‘British India’, also referred to as the ‘British Raj’ or ‘Direct rule in India’, was part of the British Empire from 1858 until independence in 1947. This independence process was called ‘partition’, because the colony was divided up into two countries: India and Pakistan.
Partition was not inevitable and happened because of long and complicated talks between the British government and elite Indian figures, each with their own political interests. The final borders of the new nations were created in only six weeks by Sir Cyril Radcliffe and were based on Muslim and non-Muslim majority areas. Learn more about partition here.
The new Pakistan was split into two regions that were more than 1,000 miles away: West Pakistan and East Pakistan (today’s Bangladesh). The distance and difference in culture, language, and identity between the two regions, and the fact that West Pakistan held more political and economic power, led to strong tensions and eventually protest movements in East Pakistan.
In 1971, West and East Pakistan fought in the Bangladesh Liberation War. This led to the creation of Bangladesh on 16 December 1971. How can we trace this road to independence through the British reports in The National Archives?
What can British documents tell us about the creation of Bangladesh?We can start the story of the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War with the poorly planned and tragic ‘Partition’ of British India in 1947, based on religion. The separate north-eastern and north-western areas of the country, which were mostly Muslim, became a ‘united’ Pakistan. The rest of the country, mostly non-Muslim, became known as India. (See source 1: MFQ 1/1145.)
West and East Pakistan shared a religion, but not much else. For decades after Partition, the East Pakistanis (present-day Bangladeshis) were treated unfairly by the West Pakistani government over 1,000 miles away. East Pakistan had more people than West Pakistan but got less money and resources from the government. From the early 1950s, the amount of money earned per person in West Pakistan grew three times as much each year compared to East Pakistan.
In 1948, Urdu became the only state language of both West and East Pakistan (see source 2: DO 142/423). It was imposed on millions of Bengali-speaking people. This led to the rise of the Bengali Language Movement, resulting in mass protests and deaths in Dhaka in 1952.
Bengalis have a rich and proud history and culture focused around language, art, food, fashion, community, family and religion. The 1971 Liberation War can be seen as a struggle to preserve and protect this heritage.
A few key events leading up to 1971 sped up the start of the war:
- Cyclone Bhola in November 1970 devastated East Pakistan. Around 3-500,000 people were killed and many more made destitute. Relief efforts from West Pakistan were minimal (see source 3: FCO 37/719).
- Many East Pakistanis were feeling unhappy and resentful. This led to civil disobedience [refusal to obey the government] and the imposition of martial law [temporary rule by the military]. For many, these were uncertain and scary times.
- There was prejudice and violence between Bengalis and Urdu-speaking minorities (Biharis) in early March 1971.
Maybe the most important event leading up to the war was the 1970 election. The winning Awami League Party was led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who wanted more freedom and independence for East Pakistan. He won the national elections by a clear majority, as East Pakistan had a much larger population than West Pakistan. However, the centralised government in West Pakistan did not accept Rahman as leader. They declared the election results void. This led to the famous and emotional ‘Joy Bangla’ (‘victory to Bengal’) speech by Rahman on 7 March 1971 at a rally attended by thousands, in which he declared an ‘independent’ Bangladesh (see source 4: PREM 15/567). He was later arrested. There were more and more protests by his supporters.
On 25 March 1971, the West Pakistani army invaded East Pakistan, trying to stop these protests. It launched Operation Searchlight, killing many Bengali civilians, intellectuals, students, politicians, and armed forces.
The brutal war that followed lasted for nine months. Estimates for the total number of civilian and military deaths range from 500,000 to over 3 million. Millions of refugees fled to neighbouring India. Groups of Bengali guerrilla fighters (‘mukti bahini’) and regular soldiers – helped by the Indian military – fought back against the West Pakistani army. West Pakistan eventually surrendered on the 16th of December 1971 (known as ‘Victory Day’), leading to the creation of Bangladesh.
