Earlier this month, ReReeti launched a digital exhibition titled ‘Un.divided Identities: Lesser Known Stories of Partition.’ Rooted in curatorial experimentation, the exhibition is an immersive experience that allows people to step into the lives of Partition refugees as it stood in and around 1947. 

Through this blog, my intention is to reflect on how the research for this exhibition was curated and to ponder on the question of how this extremely tragic history, one that continues to impact the ‘politics’ and ‘identity’ of the sub-continent, is represented in the exhibition. 
The term ‘difficult histories’ is attached to histories that are traumatic, violent and often raise questions of belonging and identity. “These histories include slavery, wars, genocide, mass-murders, diseases, racism, sexism, fascism” (Rose, 2016)  The phenomena of curating such histories for the public began only in the last few decades and often follows the same structure across the board. In the public space these histories are represented as a fight between the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’; one can see this in the representation of WW2 and the holocaust or slavery.

Refugees onboard a train in Punjab, India 1947

Partition, however, is not only a difficult history, but also a contentious history. While there have been “seismic shifts” in Partition historiography (Roy, 2014), there is still a general lack of consensus as to who was responsible for what unfolded during the fateful weeks of August 1947. In a paper titled ‘Partition of British India: Causes and Consequences Revisited’, the author states “Shortly after decolonization, British historians argued that the greed and administrative failure of the “native” politicians resulted in anarchy, choas, confusion and ultimately the division of India.” (Roy, 2014) Within this discussion, the author also puts into perspective the opposing stands of historians in India and Pakistan.  

Its contention also lies in the fact that there were no clear victims or perpetrators for the violence that occurred in 1947, thus making it a complex history to fathom and curate within South Asia. In a paper titled ‘Exhibiting Contentious and Difficult histories’ (Macdonald, 2009), the author uses the term “negative-self history”, a history within which a nation or its own people are the perpetrators of the crimes/violence. When interacting with an exhibit that is so personal, how does one reconcile with the past? “Negative self-histories raise unsettling questions about the kind of people that we might be, as well as about continuing responsibility for the consequences of those historical actions.” (Macdonald, 2009)

Over the decades, in an attempt to claim agency over this history we have focused on ‘memory’ to retell it.Taking note of the experiences of people who witnessed it has allowed anyone attempting to curate this history to manoeuvre the many complexities that surround it – a path the exhibition in focus here also follows. 

Doing so still leaves you with lingering questions. What is the purpose of the exhibition? Who is it being built for? What do you want that audience to take away from the exhibition? And the final question you face and navigate through the course of curation especially with difficult histories is, how much do you sanitise the ‘horrors’ of that history while still remaining authentic? 

In the case of the Un.Divided Identities exhibition, the purpose was to build a digital space for this history that could be used as an educational tool in classrooms across South Asia. This helped define the audience; it is students and teachers. In terms of what we want them to take away from this exhibition is a holistic perspective of this history, an understanding of how the ‘politics’ affected the ‘personal’ and how the personal got tied in with ‘collective identity’ raising questions of belonging. 

Screenshots from the virtual exhibition

How did we achieve this? At crucial points in each story we have something called the fact files, these are researched articles written by the team that shed light on the politics that were ongoing at that moment. These don’t interfere with the narratives of each of the stories that are unfolding within the exhibition and the choice to engage with them is that of the users. The workshops allow students to engage with the stories and the fact files as two separate spaces but then encourages them to arrive at their own understanding on how the two intersect.  This enables reflection on how the politics of the times had direct and tragic consequences on the lives of ordinary people. 

This brings me to the last question of ‘how much of this history do we sanitise?’ This question became even more crucial considering the audience we had in mind and how the national narrative of this history differs based on which part of the sub-continent the students are from. There was no straightforward answer to this, this was a space that had to continuously be discussed and navigated through the course of building this exhibition.

The Miro Board used during the creative process of the exhibition

We worked with teachers and students across South Asia to understand how themes of colonialism, displacement, gender, loss and violence should be represented within the exhibition. What was the appropriate language to use? Where should the trigger warnings be placed? But over all, we let the countless oral history interviews that we were referring to of Partition survivors drive the stories within this exhibition. 

The challenge, however, was to always be conscious that we present a balanced view of this history. To ensure that we don’t isolate any one community when speaking of violence, that we represent the violence as ‘riots’ and not as a ‘pogrom’.’ So for example, if we had a scene that spoke about the Hindus attacking Muslims, we tried to show in the same story how this episode of violence was retaliated by the Muslims in another part of the region. Thus reiterating the fact that the violence was sporadic and being perpetrated by all communities. To also provide an opportunity to the students to reflect on the idea of ‘Nation’ and ‘Identity’ and how the two are interconnected. 

The curation of difficult histories and the public dialogue around it is still a relatively new space for South Asia and with it, curatorial experimentation for these histories is still an exploration. There is not yet a collective dialogue on the ethics of curating these histories but we are confronted by it every time we hold public space for them. I think at this point we are not even sure if the ‘ethics’ would look the same across the board but we are certainly being pushed to think and question it. 

About the Author

Bhanu Ghalot is a cultural practitioner and a historical Researcher based in New Delhi. She is also the project head of the Un.Divided Identities project. Her time is spent worrying about her cats and studying the public space difficult histories of South Asia occupy.