A look back at the partition

[brihaspati]

To understand the roots of Partition, we have to understand what happened in Bengal from 1905 onwards. What is typically lost in narrative of "Banga-vanga-rad"(why did the British lose a "the" letter in the alphabet!) movement, is that Bengal was actually partitioned on the excuse of administrative efficiency. More importantly, the resistance to the anti-partition movement came from the Muslim elite of Bengal, especially the then Nawab of Dacca - one of the most rabid anti-Hindu and Islamic revivalist of his time. He was instrumental in resourcing the mobilization of Muslim opinion in favour of the "separation".

The failure of the public mobilization and open, mass demonstration against the Bengal Partition probably led to the realization that Curzon represented the real face of British imperialism and long term plan for India. Where a modern PM of India sees only positive contribution for "historical/archival/archeological" by Curzon, the Bengali saw a devious imperialist. Search immediately began for alternative models - and led to at least two prominent semi-secret societies of the time, the Dhaka Anushilon Samiti led by Pulin Das (his autobiography is a fascinating insight into a fantastic organizing mind and remarkable political and strategic maturity with all the quirks of his background and his times - his Mao style list of "military" instructions include strict injunctions against anal hanky panky!) - (P. Mitras' group was far less organized), and the Jugantor group led by Aurobindo Ghosh. Both groups formed and flourished in the period 1905-1908. At the end of this period both groups were severely mauled by the British secret service and their Indian collaborators. However, while Jugantor almost never really recovered, the Dhaka Anushilon Samiti carried on - and was never again really that much penetrated or damaged by the British.

What is significant for understanding Partition is that both these groups had no Muslim members. While Jugantor adopted overt Hindu symbols, with oath taking on the Geeta, and worshipping Kali, but never really made any anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic declarations in its revolutionary phase (Aurobindo in his "sanyas" stage indicates more clearly his sentiments), Pulin Das is quite explicit in his autobiography. He considers them as "untrustable". Pulin Das's first attempts at organizing boys for physical training and "lathi-khela" - an ancient martial arts form in Bengal - apparently cam eunder attack from Muslim "goons", and Das and his trainees were apparently successful in repulsing the attack. This brought more support from parents and more recruits.

We can immediately see, that as early as 1905-1908, the "Hindu" middle class already saw the Muslim as not only not sharing their ideals of nation and national reassertion, they actually saw Muslim role as obstructive and actively hostile. Thus while Bhagat Singh had Muslim recruit in his aspirations in the north, it is signficant that none of the armed insurrectionsists in Bengal had any Muslim component. But in Bengal this also meant a problem. With almost half the population Muslim, who appeared pro-British and unsympathetic to nationalist aspirations - the Bengali politicians and nationalists were faced with a very real and practical problem. How to proceed with the Muslim attitude given their numerical strength?

The nationalists in the upper Gangetic valley failed to take their lessons from the Bengali dilemma. This phenomenon could give them a very early indication of what Muslim role would be in the overall nationalist movement itself. The Bengali dilemma represents all the twists and turns and the outcomes of the Islamic reluctance to share the Indian "reassertion".

It is primarily the failure of the Bengali revolutionaries to mobilize the Muslims in a common nationalist movement, that made them turn to wider countrywide mass organizations like the Congress on the one hand, and to communism on the other hand. Most leftists in Bengal came from the two popular streams of armed-insurrectionists - the Jugantor group mostly produced "Communists" - Marxists following the Comintern and USSR, while the Anushilon Samiti gave rise to the "socialists" - Marxists not following Comintern and USSR, and in favour of independent nationalist movements.

For both groups, Marxism would appear to be way out - for it appeared to provide a framework that ignored religious differences and provided motivations and a constituency to launch a bid for power that could be hoped to overcome Islamic reticence. The failure of the earlier "Hindu" and "Indic" framework for the struggle would also make them look for an example of success against "west" from outside of India. I feel that the criticism I levelled at JLN also applies to these sincere but confused individuals - that they failed to be confident of their Indic and indigenous Hindu roots as source of strength because of colonial education. Thus they were looking for inspiration from outside.

It is obvious, that the less organizationally successful group of Jugantor would turn to an ideology and identification with a force coming from outside of India more directly, than the more organizationally successful group of Anushilon Samiti.

That the "socialist" JLN programme resulted in the trauma and experience of the Partition in 47, and subsequent discriminatory treatment, was instrumental in disillusionment with the alternative nationalist claims of the Congress model, and turned the tide towards "communist" line comapred to the socialist line. Moreover, the socialist version, in the associates of the Anushilon Samiti, which was based primarily in East Bengal, was badly decimated due to the Partition. Early communist collaboration with Nehru through Soviet mediation also helped them to a certain extent in WB.

All the political forces of the pre-Partition nationalist movements had the writing plainly on the wall - but they all chose to create a grand escapist illusion about the Islamic. JLN's elaborate reconstruction of the Islamic as a high culture that could enrich the Indic was one such illusory attempt. The Bengali failed insurrectionsts attempts through Marxism was another attempt. Each such illusion contributed to the final tragedy of the Partition. Part of this illusion came from the failure to rise beyond colonial education and reconstruction of history. But equally the illusion came from a reconstructed myth about the "Hindu" attitude to aggression or lack of enthusiasm in the "other" to belong. The colonial education and propaganda carefully imposed the myth of a "Hindu" that accepted and absorbed "everything" and internalized such "divergences". This was necessary to neutralize the memories of militant self-assertion in the community so that the empire had it easier.

But the tragedy lies in the self-delusion and false images of the Islamic constructed by the nationalists of non-Muslim majority.

[Prem]

GANDHI and Nehru both opposed Bengali Bose and Punjabi Bhagat Singh. The impact on public psyche by these 2 personalities must be giving G&N nightmares, so the lands of both Bs were cut down to finsih any further challenge to N's personal glory . The principle of Kangress supreme over country is still in vogue and the party still deligitimitig nationalistic forces at the cost of weakining nation's social and spiritual strength. Just like old time with Brytish, kangress rather bargain with foreign powers to rule India than serve nation and strengthen its base.

[ramana]

Pleae note the bio in Wiki of
Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan.

And read the preface of Savarkar's Indian War of Independence page xiv to see what he did for Mother India.

[munna]

Pleae note the bio in Wiki of
Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan.

And read the preface of Savarkar's Indian War of Independence page xiv to see what he did for Mother India.

He was uncle of Khizr Hayat Khan Tiwana and a close associate of Sir Chotu Ram. Glad to see him being remembered and given some mention. If we can have Pakjabis like him who were well respected by even Savarkar then I do feel that our leadership could have achieved more had they tried harder.

[ramana]

Brihaspatiji, I thought the roots of Bengal partition of 1905 were really the insecurity of the East India Company toward Bengali intellectual achievments and the fact that it was the Bengal Presidency Army that took up arms.

Also Satyajit Ray in his film version of R Tagore's "The Home and the World" says that Muslim peasantry resented the Hindu Zamindars and saw Partition as a way to get out.

Also there were a number of revolts in Begal Presidency that dont make the history books.

[munna]

Brihaspatiji one thing that bothers me very much whenever the issue of participation by Muslims in freedom movement is brought up is the educational differential between the Hindu middle classes and the muslims ones! Clearly to be motivated by nationalist passions and to understand the various revolutions around the world one needed good grounding in English and access to modern political literature. The apathy of the Muslim social leadership towards learning and education resulted in youth which was ripe for moulding by a cunning imperial power hell bent on exploiting the intellectual differential by metamorphing it into some sort of civilizational differential. I do not deny the violent and the imperial nature of Wahabi Islam but surely our civilization had developed some skills to combat those and Congress unfortunately refused to use them.

