{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03905614320585842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022782750203417412, 'mean_word_length': 5.119402985074627, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories

As an event, the Partition of India was not a history in itself but the histories written thereafter. Such a refl ective thought suggests various interpretations of the causes of the Partition, the subsequent communal formations, both individual and institutional responsibilities for communal carnage, the pathos of displaced families and of innocent victims of various crimes, all connected to its process of artifi cially dividing two sick nations from a healthy society, which was not ready for any such operation. For most such histories, the offi cial and unoffi cial documents distributed in the archives of India, Pakistan, and England are suffi cient to provide required sources to understand the history of India’s partition (e.g., Hodson, The Great Divide , Oxford, 1969; Pandey, The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, 1926 – 1934 , Oxford, 1978; Aziz, History of Partition in India , Atlantic, 1988; Hasan and Gupta, eds., India’s Colonial Encounter , Manohar, 1993; Zakaria, The Man Who Divided India , Popular Prakashan, 2001; and more). Yet Zamindar’s work deepens the understanding of the effects of the Partition.