Partitions: A Transnational History of Twentieth-Century Territorial Separatism

by Arie Dubnov (editor), Laura Robson (Editor)

Partition—the physical division of territory along ethno-religious lines into separate nation-states—is often presented as a successful political "solution" to ethnic conflict. In the twentieth century, at least three new political entities—the Irish Free State, the Dominions (later Republics) of India and Pakistan, and the State of Israel—emerged as results of partition. This volume offers the first collective history of the concept of partition, tracing its emergence in the aftermath of the First World War and locating its genealogy in the politics of twentieth-century empire and decolonization.

Making use of the transnational framework of the British Empire, which presided over the three major partitions of the twentieth century, contributors draw out concrete connections among the cases of Ireland, Pakistan, and Israel—the mutual influences, shared personnel, economic justifications, and material interests that propelled the idea of partition forward and resulted in the violent creation of new post-colonial political spaces. In so doing, the volume seeks to move beyond the nationalist frameworks that served in the first instance to promote partition as a natural phenomenon.

Genres: History

402 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 29, 2019

Reviews

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This insightful volume edited by Robson and Dubnov, two eminent scholars of ethnic politics in the Middle East and Israeli studies respectively, looks at various aspects arising from the central theme of territorial partition in 20th century global politics.

As the editors note in their introduction, which aims at a general historical sketch of partition as an idea and in practice, the notion of 'physically dividing territories along ethno-religious lines as a solution to communal strife has suddenly reemerged, conveniently divorced from its disastrously violent history' (p.1). They go on that such discussions 'depict partition as a logical and even inevitable, if regrettable, answer to widely divergent but equally difficult problems of ethnic strife across the globe' (p.1). The word "strife" might be an attempt to strike an uneasy compromise with the word "conflict", which has been increasingly challenged in academic circles for allegedly failing to properly account for asymmetrical power dynamics in so-called "conflict zones" like Israel-Palestine.

Robson and Dubnov locate partition in the context of post-World War 1 peacebuilding and the 'new conversations surrounding ethnicity, nationhood, and citizenship' (p.1) that emerged out of it. They acknowledge the paradox of the European imperial powers reaching the zenith of their power, authority, and ambition, all the while as the new discourse of anti-colonial nationalism began began to diffuse hegemonically in global diplomacy (pp.1-2). Critically, they comment on how the post-war agreements - including those which sanctioned the imposition of League of Nations Mandates on territories acquired in combat - promoted 'a new political language of ethnic separatism as a central aspect of national self-determination, while protecting and disguising continuities and even expansions of French and, especially, British imperial power' (p.2). Indeed, they locate the partition of Ireland alongside population resettlements across the former Ottoman territories and the making of "majorities" and "minorities" - terms that are, of course, strictly relative. And, though I find their categorisation of partition as primarily a divide and rule tactic a little lacking in its acknowledgement of local actors working in tandem with the larger powers - the thrust of their argument is compelling and vital. They also critically note how subsequent partitions after Ireland contained proposals to transfer 'inconvenient populations in addition to forcible territorial division into separate states--an approach that would exponentially magnify the violence of partition as a task of carving out physically separate political entities on the ground and making them ethnically homogenous devolved onto local actors with everything to lose' (p.7).

After providing an historical overview of Ireland, Mandatory Palestine, and British India (the three primary case studies that make up this volume's central theme), and partition's transformation from an 'imperial tactic into an organizing principle of post-World War II world diplomacy' (p.11), the editors give way to a variety of essays exploring more niche aspects of the case studies.

Faisal Devji traces the intellectual and historical roots of Muhammad Iqbal's nationalism, noting both its convergences and contentions with Zionism, while Dubnov surveys the role of Reginald Coupland - involved in all three partitions listed above - in the negotiation and adaptation of partition as a "travelling theory", referring to the transfer and negotiation of ideas across boundaries. Coupland comes off as a generally altruistic, albeit perhaps quite naive, believer in imperialism as a force for good who 'remained blind to the ways in which British administrators had earlier instigated [...] hysterical animosity' (p.82), and whose stubbornness failed to appreciate when the tide had turned against his brand of anti-partitionist philosophy.

Lucy Chester looks closer at the parallels between partition in South Asia and Palestine, and the sometimes ambivalent relationship between Zionists and Muslim nationalists, while Penny Sinanoglou explores the role of analogical thinking for British administrators working in and on Palestine. One particular point I took from Sinanoglou is how the 'British persistence in classifying the inhabitants of Palestine by religious affiliation, and the related refusal, evident in the text of the mandate, to see the Arabs as a national group, owed much to the dominant British view of Egyptian society as described in Lord Cromer's authoritative work Modern Egypt' (p.162) and 'imperial ways of thinking about the role of religion and race as they related to self-government and nationalism formed the intellectual framework in which Palestine's administrators thought through the issues they faced' (p.163). Critically she notes also how various cases - like forced population transfers in Turkey and Greece, and race-based land restricitions in Kenya - provided analogies from which the British could take in order to formulate their own imperial strategy.

As is becoming customary in volumes like this, one chapter, by Adi Gordon, looks at binationalist Zionism pre-1948, noting - in line with the anthology's central theme - how 'the partition and anti-partition discourses in Palestine of the 1920s, 1930s , and 1940s are essentially a discussion of the merits and demerits, appplicability or inapplicability, of nation-states, and ultimately, those are all but part of a greater transnational struggle on the nature and tenets of the postimperial world order' (p.176).

The epilogue - written by A. Dirk Moses - then poignantly places at its centre the retributive violence involved with population transfers and border engineering, giving its final words to the victims of etho-nationalist violence greatly exacerbated by territorial partition (p.257). As Moses aptly states, partition does not 'so much solve minority issues as deposit them into different containers as minority issues reappear in partitioned units' (p.258). Connected to the wider ideology of nationalism, Moses argues the '"divine cartographies" that neatly map peoples as naturally emplaced in their homelands dangerously [effaces] the heterogeneity and overlapping borders that obtain in the real world' (p.263).

In all, a valuable book with interesting contributions that should provide valuable insights and resources for further scholarship on nationalism and partition.

[Zeb Kantrowitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a polemic on the cause of the need to partition the Palestine Mandate, Ireland and the South Asia (India and Pakistan). There is an in depth discussion of why these areas could not be kept as a single entity because of mostly religious intolerance and long time animosity.

The discussions are well documented using White Papers and studies by the colonial powers that ruled these 'states' and their attempts to find an alternative to partition.

It's very academic and in some parts is like reading a PhD dissertation.