CHAPTER – II

“PARTITION” BY W.H. AUDEN

Introduction of the Poet -

Wysten Hugh Auden, the English-born American poet, is one of the significant figure in the 20th

century. He was born in York, England in 2nd February, 1907. He was the youngest son of George

Augustus Auden and Constance Rosalie Auden. His father was a renowned physician of broad

scientific interests and his mother was a trained missionary nurse. The aura that Auden was

surrounded by, was rather scientific than literary. Auden’s both grandfathers were clergymen,

which had a huge impact on their family, thus he grew up to be a devotee of Anglicanism. His love

for language and music had religious origin from the church services of his childhood. His first

religious memories were of “exciting magical rites.” It was ironic in the part of his family to have

faith in religion and at the same time be an advocate of science.

At the age of eight, he attended St. Edmund’s School in Surrey. At the age of thirteen, he went to

Gresham’s School in Holt, Norfolk. By 1922, he realised his callings as a poet, when his friend

Robert Medley asked him if he wrote poetry. In 1925, he went up to Christ Church College,

University of Oxford, where he met Cecil Day Lewis, Louis MacNeice, and Stephen Spender, and

together they were called as “Auden’s Group”, where Auden became the core of the group

articulating their socialist standpoints.

After graduating from Oxford in 1928, Auden left Britain and went to Berlin where he first

experienced the political and economic unrest. On returning to Britain in 1929, he worked briefly

as a tutor. He taught at British preparatory schools from 1930 to 1935. In 1935, he married Erica

Mann just to save her from being stripped off from her German citizenship by the Nazis. Mann

lived in good terms with Auden throughout her life and they were still married when Mann died

in 1969.

Auden moved to United States of America in 1939 and was granted citizenship in 1946. He taught

at many American Universities. From 1956 to 1961, Auden was the Professor of Poetry at Oxford

University. He died at the age of 66, due to heart failure on 29th September, 1973 at Vienna,

Austria.

Auden was very well known for his achievements in his works for the involvement of diverse

themes such as, politics, morals, love and religion, in a variety of tones, forms and contents. In the

early, period of his career Auden’s Poems established his reputation in 1930. Many critics believe

that his poems were focused on influences of various doctrines like Marxism, Freudian

Psychoanalysis, Existential philosophy and his own Christian beliefs. By going through his works,

we can observe that he reached to greater insights of human psychology, to the depths of the evils

of society as well as the flaw in the morals of people living in it.

In the middle phase of Auden’s poetic career, he introduced many brilliant pieces of literary works,

such as, Look Stranger (1936), Another Time (1940), Journey to a War (1938). His works during

this time period had an intensity and imposing force due to rise of fascism, the prosecution of Jews

and the fear for another World War.

In January 1939, when Auden migrated to United States of America, he published New Year Letter

(1941), For the Being Christian Oratorio (1945), The Age of Anxiety (1948), etc, which shows his

strong religious views, his faith on God and his commitment to Christianity. The Age of Anxiety :

A Baroque Eclogue (1947) won Auden the Pulitzer Prize in 1948.

In the last phase of his life, Auden spent most of his time in Europe. Each year he would leave

New York City from April to October. The Shield of Achilles (1955), Homage of Cleo (1960), City

Without Walls (1969) are some of his works during this period.

Auden’s concern about the social, political and religious issues of his time is unsurprisingly found

in his works, due to him having witnessed both the devastating World Wars, i.e. World War I

(1914 to 1918) and World War II (1939 to 1945). He volunteered as a fighter and an ambulance

driver in the Spanish Civil War (1936 to 1939), where he witnessed deaths, destruction, sufferings

and mass execution of clergymen. It was the effects of the brutality of the war that caused him to

feel for the victims of the war.

Auden’s The Age of Anxiety : A Baroque Ecologue (1947), which had won him the Pulitzer Prize,

expresses the horror and monstrosity of the World War II. It is filled with themes of identity crisis

and the disoriented state of man under the threat of bombing. The consequences of a war and the

tragic outcomes witnessed by Auden made him vulnerable to the issues of violence, hostility,

trauma and human sufferings.

Analysis of the Poem –

The poem “Partition” is written by W.H.Auden in the year 1966 and was published in the year

1969 in his book “City Without Walls.” This poem talks about the partition of Indian subcontinent

by the British colonizers in 1947 to two different nations, i.e. India, where lived the Hindu majority

and Pakistan, where lived the Muslim majority, and their poorly planned implementation of the

separation.

