Viceroy’s House: It’s 'fake history'

Viceroy's House is a 2017 film narrating the story of days leading up to the partition of India.

Perhaps, I am little late in watching the film. But I am somewhat glad that I am, for had I watched it without 'some' prior understanding of the history, I would have undoubtedly concluded, at the very least, what Fatima Bhutto succintly wrote in her review* of the film, that "the bloodshed and brutality of 1947 [laid] at the feet of two particular villains: Muslims and Jinnah”.

The film is conveying, in not so subtle manner, that: Jinnah - the “trouble maker” - was a cunning communalist. Pakistan was created courtesy Churchill’s treacherous plan of having a pliable country in South Asia, as opposed to a socialist India and communist Soviet Union. The partition was loathed by Muslims, as is personified by Muslim heroine and her father’s reluctant departure to Pakistan.

There is not a single reference to:

- the fact that for over 30 years, Muslim League had only demanded guarantees (separate electorates, weightage, etc.) that fell way short of partition, and that Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in as late as 1946 - something that could have prevented the partition.

- well documented apprehension and genuine feelings of fear among Muslims of India regarding Hindu/Congress domination

- Muslim League’s legitimate demands of accommodating Muslims of India in some sort of a constitutional set-up that would allow autonomy to provinces in a united India

- no reference to how Congress alienated Muslims after making 1937 provincial governments. One little example might offer a glimpse: when Muslim League desired to join coalition governments, the condition set was that Muslim League parliamentary party would be dissolved and its parliamentarians would take oath of allegiance to Congress. So inclusive?

- how biased Louis Mountbatten was against Jinnah (which he never shied away from confessing in his various interviews and his own biography) and Pakistan, when he was required to stay neutral

The absence of even a passing remark to the plight of Muslims and their own struggle for prominence render this movie a totally partisan effort, a textbook case of uni-dimensional projection of history.

My anger at this blatant distortion of history finds solace in words of Ian Black who described film's narration of events as "fake history" in his review** for the Guardian. "I can find no historian," he wrote, "who thinks this interpretation of events is anything other than a travesty."

It is important that those who are not so curious about history as to sit down and sift through texts and double check the historical facts be saved from reaching wrong conclusion on a vulgarly biased portrayal of history.

-----------------
Reviews:

*https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/03/fatima-bhutto-viceroys-house-watched-servile-pantomime-and-wept

**https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/18/the-viceroys-house-version-of-indias-partition-brings-fake-history-to-screen?fbclid=IwAR0Kuvud1VpE1zJ5cZGXX8lN--Y9_h0bvwfqENtpVuEHpmq92zN-8iWH00o