integration with India or Pakistan. This holds true, but only in part. The princes also indulged in elaborate, ritualistic hunts, resulting in the deaths of thousands of tigers, birds, and other animals. These hunts showcased political power, masculinity, and social standing, often used to forge alliances with British officials. For example, the Maharaja of Gwalior killed 39 tigers in just 10 days during King George V’s 1911 visit. While Dalrymple holds onto nostalgia, most Indians and Pakistanis remember the princes for the poverty and illiteracy their subjects endured. Despite all this, the princes got an honorable exit to a comfortable existence. Even an impressed Soviet premier Khrushchev asked, “How did India manage to ‘liquidate the princely states’ without liquidating the princes?”.
This review may look as if I have only negative comments about the book, but in reality, I enjoyed reading the book immensely. It was a gripping narrative with a lot of snippets about leaders like Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Edwina Mountbatten, Sarojini Naidu and others. I liked Dalrymple’s creative look at how the Empire disintegrated through his prism of five partitions. Readers interested in the history of the British Indian Empire in the twentieth century will find this book ‘unputdownable’. In today’s Hindu nationalist India, there is a frenzy of rewriting Indian history by spewing lies based on hatred and prejudice. This book comes as an antidote to this approach with its scientific thinking and deep research. It is a well-written contribution to twentieth-century Indian history.
Dalrymple’s research is extensive, and it allows him to present a sweeping and ambitious view of historical events. A concise book review cannot perhaps do it full justice. Readers must explore this volume to unearth the complex details recounting the empire’s collapse. I will therefore focus only on a few key topics I found interesting. The initial problem I had with Dalrymple was classifying everything as partitions, implying they were alike. If we use the term ‘Partition’ to refer to the Great Partition of 1947, our perspective on others needs to shift. The Great Partition of India formed a key event in history, involving substantial violence, trauma, and tragedy affecting millions. Other partitions felt unlike the powerful emotions connected to India’s Great Partition. Not even the breakup of Pakistan comes close. To illustrate, separating the Arabian Peninsula amounted to an administrative reorganization in comparison. The partition of Burma witnessed racial riots and the forced ‘long march’ of 600,000 Indians to the mainland under horrendous conditions. But the Congress Party was quite happy to let Burma go. Even Mahatma Gandhi said in 1927 that Burma cannot form part of India on independence and that the Burmese must decide on their future by themselves. Indian elites were concerned with freedom only for the region called ‘Bharat’, which comprised today’s India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Burma’s emergence as a sovereign state was a voluntary, though not altogether peaceful, separation from the British Indian Empire. The resolution regarding the princely states does not seem like a “fourth partition”. Out of the almost six hundred princely states, only Hyderabad and Kashmir suffered military violence in their integration with India or Pakistan. The remaining states unified with either India or Pakistan because of circumstance, or pressure or plebiscites, without bloodshed.
The most recent partition that created Bangladesh did not happen through an agreement involving Punjabis and Bengalis. If there was ever a partition of Bengal, it occurred in 1905, engineered by Viceroy Lord Curzon. It is surprising that Dalrymple has not referred to it. Curzon divided the vast province of Bengal, creating East Bengal for Muslims and West Bengal for Hindus. He marketed it as an “administrative convenience,” but Indian nationalists were furious, protesting that it was “divide and rule”. The protests were fierce and persistent, forcing the colonial rulers to revoke the decision in 1911. What happened sixty years later in 1971 was the breakup of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh through the Bengali revolt and military intervention by India. Therefore, I believe there was just one partition - India’s Great Partition.