[ramana]

To understand the roots of Partition, we have to understand what happened in Bengal from 1905 onwards.

The failure of the public mobilization and open, mass demonstration against the Bengal Partition probably led to the realization that Curzon represented the real face of British imperialism and long term plan for India. Where a modern PM of India sees only positive contribution for "historical/archival/archeological" by Curzon, the Bengali saw a devious imperialist. Search immediately began for alternative models - and led to at least two prominent semi-secret societies of the time, the Dhaka Anushilon Samiti led by Pulin Das (his autobiography is a fascinating insight into a fantastic organizing mind and remarkable political and strategic maturity with all the quirks of his background and his times - his Mao style list of "military" instructions include strict injunctions against anal hanky panky!) - (P. Mitras' group was far less organized), and the Jugantor group led by Aurobindo Ghosh. Both groups formed and flourished in the period 1905-1908. ...

What is significant for understanding Partition is that both these groups had no Muslim members. While Jugantor adopted overt Hindu symbols, with oath taking on the Geeta, and worshipping Kali, but never really made any anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic declarations in its revolutionary phase (Aurobindo in his "sanyas" stage indicates more clearly his sentiments), Pulin Das is quite explicit in his autobiography. He considers them as "untrustable". Pulin Das's first attempts at organizing boys for physical training and "lathi-khela" - an ancient martial arts form in Bengal - apparently cam eunder attack from Muslim "goons", and Das and his trainees were apparently successful in repulsing the attack. This brought more support from parents and more recruits.

We can immediately see, that as early as 1905-1908, the "Hindu" middle class already saw the Muslim as not only not sharing their ideals of nation and national reassertion, they actually saw Muslim role as obstructive and actively hostile. Thus while Bhagat Singh had Muslim recruit in his aspirations in the north, it is signficant that none of the armed insurrectionsists in Bengal had any Muslim component. But in Bengal this also meant a problem. With almost half the population Muslim, who appeared pro-British and unsympathetic to nationalist aspirations - the Bengali politicians and nationalists were faced with a very real and practical problem. How to proceed with the Muslim attitude given their numerical strength?

The nationalists in the upper Gangetic valley failed to take their lessons from the Bengali dilemma. This phenomenon could give them a very early indication of what Muslim role would be in the overall nationalist movement itself. The Bengali dilemma represents all the twists and turns and the outcomes of the Islamic reluctance to share the Indian "reassertion".

It is primarily the failure of the Bengali revolutionaries to mobilize the Muslims in a common nationalist movement, that made them turn to wider countrywide mass organizations like the Congress on the one hand, and to communism on the other hand. Most leftists in Bengal came from the two popular streams of armed-insurrectionists - the Jugantor group mostly produced "Communists" - Marxists following the Comintern and USSR, while the Anushilon Samiti gave rise to the "socialists" - Marxists not following Comintern and USSR, and in favour of independent nationalist movements.

....The failure of the earlier "Hindu" and "Indic" framework for the struggle would also make them look for an example of success against "west" from outside of India. I feel that the criticism I levelled at JLN also applies to these sincere but confused individuals - that they failed to be confident of their Indic and indigenous Hindu roots as source of strength because of colonial education. Thus they were looking for inspiration from outside.

It is obvious, that the less organizationally successful group of Jugantor would turn to an ideology and identification with a force coming from outside of India more directly, than the more organizationally successful group of Anushilon Samiti.

......

All the political forces of the pre-Partition nationalist movements had the writing plainly on the wall - but they all chose to create a grand escapist illusion about the Islamic. JLN's elaborate reconstruction of the Islamic as a high culture that could enrich the Indic was one such illusory attempt. The Bengali failed insurrectionsts attempts through Marxism was another attempt. Each such illusion contributed to the final tragedy of the Partition. Part of this illusion came from the failure to rise beyond colonial education and reconstruction of history. But equally the illusion came from a reconstructed myth about the "Hindu" attitude to aggression or lack of enthusiasm in the "other" to belong. The colonial education and propaganda carefully imposed the myth of a "Hindu" that accepted and absorbed "everything" and internalized such "divergences". This was necessary to neutralize the memories of militant self-assertion in the community so that the empire had it easier.

But the tragedy lies in the self-delusion and false images of the Islamic constructed by the nationalists of non-Muslim majority.

So we got Macaulayzed and adopted the westphalian state construct when the Muslims were asking for millat status. IOW the cookie cutter approach of modern nation-state led to the tragedy.

BTW, the Jugantar and the Dhaka Anushilan look like INC and Savarkar's way.

[brihaspati]

I have already proposed the following hypothesis to explain Congress behaviour :

The Congress leadership that emerged had strong connections in the Upper Gangetic belt and central-western India. For them, their core was this region and Punjab and Bengal represented "culturally" alien periphery. Throughout negotiations with the British, they show a high concern in preserving an elongated core centred in the upper Gangetic Belt but that does not include Punjab and Bengal - which appears to be distant and vague wings for them. In fact it is also seen in the casual and negligent attitude towards wrangling over the eastern and western borders in these sectors. In the east Chittagong port was not demanded - a strategic blunder that forever weakens the position in the entire NE. There are many such examples, where the more experienced in military side here can point out the problems.

Moreover Bengal and Punjab represented two well known centres of large scale production of two items dangerous for any regime nervous to control the whole country - agricultural items and political radicalism and independent political initiative. The upper Gangetic and the coastal west was a relative late comer in active radicalism against the British. So they could have been genuinely worried about future prospects of control. They had therefore no incentive to prevent the decimation of these two provinces.

Even if they had managed to eliminate the two B's, there would still be the risk of future such radicals - more dangerous if they caught national attention and became rival centres of national focus.

But my nagging suspicion remains, that their reaction is primarily driven by a overwheming inner fear and loathing of the Islamic - they do not think of the Muslim as their own or Indic. In all their writings they never drop the recognition that culturally Islam is alien - it is not Indic. Moreover they also identify the Islamic in terms of race and ethnicity - as Central Asian, Mongol, Persian or Arabic - and by implication not Indic racially in origin. They never try to assimilate the Islamic in terms of their own Indic culture - they are always conscious about maintaining distinctions and preserving Islamic identities. There has never been any theoretical attempt in fitting the Islamic theology or "culture" within a slot of the Indic in the thousands of pages produced by MKG or JLN.

Samuelji, many of the stories of Partition cannot be reproduced authentically - I am personally aware of the consequences for certain families if the stories can actually identify them.

[RayC]

One wonders if the British plan to drive a schism between the Hindus and the Muslims of India as also to create Muslim majority parts in India took birth when it was decided to Partition Bengal.

Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India felt that Bengal was too large for one governor to administer and hence in 1905 decided to redraw boundaries and Partition Bengal.

The provinces of Bengal and Assam were reconstituted so as to form the two provinces of what the British claimed was of manageable size. West Bengal was composed of a population of 54 million (42 million Hindus and 9 million Muslims); and East Bengal was with population of 31 million (12 million Hindus and 18 million Muslims).

The new Province (East Bengal) would have hundred and six thousand and five hundred and forty square miles. The new province was named as `Eastern Bengal and Assam and Dhaka was to its capital while subsidiary headquarters at Chittagong.

