Why did the partition of Bengal happen?
The partition of Bengal in 1947 is the most unfortunate and suicidal event in the history of the Bengali nation. The 1947 partition transformed what was once one of the world’s most powerful and prosperous nations into a poor and weakened nation today. The Bengali nation will never forgive those who made the partition of Bengal inevitable that day, driven solely by their personal political interests and by joining hands with Hindustani capitalists.
The background of the Partition of Bengal
In 1757 AD, with the fall of Bengal’s last Mughal Nawab, Siraj-ud-Daulah, in the Battle of Plassey, over five and a half centuries of Muslim rule on the soil of Bengal came to an end.
The Sultanate period of the Middle Ages was a golden era for Bengal. It was during this time, through the foresight and efforts of Sultan Shamsuddin Iliyas Shah, that Bengalis first emerged as a distinct nation. During that era, the Bengali nation reached the peak of progress in every aspect—economic conditions, trade and commerce, art, and literature. This was made possible through the combined contributions of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Brahmins, and Chandals alike. Although the Sultans were Muslims by religion, Hindus held prominent positions in state affairs, revenue collection, and the military. It was due to the orders, encouragement, and financial support of these Muslim Sultans that Hindu religious scriptures like the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and Mangalkavya could be composed in the Bengali language. Even today, nearly half of the Hindu Bengali population carries Arabic and Persian titles attached to their names. Bengali Hindus continue to preserve their family heritage through these titles bestowed by Muslim rulers across generations. These titles remain a living testament to the shared Hindu-Muslim Bengali culture of medieval Bengal.
However, a section of the Hindu aristocracy could never truly accept Muslim rule in their hearts. The equal status of Brahmins and Chandals in the Sultan’s court, identical punishments for Hindu, Muslim, Brahmin, and Shudra offenders, and the translation of the Ramayana and Mahabharata into the Bengali language became intolerable to them. While enjoying privileges, honors, and titles like ‘Raja’ and ‘Maharaja’ bestowed by the Sultans, they were secretly conspiring to bring about the downfall of Muslim rule.
They made their first attempt using Raja Ganesha as their front. However, Raja Ganesha’s own son, Crown Prince Yadu, poured cold water on their efforts. Prince Yadu killed Raja Ganesha, embraced Islam himself, and ascended the throne of Bengal under the name Sultan Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah.
The second attempt to end Muslim rule on the soil of Bengal was made during the reign of Sultan Alauddin Husain Shah. But due to the Sultan’s overwhelming dominance, that attempt failed as well.
It is speculated that during the reign of Nawab Alivardi Khan, some individuals from Subah Bangla went to meet the Maratha Prime Minister Bhaskar Pandit to encourage him to invade Bengal. The objective was to bring an end to the Muslim Nawabi rule in Bengal. As a consequence, the Maratha Bargi plundering forces attacked Bengal six times in succession.
Ultimately, Nawab Alivardi strategically assassinated Bhaskar Pandit, and this endeavor by Hindutva aristocrats to end Muslim Nawabi rule ended in absolute failure.
Finally, the foreign English merchants provided the opportunity that the Brahmanical Hindu elites had been waiting for over five and a half centuries. In 1757 AD, with the Battle of Plassey, the last Mughal Nawab of Bengal, Siraj-ud-Daulah, fell. In the presence of English officers, they celebrated that victory with grand idol worship. As per the terms of the conspiratorial agreement, the British installed Mir Jafar on the throne as a puppet Nawab. As a reward for his role in the conspiracy, Krishna Chandra was elevated from the title of Raja to Maharaja. By placing a powerless puppet Nawab on Bengal’s throne, the British force began to carry out unrestrained plundering under the guise of trade without any opposition.
