Dissecting the biases present in the political and literary perspectives regarding partition of 1947: A holistic approach incorporating an analysis of the State account to understand the political agendas, and deconstruction of Manto’s writings to comprehend the biases present in the literary arena.
The history of the partition of India has been viewed, contemplated and constructed with a variety of perspectives, each differing according to a large number of variables. These variables include the time in which the perspective was formed and documented, the side of the border at which the writer resided, the views of the resultant states and how they portrayed these views, the personal experiences of the literary writers, and so on and so forth. With a vast number of variables, it becomes an impossible task to present an unbiased and accurate depiction of the historical events that occurred during this period. The sheer scale of the event was such that it encompassed people residing in an assortment of areas, with varying lifestyles, ethnicities, religions and socio-economic statuses. The exodus of people from both sides of the border was, and remains, incomprehensible. The breakout of violence in previously peaceful communities, the horrifying tales of tragedies of all parties involved and the politicized character of the event were of such multifaceted natures that a uniform historical account can not be formed. With this consideration, the literary writings provide a different insight, from a different perspective so as to study the partition with a holistic approach. There are many different perspectives, and these perspectives, whether political or literary, may have inherent biases. Therefore, this paper aims to present how the historical accounts vary due to political reasons in the states of Pakistan and India, and how revisionist thinkers have attempted to