Reading Auden’s “Partition” through I. A. Richards’ Idea of Figurative Language

W. H. Auden’s poem “Partition” deals with one of the most painful political acts of the twentieth century: the division of India in 1947. If we read this poem using the ideas of I. A. Richards, especially his views on figurative language, tone, and meaning, the poem becomes clearer and more disturbing. Richards believed that meaning in poetry is not only in single words, but in how words work together to shape feeling, attitude, and judgment. Auden’s poem is a strong example of this idea.

At first sight, the poem looks very plain and factual. Auden describes a British official sent to divide land between “two peoples fanatically at odds.” The language appears simple, almost like a report. But according to Richards, this surface simplicity hides deep emotional meaning. The poem uses irony as its main figurative tool. Irony, for Richards, is a way in which language says one thing but makes us feel another.

For example, the opening line says:

“Unbiased at least he was when he arrived on his mission,”

The phrase “at least” already suggests doubt. The official is called unbiased not because he understands the land, but because he has “never set eyes on the land.” Here, the tenor (the real meaning) is irresponsibility, while the vehicle (the words used) is neutrality. Auden shows how ignorance is mistaken for fairness.

Another strong example is the description of the task as a routine job:

“He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate / Of millions.”

The calm phrase “got down to work” is normally used for office duties. But here it is linked with the fate of millions of people. According to Richards, this contrast creates emotional pressure. The reader feels shock because ordinary language is used for an extraordinary human disaster.

Auden also uses physical discomfort to suggest moral discomfort. The official suffers from heat and illness:

“The weather was frightfully hot, / And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot.”

On the surface, this sounds almost humorous. But figuratively, the body’s weakness mirrors the weakness of the decision-making process. Richards would say that feeling and thought are inseparable here. The poem makes us uneasy without openly stating moral judgment.

The outdated maps and incorrect census returns are also important symbols:

“The maps at his disposal were out of date / And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect.”

These are not just practical problems. Figuratively, they show how false knowledge leads to real suffering. The language is factual, but the effect is tragic. This is what Richards calls the interaction of words, where meaning grows from context, not decoration.

The final irony comes at the end of the poem. After dividing a continent, the official leaves and forgets everything:

“The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget / The case, as a good lawyer must.”

The phrase “good lawyer” is bitterly ironic. Forgetting becomes professional skill. The poem ends not with violence, but with fear: he does not return because “he might get shot.” The suffering of millions is reduced to a personal risk.

In conclusion, using I. A. Richards’ approach helps us see that Auden’s “Partition” is not emotional on the surface, but deeply emotional underneath. The figurative language works through irony, contrast, and tone rather than grand images. Simple words create complex meanings. Auden shows how cold language can hide warm blood. The poem reminds us that when language loses human feeling, history pays the price.