Latest news with #Dalrymple
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Nationalist history presents India as this ancient thing called Bharat Varsha, with geography from the Mahabharata that remained constant. But the British were conquering random territories based on economic sense, not Indianness': Sam Dalrymple
Sam Dalrymple is in the United Kingdom when we speak, where he will be based until October. It is a fitting location from which to reflect on Shattered Lands (Harper Collins; 536 pages; ₹799), his ambitious debut on the British Empire's afterlives, which traces five partitions that dismantled what was once known as the Indian Empire. From Burma's separation in 1937 to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, Dalrymple reconstructs the imperial geography, one where Indian rupees circulated in Dubai, Yemeni Jews carried Indian passports, and loyalty to the Viceroy stretched from Aden to Assam. A Delhi-raised Scottish, Dalrymple, 28, studied Persian and Sanskrit at the University of Oxford. He also speaks Hindi and Urdu fluently. His work spans media — print, film, and virtual reality with projects exploring migration, memory, and the afterlives of empire. If the surname rings familiar, it is not incidental. He is the son of historian William Dalrymple, one of the most prominent chroniclers of South Asia's early modern past. In this conversation with The Indian Express, Dalrymple speaks about erased borders, nationalist cartographies, Jinnah's contradictions, and advice from his father. Edited excerpts: The key moment was visiting Afghanistan's Bamiyan Buddhas at 16. But the real inspiration was Project Dastaan, founded with friends at Oxford. We noticed Indians and Pakistanis mingled freely abroad unlike Israelis and Palestinians, yet could not visit each other's homelands. We used Virtual Reality to reconnect Partition-separated families. One man, Iqbal, wanted to find his Hindu friend Narendra Singh, who had preserved their ancestral mosque amid horrific violence. We found Narendra's family in Mohali near Chandigarh. Though Narendra had passed, his widow immediately suggested they all vacation together. My co-founder Sparsh Ahuja's family was saved during Partition riots by Muslim neighbours in what is now Pakistan. When we visited, he heard for the first time their side of the story — how they hid his family in their barn when mobs came looking for Hindus to kill. Project Dastaan showed me how Partition severed connections that persisted despite official hostility. Reconnecting families made me want to explore how these borders came to be – not just 1947 but all the partitions that shattered the Indian Empire. The way that India is defined by the British is very clearly laid out in the Interpretation Act of 1889: that everything ruled and governed under the Viceroy will be defined as part of India. This includes both directly ruled British India as well as the princely states and protectorates: all these maharajas, nawabs, sultans and sheikhs who had handed over their foreign policy and defence to the Indian government, though they ranged from being internally completely independent to having significant state involvement like Jaipur. States such as Bhutan and Sikkim were very much internally independent with only minor British interference. The definition was simply the territories inherited by the East India Company. Everything ruled by the East India Company in 1858 was nationalised by the Crown, though random distant territories such as Hong Kong and Singapore were separated within the first few years. What's remarkable is that this vast swathe from Yemen to Burma was given Indian passports. In the book, I've included a picture of an Indian passport given to a Yemeni Jewish woman who wanted to migrate to Mandate Palestine after the Balfour Declaration. To think that in order to migrate from Yemen you had to get an Indian passport is bizarre. The way nationalists have written history presents India as this ancient thing called Bharat Varsha, with geography from the Mahabharata that remained constant. But the British were just conquering random territories based on economic sense, not on 'Indianness'. Gandhi and other nationalists were certain independent India should stretch from Sindh to Assam, but when Gandhi went to Burma he argued for its separation. Hindu nationalists from the Mahasabha said Arabian states shouldn't be part of India because Arabia was a separate civilisation. Modern India traces its origins to this Bharat idea that excludes places the British conquered but nationalists don't consider part of India. Also, Yemen and Burma have been racked by civil war, their archives often burnt, so few historians have looked into them. In the Gulf, historian James Onley discovered that 99 per cent of Qatar's history is kept in the Bombay archives. He wrote The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj (2007) because these areas never appeared