After the Battle of Plassey, the opportunistic elite class of the Bengali Hindu community welcomed British rule. During the Nawabi period, it was they who had occupied the high-ranking government posts by learning Arabic and Persian. Now, they not only welcomed British dominance but also strove enthusiastically to fully master the English language, their culture, and their philosophy of life. On the other hand, because the British had seized their kingdom, the Muslim community remained averse to the education, culture, and civilization of their enemy.
Rebellious Bengalis and the Anglophilia of the Bhadralok (Elite Hindu Bengalis)
Lagging in education, economics, and politics, the Muslim community of Bengal began organizing against the British. In 1820 AD, the Wahhabi Movement against the British commenced. The struggle of the Wahhabis is among the earliest and most long-lasting anti-British movements in India. The most remarkable aspect of 19th-century Indian history was this anti-British struggle led by the Wahhabis. They became a primary source of anxiety for British rule. During this era, almost all of those who were tried as conspirators against the British and eventually executed by judicial verdicts belonged to the Wahhabi community.
Then came the rebellion of Titu Mir, the Indian Sepoy Mutiny, the Fakir Rebellion of Bengal, the Indigo Revolt, the Santhal Rebellion (Santhal Hul), and the Chuar Rebellion in Midnapore—a series of successive uprisings that shook the very foundation of the British imperialist power. The common people of rural Bengal, joining these rebellions irrespective of Hindu or Muslim identities, transformed them into mass anti-British uprisings. However, the so-called Bhadralok Babu class of Kolkata, who enjoyed British patronage, actively opposed all these rebel movements.
In the 1857 War of Independence, almost everyone in this country participated to varying degrees, regardless of caste or religion. But the upper-caste Hindus of Kolkata did not participate. Indeed, while the general populace of the nation was fighting empty-handed with all their might to sever the ties of foreign British rule, and the flames of war engulfed the entire country in hopes of achieving independence, Kolkata’s culturally inclined upper-caste community spent their time in leisure garden houses and theaters, watching nautch dances and performances by courtesans.
Upon the failure of the Sepoy Revolt, the Hindu intellectuals of Bengal erupted in joy. Expressing disdain toward Muslims, they offered their fervent loyalty to the British rulers in effusive language. Literary figure Bankim Chandra wrote in Sangbad Bhaskar: “O readers, raise your hands, thank God, and dance while chanting victory! Our Commander-in-Chief has successfully entered Delhi. Readers, dance chanting victory! All Hindu subjects, offer worship at the temples, for our sovereign ruler has conquered the enemy.”
Introduction and growth of Western Education
Gradually, the Muslim leadership of Bengal began to understand the reality. They realized that after the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the global political and economic situation was no longer what it used to be. They came to feel the importance and necessity of modern Western education. However, by that time, the path to obtaining modern education had become virtually closed to the general Muslim populace of Bengal.
During the Muslim period, the Sultans and Nawabs had established numerous primary schools (pathshalas), Quranic schools (maktabs), seminaries (madrasas), and Sanskrit academies (tols) across rural Bengal for general education. Hindus, Muslims, Brahmins, and Shudras could all study at these institutions free of charge. A school had been established in almost every village of Bengal. In the Adams Report of 1835–38, William Adam stated that he had personally seen 100,000 such schools in Bengal. At that time, Britain had only about 2,000 to 3,000 schools. The quality of education taught in Bengal’s over 100,000 schools was better than what was taught in Britain’s 2,000 to 3,000 schools. While students in Britain attended school for only about a year, students in Bengal studied continuously for several years. To cover operational expenses, land had been granted to these schools. No tax was payable to the government for this land; hence, these lands were known as rent-free (lakheraj) property.
The British government discovered that nearly 25 percent of the land in Bengal had become lakheraj. The British government confiscated all these rent-free properties. As a result, the schools shut down, the darkness of illiteracy descended across Bengal, and several hundred thousand people dependent on these schools became unemployed overnight; many educated families were destroyed.