This plan of Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, was posted to London in February 1905 and it was sanctioned by the British Govt in June and was proclaimed in September. The formal Partition took place on 16 Oct.

Bengal (western part) was more advanced since it had come earlier under the influence of the British and thus was industrialized, developed and the centre of education. On the other hand, East Bengal, owing to lack of communication was backward and hence did not have the benefits of development. It was also Muslim dominated who were basically the tillers of the land under zamindars (landlords).

The Partition was welcomed by the Muslims since it made them the majority community and they felt that development and empowerment would come their way.

The Hindus strongly opposed the Partition. They started a mass movement, declaring October 16 as the `day of mourning` in Calcutta.

The movement against Partition was so intense, that the British had to undo the same in 1911.

[RayC]

A backgrounder to the changing psyche of Bengal then.

An excerpt:

The viceroyalty of Curzon is said to have marked the apogee of this empire system. But the halo of the high noon of empire seems to have blinded the arrogant imperialists. They failed to recognize the emergence of the English educated middle class and appreciate its significance. Macaulay thought that English education would create “a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”. In Bengal English education generated an unprecedented intellectual ferment which ushered in a renaissance and gave it a cultural and intellectual primacy that prompted Gokhale to remark: “What Bengal thinks today India thinks tomorrow”. A Bengali of the time could well feel like saying with Wordsworth:

“Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive
But to be young was very heaven”.

The initial impact of Western civilization produced a middle class Bengali whose main concern was education and culture and not politics. Bankim has paid him a rich tribute by making a model of his kind in the character of Amarnath in the novel Rajani published in 1877. When we meet this character in the drawing room of the hero of the novel we find him opening his conversation with social and political topics, turning the pages of Shakespeare Gallery, discussing the characters of Desdemona and Juliet as well as the characters of Indian classical literature like Sakuntala, Sita, Kadambari, Vasavadatta,, Rukmini and Satyabhama. Next he takes up ancient historiography and gives a masterly exposition of classical historians like Tacitus, Plutarch, Thucydides and others.

Contemporary philosophers and thinkers like Comte, Mill, Huxley, Owen, Darwin, Buchner and Schopenhauer also form the subjects of his discussion. Five years later in Bankim’s Anandamath, published in 1882, we find the emergence of a different kind of Bengali – a political man and a man of action with a burning passion for political emancipation from the foreign yoke, ready to sacrifice not only the security and comforts of a settled family life but even his very life. He is no longer effeminate and cowardly but courageous enough to form a secret society and take up arms against his alien oppressors. From among such people arose the hawks who resented the placidity of the first political organization formed in 1885 which met more as a social club to pass resolutions praising the ruling power and praying for some small pittance through constitutional means. Soon they were to turn Bankim’s ‘Vande Mataram’ into their war cry.
Lord Curzon and the Partition of Bengal

[Prem]

Guess , Vande Matram played big role and it must have scared "intellectual" like Nehru who opposed it become national anthem. VM still stirs the soul of India and we still find oppostion to the song.

[Yayavar]

GANDHI and Nehru both opposed Bengali Bose and Punjabi Bhagat Singh. The impact on public psyche by these 2 personalities must be giving G&N nightmares, so the lands of both Bs were cut down to finsih any further challenge to N's personal glory . The principle of Kangress supreme over country is still in vogue and the party still deligitimitig nationalistic forces at the cost of weakining nation's social and spiritual strength. Just like old time with Brytish, kangress rather bargain with foreign powers to rule India than serve nation and strengthen its base.

This is being too parochial. There was a difference in philosophies and lots of people, me included, have resented that Bhagat Singh was not saved or that Bose had to leave Congress. Rajguru was also hung. Were Marathis to be cut down too?

I've heard lots of stories of Partition from my family and friends- of loss both life and property, of greed, of naivete, cruelty, and heroism. All sorts of stories. And yes Gandhi is not popular among most of my kin - especially those who crossed over. Gandhi's '40crores to Pak' is a big issue too.

Gandhi tried to calm things the way he knew best but it was beyond him by then. At the same time , he had a much larger vision. Remember he is said to have asked JLN to send the Army to Kashmir. He had said that the British can leave, let their be civil war but we will create a single country -- he was against Partition.

[enqyoob]

Doesn't anyone here want to celebrate the reality of Partition?
Every time I read about Pakistan or see a Pakistani, I say:

There but for the Grace of ATM goes what would otherwise have been India and I would have had to cringe at the sight of it

[RayC]

Bal Gangadhar Tilak is considered as Father of Indian National Movement. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a multifaceted personality. He was a social reformer, freedom fighter, national leader, and a scholar of Indian history, sanskrit, hinduism, mathematics and astronomy. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was popularly called as Lokmanya (Beloved of the people). During freedom struggle, his slogan “Swaraj is my birthright and I shall have it” inspired millions of Indians.

In 1897, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was charged with writing articles instigating people to rise against the government and to break the laws and disturb the peace. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year. Tilak was released in 1898. After his release, Tilak launched Swadeshi Movement. Through newspapers and lectures, Tilak spread the message to each and every village in Maharashtra. A big 'Swadeshi Market' was opened in front of Tilak's house. Meanwhile, Congress was split into two camps-Moderates and Extremists. Extremists led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak opposed the moderate faction led by Gopal Krishna. Extremists were in the favour of self rule while the moderates thought that time is not yet ripe for such an eventuality. This rift finally led to a split in the Congress.

Tilak was arrested on the charges of sedition in 1906. After the trial, Tilak was sentenced to six years of imprisonment in Mandalay (Burma).

Tilak decided to build a separate organization called the 'Home Rule League'. Its goal was swaraj.

[Yayavar]

Doesn't anyone here want to celebrate the reality of Partition?
Every time I read about Pakistan or see a Pakistani, I say:

There but for the Grace of ATM goes what would otherwise have been India and I would have had to cringe at the sight of it

Yes, gangrene was amputated ...

The dukh is that we lost a limb..

[RayC]

It is said that Mahatma Gandhi had always been against the partition. It is said that he had said, "Before partitioning India, my body will have to be cut into two pieces."

[munna]

This is being too parochial. There was a difference in philosophies and lots of people, me included, have resented that Bhagat Singh was not saved or that Bose had to leave Congress. Rajguru was also hung. Were Marathis to be cut down too?

You got it wrong, this is not being parochial but dissecting the power struggle that was unleashed in the immediate aftermath of the plan for Indian independence. Bengal and Punjab had historically been hub of anti-British and non-congress nationalist politics and congress was loath to accept any other alternative apart from unquestioned transfer of power to congress with no scope for any other interpretation. Bose and Bhagat Singh were an alternative vision to a Congress vision of India. Thus when they are named they are named as institutions and not mere individuals. The mistake that people often make is to assume that all these shenanigans by congress ended in 1947 they did not! East Punjab was one of first few states in India to elect non-congress Akali-Jan Sangh government which prompted Congress to midwife khalistani radicals in order to discredit Akali-Jan Sangh vision. Politically speaking the partitioned states were not bastions of congress party and were punished for daring to think beyond Nehru-Gandhi.

[Abhi_G]

Brihaspatiji, I thought the roots of Bengal partition of 1905 were really the insecurity of the East India Company toward Bengali intellectual achievments and the fact that it was the Bengal Presidency Army that took up arms.

Also Satyajit Ray in his film version of R Tagore's "The Home and the World" says that Muslim peasantry resented the Hindu Zamindars and saw Partition as a way to get out.