Blaming Gandhi and the Congress for the Great Partition is my next concern. During the partition fiasco, Churchill and Lord Attlee showed greater sympathy toward Muslim Pakistan than Hindu India. The ready explanation is that the British love the underdogs, and Indian Muslims were the underdogs in India. Dalrymple too reflects it as he blames the Congress party and Gandhi for partition. One reason he gives is that the Congress party adopted Vande Mataram as India’s national song in 1937. It alienated Jinnah because this act viewed the nation as the Hindu goddess Durga, making him see Congress as a vehicle for Hindu majoritarianism. This laid the ideological groundwork to create Pakistan. Dalrymple also blames Gandhi for bringing religion into the politics of India’s freedom struggle, alienating the secular Jinnah. These are valid arguments, but I have come across more convincing alternative explanations for Jinnah’s focus on partition. Jinnah was a member of the Indian Muslim elite. Indian Muslim journalist M.J. Akbar identifies a ‘theory of distance’ amongst the Muslim elite in India from the 18th century onwards. This theory contends that Hindus and Muslims are different people. It posits that Indian Muslims can protect their interests and way of living only through independent nationhood. It was the Muslim educated-elites’ view and not that of the Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom, the primary Islamic clergy of South Asia. The Muslim League leadership included large landowners. They wanted the partition of India so they could seize more land by driving out big Hindu and Sikh landowners from Punjab and Bengal. The Muslim educated elite and middle-class also had a vested interest in partition. They hoped to advance more easily in the Pakistani bureaucracy without the more numerous Hindu elite competing with them. So, there were more objective pressures on Jinnah than just Gandhi’s religious asceticism or India being worshipped as Goddess Durga.
The book explores alternate histories, considering several “what if” scenarios. Some are in the realms of fantasy, some hypothetical, while others are genuine possibilities. We start with the Arabian Peninsula. Dalrymple hypothesizes that had the colonial authorities not divided the Arabian Peninsula into princely monarchies, most of them, excluding Saudi Arabia, might have integrated into India or Pakistan. This would have brought with it the immense wealth of their hydrocarbons. It is a tantalizing thought for today’s Hindu nationalists and the Pakistani military, who may salivate at the thought of all this forsaken oil wealth. It lives within the realm of fantasy. Even if the Arabian Peninsula had affiliated itself with India, its quest for independence would soon have followed it. The Great Partition showed us we could not co-exist even with fellow Indian Muslims, whose culture, language, food, and many other traditions were the same. What chance did India have of coexisting with Arabs under their rule?
Kashmir posed another ‘if only’ experiment. Before Raja Hari Singh signed his accession, militant lashkar raiders from Pakistan advanced on Kashmir in October 1947 to Baramullah, just an hour from Srinagar’s airport. But they camped there, looting, killing and raping for three days, which gave India enough time to move troops to defend Kashmir. Dalrymple states that, given an advance upon Srinagar that same night, the lashkar would have conquered it. Kashmir would now be under Pakistan. This was a realistic ‘what if’ scenario. Another plausible scenario for Kashmir occurred when Mountbatten offered Jinnah a tempting proposition in November 1947. If Jinnah convinced the lashkar to withdraw, Britain would then organize a joint plebiscite in Kashmir and other similar states. This would resemble Junagadh’s plebiscite, involving the UN with joint Indian-Pakistani supervision. Had Jinnah accepted it, the Kashmir problem could have ended there with Pakistan winning the plebiscite. India’s Sardar Patel admitted later that India would have agreed to Kashmir if Pakistan had agreed to Hyderabad right there. Instead, Jinnah rejected it over a technicality, leaving Mountbatten incredulous! What if Jinnah had agreed?
One more alternative scenario presents a possibility that is quite astonishing. In 1946, to solve the deadlock between the Congress and the Muslim League, Viceroy Wavell’s cabinet mission proposed an ingenious solution. This vision would grant Pakistan to the Muslim League, not as a separate nation, but as part of a loose Indian federation. It was like Scotland and Wales being bound to the UK. Astonishingly, Jinnah accepted it. But the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) was Congress-dominated. So, Nehru and Gandhi wanted it excluded from Pakistan. It was a trivial amendment, but it made Jinnah furious, and he rescinded his acceptance. He saw it as Congress’ betrayal. The mission collapsed. What if Congress had condemned the Pashtuns to Pakistan against their wishes? What if Jinnah had allowed the NWFP to be part of India? Yet another minor counterfactual was that Jinnah died just thirteen months after Indian independence. He had suffered for years from tuberculosis and lung cancer. Mountbatten remarked after Jinnah’s death that had he known about his serious condition, he would have delayed Indian independence, which may have prevented the Great Partition. It was more fantasy, less possibility. The momentum towards Pakistan as a Muslim homeland had progressed too far by 1948 for Jinnah’s death to have any reversing impact.
