India's independence: The story of Partition

During the last week, I've been reading a few magazine articles to commemorate the 70th anniversary of India's independence. There's also been a number of documentaries on the BBC featuring British Asian's whose family were directly affected by the events of Partition.

India's independence in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan is one of those stories that I've always been aware of but reading and listening to people's stories made me realise it's a story we don't hear enough about.


Partition isn't simply an event from India's history, it's very much British history as well. Sadly it's a story from the 20th Century which is overlooked. We're constantly reminded of events from the Second World War but the start of Britain's loss of Empire remains unfamiliar to many.

What stands out for me is the loss of life and religous violence that took place in the lead up to independence. Partition created a newly independent Muslim dominated Pakistan while India remained mainly Hindu dominated.

It meant that Hindus and Sikhs who found themselves on the wrong side of the partition line living in what would become Pakistan had to migrate to the new independent India. Meanwhile Muslims living in India made a similar journey in the opposite direction to Pakistan.

During this process millions of people lost their lives as religious sectarian violence escalated. I read really sad interviews with survivors of the violence who are now living in the UK. Despite the years that have passed, many still found it hard to forgive.

One Muslim women interviewed in the Sunday Times found it hard to understand how her grandchildren could be friends with Hindus and Sikhs. There were similar stories from Hindus who could not forgive Muslims.

What I find so shocking is that before independence, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims lived side by side for generations in peace. Then suddenly in the space of a matter of months these same people began murdering each other!

Here in Britain in 2017 we like to think we live in a peaceful, civilised and secure society. Different religious and ethnic groups don't go around killing one another. What's worrying is that none us truly know how close we all are to descending into mass violence and murder should circumstances change.

Britain's role in India's independence story doesn't make great reading. It seems that with the end of the Second World War and the country exhausted and bankrupt, we couldn't wait to get out of India.

In the interwar years of the 1920 and 30s as India's independence movement grew in strength, it seems Britain played a role in encouraging greater religious divisions - the old divide and rule strategy.

There's no doubt that fostering religious difference and tensions helped create the conditions that led to so much violence and suffering. Having created this tension, Britain was quick to let India and Pakistan deal with this violence as Britain brought an end to 300 years of rule in India.

The First World War - A necessary war?

Being a history geek 2014 is a significant year as it marks the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War.

The war started on 28 July 1914 so we still have a few months before the official 100th anniversary but the books and history programmes looking back on the origins of the war have already begun.

This week I watched two programmes on the BBC looking at whether it was right for Britain to enter the war. The first show called the Necessary War was presented by historian and journalist Max Hastings.

He argued as the title suggests, that the First World War was a war Britain had to fight despite the popular view that it was a terrible mistake in which thousands of men lost their lives in a futile war.



On Friday I watched the second show called The Pity of War. The show which included a studio debate was chaired by historian Naill Ferguson.

His argument was that Britain's participation in the war was a terrible mistake which should never have happened.

I've always found the origins of the First World War fascinating. Unlike the Second World War, which in a simplistic sense is viewed as Britain and America good, Hitler and Nazis bad!

The reasons for a World War in 1914 are more complex and difficult to understand. There's more ambiguity as to how and why the war started and who was responsible.

I studied the war during my history degree at university but even now I have to remind myself on the origins and causes of the war. Generally speaking Germany was mainly responsible but all the major European powers had their own reasons for wanting to fight in 1914.

What's good about the anniversary is that we've got a chance to think about and re-evaluate the war. I left university back in the late 90s. There's a lot of things from my studies on the war that I've forgotten.

The First World War is one of the most significant events in World history. For me it brought to an end 19th century Europe, and marks the beginning certainly politically of the 20th century.

I'm in agreement with Max Hastings when he says the First World War was a war Britain had to fight. The popular opinions about the war are too limited.

It's all about the Western Front, thousands of men being killed in trench warfare - led into battle by an incompetent officer class.

However, Britain went to war for the same reason it always went to war, it couldn't sit back and watch the continent be dominated by one country, in this case Germany.