You can see how complex the 1971 war was by looking at the many terms used to describe it: Bangladesh War of Independence, Liberation War, genocide, Civil War, or, by many Bangladeshis, ‘mukti juddho’/‘shongram’ (battle and resistance). The war has been immortalised in the symbolism of the national flag of Bangladesh – a dark green background with a red (bloody) circle in the middle.
Britain played an important role in bringing global attention to the war. During 1971, as members of the Commonwealth, many thousands of Bengalis were living and working in Britain. It was a harrowing time for many, as they were living far away and were worried about family and kin in East Pakistan. Foreign journalists were expelled from the region before the suppression started, so there was little international coverage of the events of 1971 (see Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas’ article ‘Genocide’ for a rare example). However, Bengalis in the UK raised funds to help the resistance. They organised peaceful campaigns and demonstrations to bring international attention to the war, such as the ‘Recognise Bangla-Desh Rally’ in Trafalgar Square on 8 August 1971, which drew thousands of people (see source 5a). The British government formally recognised Bangladesh as an independent nation on 4 February in 1972.
Background written by Dr Aminul Hoque MBE (Goldsmiths College, University of London)
Using film as evidence in history
Take a look at this group of government public information films and two amateur films which were used as propaganda to persuade the Home Front population to support various campaigns to help win the war.
Messaging from the Ministry of Information covered topics like the dangers of ‘Careless talk’, the need to ‘Dig for Victory’ or ‘Make do and mend’. Films were also used to explain rationing, evacuation, recruitment of women and men into civil defence, give advice about safety in the blackout or ensure support from the Empire. Films helped to drive these messages home along with other Ministry of Information leaflets and the posters displayed in shops and shop windows, council buildings or village halls.
Many people take the moving image for granted. They frequently assume that the images they see are a true and accurate portrayal of the events of “what is happening”. Of course this can be in part explained by the fact that the visual image is far more seductive than the written word. This is because we impose our own meaning on what we see. The idea that “I won′t believe it until I see it” is very significant here.
It is important, therefore, to learn to evaluate film as evidence. This can be achieved by understanding more about the process of filmmaking by investigating how the content and nature of a film can be determined by editing, use of montage, choice of camera angles, target audience and so on. Therefore, we must consider how films are produced in order to ask what they can tell us. We must study what films show us and how they show it.
Like all historical evidence, film must be considered very carefully and used with other forms of evidence to build up a picture of a historical event. Questions have to be asked of it:
- Why and when was this film produced?
- Who is the target audience?
- What is the filmmaker trying to tell the audience?
- How might a given story be selective or simplified?
- If there is music, commentary or dialogue how do they influence the nature of the film?
- It is also important to bear in mind that censorship or even sponsorship can also affect the final form of a feature or documentary film.
- What is the impact of technology on the process of filmmaking, have new methods changed the process?
Film is such an important historical source because it was the first form of mass communication in the 20th century. Films can also be sources for understanding propaganda. They can be sources for providing insight into the values, concerns and issues of their times.
Tasks
Watch a film and discuss/answer the questions:
- Select 3 to 5 documents from either of the below Home Front collections to show how they can be used to support the message and content of one or more of the films:
Home Front 1939-1945 (part one)
Home Front 1939-1945 (part two)
- Write a report/record a video to explain your choice of documents.
- What are the advantages of using public information films like these with document sources as evidence for life on the Home Front?
Home Front 1939-1945 (part two)
Home Front 1939-1945 (part one)
The Home Front
BRITAIN CAN TAKE IT
1940
© IWM (COI 944)
This is a shorter version of the film ‘London can take it’ and was re-edited for a British audience. It is introduced by American journalist Quentin Reynolds and released in 1940.
- How would you describe the tone of Quentin Reynolds commentary?
- How are the city of London and its citizens portrayed?
- What does the film reveal about the role of ARP (Air Raid Precaution) workers?
- What is the main message of the film?
- How is sound and music used in the film to create its message?