While looking at the British Indian Empire disintegrating, the author’s sympathies and concern are with the small states, underdogs and ethnic minorities, as befitting a young liberal westerner. On the flip side, this leads to a detached, colder view of the majority population and their concerns. Dalrymple writes with empathy, discussing the distress of small ethnic minorities like the Nagas, Mizos, and the Rohingya. However, he does not mention Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan in this context. Khan opposed partition until the end, desiring an undivided India where the Pashtuns would have autonomy or merge with Afghanistan. Dalrymple’s take on the princely states reflects a strong nostalgia for a bygone era of pomp, glamour and splendour of the Maharajahs. He longs for the patronage of the age-old traditions of music, dance, art and crafts and how the Nawab protected the wildlife in Junagadh. The princes employed thousands of bards, artists, courtesans, camel trainers and courtly cooks. They became unemployed because of these states’ integration with India or Pakistan. This holds true, but only in part. The princes also indulged in elaborate, ritualistic hunts, resulting in the deaths of thousands of tigers, birds, and other animals. These hunts showcased political power, masculinity, and social standing, often used to forge alliances with British officials. For example, the Maharaja of Gwalior killed 39 tigers in just 10 days during King George V’s 1911 visit. While Dalrymple holds onto nostalgia, most Indians and Pakistanis remember the princes for the poverty and illiteracy their subjects endured. Despite all this, the princes got an honorable exit to a comfortable existence. Even an impressed Soviet premier Khrushchev asked, “How did India manage to ‘liquidate the princely states’ without liquidating the princes?”.
This review may look as if I have only negative comments about the book, but in reality, I enjoyed reading the book immensely. It was a gripping narrative with a lot of snippets about leaders like Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Edwina Mountbatten, Sarojini Naidu and others. I liked Dalrymple’s creative look at how the Empire disintegrated through his prism of five partitions. Readers interested in the history of the British Indian Empire in the twentieth century will find this book ‘unputdownable’. In today’s Hindu nationalist India, there is a frenzy of rewriting Indian history by spewing lies based on hatred and prejudice. This book comes as an antidote to this approach with its scientific thinking and deep research. It is a well-written contribution to twentieth-century Indian history.
May 12, 2026
Turns out there’s a lot I didn’t know about India!
May 29, 2026
extremely moving & well researched
May 19, 2026
A beautifully narrated research, completely absorbing.
The book has so much new to learn about our recent past and makes me wonder about the mess out of which we are born and were able to call ourselves 'India' as an independent whole unit.
It has raised questions on my own perspective about the so called freedom fight and the roles of our freedom fighters on matters of ideology, religion, language, ethnicity, caste, and desire for power to rule etc., as also the initial years of self rule.
And on a broader side, it has sort of explained as to why our region, the parts of one 'Indian Emipre', is such badly bruised and have such bitter unstable inter-countries relationship.
As for our own country India, to me, it also partly explains as to why we are in such a messy state of affairs which of course is compounded by other several factors.
The book is extremely good and should be read.
The book has so much new to learn about our recent past and makes me wonder about the mess out of which we are born and were able to call ourselves 'India' as an independent whole unit.
It has raised questions on my own perspective about the so called freedom fight and the roles of our freedom fighters on matters of ideology, religion, language, ethnicity, caste, and desire for power to rule etc., as also the initial years of self rule.
And on a broader side, it has sort of explained as to why our region, the parts of one 'Indian Emipre', is such badly bruised and have such bitter unstable inter-countries relationship.
As for our own country India, to me, it also partly explains as to why we are in such a messy state of affairs which of course is compounded by other several factors.
The book is extremely good and should be read.
May 6, 2026
Pretty interesting read, though it’s enough to read only intro if you’re mildly interested
November 21, 2025
No matter how much a reader might think they know about the breakup of the British Empire in the East, they are certain to have learnt a great deal more after reading Sam Dalrymple’s Shattered Lands. Growing up in India in the fifties and sixties, I knew the basic facts of Indian independence, but nothing of the many parallel movements outside the Indian subcontinent—from the separation of Burma from India to the formation of the Gulf states. The connection between Hyderabad and the Qu’aiti sultanate is a fascinating example of this.