William Hunter wrote that, as a consequence, “Hundreds of Muslim families were ruined, and their educational system, which had so long depended upon lakheraj and waqf lands, received a fatal blow. The Muslim scholarly class (alim society) was completely destroyed after nearly eighteen years of harassment.” No one had ever caused such immense ruin to the Bengali nation before. Yet, in the history and literature written by the British-patronized Bhadralok class of Kolkata at the time, we find no mention of this.
At this time, through the initiatives of Hindu gentlemen (Bhadralok), some schools and colleges were established in Kolkata, but in those institutions, let alone Muslim students, even lower-caste Hindu students had no right of entry. Even in the schools established by Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, this discrimination was practiced. Annada Shankar Ray wrote: “Muslim students had no opportunity to gain admission to the college established by Vidyasagar. Had Muslim students received the opportunity to study, they would not have lagged behind anyone.”
Fees had to be paid to study in these schools; thus, only students from upper-caste, wealthy, elite families had the opportunity to study in these educational institutions. However, the doors of the educational institutions established by Haji Muhammad Mohsin were open to everyone; both Hindu and Muslim students could study there free of tuition fees.
Later, several government schools were established, but Muslim students could not gain admission to those either. This was because the caste-Hindu Bhadralok of Kolkata did not take the interests of their neighboring Muslims into account at all. In 1855 and 1856, in two government-aided schools established in Kolkata and Hooghly under Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, not a single Bengali Muslim student was able to gain admission. This was because the three subjects on which candidate students were required to sit for examinations were: (1) Sita-Boboddh / Shakuntala, (2) Betal Panchabinsati, and (3) Sanskrit Byakaran Upakramanika. As a result, despite receiving government aid, the doors of the schools in question naturally remained closed to Bengali Muslim students.
Realizing the gravity of the situation, certain elite individuals like Nawab Abdul Latif and Sir Syed Ameer Ali took initiative to spread education among the Muslim community of Bengal. Gradually, education began to expand within Muslim society as well, and eventually, they entered into competition in all fields—employment, business, and politics—with the Bengali Hindus who were previously ahead of them.
During this period, the Bhadralok of Kolkata were deliberately engaged in a conspiracy to keep Bengali Muslims backward in terms of education. In 1900, when ‘Sher-e-Bangla’ [A. K. Fazlul Huq] became the Education Minister, he noticed that Muslim students sat for examinations but did not pass. He formed an investigation committee to find out why the students were failing. The investigation revealed that upper-caste Hindu teachers would dock marks or fail candidates simply upon seeing a Muslim name. And upon failing, they would drop out. That was why Muslim students could not be found in higher education. Thus, despite having the desire, Muslims were lagging in the sphere of education. Sher-e-Bangla introduced a new system of conducting examinations using roll numbers instead of students’ names. This achieved the expected success. In the very first year of applying the new method, Humayun Kabir stood First Class First; he later became the Education Minister of India.
The Growth of Hindu Nationalist Consciousness
Nationalist ideas gradually began to spread among Western-educated and Western-inspired Hindu Indians, with Bengali Hindus leading the way. Surprisingly, from this period onward, the term “nation” came to mean exclusively “Hindu,” and “nationalism” came to denote “Hindu revivalism.” A philosophy equating “Indianness” with “Hindutva” began to be propagated.
Aurobindo Ghose travelled to England, studied in London and Cambridge, and upon returning to his homeland, developed the philosophy of ‘Political Vedanta,’ linking the national identity to the Goddess Kali. During this time, Bipin Chandra Pal and Sarala Devi incorporated Kali Puja and the Shivaji Festival into their national programs.
During this era, various fabricated theories began to be propagated. The Bhadralok claimed Aryan descent for themselves and began promoting Aryan supremacy.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak proposed that the Aryan Hindus first descended from the realm of the gods at the North Pole, then spread across the world through Europe, transforming the Earth into a civilized, cultured planet and bringing the Four Vedas from heaven to earth.