- Why is the date of this film’s production helpful in understanding its purpose?
Blackout
DANGERS IN THE DARK
1941
© IWM UKY 295
This film is about the importance of road safety and the dangers caused by the blackout. Made in 1941.
- Why is the title of this film effective?
- How does the opening of the film try to persuade people of the dangers of the blackout?
- What advice does the film give about the dangers of travelling in the dark?
- Why does the film suggest that being careful in the dark helps the war effort?
- Why do you think this film was made?
Home Guard
WARWICKSHIRE HOME GUARD TRAINING IN COVENTRY
1942
© IWM MGH 6900
Amateur film made by Lieutenant Leonard Stanley North, a rifle instructor with the Royal Warwickshire Regiment during the Second World War. It shows the Coventry Home Guard in 1941.
- What military skills training for the Home Guard is evident in this film?
- What evidence is given of life outside training in the Home Guard?
- What is the value of using an amateur film like this as evidence of the role and purpose of the Home Guard?
- Can you write your own commentary script for this silent film?
Women at War
WOMEN AT WAR
1941
© IWM MGH 3728
John Winant, the American Ambassador to Britain introduces film which shows the variety of jobs carried out by British women since the outbreak of war, and thanks America for sending aid to victims of the London Blitz. Made in 1941 and released in Britain and America.
- What ‘told’ and ‘untold’ information does the film provide about women’s lives before the war in the first 3 minutes of the film?
- How are women in the countryside supporting the war effort?
- What is the role of Women’s Voluntary Services?
- What is the role of women in the Land Army?
- What jobs are women carrying out in:
- Women’s Air Transport Auxiliary Service
- Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service
- Factories
- Civil Defence- Did you spot Princess Elizabeth in this section?
- Transport services
- Communal restaurants
- Why do you think this film was made?
Everyday Life
RATIONING IN BRITAIN
1944
© IWM COI 155
The film shows how rationing was experienced by a family of four and how it was designed to create fair shares for all of the population. Film was released in 1944.
- How much food did Britain import before the war?
- Why was rationing introduced?
- How did the rationing system work?
- How did rationing change the buying and living habits of people in Britain?
- What details does the film give about life in 1940s Britain?
- How do know that film has been created to appeal to an American audience? [Clue: think about language; mention of Lend-Lease. A policy from 1941-1945 whereby United States supplied Britain and her allies with food and supplies]
MAKE DO AND MEND
1943
© IWM NPB 13037
This film shows a family discussing the ration system for clothing and suggests how old clothes can be used to make new garments. Released 1943.
- Why do you think this film was made?
- How are women encouraged to make do and mend?
- Who do you think is the audience for this film?
- Do you think the film succeeds in its message?
Careless Talk
JIG-SAW
1944
© IWM UKY 560
A ‘Careless talk’ campaign film released in 1944. The film shows how small pieces of information can fit together like a jigsaw puzzle to provide the enemy with valuable information which costs lives.
- How does the film create tension at the start?
- What are the different ways in which valuable information be given away according to the film?
- Do you think this film is effective in getting its message over?
- Why does Anne say directly to the audience –‘I hate those talkers’ at the end of the film?
- Is ‘Jigsaw’ an effective title for this film?
The Empire Home Front
FOOD FROM THE EMPIRE
1940
© IWM COI 258
- Why is there more food production in Britain during war time?
- Why are the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’ sending food to Britain?
- What goods are sent to Britain?
- Why is a shopping basket used to explain in the film do you think?
- What is the film trying to emphasise about the British Empire’s contribution?
- How does the film infer Britain’s relationship with the colonies in the commentary?
- What does the film reveal about how food reaches Britain and is distributed in war time?
- Who is the audience for this film?
Bombing of Britain
LONDON BLITZ SCENES REVISITED – 1946
1946
© IWM MGH 1354
This is an amateur film shot by a former Auxiliary Fire Service fireman, George Eves. It shows life in London in the years straight after the Second World War. We see the effects of bomb damage on London as well as the start of post-war reconstruction.