Dalrymple’s thorough archival research and numerous interviews with survivors,or their families,of the upheavals and mass killings give the events of the past poignancy and immediacy. The devastating events following the formation of Pakistan and later Bangladesh, the religious massacres, and the shattering of long-established communities are not played down, but there are also heartwarming stories of courage and friendship. Ishar Das Arora, with his mixed Sikh and Hindu family, was saved by his Muslim neighbours. This,and many other personal experiences give a human perspective on the effect of arbitrary decisions, often contentiously arrived at, and provide a better understanding of the problems that continue to arise. This gripping book provides an explanatory background to conflicts of modern times, for example, the situation of the Rohingya people in Myanmar.
Ultimately, Dalrymple succeeds in weaving these disparate strands of history into a cohesive and powerful narrative. By illuminating the human cost behind the drawing of maps, Shattered Lands forces the reader to confront the lasting legacy of the British Empire's retreat. It is a work of great scholarship and deep humanity that not only educates but urges us to look with fresh eyes at the borders—and the broken lives—that define the region today.
Dalrymple’s thorough archival research and numerous interviews with survivors,or their families,of the upheavals and mass killings give the events of the past poignancy and immediacy. The devastating events following the formation of Pakistan and later Bangladesh, the religious massacres, and the shattering of long-established communities are not played down, but there are also heartwarming stories of courage and friendship. Ishar Das Arora, with his mixed Sikh and Hindu family, was saved by his Muslim neighbours. This,and many other personal experiences give a human perspective on the effect of arbitrary decisions, often contentiously arrived at, and provide a better understanding of the problems that continue to arise. This gripping book provides an explanatory background to conflicts of modern times, for example, the situation of the Rohingya people in Myanmar.
Ultimately, Dalrymple succeeds in weaving these disparate strands of history into a cohesive and powerful narrative. By illuminating the human cost behind the drawing of maps, Shattered Lands forces the reader to confront the lasting legacy of the British Empire's retreat. It is a work of great scholarship and deep humanity that not only educates but urges us to look with fresh eyes at the borders—and the broken lives—that define the region today.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 20, 2026
I thought I knew a lot about the history of partition in South Asia, but after reading this book I understand how little I really knew. It's incredibly researched and written. Okay it is niche, you need to want to know more about the history of this region. But it's does a great job of storytelling history, making me realize once again .. reality is often stranger than fiction ever could be. Final pages even made me a bit emotional .. it's that good.
July 5, 2025
It was so gratifying when I finally got my hands on a hard copy the very day this released in India; even Sam Dalrymple’s captions on Instagram to photos of places he visits were learning experiences to me that I’d rate higher than some full-length books I’ve read. My expectations were therefore really high, and this book managed to exceed them.
I have always been critical of nationalizing lore in post-colonial South Asia that tried to create distinctions where there weren’t any, reshaping religion, language, and belonging in addition to geography. However, I realized after reading this how there is much, much more nuance beyond what I thought of as my fairly detailed understanding of this. Burma’s separation, its involvement in the Indian nationalist movement, or the demographic and economic impact of its departure (from mass-displacement that was unprecedented, but quickly overshadowed by 1947, to the emergence of rava idlis in Bangalore(!)) has just never been part of my imagination of ‘India’s’ history. Yet, as you begin to realize as you go along, there’s nothing inherently more self-evident about Burma’s identity as a separate nation, than about Mizoram or Nagaland’s modern status as Indian states.
The links between ‘Arab India (!)’ and the mainland, the fact that Hyderabad had a vassal state in the Arabian peninsula, or that in the wake of the Indian annexation of Hyderabad, thousands of Arabs would be forced to migrate from Hyderabad to Yemen or elsewhere; ending an era where ‘Arab’ could be an ‘Indian ethnicity’ just like Punjabi or Bengali.
The orientalist, patronizing rhetoric of the newly independent Indian state, insisting that Mizo performers in the Republic Day parade dress in more exotic clothes than their actual traditional garb to conform to mainland imaginations of the ‘wild northeast’. The layers behind mass support for Pakistan, where it was not just disillusioned Muslims, but often also Dalits who are typically counted as Hindus, who were vary of Brahminical domination in an India they get to rule and define.
Revelation after revelation, brilliantly cited (I kept flipping back and forth between the text and the citations, eventually getting myself an ebook in addition to my hard copy so the shunting back and forth becomes easier) and strung together.