Imperial Germany under the Kaiser might not have been as evil as Nazi Germany but a Germany victory in World War 1 would hardly have been good news for Europe.

Germany in 1914 was an autocratic regime led by the Kaiser, it was militaristic, aggressive with plans to expand its empire and influence. It certainly wasn't a democracy. It's highly unlikely that political freedom would have flourished in a German dominated Europe.

You could argue that the end of the First World War led to the rise of Communism and Fascism so democracy wasn't allowed to take hold in many countries but I still don't believe a Germany victory would have been much better.

Hastings argues that had Britain stayed out of the war, we would most likely have had to fight the Germans at a later date.

I find the first part of the 20th century incredibly interesting and the First World War is hugely significant in terms of its impact when it comes to politics, society, popular culture and the arts.

The Second World War gets more attention and is easier to understand but over the next few months and years we should all hopefully begin to get a better understanding of the importance of the First World War.

12 Years A Slave - A story for everyone

I went to see the film 12 Years A Slave yesterday at the cinema.

I rarely go to the cinema and I know I should go more often, but I felt this was a film I really needed to see now rather than wait.

I wasn't disappointed, it's an uncompromising account of the slave trade and the brutality of how human beings can treat one another.

The film tells the story of Solomon Northup, a free black man and violinist who lived in upstate New York. In 1841 he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Deep South.

11 years, 8 months, and 26 days later he was finally freed. 5 months after his release, he published his book telling his story.

As someone of Afro Caribbean descent the story of slavery is nothing new to me, it's part of who I am. What makes 12 Years A Slave so special is that we rarely see Hollywood films tackle the story of slavery.

Now we have one, directed by a black British director, Steve McQueen with a story told from the perspective of a black protagonist in Solomon Northup.




I've read a few interviews with McQueen where he highlights the lack of films made about slavery compared with the numerous films about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust for all its horrors lasted for 6 years, slavery as an institution lasted 400 years.

Much of the wealth made by Britain, the United States and other Western European powers was built on the back of the slave trade. Slavery isn't just a story for black people whose ancestors were brought to the Americas as slaves. The slave trade is a story for everyone.

I realised this a few years ago, when I read a book called The Sugar Barons.

I wanted to find a book that told my own history of the Caribbean and the slave trade and this book was perfect.

I love history, I have a degree in the subject, but like many black people who have grown up in England I realised it was a story I would need to find out myself.

What was ironic is that I didn't just learn about my own personal history. I learned just as much about Britain and how Britain built its wealth, its naval power and empire through its dominance of the sugar trade in the Caribbean.

This is why the story of slavery is so important for everyone regardless of what colour they are. Slavery explains how the societies we live in today were partly built on the slave trade.

When questioned by the Sunday Times on why film studios have been slow to focus more on slavery. Chiwetel Ejiofor who plays Northup said:

"People have a fear of questioning societies to which they owe their whole system of reality"

He's right. I thought this was a brilliant point. What would Britain and the United States look like today without slavery? We'd all be living in a very different place.

Slavery is an uncomfortable subject for many people to deal with but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tackle it head on.

12 Years A Slave does this and this is why it's such an important film.

I Have a Dream: 50 years on

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech.

It has to be one of the most famous and iconic speeches of modern times and represents one of the key moments of the Civil Rights movement during the 1950s and 60s.




One theory on why the speech has had such a lasting impact is that it made a difference, it helped change things. It contributed to the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Nobody remembers great speeches that make no difference or have no lasting effect.

Like many people, I've been wondering this week how close America has come in the last 50 years to realising Dr King's dream.

Is America are more racially tolerant and equal society? Are people judged in Dr King's words by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin?

Clearly America has come a long way since 1963. Could there be any more obvious example then Barack Obama, the first black President?

Along with the President, African Americans occupy positions of power and influence in areas like politics, business, media, entertainment and sport that were unimaginable 50 years ago.

As a black person growing up and living in the UK, America has always been an inspiration in terms of what black people can achieve in so many different areas of society.

