{"title":"‘In trust for the three nations’? The India Office Library & Records dispute, 1947–72","authors":"R. Ankit","doi":"10.1080/13619462.2022.2110471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Between 1947 and 1972, governments of India and Pakistan laid claims to ownership, management and share of the India Office Library & Records. These attempts and the British government’s responses to them have been bypassed by scholars of decolonisation. This article traces the trajectory of that dispute’s three distinct phases, wherein different proposals were mooted to wrest and retain, respectively the riches and records of the IOL&R. Unlike the more-studied African and Southeast Asian cases from the former British Empire, this dispute was less clear-cut and therefore more demanding of both sides in their manoeuvres to pursue their desires. Legal, administrative and technical bids were made in historical and moral arguments, with cultural and economic factors listed in support. In providing their details, this article demonstrates a difficult episode for decolonisation, where at stake was both its curated imperial past and yet-to-be written national narratives. It shows how symbols of a shared history as well as sources of that history’s separate writing became an arena of contest as much for the old glory as for new profits. At a time when decolonising history is in vogue, this article depicts the difficulties of even diversifying the artefacts of colonial history.","PeriodicalId":45519,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary British History","volume":"37 1","pages":"165 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary British History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2022.2110471","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Between 1947 and 1972, governments of India and Pakistan laid claims to ownership, management and share of the India Office Library & Records. These attempts and the British government’s responses to them have been bypassed by scholars of decolonisation. This article traces the trajectory of that dispute’s three distinct phases, wherein different proposals were mooted to wrest and retain, respectively the riches and records of the IOL&R. Unlike the more-studied African and Southeast Asian cases from the former British Empire, this dispute was less clear-cut and therefore more demanding of both sides in their manoeuvres to pursue their desires. Legal, administrative and technical bids were made in historical and moral arguments, with cultural and economic factors listed in support. In providing their details, this article demonstrates a difficult episode for decolonisation, where at stake was both its curated imperial past and yet-to-be written national narratives. It shows how symbols of a shared history as well as sources of that history’s separate writing became an arena of contest as much for the old glory as for new profits. At a time when decolonising history is in vogue, this article depicts the difficulties of even diversifying the artefacts of colonial history.
期刊介绍:
Contemporary British History offers innovative new research on any aspect of British history - foreign, Commonwealth, political, social, cultural or economic - dealing with the period since the First World War. The editors welcome work which involves cross-disciplinary insights, as the journal seeks to reflect the work of all those interested in the recent past in Britain, whatever their subject specialism. Work which places contemporary Britain within a comparative (whether historical or international) context is also encouraged. In addition to articles, the journal regularly features interviews and profiles, archive reports, and a substantial review section.