Through the Shivaji Festival and the Ganapati Festival, he sowed the ideals of Hinduism in the political arena, thereby denying the political existence of non-Hindu society as a whole.
In propagating Aryan and Brahmanical supremacy, the true history of India was distorted. It was claimed that the Aryan-Hindus had always been peace-loving, carrying the message of peace throughout the world since time immemorial, and that in the past, they were the first to pledge to unite the entire world in a bond of universal brotherhood.
However, history reveals that the dawn of Aryan life in this land began with the blood of the innocent, peace-loving non-Aryans, whom they termed Dasa or Dasyu. In many mantras of the Vedas—especially in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda—prayers were offered to the gods seeking the power and opportunity to slay these Dasa and Dasyu tribes.
Denying the most fundamental requirement of justice, separate standards for applying criminal codes were established in this land between Brahmins and Shudras. Ashoka’s equality before the law was revoked. The law was reintroduced stating: “If upper-caste individuals commit atrocities against lower-caste individuals, the punishment will be lighter; but in the reverse scenario, the punishment will be far more severe.”
“If a Shudra, out of malice, utters the name or caste of the twice-born (Dwija), a burning iron spike ten inches long should be thrust into his mouth. If a Shudra proudly preaches religion to a Brahmin, the king shall cause boiling oil to be poured into his mouth and ears. If a Shudra commits any act of violence against a superior caste, his hands or feet shall be severed, his buttocks cut off, or his lips sliced as punishment for his crime!”
If a Brahmin committed rape, the punishment was a minor fine, and in some cases, not even that. But in the case of a Shudra, the punishment was exile and the complete forfeiture of all property rights. If a Brahmin raped a Brahmin woman, he was fined 1,000 coins; but if he raped a Shudra woman, the fine was 500 coins. No crime—not even murder—warranted the death penalty for a Brahmin, nor was there any law allowing physical punishment against them.
There is no convincing answer to how those who blocked the natural course of justice behind the walls of the caste system could ever realize the ideal of universal brotherhood. Nowhere else in the world is there an example where the intermingling of human blood is strictly prohibited.
Nearly 700 years of the secular history of Muslim rule were completely denied. It began to be asserted that the Aryan-Hindus were the only tolerant race toward other religions and beliefs in the world, and that Islam survived in this country solely due to this Hindu tolerance. Yet, they have no satisfactory explanation as to why Buddhism and Jainism almost vanished from this land.
In Sankara Digvijaya, it is written: “Defeat the wicked-minded Buddhists and Jains in debate, sever their heads, and crush them in wooden mortars to destroy their wicked doctrines.” History records that during the revival of Brahmanism, Kumarila Bhatta, the guru of Shankaracharya, incited a Brahmanical king to massacre thousands of Buddhists. In Sankara Digvijaya, it is noted that when Shankaracharya appeared before Kumarila Bhatta as the latter was entering a fire of chaff as penance for killing Buddhist gurus, Kumarila said: “The Buddhists have occupied the entire country; the Vedic path is on the verge of extinction.” Hearing this, Shankara pledged before Kumarila to eradicate Buddhism from India, and after Kumarila’s death, set out with his followers to destroy Buddhists. Sasanka, the Emperor of Gour, uprooted the Bodhi Tree.
Theories were presented suggesting that while the non-Aryan King of Lanka, Ravana, abducted another man’s wife, Muslim Sultans and Emperors later made it a habit to abduct wives after winning wars, whereas ancient Aryan-Hindu kings remained steadfast in the policy of treating another’s wife as a mother (“Matrivat Pardareshu”).
Yet, an inscription from 1002 AD found at Khajuraho describes the conquest of the Chandela King Dhanga as follows: “Who are you? The Queen of Kanchi! Who are you? The Queen of Andhra! Who are you? The Queen of Rarh! Who are you? The Queen of Anga! Such was the tearful conversation among the wives of the defeated enemy kings in the prison of the victorious King Dhanga.” This demonstrates that the practice of capturing the queens of defeated enemy kings existed even in that ancient Hindu era.
