The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has sparked widespread debate with the release of a special educational module marking Partition Horrors Remembrance Day. The module identifies three key figures—Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Indian National Congress, and then Viceroy Lord Mountbatten—as responsible for the Partition of India in 1947.
In a section titled “Culprits of Partition,” the module states: “Ultimately, on August 15, 1947, India was divided. But this was not the doing of any one person. There were three elements responsible for the Partition of India: Jinnah, who demanded it; the Congress, which accepted it; and Mountbatten, who implemented it.” It further criticizes Mountbatten for advancing the transfer of power from June 1948 to August 1947, calling it a “major blunder” that led to hasty boundary demarcations and widespread confusion.
The module quotes Jinnah as later admitting he had not expected Partition to happen during his lifetime. It also cites Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s view that the country had become a battlefield, making Partition preferable to civil war. Mahatma Gandhi’s opposition to Partition is acknowledged, though the module notes he chose not to resist Congress’s decision through violence.
NCERT has released two versions of the module—one for Classes 6 to 8 and another for Classes 9 to 12. These are supplementary materials, not part of the regular curriculum, and are intended for use in discussions, debates, and projects. Both modules begin with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2021 message commemorating Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, which is observed annually on August 14.
The secondary-stage module explores the ideological roots of Partition, attributing it to the Muslim League’s belief in a separate identity based on “political Islam.” It also links the aftermath of Partition to long-term issues such as the Kashmir conflict, wars with Pakistan, and ongoing communal tensions.
The release has drawn mixed reactions from historians, educators, and political commentators, with some praising the module’s candid approach and others questioning its framing of historical responsibility.