Also there were a number of revolts in Begal Presidency that dont make the history books.

)

Ramana garu,
I would not tend to believe Ray's version of Ghare Baire (Home and the world), even though the film is very well made. The assumption that the Hindu zamindars' land ownership automatically translated into "exploitation" that caused resentment among the Muslim tillers has the tinge of the all time classic leftist explanation of how Islam "liberated" the downtrodden masses exploited by an evil brahminical system. However, I have not read the Tagore original, so would not be able to confirm. But still I am suspicious of Ray's version.

[RayC]

Ramana,

The evolution of the Bengal Zamindari system is available in the undermentioned article, written by my sister, Ratnalekha Ray:

The Bengal Zamindars: Local Magnates and state before the Permanent Settlement

Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 263-292 (1975)
DOI: 10.1177/001946467501200303

This is also interesting:

A rule of property for Bengal: an essay on the idea of permanent settlement

These two sources will give an idea as to the pro and cons of the Zamindari system.

It is not only that Rabindranath who wrote on the so called exploitation but also Sarat Chandra. But then they were novelists.

Sunil Gangopadhya, a modern novelist, basing on historical facts, has in his book, Sei Samei (Those Days) has written how a zamindar released his tenancy and made them the owners of the land.

[brihaspati]

ramana wrote
Brihaspatiji, I thought the roots of Bengal partition of 1905 were really the insecurity of the East India Company toward Bengali intellectual achievments and the fact that it was the Bengal Presidency Army that took up arms.

Also Satyajit Ray in his film version of R Tagore's "The Home and the World" says that Muslim peasantry resented the Hindu Zamindars and saw Partition as a way to get out.

Also there were a number of revolts in Begal Presidency that dont make the history books.

Well, it was a long process, but by the time of the first partition, EIC has been out of power for almost 48 years, and it was directly the crown which was ruling. Moreover, by and large, the middle class Bengali - with the right amount of "voice", was more or less a collaborator of the British. If we look at the foundations of the most prominent Bengali families of the time, they were all practically beneficiaries of the British intervention. Rammohan Roy was a "salt" diwan, the founder of prosperity of the Thakurs started out by "stevedory" with the British and his descendant had active collaborative ventures with the British, etc. The earlier Bengali had mostly looked upon the British appearance on the scene as an opportunity.

Rabindranath's sympathies for the "Muslim" ryot under legendary "Hindu zamindari" exploitation is well known - a theme he indulges in many stories. But the story may not be so simple. There were also Muslim zamindars and "rajahs" in Bengal, most, if not all, of whom were rather late converts to Islam. As far as records and popular memory goes - they were equally oppressive as their Hindu counterparts. Peasant rebellions were quite common in Bengal, and what is usually not told is that such rebellions became increasingly frequent during the Mughal occupation of Bengal. We know of legendary coalitions of both Hindu and Muslim "zamindars" and "rajahs" against the Mughals, and Manrique testifies to the extreme repression of Muslim and Mughal officials on the ryots - the "shiqdar" had the right to enslave and auction off peasants and their families to raise claimed tax if the peasant could not meet official demands. In fact in many places, during the 40's early communists were quite successful in mobilizing both Hindu and Muslim peasants against zamindars - through the famous "three portions" movement ("tebhaga"). If it was purely community based - this collaboration would not have taken place.

Did "Ray" really say aomething along the lines of "partition" b eing accepted by "Muslim" peasants for the above reason in Rabindranath's writings? I do not think the idea of '47 type Partition ever appears in Rabindranath's writings - most unlikely , as he died in the early 40's and before even the "Quit India" movement.

The later revolts in Bengal Presidency that usually are not mentioned are becuase some of them took direct inspiration from Indic roots - like the "Sanyasi rebellion" which is supposed to be the inspiration for "Anandmath". Incidentally, the avoidance and ire against "Vandemataram" comes mainly from Islamic theologians who resent the iconography of representing the nation as the "mother" - as well as apparent recognition of the underlying anti-Islamist stance in Anandamath, where the lyrics appear. (Chatterjee places an open call "nere maar" - "liquidate the Muslims" in one of the characters). For some reason the Santhal uprisings, and that of Birsa is also not mentioned.

One of my ancestors was a CS in the earlier years of post-57 in charge of multiple districts of Bihar and Bengal and he brought over a lot of people from UP (he also saw action in the fag end of the 57 fighting) and Gaya to his own extensive holdings further south. This was a mix of tribals, plains Muslims as well as Hindus (More of tribals). He again quietly arranged for many of the families of close associates of Birsa to escape to his forest dominions. I have been told by their descendants, that according to their forefathers there was little difference between "Hindu" or "Muslim" rulers or zamindars as far as exploitation of peasants were concerned - and that my ancestor was an exception. They sought his protection as he had appeared to hold his own with the British officers, as well as Mughal officials and rebel "sepoys". The picture that emerged was that of utter chaos, where sepoys, as well as the British torched villages and looted or killed without discrimination.

The extreme disruption that we see in the leadup to the Partition did not really exist among the peasantry on faith lines before the 40's. Demobilized Muslim soldiers and officers, ML volunteer organizations, and mobilization of the Ulema and Mullahs led to a confused and inert state of the peasantry.

[brihaspati]

munnaji,
the Muslim elite and theologian nexus took a very active role in isnulating the common Muslim from "modern" education. We see far lesser number of Muslim educationists who seriously take up the task of education compared to "Hindu"s. While reactionary opposition to such a programme for Hindus did exist, but it appears that there were equal number of determined "Hindu" elite who persisted in their modernizing programme. But for the Islamic theologian, resistance to change is the first reaction, and ideas not sourced from within Islam especially those that are not materially useful (not how-to of Indian indigo or steel or numerals or abduction procedures for Hindu women for example) seems to be deeply feared and resented. The Nawabs of Dhacca appear tohave been extremely reactionary as afar as modern education for the common Muslim was concerned.

Moreover, the Hindu Bengali village usually had a "pathshala" - a kind of local primary, where even peasant children attended. (Yes I have specific knowledge that it was "co-education" and "co-class").

[Rahul M]

Ramana garu,
I would not tend to believe Ray's version of Ghare Baire (Home and the world), even though the film is very well made. The assumption that the Hindu zamindars' land ownership automatically translated into "exploitation" that caused resentment among the Muslim tillers has the tinge of the all time classic leftist explanation of how Islam "liberated" the downtrodden masses exploited by an evil brahminical system. However, I have not read the Tagore original, so would not be able to confirm. But still I am suspicious of Ray's version.

that is actually an attempt to retroactively explain the sudden radicalisation of the bengali muslim peasant population in the years leading up to the partition.

from various accounts it is much more conceivable that the radicalisation took place at the instigation of the muslim elites who used a typically islamo-supremacist ideology to create such forces.

it should be noted that barring the elites, bengali muslim population was in general not 'particularly' radicalised, doesn't mean they lived in complete harmony but unlike the bihari muslims, who also formed a significant part of the muslim population of bengal, they didn't suffer from the 'mughal complex' or a pathological hatred of hindus.