These distorted ideas created a new ‘Hindu’ political identity. From this period onward, the Babu Bhadralok of Kolkata began to consider themselves superior to Bengali Muslims. These Kolkata Bhadralok Hindus held the firm belief that Bengali Muslims were more or less converts from the lower castes of Hindu society. Consequently, the innate contempt that the Bhadralok harbored toward lower-caste Bengali Hindus and tribal populations extended to Bengali Muslims as well.
Distorting history for narrow political interests, the wars fought by regional Rajput, Maratha, and Sikh forces against the central Mughal power were presented as wars between Hindus and Muslims. In truth, although there were incessant wars across India during medieval history, they were not communal; they were struggles between rival imperialist forces. Both Hindu and Muslim soldiers and generals fought on behalf of both sides. However, under the new historical interpretations being introduced, every battle was depicted as a war fought by Hindus to defend their freedom against Muslim invaders.
In the literature, poetry, and novels authored by the Bhadralok, choice epithets were reserved for Muslims: Yavana, Mleccha, Pataki (sinner), Pashanda (scoundrel), Papistha (wicked), Papatma (evil soul), Duratma (villain), Durashay (malicious), Naradham (vile human), Narapisach (human demon), Banar (monkey), Nere, Dhere, Ere, Agyan (ignorant), Akritagya (ungrateful), and so on (with Jihadi added recently). In the short stories and novels written by the Kolkata Babu Bhadralok, every ruler adhering to the Islamic faith was mandatorily portrayed as a brutal oppressor, a destroyer of Hindu temples, and a rapist of Hindu women. Yet, these popular, renowned literary figures and novelists—such as Bankim Chandra, Nabin Chandra, and later Sarat Chandra—completely chose to ignore the Maratha Bargi invasions: worshippers of Shiva who carried out brutal, terrifying plundering and raped Hindu women across Bengal for ten long years!
The Fakir-Sannyasi Rebellion refers to the late 18th-century movement (1760–1800 AD) led by Muslim fakirs and Hindu sannyasis against British rule in Bengal. The chief leader of this rebellion was the Muslim Sufi saint Majnu Shah. During the Battle of Udhwa Nala (1761) and the Battle of Buxar (1764), Majnu Shah united a large number of Muslim fakirs and Hindu sannyasis against the British East India Company. The Fakir-Sannyasi Rebellion marked the inception of the first anti-British struggle in Bengal.
Unfortunately, through a distortion of history in his novel Anandamath, the literary giant Bankim Chandra depicted the Fakir-Sannyasi Rebellion as a struggle fought by Hindu monks called the Santan Dal against tyrannical Muslim rulers. In Anandamath, Bankim Chandra incorporated the song “Vande Mataram,” wherein Hindu monks are depicted attacking Muslims while chanting the slogan “Vande Mataram.”
Naturally, Muslims began raising objections against “Vande Mataram” and Anandamath. Toward the end of the 19th century, this objection was not overly pronounced. However, with the rise of Muslim political consciousness in the 1930s, it transformed into a major political issue.
From the time of the East India Company, Hindus—particularly Bengali Hindus—had established vested rights and professional monopolies across various sectors of society. Even though Eastern Bengal and parts of Assam were Muslim-majority regions, Hindus established absolute dominance in the legal profession, medicine, and the tea and jute trades, either independently or as representatives of British merchant companies.
Almost every Kolkata Babu Bhadralok owned small or large landholdings (zamindaris) in Eastern Bengal, yet they paid no heed to improving the education, culture, or financial condition of the peasantry in their estates. Kolkata became the epicenter of all development-oriented activities through the exploitation of rural Bengal.
