Decolonising Partition Memory: Subaltern Narratives in Basti and The Night Diary

Home » Decolonising Partition Memory: Subaltern Narratives in Basti and The Night Diary

 

Decolonising Partition Memory: Subaltern Narratives in Basti and The Night Diary
Shashank Kumar Bharti

Abstract

The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 is one of the most traumatic and transformative experiences in the history of South Asia. Dominant history has placed much emphasis on political negotiations, the role of political leaders, and the formation of new nations. In contrast, the role of the people has received much less emphasis or has been marginalised. However, according to the ideas presented by the Subaltern School of thought, particularly those of Ranajit Guha, dominant history has ignored or failed to include the roles of the marginalised sections of the people. Furthermore, according to Urvashi Butalia, personal histories and recollections bring to light the invisible social costs of partition. The present article aims to explore the roles of Basti and The Night Diary in the process of decolonisation of the memory of Partition. For this purpose, a qualitative comparative text analysis method grounded in theories of postcolonialism, trauma studies, and subaltern studies will be employed. It has been determined that Basti depicts the memory of Partition through fragmented memories, nostalgia, and cultural loss, highlighting psychological trauma. In contrast, The Night Diary depicts the trauma of Partition through a diary written by a young girl, highlighting issues of gender, religion, and migration. In both narratives, there has been a shift from political history to personal experience, thereby problematising the hegemonic discourse on
Partition. There has been extensive scholarly research on Partition literature.However, few comparative studies have examined how these narratives explore the interface among subalternism, memory, and gender/childhood perspectives in works intended for diverse audiences. This article proposes to fill this research gap by arguing that both novels can be positioned as counter-histories that subvert the silenced voices and decolonise Partition history.