“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

                                                                         ~ George Orwell 

The Contest over the Past

History is never just about the past. The stories we tell about historic events, especially ones as traumatic and consequential as the Partition of India, play a central role in shaping how societies see themselves, their neighbours, and the “others” within. At its best, history is painstakingly researched, critical, and keen on giving voice to those often silenced or overlooked. At its worst, it becomes propaganda: turning complex events into simple tales of heroes and villains, past injustices into ammunition for present-day political battles, and human suffering into narrative weapons.

In India, no event is more fiercely contested than the Partition. From textbooks to WhatsApp forwards, academic treatises to mega-budget films, the narratives keep shifting, warring, and fracturing. In this blog post, we will explore how both serious historians and ideological storytellers (from the Left and the Right) shape our understanding of Partition. We’ll look at the contrasts across film; focusing on recent works like The Bengal Files as well as more humanitarian films such as Viceroy’s House and Earth 1947, to examine how each frames history. 

We will also discuss why taking part in Model United Nations (MUN) committees, such as the Viceroy Partition Commission (VPC), can be empowering for students who want to understand, confront, and even rewrite the stories that shape our world.

Historians and Propagandists: Who Writes the Story?

Academic historians try to understand the past as truthfully as possible. Their goal isn’t to create heroes or blame people, but to explore the many forces; political, social, economic, and personal. That led to major events like Partition.

Earlier, history focused mostly on “high politics”,  the decisions made by leaders like Nehru, Jinnah, and Mountbatten, or by British officials. These accounts often asked “Who caused Partition?” and leaned toward blaming one side or person. But over time, historians began looking beyond just leaders. They started studying the lives of refugees, women, minorities, and everyday people.

Scholars like Urvashi Butalia, Ritu Menon, Kamala Bhasin, and Gyanendra Pandey shifted the focus to how Partition felt for those who lived through it. They showed how violence, loss, and displacement affected people differently depending on their gender, caste, age, or background.

This newer kind of history, sometimes called “people’s history” or “subaltern history”,  tries to uncover the voices that were left out of official records. It shows that Partition’s pain wasn’t shared equally. Women were abducted and shamed. Dalit refugees faced discrimination during relief efforts. Religious and language minorities were pushed out from both sides.

In short, academic history tries to show the full picture, even if that picture is uncomfortable or doesn’t fit into patriotic stories.

Propaganda: When Narratives Become Weapons

In society, history is often told through political speeches, TV shows, school textbooks, and now social media. But this version of history is usually much simpler than what academic historians present. This is where propaganda comes in.

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, propaganda means sharing facts, half-truths, or even lies in a way that influences people’s beliefs — usually for political gain. It works by picking and choosing facts, ignoring the full picture, and using strong emotions to push a message.

Instead of showing Partition as a complex event shaped by many forces, propaganda often blames one person or group. It hides uncomfortable truths and presents suffering in a way that supports a particular political view.

For example:

• Some right-leaning stories say Partition happened because of “Muslim betrayal.”
• Others blame only the British, or say Congress leaders betrayed the country.
• Left-leaning versions might say Partition was caused by elite deals that ignored minorities or poor communities.

In all these cases, the story is made simpler, not to understand history better, but to make it fit a political agenda.

Why Does This Matter?

When propaganda replaces real history, truth suffers. People become divided and suspicious. The pain and courage of ordinary people are used to score political points, instead of helping us understand each other.

That’s why it’s important to tell stories that are honest, complex, and open to debate — even if they’re harder to hear.

Right-Wing and Left-Wing Storytelling: Competing Visions of Partition

The Right-Wing Narrative

In recent years, India’s Right-wing, especially groups linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and thinkers like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, has often described Partition as a deep civilizational clash. According to this view, the divide between Hindus and Muslims was centuries old, and Partition was the final result of two communities that couldn’t live together.

Since 2014, some political voices have focused heavily on the idea that Hindus were “betrayed” by the Muslim League. They blame Congress leaders for allowing Partition and accuse secular historians of ignoring Hindu suffering, sometimes calling it a “Hindu genocide.” This perspective is now common in TV shows, speeches, and films like The Bengal Files, which show brutal violence against Hindus in places like Punjab and Bengal, often in very emotional and graphic ways.

This narrative has also shaped education. New textbooks and policies mark “Partition Horrors Remembrance Day” and teach Partition as a story of heroes and villains. Often, the villains are shown as Jinnah, Congress, and Lord Mountbatten, while the role of Hindu nationalist groups like the Hindu Mahasabha is rarely questioned.

While these stories do highlight real pain that was sometimes ignored, many scholars warn that they can oversimplify history. Instead of showing how Partition hurt all communities, they turn it into a one-sided moral story that fits today’s political goals.

The Left-Wing Narrative

On the other side, India’s Left has often taken a more critical view of Partition. Many Left-leaning historians, including Marxist and progressive thinkers, argue that British policies like divide-and-rule and separate electorates created the conditions for Partition by increasing communal tensions.

Some historians focus on class, land, and economic issues, saying that Partition wasn’t just about religion, but also about elite deals and betrayals. In these accounts, ordinary people, especially the poor and marginalized, suffered the most.

Marxist and subaltern scholars often criticize both colonial rulers and Indian leaders. They suggest that the demand for Pakistan came not just from religious beliefs, but from economic and social fears, especially in areas that were left behind during British rule. These historians don’t always focus on communal hatred. Instead, they see the violence as caused by bad leadership, political opportunism, and deeper social problems.

This approach has influenced school curriculums and culture. It has led to the use of oral histories, literature, and the voices of refugees, women, and poor communities, people who were often ignored in official records.

However, critics from the Right argue that this kind of history sometimes downplays the suffering of Hindus, or ignores the emotional impact Partition had on the majority community. They accuse it of “whitewashing” violence and being too soft on certain groups.

Films as Historical Resources and as Propaganda

Film is among the most powerful media for communicating history. Its images burn themselves onto the collective memory, sometimes shaping public understanding more deeply than textbooks or even family tales. How films depict Partition is therefore both a reflection of and an influence on the bigger societal debate about the past.

The Bengal Files: One-Sided Trauma or Reckoning Long Denied?

The Bengal Files (2025), directed by Vivek Agnihotri, is a vivid example of a right-leaning Partition film. Inspired by The Kashmir Files, it focuses on the 1946 Direct Action Day and Noakhali riots in Bengal, a region often overlooked in Partition narratives, which usually center on Punjab or Delhi. The story follows a modern-day CBI officer investigating communal violence, leading to flashbacks of Partition-era atrocities.

The film is graphic and emotionally intense, showing violence mainly against Hindus. Key figures are portrayed symbolically: Gandhi as a helpless idealist, Jinnah as a villain, and Muslim leaders as cruel and manipulative. The fast-paced, dramatic style aims to stir strong emotions; anger, grief, and resentment, echoing political campaigns like “Partition Horrors Remembrance.”

While the film sheds light on lesser-known events and real suffering, many reviews note its one-sidedness. The constant focus on brutality, and portrayal of Muslim characters mostly as aggressors, risks oversimplifying both Partition and Bengal’s complex history.

Agnihotri defends the film as “telling truths neglected by the establishment.” Some viewers see it as a necessary correction to past silence. Others argue it reflects a trend of using history to support majoritarian political narratives 

Viceroy’s House: Balanced History or British Nostalgia?

Viceroy’s House (2017), directed by Gurinder Chadha, takes a very different approach. Set during the final days of British rule, it focuses on Lord Mountbatten and the last negotiations over independence and Partition. The story blends political drama with personal stories of Indian staff working in the Viceroy’s residence.

The film gives space to multiple leaders, Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah, and Mountbatten, showing their beliefs and flaws. Instead of blaming one side, it explores how events spun out of control. A subplot between a Hindu and Muslim servant shows how politics can destroy personal lives.

Some historians say the film softens Britain’s role or focuses too much on Mountbatten’s helplessness. Others praise its balanced portrayal of pain across communities and its refusal to offer easy answers. It ends with a tribute to all who suffered during Partition, a gesture of shared empathy

Earth (1947): Humanity Amidst Horror

Earth (1947), directed by Deepa Mehta and based on Bapsi Sidhwa’s novel Cracking India, tells the story of Lenny, a young Parsee girl in Lahore. Through her eyes, we see a close-knit group of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Parsee friends torn apart by the violence and suspicion that follows Partition.

The film avoids political slogans and focuses on personal tragedy. Friends become enemies, lovers are lost, and women face violence as symbols of revenge. Shanta the Ayah and Lenny are shown as real individuals, not just victims.

Critics praise the film’s emotional honesty and its refusal to blame just one side. The violence is senseless and shared, driven by fear and jealousy as much as ideology. Earth acts as a “counterhistory”, not glorifying or demonizing, but showing how ordinary people suffer in the chaos of history.

How Narratives Shape Public Understanding

The Power and Danger of Popular Memory

Public understanding of history is often shaped more by headlines, films, and viral messages than by academic papers. Visual media can make history feel urgent and alive—but it is also highly susceptible to distortion. The process is intensified by social media, where “fake news,” misleading memes, and emotionally manipulative stories can circulate unchecked.

This process is not new: throughout the colonial period, nationalist, communal, and colonial powers used propaganda to sway opinion. What is new is the speed, scale, and personalization made possible by digital technologies. Deliberate manipulation, whether in textbooks, films, or online campaigns, can reinforce prejudice, stoke fear, and make simplistic explanations seem plausible and inevitable.

How Do People Internalize These Narratives?

Once a narrative takes hold, it can become extremely difficult to challenge or nuance. For example:

• Young people may grow up believing “their” side were only victims, never perpetrators.
• Textbooks that omit or gloss over discrimination against minorities or women normalize a heroic national story at the expense of truth.
• Films that relentlessly focus on the wounds of one community encourage an empathy gap, making it hard to see the other side’s humanity.

Why does this matter? 

When the only stories we hear are those in which “our” pain is central and “their” pain is irrelevant or deserved, we lose the ability to engage critically and compassionately with one of the most important lessons of history: that trauma, exile, and violence create wounds that echo across generations and borders.

The Viceroy Partition Commission (VPC) Committee: Rethinking History in MUN

What is the VPC Committee?

The Viceroy Partition Commission (VPC) is a simulated historical committee featured in Model United Nations (MUN) conferences. It recreates the debates, crises, and decisions leading up to the Partition of India, with students taking on roles like British officials, Congress and Muslim League leaders, regional voices, and minority representatives.

Delegates must research their roles, understand both national politics and local concerns, and negotiate amid clashing interests, limited facts, and rising social pressure. The aim isn’t just to “decide the fate” of the subcontinent, but to engage with the conflicting histories, ideologies, and moral dilemmas that make Partition such a lasting and complex debate.

How Does VPC Encourage Critical Engagement?

Taking part in the VPC committee helps students think deeply and engage with history in meaningful ways:

• Research Beyond the Basics: Delegates go beyond Wikipedia and quick summaries. They explore memoirs, speeches, academic articles, and oral histories, often finding different versions of the same events.
• Argue Thoughtfully and Respectfully: Since each delegate represents a real stakeholder, they must understand not just their own side, but also the views and motivations of others. Strong negotiators know how to respond to criticism, make compromises, and see the human side of their opponents.
• Understand Complexity: Instead of blaming one group, delegates explore how fear, colonial rule, and political ambition all played a role in Partition. It’s about seeing the full picture.
• Connect Past and Present: Issues like borders, refugee rights, property, and citizenship during Partition still matter today. VPC reminds students that history isn’t just about what happened, it helps us think about current challenges too.

By experiencing multiple perspectives, students learn to question simplistic stories and recognize the power and limits of narrative.

Rethinking and Rewriting Narratives

Perhaps most importantly, the VPC committee situates students in the process of “history making”, not as passive recipients, but as active shapers. Delegates debate not only what happened, but why it happened, who gets to tell the story, and what gets remembered or forgotten. In a controlled simulation, students can even change history, testing alternate scenarios and their potential consequences.

This process, when done thoughtfully, can inoculate students against the seductions of propaganda. By appreciating the complexity of choices, the costs of dogma, and the tragedies of misunderstanding, delegates come away more prepared to participate as informed citizens, able to recognize both the power and the peril of simplified historical storytelling.

Beyond Films: Towards More Humanitarian and Balanced Perspectives

While films and textbooks have their limitations, many historians, filmmakers, and writers continue to fight for broader, more humanitarian approaches to Partition. Their work focuses on empathy, the sharing of diverse voices, and a willingness to acknowledge mistakes, complicity, and complexity.

• Feminist and Subaltern Histories show how Partition was not just “political leaders” or “great men,” but also women, Dalits, children, and the poor. Their stories upend the idea of monolithic suffering or blame, demonstrating that every community includes both perpetrators and victims.
• Oral Histories and Testimonial Projects collect memories from survivors across lines of religion, class, and caste, restoring agency to those whose stories are often left out.
• Literature and Documentaries offer nuanced explorations of trauma, memory, and the struggle to rebuild trust. Works such as Toba Tek Singh, Pinjar, and Train to Pakistan are canonical examples.
• Educational Initiatives such as inclusive Model UN committees or literature-based class modules encourage critical thinking, empathy, and an appreciation for the limits of any one story.

Conclusion

Guarding the Truth, Embracing Complexity

Partition is not just history; it is living memory, trauma, and controversy. But the shape it takes in the minds of young people, whether as a tragic lesson, call to empathy, or fuel for fresh division, depends on the stories we choose to tell and the questions we are willing to ask.

Films like The Bengal Files powerfully illustrate the dangers and seductions of one-sided narratives; films like Viceroy’s House and Earth 1947 push towards balance and empathy. Most of all, the challenge for every new generation is to resist letting propaganda “dress up as history” and declare the debate finished.

In the classroom, in Model UN, and in civil society, our goal should not be to “win” the past but to honour it, by understanding its complexity, seeking forgotten voices, and building a future that remembers its lessons. 

That is a debate truth cannot afford to lose.