=============
for exploitation by zamindars to be identified as a possible cause for wanting separation, historians and commentators, mostly of the marxist variety, ascribe a level of politico-economic understanding to the simple peasant population that was simply not there.

secondly, for that to be true there had to be discernible differences between the rule of a hindu zamindar and a muslim zamindar, as brihaspati ji points out, that was simply not there. (using the word zamindar as a stand in for land owner/raja etc etc)
if anything, the muslim zamindari population is notable by the singular lack of any progressive thought which catered for the welfare of the subjects.
OTOH there was a significant minority of hindu zamindars who did actually care about their subjects, often at the expense of their coffers since the exorbitant taxes imposed by the brits allowed little maneuvering space.

the actual cause of muslim hostility and violence, that of religious origins is difficult for marxists to either conceive or admit, hence we get to hear all kind of constructed reasons that have little to do with reality.

[SSridhar]

Jaswant pays the price for telling the truth [about Partition] - Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar
I am posting relevant extracts about Partition here

The interim government of 1946-47 included Congress and the Muslim League. Jinnah quarrelled daily with Congress on issue after issue to deny it legitimacy.

Liaquat Ali of the Muslim League was finance minister in the interim government, and had the power to block any expenditure. He constantly queried and blocked spending proposals of Congress ministers. Patel said he could not even appoint a chaprasi without Liaquat's approval, which took ages.

In February 1947, Liaquat presented a socialist ''poor man's budget''. This imposed a 25% tax on business profits over one lakh rupees, doubled
the corporate tax, imposed capital gains tax, and doubled the export duty on tea. It also proposed a commission to unearth tax-evaders.

Socialists in Congress supported these proposals. But others like Patel were outraged, claiming that Liaquat was really attacking Hindu businessmen (like G D Birla) who had long financed Congress. This was a Hindu communal interpretation of a budget that equally affected Muslim and Parsi industrialists. Hindu businessmen also feared that Liaquat would selectively target them for tax evasion via the new commission, a fear some Congressmen shared.

This reflected, in part, an unwillingness to accommodate the agenda of a prickly coalition partner. Ironically, the Congress of Sonia Gandhi would in 2004-08 swallow more humiliations from a prickly partner than it did in 1946-47. But in 1947, Congress saw itself as the natural party of rule, not a mere coalition partner.

Liaquat's tactics were stunningly successful. They convinced Patel - and later Nehru - that working with the Muslim League was impossible. Alan Campbell-Johnson says in Mission with Mountbatten that Nehru and Patel accepted Partition because ''by conceding Pakistan to Jinnah they will have no more of him and eliminate his nuisance value; or as Nehru put it privately, that by cutting the head we shall get rid of headache.''

This supports Jaswant Singh's claim that Congress opted for Partition rather than share power with Jinnah. Pakistani historians like Ayesha Jalal argue that Congress was unwilling to make the compromises necessary in a diverse democracy, and this led to Partition. Other historians blame Jinnah and Liaquat for sabotaging any chance of a unified India.

Either way, we need to abandon the myth that the British imposed Partition on India, though Mountbatten saw it as desirable and helped promote the Jinnah-Congress agreement on it. The clincher was Liaquat's budget and obstructionism, which drove Congress from opposing Partition to becoming a fully consenting partner in it. Jaswant Singh could have been tougher on Jinnah, but has correctly highlighted Congress' role in Partition.

[munna]

munnaji,
the Muslim elite and theologian nexus took a very active role in isnulating the common Muslim from "modern" education. We see far lesser number of Muslim educationists who seriously take up the task of education compared to "Hindu"s. While reactionary opposition to such a programme for Hindus did exist, but it appears that there were equal number of determined "Hindu" elite who persisted in their modernizing programme

So in effect post independence too India as a nation has not tried to reverse the old compact between Muslim Theologians/Elite and the regime in Delhi. The malaise of keeping a vast population of India untouched by modern eductaion resulted in an entire section of population ripe for accepting anything that could be brainwashed into them! This I guess is the point where Nehru-Gandhi failed us, instead of digging in and making the others see the light even by force if necessary we just gave up quietly on our civilizational heritage. Muslims of India (joint pre British) who went to Pakistan were not a lost cause as told by our official historians. Frontier, Balochistan, Chittagong and even large parts of Pakjab could have been salvaged had someone at the top dug in. This tendency to fence the Muslims as a totally distinct socio-cultural ecosystem from the rest is not taking us anywhere and we need to revisit this subtle policy being followed since pre independence era.

But for the Islamic theologian, resistance to change is the first reaction, and ideas not sourced from within Islam especially those that are not materially useful (not how-to of Indian indigo or steel or numerals or abduction procedures for Hindu women for example) seems to be deeply feared and resented. The Nawabs of Dhacca appear tohave been extremely reactionary as afar as modern education for the common Muslim was concerned.

This resistance to change is granted but there were other enlightened leaders from Muslims side in the fight too! Why did we fail as a nation to back them up, a fault that persists till now?

Moreover, the Hindu Bengali village usually had a "pathshala" - a kind of local primary, where even peasant children attended. (Yes I have specific knowledge that it was "co-education" and "co-class").

Refreshing fact!

[brihaspati]

The thing to note is that while the Muslim peasant did not find any obvious incentive to go against the Hindu peasant of similar economic status, does not necessarily mean that the two faith components shared any common vision of nationhood. I would be inclined to believe, that among the Muslim peasant - identification with a vague "Islamic nationhood" was stronger than the cultural sense of belonging to a "Hindu" nation among the Hindu peasant. The fact remains that the Muslim peasant as well as its elite remained immune to any shared vision of nationhood with the "Hindu" while they did not find it problematic to mount joint camapigns against exploitative individuals. This is why we do not find them in any significant proportion in any of the armed insurrectionist groups of Bengal while we know that the "Hindu" peasant or "blue-collar" section helped out on many occasions.

[brihaspati]

munnaji, I said this before, and will say it again - if the Congress really saw the Indic bloodline when they saw a Muslim - they would have treated them as family. Within the family, we sometimes thrash unruly and wayward kids, we cpature them from their destructive paths and drag them home, by the feet or the hair if necessary, and we thrash them when they refuse to take the correct path and love them back and forgive them when they mend their ways. But we never abandon family.

By allowing them to have separate competing identity and status, by allowing them immunity from syncretism, by accepting their claims of distinction, we have condemned them to the swet tyranny of the Mullah. This was the legacy of the Congress and the cause of the Partition.

[munna]

But we never abandon family.

Pretty much summed it up! Thanks Brihaspatiji

[ShauryaT]

Brihaspatiji, I thought the roots of Bengal partition of 1905 were really the insecurity of the East India Company toward Bengali intellectual achievments and the fact that it was the Bengal Presidency Army that took up arms.

Also Satyajit Ray in his film version of R Tagore's "The Home and the World" says that Muslim peasantry resented the Hindu Zamindars and saw Partition as a way to get out.

Also there were a number of revolts in Begal Presidency that dont make the history books.

Even if true that the act itself was to ease administrative concerns, the division itself was on the communal lines an art that the British had really mastered by then. One has to take into account, not only what led to it, but who were the principal groups that opposed the partition of Bengal. The answers give us some clues. The fudge of the historians succeed because at this time, muslims did not have a political organization to covalence around yet. The ML was formed in part as a reaction to the partition, in Dhaka, in support of British goals, as the ML was under the influence of the teachings of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Jinnah did not join the ML, till 1913, the time by which the partition was reversed and ML removed the charter to cooperate with British rule.

Can you shed some more light on the Bengal Presidency Army taking up arms. Most works talk about the increasing professionalization of the army just before 1905 and also the fact that the majority of the recruits were muslims. So, things are not adding up easily. Thanks.

[Prem]

But we never abandon family.

Pretty much summed it up! Thanks Brihaspatiji

Its in blood and well understood but Kongress forgot its duty to nourish the bloodline since 47 and decided to pamper the cry babies at the cost of very own people.

[RayC]

The divide between the Muslims and the Hindus in the villages was not so distinct as some may like to make it out.

In my village (and I was very small then), I am aware that Ma Kali in our ancestral temple was first installed by the Muslim workers and then and then only the actuals started.

It is something similar to the Muslim Gujjars being the protectors of the Amarnath shrine!

The exploitation of the farmers by the Zamindars is overdone. Some were tyrannical, but most were benevolent. After all, the Zamindars existence and capability to pay the British Exchequer depended on the cultivators!

[RayC]

Can you shed some more light on the Bengal Presidency Army taking up arms. Most works talk about the increasing professionalization of the army just before 1905 and also the fact that the majority of the recruits were muslims. So, things are not adding up easily. Thanks.

SauryaT,

If you want to know how the Indian Army formed from its initial days to the time of Independence, there can be no better a book than Mason's 'Matter of Honour'.

It is fascinating book and as honest to the fact that one can get.

[samuel]

One of the questions I've asked myself is why was partition so precipitous. Were people really waiting till the last minute, so to speak?
Here are some stories, the source will unfortunately have to do until we are willing and able to compile our own Indian narratives.

Consider what is said in this story:

[quote]Our family came from Mir Niyala in Jhang [west Punjab, Pakistan] to Jalandhar [east Punjab, India] in August 1947.

I was 14 years old. I had just got married and began to live with my in-laws. We used to own large tracts of fertile land.

I can never forget the dreadful scenes of the partition of India.

Rumours were going around that Muslims had looted the homes of Hindus and killed their men and children. One gentleman, Mr Qureshi, helped several Hindu families reach the newly demarcated India-Pakistan border. He was respected all over Mir Niyala.

He came to our house and told my father-in-law that the massacres seemed to be spreading to our area and people had gone mad.

We packed whatever we could lay our hands on in a state of panic. Mr Qureshi helped us and several other Hindu families reach a refugee camp in Jhang and he later accompanied us to the border.

He was praying to God for our wellbeing and tears welled up in his eyes as he bade us farewell.

To me, he seemed like an angel sent by God. Afterwards we heard that he had been dubbed a 'kafir' [non-believer] for helping non-Muslims and was murdered by his own people.

In India, we arrived at the Jalandhar refugee camp. We were no better than beggars. The days when we looked after our fertile lands were gone for good.

Our condition is much better today. However, time and again I remember that angel of God and I think that whatever comfort and prosperity we enjoy today is because of that pious man. [/quote]

And this one:
[quote]My mother, who passed away in April, told me a lot about the events of the partition.

She was 21 at the time and lived in Lahore with my father and their first child.

They had to leave their house taking nothing but the clothes they were wearing.

They were fortunate that their original home was on the other side of the border, in the Indian part of Punjab.

The journey was horrifying, there were piles of dead bodies everywhere. Rivers and lakes were full of women's bodies, who committed suicide in order to escape rape and murder.

Their memories were so painful, that my father never spoke of the partition. My mother saw it as the parting vendetta of the withdrawing administration. Nobody I know thought that partition was a good thing.

Once my parents reached their home village, they were so traumatised that they thought they would never leave the village again. They did, in the end, to come to the UK.

The only nice memory from these times of hateful violence, is that my grandparents later got a letter of thanks from their Muslim neighbours, who fled to Pakistan.[/quote]



Why did people not have months and months to accomplish this in an orderly way?
Here are some clues, though I am looking for more narratives, which I hope to compile. (Brihaspati, while there is danger, many are "happy" to tell their stories (i.e. can tell them), consider this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3QQ4LRwKD8) but you might need to know a little punjabi, one of us can translate as necessary):

No Hindu or Sikh public leader ever advocated migration from Western Punjab or for the matter of that from any part of Pakistan, till it became absolutely apparent, after August 15, that life with any degree of honour had been rendered impossible in Pakistan for Hindus and Sikhs. Below are given in detail pronouncements of Sikh and Hindu leaders and newspapers advocating that Hindus and Sikhs must not quit their homes in the Muslim majority areas. These pronouncements range from the 9th April (more than a month after the Amritsar, Rawalpindi and Multan terrors) upto the 12th August, 1947 (the date on which Lahore was a shambles for Hindus and Sikhs). Below are these pronouncements.-

• Tribune: 31-5-47. Mrs. Sucheta Kriplani appealing to the refugees at Wah on 30-5-47 advised them not to leave their hearths and homes as this would spoil their cases against real culprits.
• Vir Bharat: 16-6-47. The Frontier Hindu-Sikh Relief Committee issued an appeal to the Hindus and Sikhs of Peshawar and N.-W. F. P. to return to their homes.
• Ajit: 16-6-47. L. Kotu Ram, M. L. A. of Bannu in a press statement appealed to his co-religionists to return to their homes.
• Tribune: 29-6-47. Master Tara Singh contradicted the rumour in a statement to Associated Press of India on 26-647 that he had advised Sikhs of West Punjab to come to East Punjab. He said that he was of the considered opinion that non-Muslims of Western Punjab should continue to stay on in their homes.
• Vir Bharat: 29-647. S. Ajit Singh the renowned patriot appealed to the Hindus and Sikhs not to leave their homes.
• Tribune: 4-7-47. Sardar Patel and S. Baldev Singh assured a Sikh deputation from Rawalpindi to stick to their homes in Pakistan as they would enter into a treaty with Pakistan Government for protection and safeguarding the interests of minorities in Pakistan.
• Vir Bharat: 4-7-47. L. Dev Raj Sethi, M.L.A. (Congress) in a statement on 3-7-47 stated that exodus was harmful and suggested that the people should resolve to stick to the soil in which they were rooted.
• Vir Bharat: 4-7-47. Acharya Kriplani, Congress President assured the minorities in India that they would never be treated as foreigners and they would be given every assistance in the safeguarding of their interests.
• Vir Bharat: 9-4-47. S. Jagjit Singh Man, M.L.A., in a press statement exhorted the Hindus and Sikhs who had migrated from the riot-affected areas of Jhelum and Rawalpindi to return to their homes.
• Vir Bharat: 9-4-47. The Rawalpindi Relief Committee in a press statement advised the Hindus and Sikhs to stick to their homes.
• Tribune: 13-4-47. S. Partap Singh, M.L.A., member of the Congress High Command (later Minister, East Punjab Government) in an appeal to riot-striken people in the Punjab on 10-4-47 asked them to remember that unorganised migration of any people from the area where their ancestors had lived would add to the difficulties of every one.
• Tribune: 19-4-47. S. Sawarn Singh, President of the Punjab Riot Sufferers Relief Committee in a statement issued on 17-4-47 asked people not to migrate to places outside Rawalpindi Division, but to settle down at the various centres which Government had decided to protect.
• Vir Bharat: 6-5-47. Jathedar Mohan Singh, President, Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, in a statement to the press advised the refugees not to leave their homes and particularly they should not go out of the Punjab.
• Tribune: 26-5-47. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel in an interview to Rana Jang Bahadur Singh, Editor of the Tribune, on 24-5-47 advised people through him not to be panicky and to stick to places and face the situation bravely.
• Ajit: 8-7-47. In the public meeting at Tarn Taran, the Hon�ble Sir Buta Singh, Member Council of State, S. Surjit Singh, M.L.A. (Central) S. Jaswant Singh Jhabal, Jathedar Sohan Singh Jalalusman and other Sikh leaders exhorted the audience to protect the life and property of minorities.
• Vir Bharat: 8-7-47. L. Avtar Narain, Vakil of Jhelum, Member, Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, in a press statement exhorted the minorities in Pakistan that they should not leave their hearths and homes and should become good citizens of Pakistan.
• Vir Bharat: 8-7-47. At a minorities convention held at Rawalpindi on 7-7-43 Dewan Pindi Dass Sabharwal and S. Sant Singh exhorted the minorities to stick to their homes. L. Bhim Sen Sachar, L. Avtar Narain, Dr. Lehna Singh, Parbodh Chandra M.L.A. and Fazal Elahi M.L.A. (Christian) participated.
• Vir Bharat: 8-7-47. In his prayer speech Mahatma Gandhi reiterated that every Indian should be treated equally and that the question of migration of minorities does not arise.
• Bharat: 10-7-47. Goswami Ganesh Dutt sent a message to the minorities convention at Rawalpindi exhorting the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan to stick to their homes.
• Vir Bharat: 3-7-47. Mr. Mehr Chand Khanna, Finance Minister, N.-W. F. P. exhorted the Hindus and Sikhs who had migrated from N.-W F. P. to return to their homes.
• Vir Bharat: 15-7-47. Dr. Gopi Chand Bhargava, Leader, Congress Assembly Party wrote to Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot, President, Punjab Muslim League to try to rehabilitate the riot sufferers of March in their original homes.
• Vir Bharat: 17-7-47. S. Ajit Singh, Minister, N.-W. F. P. in a press statement advised the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan to rely on statements of Mr. Jinnah and to stick to their homes. The minorities, he added should be loyal citizens of Pakistan.
• Vir Bharat: 25-7-47. The Hindu-Sikh Defence Committee of N.-W. F. P. issued a press appeal to the Hindus and Sikhs that they should not migrate from their homes and at their meeting they passed a resolution to a similar effect.
• Vir Bharat: 1-8-47 and Tribune: 1-8-47. Mahatma Gandhi during his visit to Rawalpindi gave instructions to Congress workers and said that they were still citizens of both Dominions and would remain so after 15-8-47 as well. He advised people not to migrate from their homes.
• Tribune: 4-8-47. Acharya Kriplani, President of the Congress told a press conference that all citizens of a particular area must be loyal to the administration and give it their honourable co-operation. He was against migration.
• Tribune: 8-8-47. Mahatma Gandhi advised Congressmen who met him at the residence of Mrs. Rameshwari Nehru at Lahore on 6-8-47 that they should die with dying Lahore.
• Civil and Military Gazette: 12-8-47. In a press appeal to the people on 10-8-47 in Lahore Sardar Sawaran Singh said, �In spite of the division of the country all of us Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs--have to live together. Let us, therefore, live in peace so that the poor and the down-trodden may in the new freedom that we have achieved get enough to eat and to cover their naked bodies, leading to a happier and fuller life.�

It is too soon to conclude, but we hear of "peaceful neighborhoods," "living together for centuries," "don't leave," followed by "people have gone mad," "we left with nothing but our clothes." Can this tragedy be avoided in the future; we still talk of communities where they've lived together peacefully for centuries and then it flares. Is the violence of partition this on a massive scale, exacerbated by "useless" leaders and the absence of a civilizational memex?

S

[brihaspati]

The more we go into this analysis, we will see that Islam is the quintessential "unfinished" business of Bharat. It is not about its common followers, but its basic ideological structure. Its success and persistence is on principles very similar to that of the virus. Its structure is simple and apt for its aim - to multiply. It will not contribute or evolve towards any high form of life. It has perfected itself into a framework to concentrate and herd all the basic biological drives into a perfect propagating multiplying machine. The memes for Jihad are always there - and is taught as a fundamental part of basic Islamic education.

Because non-Muslims do not study the Islamic theology, they fail to understand how the Islamic mind switches so quickly to the Jihad mode when opportunity arises for loot, possess land and wealth, rape or abduction of women. The theology has crystallized all the major human biological drives into a compact military agenda which at the same time removes all possible guilt from the conscience of the perpetrator by defining all such activity as "God's work".

Do we really want to go further into this exploration?

[Abhi_G]

x-posted in the pakistan thread:

Some ideas about the loss of Sylhet and the political bungling of the Congress in Assam. Loss of Sylhet caused loss of land for Bengali Hindus whereas muslim immigration was actually encouraged to create a majority of Assamese speaking people. All abetted by the INC.

http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/510/5 ... udhuri.htm

IN the wake of the Partition Assam lost one of her districts to Pakistan. Mountbatten’s partition-plan announced on 3 June 1947, provided inter-alia for a referendum to be held in the Sylhet district of Assam to decide whether it should remain a part of the Indian province of Assam or go to East Pakistan. The Sylhet referendum was held on 6 July 1947 and the result went in favour of a merger with Pakistan. Assam thus lost a wealthy district causing serious loss of revenue.

But the Assamese people in general greeted this loss and the Assam press projected it as a gain. This attitude, somewhat unusual in the context of the national aspiration of the period, has its origins in what can be called the long-cherished quest of the Assamese – carving out a homogenous province for themselves. The Assamese perceived the partition of 1947 as a god-sent opportunity to attain that goal. In fact, the Assamese Congress leaders were sowing the seeds for subsequent manoeuvres in this direction well before the partition plan was announced. Lord Wavell, the Viceroy, wrote in his journal as early as April 1946, that Gopinath Bordoloi, the Congress Premier of Assam, gave the Cabinet Mission to understand that ‘Assam would be quite prepared to hand over Sylhet to Eastern Bengal.’1

Of course, the partition of India was yet a far cry in 1946 and the Congress high command allowed the Assam Congress to air the proposal for the transfer of Sylhet to Bengal only as a part of a futuristic plan for a reorganisation of the provinces within undivided India. But in June 1947, the situation was totally different. The transfer of Sylhet to Bengal now meant its transfer to East Pakistan and the Congress high command could in no way sponsor such a proposal.

But to the Assam Congress it did not matter whether Sylhet went to Pakistan or remained in India. The Bengali speaking district was regarded as an ulcer hindering the emergence of a unilingual Assam. Hence, when the decision for the referendum was announced, Gopinath Bordoloi, conveyed to all concerned, that the Cabinet was not interested in retaining Sylhet.

‘It was indeed the lifetime opportunity for the Assamese leadership "to get rid of Sylhet" and carve out a linguistically more homogenous province. When the results of the referendum were declared, there was a feeling of relief in the Brahmaputra valley. The Sylhet leaders were discouraged when they tried to salvage a portion of the district through an effective representation to the Boundary Commission.’3

‘After 1947 the Bengali Muslims became de facto allies of the Assamese in their conflict with the Bengali Hindus. Bengali Muslims have been willing to accept Assamese as the medium of instruction in their schools, and have thrown their votes behind Assamese candidates for the state Assembly and the national Parliament. They have declared Assamese as their mother tongue. In return, the state government has not attempted to eject Bengali Muslims from lands on which they have settled in the Brahmaputra valley, though earlier leaders had claimed that much of the settlement had taken place illegally... There is thus an unspoken coalition between the Assamese and the Bengali Muslims against the Bengali Hindus’ (Sons of the Soil, p. 124).

