The book provides a detailed account of the last year of the British Raj; the reactions of princely states towards independence, including descriptions of the colourful and extravagant lifestyles of the Indian princes; the partition of British India (into India and Pakistan) on religious grounds; and the bloodshed that followed.[1]
Regarding partition, the book—providing maps of Punjab, Bengal, and Kashmir—relates that the crucial maps setting the boundary separating India and Pakistan were drawn that year by Cyril Radcliffe, who had not visited India before being appointed as the chairman of the Boundary Commission. The book depicts the fury of both Hindus and Muslims, misled by their communal leaders, during the partition; and the biggest mass slaughter in the history of India, as millions of people were uprooted by the partition and tried to migrate by train, oxcart, and on foot to new places designated for their particular religious group. Many migrants fell victim to bandits and religious extremists of both dominant religions. One incident quoted describes a canal in Lahore that ran with blood and floating bodies.
The authors took interviews of some of those people related with the events, including a focus on Lord Mountbatten of Burma.[2] They subsequently wrote a book based in particular upon their research on the British officer, titled Mountbatten and the Partition of India, containing interviews with Mountbatten, and a selection of papers that were in his possession.[3]
Reception
Freedom at Midnight aroused controversy for its portrayal of the British expatriates, the native rulers of India, and members of India's first cabinet.[2][4]James Cameron described it as the result of deep research into events often neglected by other historians.[5]
The book was criticised as "misleading", "biased", and "yellow journalism".[6][7] Earl Drake found the book's illustration of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy to be "totally biased".[8] Journalist Shyam Ratna Gupta remarked that "one might ask, did the authors intend to provide us with fictional documentation, politico- historical gossip, or pop journalism on events and personalities of that time?"[9]
A ban on the book was demanded by Gopal Godse for claiming that Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Nathuram Godse had a homosexual relationship. Gopal Godse had challenged Collins and Lapierre to "produce any evidence" to substantiate their version.[10]
Adaptations
This book was one of the inspirations for the 2017 film Viceroy's House.[11]
^Brasted, H. V.; Bridge, Carl (1994). "The transfer of power in South Asia: An historiographical review". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 17 (1): 93–114. doi:10.1080/00856409408723200.