Auden never visited India and was not familiar with the lifestyle, psychology and outlooks of the

Indians. But he very well recognised the pain, struggle and sorrow that the Indians experienced

after partition. The post-partition riots, bloodshed, rapes, manslaughter evoked his wounded

psychological state which made him point fingers at the colonial masters, at their terrible decision

and at the improperly planned division of the Indian subcontinent. The poem “Partition” is a satire

on the indifference and callousness of the colonizers towards the colonised.

“Partition” gives a closer and more clearer picture of how and by whom partition was done. The

poem reflects the socio political situation of India back in 1947. It portrays the motives of the

Britishers as well as the politicians who helped them to divide the Indian subcontinent and seize

the power to rule over the people from the Britishers to themselves. The naïve inhabitants where

mere puppets for their political propaganda. They were only the spare parts who helped the leaders

to climb the ladder and sit on the throne. They did not just drew lines on the land, they drew lines

on the hearts of people, who started to look at each other with hatred and suspicion.

Auden starts the poem with, “Unbiased at least he was when he arrived at his mission”, the ‘he’

here is Cyril John Radcliffe, a barrister, who was sent to India on a mission to draw borders for

the division of Indian subcontinent. He was given only a time period of five weeks to finish the

task and return to London . When one is ‘unbiased’, it is referred to as a positive trait where one
is free from any prejudices. But in the context of Radcliffe’s arrival to India, ‘unbiased’ refers to

his ignorance about India. Before Radcliffe’s appointment he had never visited India. He never

had the knowledge about the people of India as to how they lived, where they lived, what they

thought, what language they spoke. He had “…never set eyes on this land”, it describes that he

had no understanding about anything when he came to India. But to the Britishers and the

politicians of India it appeared to be a fair decision as Radcliffe would provide an ‘unbiased’

judgement which would maintain the neutrality of the situation. But no one understood that India

was not just a piece of land, it was all about its people.

The “two people” in the first stanza refers to the two religion, i.e. the Hindus and the Muslims.

These people who differentiated themselves based on religious identities were “fanatically” against

each other. They were extremely intolerant towards each other’s beliefs and views. They had

“different diets” and “incompatible gods.” In every religion, we are made to believe that there is

only one God. But in India, the Muslims and Hindus stand against each other thinking that their

gods are different and they are incapable of coexisting. The food they eat are also based on religion.

The people have both religious and dietary contradictions. But these differences were not present

inherently in India. Once upon a time the people of India sat together, ate together, and stayed

together. They fought together against the Britishers in 1857, which is popularly known as the

Great Indian Rebellion of 1857, or the Revolt of 1857, or the First War of Independence. They

plotted this rebellion to make the Britishers leave India. Unfortunately, their mission failed because

the Britishers successfully held them under control towards the end of 1858. In the Revolt of 1857,

the unity between the Hindus, Muslims and other religion terrified the British Raj. They realised

that their dominance could only prevail when they could challenge the unity between the Indians.

They imposed the Divide and Rule policy on the religious lines to make one religion hostile
towards the other. They accomplished their motive and made the Hindus and Muslims stand

against each other. The concept of “different diets” and incompatible chords but intentionally

placed into the minds of the Indians.

Radcliffe was ordered to complete his task of dividing the nation in a “short” period of time

because the “Time” was limited. He was only given five weeks to draw the borders. He was

instructed not to try to have any rational discussion with the people in an attempt to pacify and

reunite them. They were the representatives who demanded separate nations. Even after all the

contradictions and oppositions that the people of both the religion had against each other, a huge

mass of people did not want the partition. They were never asked if they wanted complete

separation from the other religion. It was only the politically motivated goals and aims of the

representatives that made the partition possible and the Britishers played along.

When the Britishers came to India, they considered the Indians as uncivilised, uncouth and

illiterate beings, who were incapable of making any decisions. For the so-called inability of

Indians, they took it as their responsibility to divide India before they left.

Auden wrote this poem in 1966, after partition, so he had seen the consequences of Partition and

held the Britishers responsible for whatever has happened in India. By saying “..never set eyes”

about Radcliffe, who did not know anything about the people of India, Auden is trying to state the

inhuman and lack of sympathetic attitude of the colonizers towards the colonised. Thus, they

informed Radcliffe that separation was the “only solution.”