This is a sobering, impactful, devastating work, more important now than ever as ideas of ‘India’ and ‘Indianness’ are made narrower by the day. I’m holding my breath for whatever Sam Dalrymple writes next, even if it’s more photo captions for the time being.
I have always been critical of nationalizing lore in post-colonial South Asia that tried to create distinctions where there weren’t any, reshaping religion, language, and belonging in addition to geography. However, I realized after reading this how there is much, much more nuance beyond what I thought of as my fairly detailed understanding of this. Burma’s separation, its involvement in the Indian nationalist movement, or the demographic and economic impact of its departure (from mass-displacement that was unprecedented, but quickly overshadowed by 1947, to the emergence of rava idlis in Bangalore(!)) has just never been part of my imagination of ‘India’s’ history. Yet, as you begin to realize as you go along, there’s nothing inherently more self-evident about Burma’s identity as a separate nation, than about Mizoram or Nagaland’s modern status as Indian states.
The links between ‘Arab India (!)’ and the mainland, the fact that Hyderabad had a vassal state in the Arabian peninsula, or that in the wake of the Indian annexation of Hyderabad, thousands of Arabs would be forced to migrate from Hyderabad to Yemen or elsewhere; ending an era where ‘Arab’ could be an ‘Indian ethnicity’ just like Punjabi or Bengali.
The orientalist, patronizing rhetoric of the newly independent Indian state, insisting that Mizo performers in the Republic Day parade dress in more exotic clothes than their actual traditional garb to conform to mainland imaginations of the ‘wild northeast’. The layers behind mass support for Pakistan, where it was not just disillusioned Muslims, but often also Dalits who are typically counted as Hindus, who were vary of Brahminical domination in an India they get to rule and define.
Revelation after revelation, brilliantly cited (I kept flipping back and forth between the text and the citations, eventually getting myself an ebook in addition to my hard copy so the shunting back and forth becomes easier) and strung together.
This is a sobering, impactful, devastating work, more important now than ever as ideas of ‘India’ and ‘Indianness’ are made narrower by the day. I’m holding my breath for whatever Sam Dalrymple writes next, even if it’s more photo captions for the time being.
August 19, 2025
We tend to think of "Indian Empire" as the Indian subcontinent, roughly coinciding with present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, but the author looks at it as all the areas which used Indian postal stamps and where people were issued Indian passports. Even a century ago, this geopolitical entity was huge stretching from Aden to Burma, and the book traces the political movements and the sovereign actions which resulted in the area being carved up into what are now a bunch of autonomous states which do not even recognise a shared history.
The premise is, of course, interesting and, to me, novel. I knew virtually nothing about the history of Burma despite having read a few historical novels set in the country. And I knew even less about the history of the Middle Eastern countries of South Yemen and UAE. So I loved reading about the 'partitions' that led to the formation of each of those countries, and of the tension arising out of botched divisions.
I also enjoyed reading the history of the formation of Bangladesh, something I know a bit about, but not in depth. Which the players involved in the formation of India and Pakistan are well known, this account stripped them of the layers of idolatry and presented them as differently flawed human beings.
However, despite the subject being as engaging as it was, there was something lacking. Perhaps it was the fact that the book read as a dry piece of historical writing with no flashes of humour or insight liven it. One certainly does not read history to be entertained, but the book came across as a paper turned in by an earnest and diligent student. Definitely a book I would recommend to someone who wants to learn about this chapter of world history.
The premise is, of course, interesting and, to me, novel. I knew virtually nothing about the history of Burma despite having read a few historical novels set in the country. And I knew even less about the history of the Middle Eastern countries of South Yemen and UAE. So I loved reading about the 'partitions' that led to the formation of each of those countries, and of the tension arising out of botched divisions.
I also enjoyed reading the history of the formation of Bangladesh, something I know a bit about, but not in depth. Which the players involved in the formation of India and Pakistan are well known, this account stripped them of the layers of idolatry and presented them as differently flawed human beings.
However, despite the subject being as engaging as it was, there was something lacking. Perhaps it was the fact that the book read as a dry piece of historical writing with no flashes of humour or insight liven it. One certainly does not read history to be entertained, but the book came across as a paper turned in by an earnest and diligent student. Definitely a book I would recommend to someone who wants to learn about this chapter of world history.