- Can you describe the effects of bomb damage on the city?
- Can describe the new post-war prefabricated bungalows?
- Why do you think this film was made?
- Do you think the film has a message?
- Can you write your own script for the film?
This report was sent from Shrewsbury to Sir John Coke on 4 May 1639 by a local judge. Coke was Secretary of State to Charles I, Catalogue ref: SP 16/420/48.
In 1639 Charles I’s kingdoms were very tense. Charles was facing a major rebellion in Scotland. There was also tension in England. One of the biggest concerns was religion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, was bringing in changes to the English church that some people were against.
During the 1630s Charles I and William Laud brought in new types of church services. Charles also gave greater power and wealth to the church. To some Protestants (especially hard-line Protestants, called Puritans), his actions seemed to be making the Church of England more like the Roman Catholic Church. They began to criticise Charles. Charles I had no time for opponents of his policies.
Charles ordered his officials to look out for people who might oppose him. The person being reported in this source was probably a Puritan who was against the changes that Charles and William Laud were bringing into the church.
This is a report to William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, from some of his informers. Laud had a network across the country that sent him regular reports about what people were saying. Throughout the 1630s Charles I and William Laud tried to change the organisation of the church and how people worshipped in church. As a result, Laud made many enemies.
Laud punished some of his critics harshly. For example, in 1637 William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick printed pamphlets attacking Laud. All three men were Puritans. They believed that Laud’s changes were making the Protestant Church of England too much like the Catholic Church of Rome. Laud had their ears cut off and their faces branded with a hot iron.
Laud and Charles tried to increase the power of the church in England and Scotland. They also wanted everyone to worship in the same way. Both of these things alarmed many Protestants, particularly the hard-line Protestants known as Puritans. On the other hand, many approved of Laud’s policies. They just disliked the way he clamped down on free speech and treated his critics badly.
Both England and Scotland split from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s and became Protestant. In the 1600s the Protestants were still very suspicious of any changes to their church in case the Protestant Church became too much like the Catholic Church.
This is an extract from a proclamation, or order, made by Charles I at Newcastle on 14 May 1639 telling people in Scotland what he wanted them to do. He was trying to end rebellion in Scotland. Charles had been facing rebellion from his subjects in Scotland since 1637. The Scots refused to accept changes that Charles wanted to make to the church in Scotland. Charles raised an army to fight the Scots in 1638. By May 1639, when this proclamation was made, Charles did not have enough money to continue the fight. This meant he had to try and reach an agreement with the Scottish rebels.
This document is a petition sent to Charles I and expresses the grievances of the City of London I on 24 September 1640, Catalogue ref: National Archives Rare Books Collection (John Rushworth, Historical Collections, Vol III, 1639-1640, p.1263. Published in London, 1680-1701).
The citizens of London were also more politically active than any other part of the country and radical (wanting big changes). This helps to explain why the city sent several petitions to Charles during this period. London had more Protestant hardliners (Puritans) than other parts of the country. It is not surprising that London took the side of Parliament when war broke out in 1642.
This is an extract from a letter written by a gentleman called Thomas Wiseman to Sir John Penington, a senior commander in Charles I’s navy. The document describes rebellion in Ireland, November 1641, Catalogue ref: SP 16/485/58.
The rebellion in Ireland horrified all English Protestants. Charles I and his MPs agreed that an army had to be sent to Ireland. However, this soon became a difficult issue. Leading opponents of Charles I, such as John Pym, did not trust the king. Pym feared that Charles I would use the new army to crush people like him, rather than the rebels in Ireland. He demanded that Parliament should be in charge of the new army and not the king. The argument was never solved. By the time the civil war started in 1642 Ireland was still in the hands of the Catholic rebels.
The five videos in this series called ‘Civil War People’ have been updated to a greater quality from our focussed topic website English Civil War.
