Before I move back in time to the great figures of the first part of the twentieth century, I would like to discuss here another writer, whom I think one of the very best of those who wrote in the latter part of the century. I refer to Paul Scott, who wrote in the four books of his Raj Quartet the best fictional account of the last days of the British in India, and the attitudes as well as the events that led to partition. His exploration of human interactions in the context of seminal political developments is unmatched in terms of the insights it offers of both the public and the private. I should, however, note that perhaps my appreciation is affected by my interest in the partition of India, which I think is of vital importance to the way history has played itself out, not only in South Asia, but elsewhere too, in terms of the dichotomies that affect international relations as well as analysis now.

However, my approach here will be confined to the simple question of Scott's subject, in the context of the particular historical situation that he wrote about. This is related, however, to other analyses too. For instance, in The Shadow of the Great Game: the Untold Story of India's Partition, Narendra Singh Sarila refers illuminatingly to the relationship between Nehru and Mountbatten, when he writes ‘Nehru and the Mountbattens had come close to each other. The Indian was less able to separate affairs of state from personal feelings than the Englishman’.