The problem I see is that although America may offer more opportunities individually for African Americans, it's hard to argue that collectively African Americans are in a better position now than 50 years ago.

When it comes to jobs, housing, education, health, and the criminal justice system, African Americans experience greater levels of inequality and disadvantage than white Americans.

I can't help but think that America is still an institutionally racist country; where being black means your life chances and opportunities are not equal to whites.

This is why Dr King's dream hasn't been realised and will continue to act as a reminder that the Civil Rights struggle is ongoing and has much to achieve.

9/11 Ten Years On

If there's been a bigger news story than 9/11 in my life time I certainly don't know what it is.

Even now 10 years on, watching the footage of the Twin Towers collapsing still makes me think 'Did this really happen?' I'm still fascinated and shocked by the whole event.

As part of the generation that grew up towards the end of the Cold War, I imagined the world would be a safer place after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

9/11 made me realise this wasn't the case. You knew where you stood during the Cold War days. Suddenly there was a new danger out there, a new enemy which we knew little about and was totally different to anything we'd seen before.

If you want to know where I was on 9/11 I was temping at the London School of Economics. Apart from remembering how boring the job was, 9/11 was the one thing that stood out from my time there.

After getting home and watching the news coverage that night, I remember going to work the next day thinking 'What's going on the in the world?'

I imagined it might have been like this during the Second World War. That sense of danger, knowing that you were at war with an enemy that hated you and could attack at any time. Looking back it was scary stuff.

A couple of days later I went into a book shop at the college and bought a book called The Islamic Threat - Myth or Reality?

The book asked the question whether Islam and the West were on some sort of collision course and if so why. Clearly after 9/11 they'd already collided, but I wanted to understand why this had happened.

I had this intense desire to try and make sense of it all. I wanted to understand why some Muslims in the world hated America and the West so much they were prepared to fly planes into skycrapers and kill thousands of innocent people.

So on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 is the world a safer place? Has America and the West understood the causes of Islamic extremists?

It's debatable. A few months after 9/11 US forces invaded Afghanistan to take on the Taliban. 10 years later they're still there and we still don't know what victory will look like or if it will ever happen.

US and NATO Forces were meant to crush the Al Qaeda supporting Taliban regime and bring about democracy. The Taliban may not be in power but they're still part of Afghan society, whilst democracy is still struggling to survive.

As for Iraq, this has been an even bigger disaster. Despite no evidence linking Saddam Hussien to 9/11 or Islamic terrorism. It still presented the perfect opportunity for 'regime change' for the likes of former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration.

It's all very well having 'regime change' but what about after the change of regime? What happens next? Not much thought was given to that.

Earlier this year we saw the killing of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden who'd been in hiding in Pakistan. I suppose this brought some form of closure for many Americans, but Bin Laden's death was more a symbolic event. Al Qaeda aren't the danger they were, despite America telling us of their continued threat.

If the truth be known, for most of us living in the West our lives are pretty peaceful. 9/11 was a spectacular one off - a one off that changed the course of history, but still something unimaginable.

We have become more aware of extremist Muslim views around the world even in the UK, but much of their hatred and anger against the West has no real logic or objective. They're just anti the West because they hate the West. They have no political goals or objectives to offer ordinary Muslims.

We've seen with the recent 'Arab Spring' uprisings in the Middle East that many Muslims aren't looking for radical Islam to change their lives, they want modern Western ideals and values like democracy, political freedom and prosperity. Extremism can't give them these things.

Looking back, if 9/11 changed anything then it's changed the way the world sees America.

We're seeing the decline of the world's only Super Power. In years to come we'll see 9/11 as very much part of America's decline as a major power.

Never before had we seen the US attacked on its own soil. It reacted by starting two foreign wars with limited success, and which as a result only added to the huge financial and economic difficulties the country is currently experiencing.

9/11 showed that America could be vulnerable like anyone else, and despite it's economic and military power it's been unable to truly defeat the causes of those terrorist attacks.