August 12, 2025
While Sam Dalrymple’s Shattered Lands offers a compelling narrative that humanizes the many partitions of South Asia and critiques nationalist mythmaking, a crucial dimension risks being underplayed in the book: the foundational role of British colonial divide-and-rule policies.
These imperial strategies deliberately sowed communal divisions and fostered distrust among South Asia’s diverse communities, creating the fertile ground upon which nationalism and, ultimately, partition violence took root. Ignoring or minimizing this colonial legacy risks framing nationalism—and by extension, the communities caught in the violence—as the primary architects of their own suffering.
Such an omission can inadvertently veer towards a form of victim blaming, where systemic and structural forces are overshadowed by narratives of indigenous responsibility. To fully grasp the tragedy of partition, it is essential to center colonial policies as the key driver that shaped the fractured political and social landscape, rather than treating nationalism’s emergence as an isolated or inevitable phenomenon. Victims of Shattered Lands needs to be seen in the proper historical context—as people caught in a web woven by imperial design as much as by nationalist ambitions.
These imperial strategies deliberately sowed communal divisions and fostered distrust among South Asia’s diverse communities, creating the fertile ground upon which nationalism and, ultimately, partition violence took root. Ignoring or minimizing this colonial legacy risks framing nationalism—and by extension, the communities caught in the violence—as the primary architects of their own suffering.
Such an omission can inadvertently veer towards a form of victim blaming, where systemic and structural forces are overshadowed by narratives of indigenous responsibility. To fully grasp the tragedy of partition, it is essential to center colonial policies as the key driver that shaped the fractured political and social landscape, rather than treating nationalism’s emergence as an isolated or inevitable phenomenon. Victims of Shattered Lands needs to be seen in the proper historical context—as people caught in a web woven by imperial design as much as by nationalist ambitions.
March 7, 2026
I grew up reading about the British occupation of India and the struggle for independence, and as an adult I made a more deliberate effort to read about the 1947 Partition. Even so, I would not have called myself especially well versed in three of the five partitions discussed here – the partition of Burma, the Middle East, and the princely states across India and Pakistan. This book brings all five together, the fifth being the independence of Bangladesh, into a coherent and remarkably well-constructed narrative that is often difficult to put down.
Sam Dalrymple takes the five partitions that shaped modern Asia and narrates them with a distinctly cinematic flair, moving through the chronology with sweep and clarity while never quite losing sight of the people trapped inside it. What makes the book especially compelling is that it does not remain at the level of borders, treaties, and abstractions. It constantly humanizes the story through vivid, often surprising anecdotes about the figures orbiting these events.
Some of my favourite moments were precisely these detours. Jinnah’s Parsi wife, Nehru’s affection for Lady Mountbatten, Osman Ali Khan’s absurdly elaborate titles, Maharaja Hari Singh’s reputation as a duck-shooting champion. None of these details are the central argument of the book, but they give the larger history texture, intimacy, and almost imbue life in it. A strictly academic reader may find such side excursions indulgent, but for anyone who enjoys serious research presented as rich, readable popular history, this book is an absolute feast.
Few readers may find Sam’s biases creeping in. Growing up, I was taught a historiography in which Indian scholars generally cast the Muslim League as the principal driver of Partition, whereas this book treats the split as largely inevitable. Some might even say that it handles the Muslim League with a gentleness that occasionally borders on sympathy. At the other end, it is far more willing to confront Hindu supremacist ideology and to raise questions that Indian school textbooks have often been reluctant to entertain. To me, though, this feels less like distortion than like an opposing perspective, and for that very reason I would encourage readers to engage with both sides.
Finally, the book shows how borders are not merely drawn on maps but cut through lives, vanities, romances, ambitions, and absurdities. The book does not just explain the making of modern Asia, it makes you feel the fracture of it. That is precisely why the book lingers, and why I would readily recommend it. If this is nepotism, then I must reluctantly concede that it has produced results.