on maps of British India – it was always kept somewhat secret. Of all the characters, Jinnah was the most surprising and complex. In the 1920s, he was considered the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity — Sarojini Naidu gave him a trophy with that title. He married 'Rutti', a much younger Parsi woman, believing in interfaith marriage, but she was ostracised by her community. This disillusioned him about India moving past religious boundaries. Later, as a leading Congressman, he was overshadowed by Gandhi and Nehru who treated him poorly. We're used to the Jinnah of the 1940s, but in the 1920s he was a secular man who ate pork, drank whiskey, and had a Parsi wife. His transformation into the founder of the first Islamic republic is fascinating. In 1946, he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan where Pakistan would exist as a province within a united India — like countries within the United Kingdom today. It is fascinating to think how much bloodshed could have been avoided had this gone through. Gandhi and Jinnah ultimately pulled out of this idea. It was Hindu nationalism, Muslim nationalism — all of them. But Hindu nationalists wanted a nation resembling Bharat Varsha. The idea of Bharat Mata is key to why Burma and Arabia were separated. Nationalist maps of Bharat Mata never included these areas. The British, seeing India might soon be independent, considered separating these regions to maintain economic control, knowing nationalists didn't want them. Fascinatingly, there were nationalists in Burma and Yemen who saw themselves as Indian and wanted to remain part of India, but figures such as Mahatma Gandhi pushed against this. U Ottama, a Burmese Buddhist monk who became Savarkar's predecessor in the Hindu Mahasabha, argued that Burma was part of Bharat and that Buddhism was part of Hinduism, but was booed down at Mahasabha meetings and eventually resigned. He actually pushed me to write this as a book. Originally it was a documentary project with National Geographic, but when Covid hit and we could not film, he suggested turning it into a book. He read two drafts – one after my first draft and one before final submission. But my mother was the real editor-in-chief, reading everything meticulously. My father's work focuses on medieval through early modern history, while mine relies heavily on oral histories, techniques I learned from mentors such as Aanchal Malhotra and Kavita Puri who specialise in Partition testimonies. That said, I owe my historical interest to him dragging me around Rajasthan's hill forts, Bengal's delta, and Kerala's theyyam dancers since childhood. I've lived in Delhi for 22 years because he moved us here. I do not see them in conflict at all. Globally, academic historians do research while others popularise it accessibly. My book uses sources in eight languages from multiple archives, as rigorous as any academic work, but written for general readers. It reveals new research like Burma and Dubai's separation from India. Good popular history like films about Rome builds on scholarship. The distinction is when popular works lack footnotes or obscure sources — but you can absolutely write academically rigorous history for the public. Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Chicago Tribune
Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders say they're getting a ‘life-changing' 400% increase in pay
FRISCO, Texas — The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders say they are getting a serious increase in pay. One of the cheerleaders has said during the second season of the Netflix series 'America's Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders' that the members are getting a 400% boost in pay. The cheerleaders have been pushing for pay increases for years. In 2019, the Cowboys settled a lawsuit with a former cheerleader that led to the squad doubling the per-game pay, from $200 to $400. The latest raise is four times that. 'Our efforts were heard and they wanted to give us a raise,' four-year veteran Megan McElaney said on the show. 'And we ended up getting a 400% increase, which is like, life-changing.' According to ESPN, the Cowboys agreed to pay four cheerleaders a total of $2.4 million nine years ago to settle claims by the women that the team's longtime public relations chief, Rich Dalrymple, filmed them in the dressing room. Dalrymple denied the claims, and the club said its investigation found no wrongdoing by him. Dalrymple retired not long before the settlement became public in 2022. The Cowboys have been the most valuable pro sports team in the world for almost a decade, according to Forbes magazine. That number was $10.1 billion in rankings published late last year. 'Happy' isn't even the right word for it,' former cheerleader Jada McLean said on the show. 'I think I was just … kind of felt, like, a relief, like everything had paid off. And it was, you know, finally, we were done fighting.'