City Break in Boston

I spent most of last week on a four day city break in Boston. I flew out on Monday and returned late Thursday evening.

I liked Boston, but it wasn't quite what I expected.

It's a decent sized place but it doesn't have that big city buzz that I associate with other American cities I've been to like New York or Chicago.

View of Boston Common

It's got a really chilled out vibe to it, with a pace of life that's more quiet provincial town than bustling big city; but it's a cool place to hang out for a few days.

The city itself isn't too big and isn't overwhelming in the way London or New York can appear for some people.

You can cover most of the city in a couple hours of walking. In saying that, I found the central downtown district really difficult to navigate.

Boston doesn't have a grid system to it's roads which makes it more English in that respect.

I frequently found myself in Central Boston struggling to figure out where the hell I was.

Maybe I should re-phrase that. I knew where I was, and knew where I wanted to go.

It would literally take a five minute walk, I just had no idea how to get there! It was so frustrating.

The thing about Boston is there's no iconic skyscrapers or other landmarks you can use as reference points to pinpoint exactly where you are.

Massachusetts State House above

One thing that did disappoint me about Boston was the shopping. It was rubbish. You've got some very high-end fashion boutiques, and the lower end of the fashion market is covered, but hardly anything inbetween.

A scruffy looking Maceys, an American Apparel, Banana Republic, Abercrombie & Fitch and that was about it, I found it all very annoying.

To be honest there's not a huge amount to see or do in Boston. I think 3 or 4 days is more than enough, but from what I've heard it's a good base in which to explore the rest of New England.

Boston's just got a nice feel to it, it's one of those cities where it's just nice to hang out for a few days.

My two main highlights would be:

Beacon Hill

I loved walking the streets of Beacon Hill. This Victorian era neighbourhood is the jewel in the crown of the city.

The streets of Beacon Hill

It's got more of an English/European feel about it. Cobbled streets and roads lined with old style Victorian gas lanterns and beautiful terraced houses.

Victorian terraces













The Village feel of Beacon Hill













Harvard, Cambridge

On Wednesday I took a trip to Cambridge. Cambridge is a town in its own right, but essentially it's a suburb of Boston, just a short ride away on the subway.

Cambridge is dominated by Harvard university, the oldest university in America.

The grounds of Harvard

As I entered the grounds of the university, I noticed a small tour group lead by two students explaining the history of some of the buildings.



I decided to tag along, and one of the tour guides approached me and explained that they take tourists on a guided tour of the university grounds and the town of Cambridge pointing out areas of interest.

It was an enjoyable tour, and the guides were funny and informative, pointing out different Harvard buildings such as lecture halls, student dormitories and churches.




No trip to Boston is complete without a visit to Cambridge, it's a lovely little town with some great pubs, restaurants and loads of history.













Student Halls below

Kingdom of Ife - Sculptures from West Africa

Last Wednesday I took myself down to the British Museum to have a look at a brilliant exhibition on West African Art from the Medieval kingdom of Ife.

The collection presents examples of life size sculptures from Ife in copper, brass, terracotta and stone. But more than that, the exhibition presents African history and African art in a completely different light, that gives you a glimpse into a highly cultured and sophisticated society that flourished 750 years ago.

I'd never heard of Ife before I read about the exhibition a few weeks ago. Ife was a city state which would now be found in modern Nigeria. It first emerged around AD800 and flourished between the 12th and 15th Centuries.

The art from the city was only discovered by the West in 1910, when a German archaeologist Leo Fronbenius spent three weeks in the region collecting objects. Not unsurprisingly, when many of these artefacts were taken back to Europe, nobody could possibly believe that Africans were responsible for creating such sophisticated and beautiful works of art.

Archaeologists first claimed the sculptures must have been the result of some lost tribe of Greeks! A pretty far fetched assumption when you look at the distance between Greece and West Africa. You only have to look at the features on the figures to see that they are quite clearly African and not European.

What I loved about the exhibition is that Africa is so often portrayed in a negative light in the West, but here you have an exhibition of art from the continent, that's on a par with anything produced by the Greeks and Romans.

