Framing Partition in English teaching resources: empire, British values and the politics of curriculum

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article examines teaching resources addressing the Partition of India, exploring how Partition is framed through supplementary teaching resources developed by government and non-governmental organisations in England. Using critical discourse analysis, the study investigates the National Archives teaching resources on Partition and other educational initiatives led by non-governmental organisations called the Partition History Project and the White Line Project. Drawing on McQuaid and Gensburger’s concepts of the administration of memory and Bernstein’s regulative discourse, the analysis reveals how Partition is often presented within a framework of British values, transforming a complex episode of imperial violence and migration into a moral lesson on tolerance and social harmony. Despite growing calls for decolonisation, the Partition teaching materials in England reflect an institutional preference for national coherence over critical historical inquiry, aligning with a broader tendency to marginalise colonial histories or recast them as narratives of shared heritage. By examining how Partition is selectively remembered and pedagogically framed, this article argues for a more critical, inclusive and historically grounded approach to teaching materials addressing the British Empire in English schools.
Original languageEnglish
Article number22
JournalHistory Education Research Journal
Volume22
Issue1
ISSN1472-9466
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Sept 2025

Keywords

  • British Empire
  • Partition of India
  • community cohesion
  • critical discourse analysis
  • curriculum reform
  • decolonisation
  • history education
  • imperialism

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Framing Partition in English teaching resources: empire, British values and the politics of curriculum'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this