[ShauryaT]

It is too soon to conclude, but we hear of "peaceful neighborhoods," "living together for centuries," "don't leave," followed by "people have gone mad," "we left with nothing but our clothes." Can this tragedy be avoided in the future; we still talk of communities where they've lived together peacefully for centuries and then it flares. Is the violence of partition this on a massive scale, exacerbated by "useless" leaders and the absence of a civilizational memex?

S

Reality was and is that Muslims sought to live separately from Hindus and practice a way of life different from the Indic ethos. It is the quintessential definition of Islam - separateness. However, people are not as "perfect" as Islam would demand of them. The people have to share the same space and hence interact with each other. Old cultural traits die hard. The inter mingling was not out of choice, it was a compulsion of the realities on the ground. Given a choice, being separate is what was chosen, every single time.

An agrarian society and that too a self governed one, is highly independent and attached to their land. The concept of nation states and hard borders is not something that people were well familiar with.

A weak leadership along with certain geo political events can most certainly lead to another large flare up, especially in the east. We do see frequent flare ups in an internal security scenario all the time in many parts of India. Until, the precepts of Islam are not defeated or diluted through a direct or indirect attack, this virus will resurface. It is the nature of the beast.

A key lesson of the partition was this lesson of separateness being reinforced through the tenets of Islam but did our leaders learn this lesson?

[ramana]

Samuel, We talked to an old retired babu, who had a ring side view of th whole business as he was in charge of the Shimla House. He watched the huge procession of leaders of all hues. The amazing thing he said was till the last minute the idea of Partition was a miarage. As he said even from his vantage "Pataa he nahin tha!"

BTW he is not a cadre guy and was inducted into the govt by Wavell.

[shiv]

Folks I have scanned 4 relevant pages from Narendra Singh Sarila's book. The images are linked below. Please read them

The first two pages show how Cripps was to offer conditional independence containing the condition that provinces of India - could walk out of the union.





The third page shows how Nehru was "waiting breathlessly" to lead India into the "New world order" and he accepted an election in which only 14% of the people were allowed to vote.



The last scan shows how the partition plan was actually opposed by the British Chiefs of staff. This page also contains details of the two "Cabinet Mission Plans" that I write of below. (Incidentally, but not in these scans, the fact that the division of Punjab would be troublesome was known)



I end with a quote from my own paper on SRR which speaks of the Cabinet Mission plan.

http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/brms ... 080806.pdf

The British plan for the independence of India came to be known as the "Cripps Cabinet Mission Plan"(of
1946) and involved one of two alternative plans - called the "May 16th plan" and the "June 16th plan". The
May 16th plan envisaged the division of a united India into Muslim majority and Hindu majority provinces.
The June 16th plan envisaged the division of India into a Muslim majority nation state called Pakistan
leaving a Hindu majority India. The Congress party rejected the partition plan (of June 16th) outright and
was unwilling to accept the May 16 plan except for its idea of forming a constitution for India. The Muslim
League, furious at the Congress Party's outright rejection of the June 16th plan for the formation of an
independent Pakistan attempted to demonstrate Muslim militant power by initiating what was called the
"Direct Action Day" (August 16th 1946) in which thousands of Hindus and Sikhs were massacred in
Calcutta (Kolkata). The violence later spread to other parts of India.

[svinayak]

GANDHI and Nehru both opposed Bengali Bose and Punjabi Bhagat Singh. The impact on public psyche by these 2 personalities must be giving G&N nightmares, so the lands of both Bs were cut down to finsih any further challenge to N's personal glory . The principle of Kangress supreme over country is still in vogue and the party still deligitimitig nationalistic forces at the cost of weakining nation's social and spiritual strength. Just like old time with Brytish, kangress rather bargain with foreign powers to rule India than serve nation and strengthen its base.

This is being too parochial. There was a difference in philosophies and lots of people, me included, have resented that Bhagat Singh was not saved or that Bose had to leave Congress. Rajguru was also hung. Were Marathis to be cut down too?

This is not parochial.The last sentence is important.
The Kangress bargains with Foreign power to rule. This has been the ideology of INC before independence.

[RayC]

There are complex historic, anthropological, psychological, sociological, economic, and political reasons for Muslim-Hindu conflict and apathy, some of which are very obvious.

Muslims came to India came as conquerors. The vanquished were the Hindus. On the other hand, Christians initially did not come as conquerors but as missionaries and hence were accommodated to some extent.

Islam structured on the Arabic culture is totally different from Hinduism which is indigenous. The attitude, behaviour, civility, food, language are different. This chasm makes integration problematic since the human psychology is averse in accepting anything unfamiliar.

The political boundaries of India either in the Mugal times or during the British was not the same as it is now, even though the British through the Doctrine of Lapse and other devious instruments did assemble India in some extent the physiognomy of what is India today.

The McCaulayisation of India made Hindus in certain parts of India emancipated and aware of their political identity. Muslims, on the other hand, because of their insular characteristic and possessing a superiority complex of having been the conquerors were sullen having become the vanquished. This was more humiliating since the Islamic scriptures convince them that they are the sole inheritors of the Earth and that is when Peace shall come. This attitude and their impotence to right their perceived wrong shunned interaction with the British. This obviously gave an upper hand to the Hindus, who thrived in all affairs of the State, even if subordinate to the British. This added insult to injury to the Muslim psyche. Hence, another reason for the animosity and the divide.

The Hindu caste system did not permit inter caste unions and obviously no inter faith unions. Islam, however, allowed inter faith unions, provided the non Muslim changed the faith to Islam and that was acceptable since Islam encourages increase in its rank. This was another inhibitor to cohesion and coalescing of minds. There was no inter faith marriages having distinct religious difference even after marriage.

It is evident that the theological and social assumptions of Muslims and Hindus are different. The differences of convictions generated contempt or, at best, indifference toward each other. Muslims and Hindus felt and even now feel no need to learn about or from each other.

Inclusivism often generates indifference, whereas exclusivism often generates intolerance and violence. Hindus are critical of the intolerance and violence of Islam. Hinduism as a tradition believes in the transformative quality of religion. Transformation, according to Hinduism, implies a change of personality from fear to courage, from anger to love, from violence to nonviolence. Although an individual or a group of Hindus may not be less violent than an individual or a group of Muslims - as the history of their encounter indicates - nevertheless, in Hinduism nonviolence is considered a cardinal virtue. Hence, Islamic jihad is looked upon with contempt by Hindus. Hindus, even the liberal and educated, look upon Islam as an essentially militaristic tradition.

Therefore, while there may be have been semblance of peace with the neighbours and even friendship, during the period of pre Partition, it was superficial at best and the twain could never meet as a singular psyche in mind, soul and body.

This, if applied, to the events of the Partition could possibly explain the rationale of events and the cause of the Partition.

[svinayak]

Jaswant pays the price for telling the truth [about Partition] - Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar
Either way, we need to abandon the myth that the British imposed Partition on India, though Mountbatten saw it as desirable and helped promote the Jinnah-Congress agreement on it. The clincher was Liaquat's budget and obstructionism, which drove Congress from opposing Partition to becoming a fully consenting partner in it. Jaswant Singh could have been tougher on Jinnah, but has correctly highlighted Congress' role in Partition.

Again he misses the secret talks of Jinnah with Churchill leading to the partition. Did it occur to anybody that Liaquat was doing according to the instruction of the British during those years. Jinnha would not have the courage to oppose Congress unless he was supported by the British and also the knowledge that Muslim offices in the Army were behind ML