View our videos to find out how a Bishop, Puritan, Scotsman, Irishman or King Charles I himself possibly viewed the prospect of civil war in 1642. Their words help to provide information which supports the document activities. Look at the videos first!
Then, explore a specific linked document activity for each character.
Try and read the original document.
Each document is provided with background information, questions, a transcript and a simplified transcript to help.
Please note that the document used in each activity can also be seen in the topic website English Civil War alongside other documents so you can expand your studies!
Connection to Curriculum:
Key stage 3: The National Curriculum: The causes and events of the civil wars throughout Britain
How did Britain fight the war at home?
Home Front 1939-1945: Fighting the war at home.
Britain had always prided itself on its island position which made it feel safe from assault. However, around a third of Britain’s food was imported via ships, meaning that the food supply was vulnerable to attack from the air or by sea.
Sir William Beveridge, the Minister of Food, knew that Britain had to be as self-sufficient in food as far as possible. So pasture must be ploughed up and crops such as wheat, corn, barley planted. Farmers were encouraged to turn from raising cattle to sheep because most cattle feed came from abroad whereas sheep grazed on grass.
A number of British farms were inefficient, using old machinery and methods that had not changed in decades. Such farms were requisitioned and – harsh but necessary – the tenant farmers evicted, to be taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture.
At the other end of the chain was consumption, which needed to be controlled and food distributed fairly among the population. Therefore, in January 1940 the issuing of ration books with coupons came into effect. Different food stuffs required a certain number of coupons and this changed according to the season and availability of items. So, it was pointless to take a shopping list, you could only buy what was available. The government tried to help with leaflets and broadcasts giving suggested recipes. Predictably the system did not always run smoothly and there were complaints that men needed more meat because of the heavy work they did.
Though Prime Minister Winston Churchill initially warned that rationing clothes was a measure too far and would lower morale, on 1st June 1941 clothes rationing followed. The move was kept secret until the last minute in an attempt to avoid panic buying. Women tackled the problem with ingenuity. Bedspreads were turned into dressing gowns and the wool from knitted garments was unravelled and re-knitted into warm jumpers for use at home or by fighting men. Women could only buy very plain clothes: frills, pockets and lace trimmings were forbidden and skirt lengths shortened. Men’s suits were made or altered to have very narrow lapels; trousers were shortened as much as they could be without the wearer feeling ridiculous.
The purchase of many other goods was restricted too. Wood was needed to construct and repair planes and for other urgent military purposes, hence the introduction of utility furniture, characterised by the absence of fussy decoration in its design. It looked pleasingly like modern Scandinavian furniture! Rationing was very gradually reduced after the war, but it was not until 1954 that the final foodstuff, meat, was no longer ‘on the coupon’.
Another fundamental shift in society was in regards to the role of women. Despite being American, the ‘Rosie the Riveter’ poster was an iconic symbol of the shift in cultural attitudes towards women. With her hair pushed back under a scarf, and her strong muscular arm holding a spanner, the picture was an encouragement for women to do whatever it took to help the war effort.
Women were never conscripted to fight, however their contributions to maintaining morale on the home front during these tumultuous years, as well as their service in the Land Army, amongst other organizations, was invaluable. At its peak in 1944, there were over 800,000 ‘land girls’ who engaged in a variety of jobs on the land – driving tractors, killing rats and various other unpleasant roles.
Government propaganda served as a way of persuading people to support various home front campaigns to help win the war. Eye catching posters and leaflets with sharp messaging were produced by the Ministry of Information on a huge array of topics including the dangers of ‘Careless talk’, the need to ‘Dig for Victory’ or ‘Make do and mend’ and others. This information was displayed in shops and shop windows, council buildings and village halls. The Ministry of Information also made films and radio broadcasts to bring its messages home and you can watch some of the films with this document collection. Some of the nation’s most significant artists, cartoonists and film makers produced work for the Ministry of Information.