As a result, Muslim-majority Eastern Bengal fell further behind, and friction between Hindus and Muslims intensified. In 1899, upon becoming the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon fully recognized this explosive state of Indian society and attempted to remedy it. By partitioning the province of Bengal into two, he created a dedicated space for the full development of education, industry, and culture for Muslims in Muslim-majority Eastern Bengal.
However, realizing that the transfer of Eastern Bengal to Muslim authority would undermine their monopoly, the Kolkata Bhadralok organized a massive movement against the Partition of Bengal.
Anti-Partition of Bengal Movement
The anti-partition movement of 1905 gave rise to two distinct nationalisms not just in Bengal, but across India—one Hindu and the other Muslim. Those who stood in the front lines of leadership in the boycott of foreign goods and the anti-partition movement—such as Tilak, Aurobindo, and Bipin Pal—began propagating a political ideology in which it was impossible for Muslims to find a place. Each of them was engaged in re-establishing Hindu religious ideals through political doctrine.
During this period, although Bengal’s revolutionary groups recruited members primarily from Western-educated individuals, they bound young followers through religious oaths inspired by Shakta philosophy. Oaths had to be taken in front of deity idols following Hindu religious rituals. For them, the real objective of organizing nationalist consciousness was the revival and revitalization of the long-stagnant Hindu nation. Naturally, Bengali Muslim youths refrained from joining these revolutionary groups, even though they supported the anti-British activities of the revolutionaries.
Comrade Muzaffar Ahmad, one of the founders of the Communist Party of India, pointed out in his book The Communist Party and My Life: “It was written in the printed leaflets of Anushilan Samiti, one of the main organizations of terrorist revolutionaries, that a primary objective of the society was to keep Muslims suppressed, and it was a rule of the society that no non-Hindu could become a member.”
In a manifesto of the Anushilan Samiti, it was explicitly stated regarding Muslims: “As far as can be seen, it is our firm belief that within a year or two, the entire Muslim community will be forced to submit to the Hindus. But if Hindus at that point abandon their firmness and national pride, degrade themselves, and extend a hand of friendship to team up with Muslims, the dominance of Muslims will grow, leading to harm rather than good.” It was these terrorist revolutionaries who led the anti-partition movement in 1905.
However, educated Hindus are still unwilling to accept that this anti-partition movement was indisputably anti-Muslim and deeply opposed to the interests of East Bengal Muslims. The revolutionary leaders who emerged on the battlefield driven by this movement were all deeply anti-Muslim. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad wrote in his book India Wins Freedom: “To whatever group revolutionaries belonged, every one of them was anti-Muslim.”
Condemning the blind politics pursued by the country’s Hindu leaders during the anti-partition movement, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar wrote: “The main reason why Bengali Hindus opposed the partition of Bengal was the desire to prevent Bengali Muslims from attaining their rightful place in East Bengal. Bengali Hindus never imagined even in their dreams that by opposing the partition of Bengal and simultaneously demanding Swaraj, they would one day make Muslims the rulers of both East and West Bengal.” (Pakistan or the Partition of India, p. 110).
The condition of Muslims in Bengal had deteriorated to the point where, if they visited a landlord’s house, the floor covering was rolled up and they were made to sit on the bare floor, or despite chairs being available, they had to accept standing as the arrangement. Now, when they sought to form a separate province to develop their own social philosophy without hindrance, they were not allowed to do so.
When the Partition of Bengal was annulled, educated Muslims realized that under the numerical dominance and tactical dexterity of educated Hindus, their future would remain in the dark. They would not be able to compete with educated Hindus for jobs and other social amenities. To safeguard the interests of educated Muslims, they formed the Muslim League in Dhaka in 1906.
The Shahi Bangalah of the Sultanate era, or independent state of Bengal, was named Subah Bangla during the Mughal era. Curzon wanted to divide this Subah Bangla into the provinces of Assam and Bengal. The Bhadralok campaigned and ultimately thwarted Curzon’s division of Bengal. However, from that historical era onward, the plateau region rich in mineral and forest resources—such as Rajmahal, Santhal Parganas, Chota Nagpur, Manbhum, Dhalbhum, Keonjhar, and Mayurbhanj—which had been known as the homeland of the Bengali nation, was detached from Bengal. Yet, no movement was launched against that severance.