Sam Dalrymple takes the five partitions that shaped modern Asia and narrates them with a distinctly cinematic flair, moving through the chronology with sweep and clarity while never quite losing sight of the people trapped inside it. What makes the book especially compelling is that it does not remain at the level of borders, treaties, and abstractions. It constantly humanizes the story through vivid, often surprising anecdotes about the figures orbiting these events.
Some of my favourite moments were precisely these detours. Jinnah’s Parsi wife, Nehru’s affection for Lady Mountbatten, Osman Ali Khan’s absurdly elaborate titles, Maharaja Hari Singh’s reputation as a duck-shooting champion. None of these details are the central argument of the book, but they give the larger history texture, intimacy, and almost imbue life in it. A strictly academic reader may find such side excursions indulgent, but for anyone who enjoys serious research presented as rich, readable popular history, this book is an absolute feast.
Few readers may find Sam’s biases creeping in. Growing up, I was taught a historiography in which Indian scholars generally cast the Muslim League as the principal driver of Partition, whereas this book treats the split as largely inevitable. Some might even say that it handles the Muslim League with a gentleness that occasionally borders on sympathy. At the other end, it is far more willing to confront Hindu supremacist ideology and to raise questions that Indian school textbooks have often been reluctant to entertain. To me, though, this feels less like distortion than like an opposing perspective, and for that very reason I would encourage readers to engage with both sides.
Finally, the book shows how borders are not merely drawn on maps but cut through lives, vanities, romances, ambitions, and absurdities. The book does not just explain the making of modern Asia, it makes you feel the fracture of it. That is precisely why the book lingers, and why I would readily recommend it. If this is nepotism, then I must reluctantly concede that it has produced results.
March 24, 2026
I took forever to read this not because the book was bad but because it took brainpower I did not have lol.
I learned about the 1947 partition in high school because even though I went to an American school my history teacher said we needed to learn about the history of the country we lived in which I appreciated. I learned about the war in 1971 because I went to local schools for elementary school. So I arrogantly opened this book thinking I wouldn't learn anything I didn't already know.
I was extremely wrong. The strength of this book is how it contextualizes various south Asian figures and conflicts that were happening at the same time and how the people involved interacted and were influenced by each other. I learned about World War II separately, but that was also happening at the same time. I knew nothing about Burma's history and how they ended up being separate from India.
Also by virtue of being written now, there is more modern context applied to a lot of the problems and conflicts talked about in this book. It was fascinating to learn how Indians were hated because they were seen as agents of the British even though the British were really the bad guys. It was interesting to learn that the BJP is trying to glamorize the man who assassinated Gandhi. I learned also about how the world, even pre-Internet, was super connected and various revolutionary leaders knew each other and talked to each other.
I also really appreciated how the author dealt with macro stuff like how the politicians were drawing borders and moving things around like board game pieces but then went micro to talk about individual people and families and how they had to endure genocides, wars, forced migrations, and other hardships due to these policies.
The only thing is that I wish that there was some more mention of Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka because those are also South Asian countries and I was a little curious to know if they had any role in some of these partitions.
I learned about the 1947 partition in high school because even though I went to an American school my history teacher said we needed to learn about the history of the country we lived in which I appreciated. I learned about the war in 1971 because I went to local schools for elementary school. So I arrogantly opened this book thinking I wouldn't learn anything I didn't already know.
I was extremely wrong. The strength of this book is how it contextualizes various south Asian figures and conflicts that were happening at the same time and how the people involved interacted and were influenced by each other. I learned about World War II separately, but that was also happening at the same time. I knew nothing about Burma's history and how they ended up being separate from India.
Also by virtue of being written now, there is more modern context applied to a lot of the problems and conflicts talked about in this book. It was fascinating to learn how Indians were hated because they were seen as agents of the British even though the British were really the bad guys. It was interesting to learn that the BJP is trying to glamorize the man who assassinated Gandhi. I learned also about how the world, even pre-Internet, was super connected and various revolutionary leaders knew each other and talked to each other.
I also really appreciated how the author dealt with macro stuff like how the politicians were drawing borders and moving things around like board game pieces but then went micro to talk about individual people and families and how they had to endure genocides, wars, forced migrations, and other hardships due to these policies.
The only thing is that I wish that there was some more mention of Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka because those are also South Asian countries and I was a little curious to know if they had any role in some of these partitions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews