logo
Shattered Lands by Sam Dalrymple review – the many partitions of southern Asia

Shattered Lands by Sam Dalrymple review – the many partitions of southern Asia

The Guardian01-07-2025
Earlier this summer, amid renewed tensions between India and Pakistan following a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, Donald Trump remarked that the two countries had been fighting over Kashmir for 'a thousand years'. It was a glib, ahistorical comment, and was widely ridiculed. Shattered Lands, Sam Dalrymple's urgent and ambitious debut, offers a more comprehensive rebuttal. Far from being a region riven by ancient hatreds, the lands that comprise modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar – as well as parts of the Gulf – were divided up within living memory from an empire in retreat.
'You can't actually see the Great Wall of China from space,' Dalrymple begins, 'but the border wall dividing India from Pakistan is unmistakable.' Stretching more than 3,000km and flanked by floodlights, thermal vision sensors and landmines, this is more a physical scar left by the hurried dismantling of British India than a traditional geopolitical divide. What might now seem like natural frontiers were shaped by five key events: Burma's exit from the empire in 1937; the separation of Aden that same year, and of the Gulf protectorates in 1947; the division of India and Pakistan, also in 1947; the absorption of more than 550 princely states; and, in 1971, the secession of East Pakistan. Neither ancient nor inevitable, these lines were hastily drawn in committee rooms, colonial offices and war cabinets.
What makes Shattered Lands remarkable is not just the breadth of its archival reach or the linguistic range of its interviews (from Bengali to Burmese, Urdu to Konyak), but the way it reframes south Asia's history through the lens of disintegration.
The son of acclaimed historian William Dalrymple, Sam nevertheless writes with a distinct sensibility. His work is shaped by a generational awareness of fractured identities, contested borders and the violence of nation-making. Where the elder Dalrymple has often chronicled the grandeur and decline of empires, the younger is more interested in how they splinter.
And so, rather than treat the 1947 Partition as the singular rupture, Shattered Lands shows it to be one of many. The imperial map frayed gradually, and each unravelling left its own legacy of dispossession, nationalism and insurgency.
Take Burma (now Mynamar), whose reconstitution as a crown colony in 1937 represented the first major partition of the Raj. Dismissed by many Indian elites as peripheral, Burma's separation was both strategic and symbolic. Gandhi, often invoked as a unifier, was among its supporters. 'I have no doubt in my mind that Burma cannot form part of India under swaraj [self rule],' he once wrote, aligning with the view of many Indian leaders who viewed India as Bharat, the sacred geography referred to in the epic Mahabharata, which excluded Burma and Arabia. Speaking to Rangoon's Gujarati community, Gandhi told them they were 'guests in a foreign country' despite many Burmese seeing themselves as Indian.
That same year, as Burma and Aden were severed from the Indian Empire, the Congress party adopted Vande Mataram as India's national song. In equating the nation with the Hindu goddess Durga, it alienated Muslims such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who increasingly saw Congress as a vehicle for Hindu majoritarianism. The ideological groundwork for the creation of Pakistan was already being laid.
Among the most poignant moments in the book is a brief account of a Bible salesman from the Naga hills who volunteers to fight in the second world war. The Nagas are ethnically Tibeto-Burman peoples native to the borderlands of north-east India and north-west Myanmar, with distinct cultural traditions and a strong sense of nationhood that long predates these modern states. When asked if he is Indian or Burmese, the man replies, 'I am a Naga first, a Naga second, and a Naga last.' The British system, designed to sort subjects into clear administrative categories, had no space for an affiliation that transcended colonial borders, and he was turned away.
If there's a critique to be made, it's that Dalrymple's account remains largely anchored to the great men of history: viceroys, premiers, politicians, princely elites. While there are flickers of grassroots perspective – such as the Naga would-be soldier and Rohingya families from the borderlands – they often play a supporting role in a narrative shaped by those drawing the maps. Yet perhaps that is the point: these were top-down decisions, made in grand offices, whose human cost has still not fully been reckoned with.
More significantly, Shattered Lands speaks powerfully to our present moment. At a time of widespread historical amnesia – when revisionist governments across south Asia are remaking textbooks and erasing inconvenient truths – this book reminds us how recent, contested and fragile these dividing lines are.
The prose is vivid, the storytelling cinematic, and Dalrymple draws together forgotten archives from Aden to Assam. Above all, there is a refusal to mythologise, and instead a clear-eyed history that lays bare the possibilities foreclosed by the region's fragmentation.
Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia by Sam Dalrymple is published by William Collins (£25). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it

The Guardian

time18 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it

Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre

Smithsonian removes references to Trump impeachments at history exhibit
Smithsonian removes references to Trump impeachments at history exhibit

The Guardian

time43 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Smithsonian removes references to Trump impeachments at history exhibit

The Smithsonian Institution has scrubbed all mention of Donald Trump's impeachments from a prominent display at the National Museum of American History, temporarily eliminating any acknowledgment of the president's unique status as the only US leader the House impeached twice. The alterations to the presidential power exhibit, first reported by the Washington Post, occurred in July, with museum officials replacing contemporary signage with an older version that excludes Trump's impeachment proceedings entirely. Visitors now see only a generic reference to three presidents facing potential removal from office. Museum representatives confirmed the changes followed an institutional review of exhibition content. 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,' a Smithsonian spokesperson told the Guardian. 'Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.' The spokesperson pledged that 'a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,' though they provided no specific timeline for implementation. The move comes as Trump has waged a systematic campaign to reshape federal cultural agencies since returning to power, and issued directives aimed at purging what he categorizes as diversity initiatives and halting new federal appointments. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order directing the elimination of 'anti-American ideology' across Smithsonian museums and promising to 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness'. The order specifically targets several Smithsonian facilities for ideological review, including the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Trump faced impeachment charges twice during his first presidency – initially over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate political rivals, then later for his role in the 6 January 2021 Capitol attack. The Senate cleared him on both occasions. That historic distinction has now vanished from the nation's premier history museum, while displays covering Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon's impeachment cases remain untouched. The spokesperson explained that temporary materials addressing Trump's impeachments had been installed in September 2021 as 'a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025'. The Smithsonian operates as a congressional trust with an annual budget exceeding $1bn and attracts millions of visitors annually to its network of museums, making it a key cultural touchstone for public education about American history.

Scots schools must continue to invest in libraries to protect children's futures
Scots schools must continue to invest in libraries to protect children's futures

Daily Record

timean hour ago

  • Daily Record

Scots schools must continue to invest in libraries to protect children's futures

Glasgow City Council is considering removing librarians from 30 schools, but Record View demands that they think again. School libraries play a crucial role in expanding the minds of pupils. ‌ Not every child grows up in a house with books. For some youngsters, a school library is where they discover a lifelong appreciation of books. ‌ So it's deeply concerning that Glasgow City Council is considering removing the position of librarian from its 30 secondary schools. ‌ While there are no plans to close the libraries, the loss of such experienced professionals would be devastating. In these financially straitened times, all local authorities must make difficult decisions to balance their books. But it seems perverse that cutting cash from the school libraries budget would even be considered in the first place. ‌ Councils are being forced into these choices by a council tax freeze that has devastated local services. The freeze was brought in by the SNP to try to tackle soaring household bills. This was considered a vote winner by successive first ministers and enjoyed widespread support. ‌ Now the freeze has been lifted and bills have gone up again but the damage done to local services is still being felt. But before councils resort to measures like removing librarians from our high schools, they must think of the impact on young people. This generation of high school pupils has already lost years of schooling through the Covid lockdowns. ‌ They deserve to have their services protected – especially those which help them expand their horizons. Libraries can play as crucial a role for kids as classrooms. They deserve investment – not cutbacks. The city council must think again and keep its librarians. ‌ He's Don a U-turn Stock markets around the world slumped again as US President Donald Trump announced new tariffs on more than 90 countries. Trump is touting tariffs as the answer to trade deficits with other nations – but clearly the move will slow the global economy and devastate jobs. During his visit to Scotland last weekend, it appeared that Trump was on a more reasonable course. ‌ It may have been the sea air at Turnberry and Aberdeenshire that made him mellow, as he appeared to open a window of opportunity to get a deal done on whisky tariffs. But now he's back on the warpath and using the threat of tariffs to get his own way with countries that should be allies. It's typical of this erratic, unpredictable figure that he would say one thing one week, and something different the next. The world will be much safer and more prosperous place when his time in office finally ends.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store