As major leaders of India’s freedom struggle like Aurobindo, Tilak, and Lajpat Rai attempted to blend nationalism with Hindu religious philosophy, educated Muslims drifted away. Recognizing this setback first, Gandhi actively participated in the Khilafat Movement in hopes of bringing Hindus and Muslims side by side.
Following the clear and specific program formulated for Muslim Khilafat workers during the Non-Cooperation Movement, an unprecedented response was awakened among Muslims; however, a similar response in favor of Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation program did not arise among Hindus. At that time, almost all Muslim leaders were arrested and imprisoned for the Khilafat-related Non-Cooperation movement. Hindu leaders lacked a unified specific program for Non-Cooperation and were imprisoned for various separate reasons. Aside from the anti-Union Board movement in Midnapore, there was no comprehensive mass movement against government oppression in any other district of Bengal at the time.
However, educated Hindus disliked supporting the Khilafat Movement. As the political situation in Turkey changed and the Khilafat Movement collapsed, Hindus and Muslims drifted apart again as before. The lingering apprehensions of educated Muslims toward educated Hindus persisted.
To dispel these fears among the Muslim community, a resolution was passed at the 1921 Gaya Congress stating that an all-India Hindu-Muslim pact must soon be executed, promising to safeguard the proportional, legitimate claims of Muslims in employment and other social amenities. However, Congress leaders eventually forgot about this resolution altogether.
The Bengal Pact (1923)
In 1923, Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das executed his Bengal Pact, or the Bengal Hindu-Muslim Pact. The Bengal Pact was drafted with the assistance of Muslim leaders such as Sir Abdur Rahim, Maulvi Abdul Karim, Maulvi Mujibur Rahman, Maulana Mohammad Akram Khan, and Maulana Maniruzzaman Islamabadi, along with Hindu leaders such as J. M. Sengupta, Sarat Chandra Bose, J. M. Dasgupta, and Bidhan Chandra Roy.
Some of the key clauses of the pact were:
- Representation in the Bengal Legislative Council would be determined through separate electorates on the basis of population.
- The ratio of representation in local bodies would be 60 percent for the majority community and 40 percent for the minority community.
- Muslims would receive 55% of government jobs. Until that proportion was achieved, Muslims would receive 80% and Hindus 20%. Apart from government jobs, Muslims would receive jobs at the same rate in autonomous institutions such as the Kolkata Corporation, district boards, and local boards.
- No bill or resolution affecting the interests of any community could be presented without the consent of 75% of the elected representatives of that community.
- Processions with music would not be allowed in front of mosques.
- No initiative to enact laws regarding cattle slaughter for food would be taken in the Legislative Council. Efforts to reach an understanding between the two communities outside the legislature would continue. Care had to be taken during cattle slaughter so that it did not fall within the view of Hindus and offend their religious sentiments. No interference would be made regarding cattle slaughter for religious reasons.
Most Hindu leaders were hostile to this agreement. Shyam Sundar Chakraborty, Surendranath Banerjee, and Bipin Chandra Pal opposed the pact and accused it of being one-sided. The Hindu media began launching criticism against it. Many accused Chittaranjan Das of being opportunistic and biased toward Muslims.
Although many Hindu leaders opposed Chittaranjan Das, leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose, Kiran Sankar Roy, Anil Baran Roy, Birendranath Sasmal, and Pratap Chandra Guha supported the Bengal Pact.
