Fourteen Partition Interviews and One Contradicted Date
A college in a border district is running an oral history project on Partition. Fourteen interviews have been recorded with families who came from Sialkot district. In one interview a man, aged six in 1947, says his family crossed 'in August 1947, when the killing started'. Family papers include a ration card showing his father drawing rations in Sialkot in March 1948 and a school certificate recording his admission to a school near the border in October 1948. A second interviewee, aged three in 1947, gives a detailed account of a train attack that his elder sister says the family did not witness. A third account agrees closely with an evacuee property claim filed in 1949. The project has a 1,000-word report to submit, no access to Pakistani archives, and a supervisor who says oral sources are 'unreliable' and should be dropped.
1. The first interviewee's date is contradicted by his own family's documents. How should the report treat the interview?
Read the worked answer
Not as a lie and not as a discard. Memory is reconstructive: dates and sequences are weakly encoded, especially for a child, while sensory detail, fear, rumour and the order of dramatic events are strongly retained. 'August 1947, when the killing started' is likely a telescoping of the general departure of the community with the family's own departure, which the documents place more than a year later. It is also possible that part of the family moved earlier, or that the father stayed behind to settle property and the family followed - a common pattern that makes 'when did you leave' a misleading question.
The report should therefore use the interview for experience and meaning - what was carried, who helped, what was heard, what was feared - and use the ration card, school certificate and camp records for chronology. The date in the transcript should be footnoted as the speaker's recollection, with the documentary correction given in the note, not silently edited out. This keeps the transcript honest and preserves the evidence of how the past is remembered, which is itself a historical fact about Partition.
2. Design the source hierarchy for the report and justify it.
Read the worked answer
The hierarchy must be built for the question being asked, and the report asks two: when and how did these families move, and what did the move mean to them.
For dates, routes and household composition: camp registers, evacuee property claims, ration cards and school records come first, because they were made at the time for administrative purposes and contain checkable names and places. Their limitation is that they record only those who registered, so the poorest, and often women and children, are under-represented.
For experience and meaning: the fourteen interviews come first, since no official file records fear, rumour or the smell of a camp. They are also the only source for those who never registered.
For context: contemporary newspapers and district gazetteers, used cautiously because of wartime censorship and official framing; published memoirs, which are edited and usually elite.
Below both: the supervisor's assumption, which is not a source. The report should state that fourteen interviews are not a representative sample and that no Pakistani-side record was consulted, so conclusions are limited to this group.
3. What does reliability mean here, and how would you write the limitations paragraph?
Read the worked answer
Reliability is not a property of a source in general but of a source in relation to a particular question. The same interview is reliable about the terror of the journey and unreliable about the month of departure; it is reliable about family names and unreliable about crowd sizes; it may be reliable about what happened at the border and unreliable about who was responsible. Judgements of reliability therefore have to be made sentence by sentence, against whatever independent check exists.
Model limitations paragraph: 'These fourteen testimonies were recorded sixty-eight years after the events they describe, in Punjabi and Hindi, and translated for this report; nuances of dialect and of kinship terms are therefore lost. The sample was recruited through two families and is weighted towards landowning households; women were present at only four interviews, and their accounts are mediated by the interviewer's questions. Dates given by speakers have been checked against family documents and camp records and, where they conflict, the documentary date is used and the discrepancy is footnoted. No archives in Pakistan were consulted, so the departures are seen only from the receiving side. Finally, memory of 1947 has been shaped by later family storytelling and by the state's refugee category, and this shaping is treated in the report as evidence in its own right, not as noise to be removed.'