The Viceroy of India during that period of time was Lord Mountbatten. He wrote a letter to

Radcliffe that he did not want Radcliffe to be seen with him just to ensure impartiality of the

situation. He did not want people to think that he had any influence on Radcliffe’s decision on
drawing the borders. And for that purpose, he had made other arrangements. The

“accommodations” that Radcliffe was supplied with were four judges, “two Moslem and two

Hindu”, to consult with. The provision of the two Hindus and the two Muslims and considering

them as “judges” is ironic. Judges do not give consultations, they proclaim the decisions. But for

the settlement of a matter which had such great importance, the ‘judges’ were only present to give

their consultations. Radcliff was also warned that the ‘judges’ could only give them their views

but they should not cloud his judgement. The final decision lies on is hands. The implication behind

such statements may have been the separation must happen and that he should do the separation.

Once set his foot on the land of India, Radcliffe was “shut” in the “lonely” mansion, with no one

around. Except for the police guarding him 24 hours, no one was allowed to mention where

Radcliffe lived. There must be a reason for the “patrolling” of police in the place where Radcliffe

lived. The high security system to protect Radcliffe and prevent the “assassins” from attacking him

itself implies that not every Indian wanted partition to take place. They were ready to attack and

kill Radcliffe than to allow him to make the decision of drawing the borders.

Radcliffe was scared that if he stayed in India without any police protection, he would be attacked

by the civilians. He had the constant fear of being assaulted by the people. So, to ensure the safety

of Radcliffe, the British government provided him with a powerful security system. Radcliffe

might have considered this behaviour of Indians to be uncouth due to the information that he had

been supplied before coming to India but what he did not understand during that time was that all

Indians did not want partition.

With the terror of being assassinated, he sat down to work, so that he can complete the task and

return to England as soon as possible. The decision that lied on his hands were heavy and carried
huge weightage. It had the potential to determine the “fate” of millions of Indians. Radcliffe was

supplied with maps that were outdated and the “Census Returns” were incorrect. Auden criticises

the improper planning and inadequate data that were provided to Radcliffe to decide the frontiers

of the two nations. Inaccurate and incorrect information provided by the government along with

the specification of the time being “short”, could be considered intentional on the part of the

Britishers.

Radcliffe did not have had the time to think about the wrong information that he was supplied with

because he was told that the “two people” were constantly fighting and the “only solution” was to

separate them. Although he was unbiased, he came to India with his own prejudices that the

Britishers had inflicted into his mind beforehand. He was told that the Hindus and Muslims cannot

live together harmoniously and that Indians were incapable of understanding to whatever was said

to them. They acknowledge no reason and to provide them with one is also worthless. So, under

such tremendous pressure, the man was working, who was assigned to decide the “fate ”of millions

of people. The Britishers oversimplified the whole situation of India to Radcliffe. It was so simple

for them to call a lawyer, to draw the Line of Control and decide the future of people of India .

The weather in Britain is different from that of India. India’s weather is warmer in comparison to

that of Britain which has cooler climatic conditions. But Auden has over exaggerated it to be

“frightfully” hot. Radcliffe fell sick and he had dysentery. But even with such serious health

conditions, the Partition was done in not more than seven weeks. This proves that the Britishers

were in much hurry to finish the task and leave india without having the least bit of concern about

the Indian land, where they stayed for about two hundred years. They left Indians to deal with their

own problems. And the problems were not mere quarrels, they were violent riots, massacres, rapes,
abductions, slaughter. The responsibility that they themselves volunteered to take up and separate

the “two people”, cost such barbarity.

In the third stanza, Auden mentions that, the very next day of which the borders were decided,

Radcliffe sailed back to England. Like every other “good lawyer”, he forgot about the case. India

was just another “case” to him. For him, everything went back to normal. Once he reached

England, it was as if nothing has ever happened. But the fear in his mind remained intact. He never

visited India the next time because he had the realisation that if he would ever come back, he might

get murdered.

Auden has brilliantly addressed the political backdrop that made the Partition possible. Had

Radcliffe been given ample space, a good supply of time, allowed to inspect the “Contested areas”,

take a note of what everyone wants, investigated the pros and cons of the situation, he might not

have ended separating India. But this assumption can also be considered doubtful because he was

after all the man of the British government. In spite of all the correct information and

considerations, he might not have taken the decision in favour of the Indians. Maybe he would

have still taken the decision that he took.

In the poem, Auden informs us about how faulty and poorly-planned the judgment was. The poem

has highlighted that, then, it was in the hands of red Cliff that the fate of people relied and today,

in the present times, the legacy is still carried on. The fate of common people still lies on the hands

of the politicians. The freedom which we achieved is a facade. It was just the transfer of power

from the Britishers, who were foreigners, to the grasp of the native representatives.

Auden witnessed the ruthlessness and brutality after partition and wrote this poem to bring forth

his objective notion about the politics that lurks behind the false light that we are provided.