“小屋”和“斧头”:1947年锡尔赫特公投

IF 0.3 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
B. Chakrabarty
{"title":"“小屋”和“斧头”:1947年锡尔赫特公投","authors":"B. Chakrabarty","doi":"10.1177/001946460203900401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"an unfolding of historical processes in which people were drawn spontaneously or under compulsion, and participated as significant actors in what was, among other things, ’a history of struggle’ for survival in changed circumstances following the construction of new political identities as Indians and Pakistanis. Independence came in 1947, but with it came Partition. Not simply a British decree, but various schemes in which different modalities were followed, divided India. For the accession of princely states, the consent of the rulers was sought to amicably settle the issue of amalgamation with either of the independent nations. The Muslim-majority provinces, Bengal and Punjab, had decided for partition by voting by the respective legislators. Under the chairmanship of Ceril Radcliffe, two Boundary Commissions were accordingly appointed to demarcate the boundaries. There was also a third way of referendum through which new boundaries were drawn, separating the two independent dominions. Following the outcome of the referendum, the fate of Sylhet in Assam and the North West Frontier Province was decided. All these modalities were clearly stated in Louis Mountbatten’s 3 June statement.","PeriodicalId":45806,"journal":{"name":"Indian Economic and Social History Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The 'hut' and the 'axe': The 1947 Sylhet referendum\",\"authors\":\"B. Chakrabarty\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/001946460203900401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"an unfolding of historical processes in which people were drawn spontaneously or under compulsion, and participated as significant actors in what was, among other things, ’a history of struggle’ for survival in changed circumstances following the construction of new political identities as Indians and Pakistanis. Independence came in 1947, but with it came Partition. Not simply a British decree, but various schemes in which different modalities were followed, divided India. For the accession of princely states, the consent of the rulers was sought to amicably settle the issue of amalgamation with either of the independent nations. The Muslim-majority provinces, Bengal and Punjab, had decided for partition by voting by the respective legislators. Under the chairmanship of Ceril Radcliffe, two Boundary Commissions were accordingly appointed to demarcate the boundaries. There was also a third way of referendum through which new boundaries were drawn, separating the two independent dominions. Following the outcome of the referendum, the fate of Sylhet in Assam and the North West Frontier Province was decided. All these modalities were clearly stated in Louis Mountbatten’s 3 June statement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Economic and Social History Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Economic and Social History Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460203900401\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Economic and Social History Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460203900401","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

这是一个历史进程的展开,在这个过程中,人们被自发地或被迫地吸引,并作为重要的行动者参与其中,除其他外,在印度人和巴基斯坦人的新政治身份建构之后,在变化的环境中为生存而进行的“斗争历史”。1947年独立,但随之而来的是分治。不仅仅是英国的法令,而是遵循不同模式的各种计划,分裂了印度。对于君主国家的加入,统治者的同意是寻求和平解决与任何一个独立国家合并的问题。穆斯林占多数的孟加拉和旁遮普省已由各自的立法者投票决定分治。在塞里尔·拉德克利夫(Ceril Radcliffe)的领导下,两个边界委员会被任命来划定边界。还有第三种全民公决方式,通过这种方式划定新的边界,将两个独立的领土分开。根据公投结果,阿萨姆邦和西北边境省的锡尔赫特的命运已经决定。所有这些方式都在路易斯·蒙巴顿6月3日的声明中明确说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The 'hut' and the 'axe': The 1947 Sylhet referendum
an unfolding of historical processes in which people were drawn spontaneously or under compulsion, and participated as significant actors in what was, among other things, ’a history of struggle’ for survival in changed circumstances following the construction of new political identities as Indians and Pakistanis. Independence came in 1947, but with it came Partition. Not simply a British decree, but various schemes in which different modalities were followed, divided India. For the accession of princely states, the consent of the rulers was sought to amicably settle the issue of amalgamation with either of the independent nations. The Muslim-majority provinces, Bengal and Punjab, had decided for partition by voting by the respective legislators. Under the chairmanship of Ceril Radcliffe, two Boundary Commissions were accordingly appointed to demarcate the boundaries. There was also a third way of referendum through which new boundaries were drawn, separating the two independent dominions. Following the outcome of the referendum, the fate of Sylhet in Assam and the North West Frontier Province was decided. All these modalities were clearly stated in Louis Mountbatten’s 3 June statement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: For over 35 years, The Indian Economic and Social History Review has been a meeting ground for scholars whose concerns span diverse cultural and political themes with a bearing on social and economic history. The Indian Economic and Social History Review is the foremost journal devoted to the study of the social and economic history of India, and South Asia more generally. The journal publishes articles with a wider coverage, referring to other Asian countries but of interest to those working on Indian history. Its articles cover India"s South Asian neighbours so as to provide a comparative perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信