The exhibition also reminded me how much of World history I know absolutely nothing about. I'm a bit of a history geek, and have a history degree, so I like to think I know a bit about most major historical periods. But I was reminded of how Euro centric my knowledge is. This is hardly surprising as I have grown up in the West.

Most the artifacts on display at the British Museum are dated between the 12th and 15th centuries

Now if you asked me about major periods in British Medieval history during this same period, I would immediately think about dates like 1066, the Norman Conquest, and William the Conqueror. The Crusades, figures like Richard the Lionheart, the signing of the Magna Carta etc.

Ask me what was happening in Africa during the same period and it's a complete blank to me? This exhibition on Ife tells you that loads of stuff was going on in Africa. Great cultures and civilisations existed, with their own histories, religions, politics and arts. Much of which was way in advance of anything that was taking place in Europe at the same time.

We get a distorted view of African history in the West. Sometimes it's as if Africa doesn't have a history, or the one that does exist begins with Europeans discovering Africa in the 14th and 15th Centuries and exporting slaves to the New World; then later on in the 19th Century, colonising different regions as part of European Imperialism.

Ife was just one small city state, so it makes me wonder how many other 'Ifes' have existed in Africa over the centuries that we in the West know nothing about?

I remember at university, we looked at the philosophical side of history. What is history? What's its purpose?

Much of what we call history is in fact a selection process. Historians and societies make choices on what facts and events should be recorded and passed down to future generations. If you think of history as a selection process it means that there are plenty of events and facts that aren't selected and aren't considered 'history' that we no nothing about.

Much of Africa's history is unknown to those of us in the West, but it doesn't mean to say that no history exists, or nothing happened until Europeans arrived. This exhibition on the Kingdom of Ife clearly shows and reminds you of this.

The exhibition started at the beginning of March and runs until 6 June 2010. I'd definitely recommend checking it out if you get the chance.

20 years since Nelson Mandela's release.

Last Thursday marked the 20th anniversary of the release of Nelson Mandela after 27 years of imprisonment. For me it's another one of those 'I can't believe it was really that long ago' moments!

It only seems like yesterday. A cliche I know, but it's true. Watching the news reports from 1990, it still feels incredibly monumental and inspiring. I'd almost forgotten how historic this moment really was. It was as if the time had finally arrived for black South Africans!

Even from a very early age I was always aware of the political system of apartheid in South Africa. Watching the news during the 1980s, whenever a report from South Africa was on it always seemed to consist of the white government declaring a State of Emergency, and clips of black people protesting and rioting in the streets whilst being beaten back by South Africa's security forces.

Politicians and other African leaders were always arguing over the merits of economic sanctions against South Africa. In this country, the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously opposed the introduction of sanctions. Finally there was the constant talk of this figurehead and leader of the ANC in prison who you never saw called Nelson Mandela.

The South African government had banned any images of Mandela being shown, he was considered too dangerous. All that existed was an old black and white tv interview with him from the early 1960s before he went to prison. When Mandela was finally released part of me just wanted to see who he was, and what he looked like after all these years.

When I look back over the last 20 years, I think that Mandela's greatest achievement was preventing South Africa turning into a blood bath following the end of white minority rule. There was a very real prospect of civil war breaking out in the country which thankfully never happened.

After years of his own personal imprisonment and the decades of oppression and humiliation experienced by the black population, it would have been so easy and natural for a sense of anger, bitterness and revenge to take over, but Mandela didn't allow this to happen. You can't really underestimated this.

You can see an example of this with the recently released film Invicitus about the story of South Africa's Rugby World Cup win in 1995.

Despite the fact that the South African 'Springbok' team were despised by the black majority and seen as a symbol of the apartheid regime, Mandela still embraced them, showing whites that he wasn't their enemy and blacks that they could learn to forgive.

Of course with Mandela's release and the end of apartheid there's another side to the story which needs to be mentioned, it goes something like this.