Fox Sports
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fox Sports
The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders Are Getting a 400% Pay Increase
The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders say they are getting a serious increase in pay. One of the cheerleaders has said during the second season of the Netflix series "America's Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders" that the members are getting a 400% boost in pay. The cheerleaders have been pushing for pay increases for years. In 2019, the Cowboys settled a lawsuit with a former cheerleader that led to the squad doubling the per-game pay, from $200 to $400. The latest raise is four times that. "Our efforts were heard and they wanted to give us a raise," four-year veteran Megan McElaney said on the show. "And we ended up getting a 400% increase, which is like, life-changing." According to ESPN, the Cowboys agreed to pay four cheerleaders a total of $2.4 million nine years ago to settle claims by the women that the team's longtime public relations chief, Rich Dalrymple, filmed them in the dressing room. Dalrymple denied the claims, and the club said its investigation found no wrongdoing by him. Dalrymple retired not long before the settlement became public in 2022. The Cowboys have been the most valuable pro sports team in the world for almost a decade, according to Forbes magazine. That number was $10.1 billion in rankings published late last year. "Happy' isn't even the right word for it," former cheerleader Jada McLean said on the show. "I think I was just ... kind of felt, like, a relief, like everything had paid off. And it was, you know, finally, we were done fighting." Reporting by The Associated Press. Want great stories delivered right to your inbox? Create or log in to your FOX Sports account , and follow leagues, teams and players to receive a personalized newsletter daily! FOLLOW Follow your favorites to personalize your FOX Sports experience Dallas Cowboys National Football League recommended Get more from National Football League Follow your favorites to get information about games, news and more in this topic
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Associated Press
Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders say they're getting a 400% increase in pay
FRISCO, Texas (AP) — The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders say they are getting a serious increase in pay. One of the cheerleaders has said during the second season of the Netflix series 'America's Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders' that the members are getting a 400% boost in pay. The cheerleaders have been pushing for pay increases for years. In 2019, the Cowboys settled a lawsuit with a former cheerleader that led to the squad doubling the per-game pay, from $200 to $400. The latest raise is four times that. 'Our efforts were heard and they wanted to give us a raise,' four-year veteran Megan McElaney said on the show. 'And we ended up getting a 400% increase, which is like, life-changing.' According to ESPN, the Cowboys agreed to pay four cheerleaders a total of $2.4 million nine years ago to settle claims by the women that the team's longtime public relations chief, Rich Dalrymple, filmed them in the dressing room. Dalrymple denied the claims, and the club said its investigation found no wrongdoing by him. Dalrymple retired not long before the settlement became public in 2022. The Cowboys have been the most valuable pro sports team in the world for almost a decade, according to Forbes magazine. That number was $10.1 billion in rankings published late last year. 'Happy' isn't even the right word for it,' former cheerleader Jada McLean said on the show. 'I think I was just ... kind of felt, like, a relief, like everything had paid off. And it was, you know, finally, we were done fighting.' ___ AP NFL:
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26auto%3Dwebp%26quality%3D75%26crop%3D3%3A2%2Csmart%26trim%3D&w=3840&q=100)
Scotsman
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia by Sam Dalrymple review: 'alert to the details'
Sign up to our Arts and Culture newsletter, get the latest news and reviews from our specialist arts writers Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... To convey the scope and subtlety of Sam Dalrymple's book, rather than refer readers to the subtitle – 'Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia' – it is better, I think, to sketch the outline of stories which encapsulate its capacity to fray and unpick preconceptions. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru in conversation at the All-India Congress committee meeting at Bombay, 1946 | Getty Images In 1929-31 Gandhi travelled the breadth of 'British India'; from Aden (now in Yemen) to Rangoon (now in Myanmar, formerly Burma). In an interview he conducts, Dalrymple records that Mohammad Zaul Hassan says 'I was born in India, grew up in Bangladesh, became a citizen of Pakistan, now I'm British'. Salman Rushdie may have given the Partition of 14-15 August 1947 an almost mythic significance in his Booker winning Midnight's Children, but it is clear from this book that the whole situation was far, far more complex than a singular event. The message is more mess than messianic moment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Even in introducing his five partitions, Dalrymple is precise. The first is the partition of Burma from India; linked to both Bamar separatism and Hindu concerns about the integrity of the holy and ancient 'Bharat'. But, as he notes, the Straits Settlement and the Somaliland Protectorate occurred beforehand (in 1867 and 1898): the five here have been chosen not just for being post-World War One (which saw the dismantling of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires), but after the introduction of Indian Empire passports. It is ironic that this bureaucratic formality went hand in hand with its own disintegration. Sign up to our FREE Arts & Culture newsletter at The second partition was the ongoing divestment of the Arabian Peninsular states (including Aden). The third, which created West and East Pakistan, is the one that is now most associated with 'Partition', although the fourth – the partition of Princely India, with some 565 entities, including Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad, and Mysore, deciding whether to ally with Pakistan or India – is perhaps the most significant in terms of power dynamics. Finally, there is the 1971 secession of East Pakistan to become Bangladesh. This vast amount of material is handled admirably, particularly since Dalrymple keeps the hypotheticals in full view at the same time. None of the outcomes was pre-ordained or inevitable, and the contingencies are as informative. There are reasons why Bhutan, Nepal and Oman kept their independence while Sikkim, Nagaland and Junagadh did not. Both Nehru and Aung San contemplated the possibility of an Asiatic Federation, including Sri Lanka as well. The levels of brinksmanship are astonishing – one possible outcome, since 1974, has been nuclear, yet even without that, mass displacement, starvation and old fashioned brutality had done more than enough. Dalrymple, incidentally, should be commended for being very careful about the contested use of the word genocide. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The nuancing of imperial history has been more of the most welcome features of modern historiography. On one hand, the subcontinent shows the ideological assertions of almost primal historicity. The definition of an ideal and ancient Hindu 'Bharat' both coalesces and excludes; even Pakistan's name, coined by Rahmat Ali and originally 'Pakstan', was both a partial acronym of Panjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan and a reference to the Persian word for pure. Some of these ideas are novelised in Gurnaik Johal's Saraswati, a fiction which might be slightly over-determined, but in its Calvino-esque braiding of stories is markedly more ambitious than most debuts. The insistence on aboriginal unity is offset with political theoretical problems about the right to separate: if secession is good enough for one area, why not for another? We are accustomed here to such arguments being deployed in terms of, say, Shetlandic or Orcadian independence. On the subcontinent this was exacerbated in the Princely States, where, for example, Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority population and a Hindu ruler, Maharajah Hari Singh; while Hyderabad had a Hindu majority population and a Muslim ruler, the Nizam. It was in Kashmir that a Scottish officer, William Brown, decided to mutiny to prevent the areas, particularly Gilgit province, joining India. With 'three bottles of gin inside us', he and Jock Mathieson 'became uncontrollably hilarious… [and] created a terrific disturbance', raised the Pakistan flag and saw off the emergent 'United States of Gilgit'. Neighbouring Hunza and Nagar toyed, it was claimed, with succession to Russia instead. Despite the immensity of the canvas, Dalrymple is alert to the telling detail and the revealing anecdote. Although I particularly liked the monkeys purportedly trained to throw hand grenades, Dalrymple cleverly has his cake and eats it with such material. It is too good to not include the Nawab of Junagadh, with his 800 dogs, each with their own servant, and the ostentatiously lavish wedding for his favourite Roshana, to a Labrador called Bobby, even if, as he points it, it is not true. Of course, such orientalism is essentially a literary phenomenon, and the fact that such stories were told tells is more than the stark reality. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dalrymple is especially good at providing pen portraits of the key players – Jinna, Nehru and Aung San, as well as Gandhi, Menon, the Mountbattens and less well known figures like Naga nationalist Zapu Phizo. These state-level players are supplemented by written and oral people's histories. It is always an incomprehensible irony to me that we indulge in so much phony nostalgia for Empire in this county, and know so little of the Empire. As Kipling said, 'What do they know of England who only England know?' There ought to be a mammoth, epic, television series: but more The Hollow Crown rather than The Crown, please.