Despite the destruction of the war, Britain slowly managed to reconstruct the country, and the informal contract between the people and the government began to be realised with the formation of the welfare state.
Juliet Gardiner, author: ‘The Thirties’; ‘Wartime Britain’; ‘Joining the Dots: A Woman in Her Time’.
How did Britain fight the war at home?
Home Front 1939-1945: Fighting the war at home.
The Second World War has justifiably earned the name a ‘People’s War’ as it involved citizens not just the military.
As soon as war was declared on 3 September, 1939 the British government’s first priority was to ‘get the children away’ from industrial areas, overcrowded cities and anywhere that was expected to be among the first targets for German air raids.
Local authorities implemented the plan at once. Mothers could take babies and young children with them, while school age children assembled in their school playgrounds to be marched to the nearest train station accompanied by teachers and volunteers. Children had a luggage label pinned to their coats with their names and destination. On arrival in rural areas – deemed safer from air raids – the children piled out and were met by a crowd of locals who had agreed with the billeting officer to take in evacuees. They walked around picking which child they wanted to take home: pretty little girls were soon chosen while farmers were on the look-out for strong lads to help with the harvest – one child recalled it being like a cattle market.
Evacuation was never compulsory so it presented a dilemma for parents: Should they send their children away to live with strangers for an undetermined length of time, or keep them at home where they might be killed in an air raid? Some children enjoyed being away from home – with space to kick a ball and explore the countryside – while some cried themselves to sleep every night.
When people were asked what they hated most about the war, for most it was the blackout. The government thinking that German technology was more advanced than it in fact was, ordered that no light that might attract attention from the German bombers must show. The blackout lasted from sunset to dawn. During those hours, shops, factories and office buildings had to turn off their lights – while householders were told to use special black out material to replace their curtains, but that was expensive and shops soon sold out. A cheaper option was to paint windows black or, as a last resort, to nail cardboard to the window frames.
Policemen and volunteer Air Raid Protection (ARP) officers would patrol city streets to ensure that regulations were being observed to the letter. If they detected a sliver of light coming from a house, they seemed to rather enjoy bellowing ‘Put that light out!’ Transgressors were likely to be fined up to two pounds for a first offence or up to £50 pounds if you were a repeat offender.
People found it possible to cook by candlelight but reading a book, knitting, attempting to do a jigsaw or tackling a crossword puzzle was impossible. If it was depressing to be indoors, it was hazardous to venture out as street lights had been dimmed, and even if you could buy the batteries for a torch the beam could only be directed at the ground. People bumped into each other, into pillar boxes or walls. Some were so disoriented that they were unable to find their own front door. And you took your life in your hands if you tried to cross the road as car head lights were dimmed, or covered with a sock.
All that summer what George Orwell described as ‘nuisance raids’ during the day became a regular occurrence, but on 7th September 1940 the war took an ominous turn with the first of 57 consecutive nights of bombing and the start of the ‘Blitz’. When the air raid warning sounded at 8 pm and people took shelter in either Anderson shelters, which were provided by the government and free to most of the population who had their own garden. It was not until nearly the end of the war that Morrison shelters were used. These were heavy iron constructions which sheltered people without an outdoor space.
London docks and warehouses were demolished by the bombing. Firemen struggled for days to extinguish the flames, whilst many commodities, like sugar, burned furiously. The people had little choice but to take refuge nightly in underground stations, yet the casualties remained high, with the air raids killing over 43,000 civilians, and seriously wounding 139,000 more.
Britain, however was not the only country to suffer from bombing raids and the threat of invasion during the Second World War. Countries in Britain’s overseas empire came under attack, for example Malta and Australia. As well as making a massive contribution to the allied army and providing resources, the colonial empire protected itself at home with local defence forces and other organisations such as Air Raid Precautions units.
Juliet Gardiner, author: ‘The Thirties’; ‘Wartime Britain’; ‘Joining the Dots: A Woman in Her Time’.