There were two main reasons for his release and the end of apartheid. The first is purely economic. During the 1960s South Africa had one of the fastest growing economies in the world, but as time passed the economic demands of the capitalist system made the realities of a racially segregated society almost unworkable.

How could a country continue to develop a successful economy when its racial policies meant that the majority of its population were treated as third class citizens and denied the opportunity to seriously contribute to the country's economic growth?

The second reason is the collapse of the Berlin Wall. During the era of the Cold War, South Africa had played an important strategic role as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in Southern Africa. Once the Wall collapsed in 1989 and the threat of Communism disappeared, South Africa's strategic role diminished.

You can't overlook these facts, but it can give a false impression that apartheid in South Africa would have inevitably collapsed! It might feel that way now, but it wasn't the case when I was growing up.

By focusing on those two issues it almost over looks all the years of protest, demonstrations, and sacrifices carried out by both black and white people in South Africa and around the world against apartheid! Their protests constantly reminded the world that this was a regime that was seen to be morally unacceptable!

In the UK and the rest of the world, Mandela is the nearest thing we have to a living saint, sometimes almost embarrassingly so. When it comes to politics and politicians, we live in very cynical times. Nobody can be so inspirational, so loved, and respected. But I can't think of a world leader in the last 30 years who's inspired so much respect.

In saying this, it's easily forgotten that before his release he was the enemy of the state and a terrorist for many whites in South Africa.

Reading this week in the Guardian about Mandela's legacy, there were a number of comments from South Africans on Mandela's impact. One white Afrikaner was quoted saying:

"We felt like we were all watching the end of South Africa. There was a lot of fear because in those days Mandela was the enemy. For a lot of the white people in South Africa they were looking at the snake himself. "...I have a comfortable life, but it was much easier during apartheid.....When your kids leave school now they can't get jobs because they go to the blacks."

It's hard, if not impossible to feel any sympathy for such views, but even though it makes me quite angry to read such comments I wanted to include it in this blog, as it reminds me that people like that were wrong and still are wrong.

20 years after his release, South Africa is changing for the better, but there's still a significant amount of problems for the country to overcome. After the years of apartheid there was never going to be a quick fix in overturning decades of inequality. It will probably take another generation before some of these inequalities level themselves out.

What South Africa does have is the inspirational figure of Mandela to remind its citizens of its overall goal of achieving a racially tolerant and equal society.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall

Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall collapsed bringing an end to the Cold War. I can't believe it's Twenty years as it only seems like yesterday. It's obviously another sign of how old I'm getting; but looking back it was one of the most significant political events of my lifetime.

It's a bit of a cliche, but the Berlin Wall really was the biggest symbol of the ‘Iron Curtain’ and the division between the old Communist East and the Capitalist West.

Growing up in the 80s I thought there would always be this divide in the world. Before the rise of Islamic terrorism, the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries of Eastern Europe were the international 'bad guys', the enemy that was the biggest threat to our way of life.

This is why when the Wall fell, it felt like such an historic and revolutionary moment. For years I'd seen images and read about people who had risked their lives trying to escape across the Wall to the West for a better life.

In 1989 everything suddenly changed and it was all so quick! After growing protests and opposition to the East German government, people were suddenly dancing on top of the Wall, smashing it to pieces and celebrating their freedom.

At the time I remember thinking the world would be a much safer place from now on if our former enemies were now collapsing and embracing our political ideals.

Clearly this wasn't the case. The collapse of Communism ended up creating more new challenges and dangers with the effects still being felt today.

Having studied history at university, and particularly the rise of the Cold War, it seems that in the West we may have overrated the threat that the Soviets actually posed.

The regimes of the old Eastern bloc were not as strong as we might have imagined, and one by one the governments of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany all collapsed like dominoes!

In 1995 I spent a day in Berlin whilst inter-railing across Europe. It was amazing to be standing outside the Brandenburg Gate, to be beyond the 'Iron Curtain' and so soon after the Wall fell. I promised myself I would visit the city again to see how the city would develop after unification.

I haven't managed it yet, but I will make it back there someday.