However, almost the entire educated Hindu society stepped into the arena to oppose this agreement. In Patuakhali, Barisal, terrorist revolutionary leader Satin Sen launched a satyagraha. In this movement, satyagrahis would march in processions playing music in front of mosques during prayer times and court arrest by violating the law that prohibited playing music before mosques. The primary goal of this satyagraha was to violate one of the key conditions of Chittaranjan’s Hindu-Muslim Pact—the non-playing of music in front of mosques. In campaign pamphlets, it was stated: “In the villages of Bengal, Muslim thugs are raping Hindu women and defiling Hindu temples. Our satyagraha is intended to resist this.” This satyagraha in Patuakhali created a massive stir among educated Hindus at that time. Satyagrahis came from various parts of India to join the satyagraha in Patuakhali.
The few Congress leaders in Bengal who advocated for this agreement, such as Birendranath Sasmal, became unpopular among educated Hindu society. Chittaranjan became severely embarrassed by the intense opposition from his own beloved followers and eventually fell ill, passing away suddenly. Following his death on June 16, 1925, Bengal’s Congress leaders annulled Chittaranjan’s Bengal Pact.
In 1926, riots broke out across various parts of Bengal, particularly in Kolkata city, primarily in opposition to this Bengal Pact. The terrorist revolutionaries were determined to scrap the Bengal Pact at any cost. In a 1926 letter to Jawaharlal, Motilal Nehru wrote: “Unfortunately, the revolutionaries of Bengal are deeply communal in mindset.”
Communal Award
In this situation, fear arose in the mind of the British government. They felt that unless the Muslims were pacified to some extent, a situation similar to another Wahhabi Movement or Sepoy Mutiny might arise. In 1932, the British government announced the Communal Award. Under this award, legislators were divided among various ‘communities’ and interests—including Muslims, Depressed Classes, Sikhs, Europeans, and the ‘general’ Hindu population, as well as landlords, labor, women, and distinguished individuals.
Seats were allocated not based on population, but according to the importance of each group to the government. Out of the 250 proposed seats in the Bengal Legislative Assembly, the European group was granted 10 percent of the total seats—that is, 25 seats—even though their proportion of the population in Bengal was less than one percent. Furthermore, the legislative election was based on ‘separate representation’: Muslims would elect Muslims, Hindus would elect Hindus, and Europeans would elect Europeans.
Before the announcement of the Communal Award, even though Hindus constituted only 44 percent of the population in the ‘Bengal Council,’ they held 46 seats; whereas Muslims, despite comprising 54 percent of the population, received only 39 seats. This Communal Award reduced the Bengali Hindu Bhadralok to a weak minority in the legislature, while for the first time in the history of Bengal’s legislature, Muslims attained a proportionally stronger position than Hindus.
As a result of the Communal Award’s announcement, the foundation of prestige that Kolkata’s Hindu Bhadralok had preserved for so long visibly began to collapse. Intense pressure on zamindari privileges on one hand, and the participation of educated Muslims in various public and private jobs and professions on the other, struck at the very root of Hindu Bhadralok influence.
Until the declaration of the Award, Hindu Bhadralok had maintained their dominance across significant political and legislative institutions, the Legislative Council, Kolkata Corporation, and local self-governing bodies throughout Bengal. Now, following the declaration of the Communal Award, the political ambitions of Bengali Hindu society were shattered.
Given this blow, it was not surprising that the reaction of the Hindu Bhadralok would be extreme. However, the nature of the reaction they displayed was astonishing. The Communal Award had been announced by the British government, yet they organized no criticism or agitation against British policy. Rejection of the Award was hardly heard in newspaper editorials, periodicals, or public speeches. Nor were they seen protesting the disproportionate weightage given to Europeans in the legislature or the discretionary powers of the Governor. Surprisingly, the Bhadralok remained silent regarding criticism of the British government—likely to protect their government jobs—and newspapers remained silent to avoid government wrath.
Instead, they began venting venom against Bengali Muslims. Through newspaper editorials, periodicals, and emotionally charged, inflammatory public speeches, Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims were presented as two separate nations, and Bengali Muslim society was characterized as a backward and despicable community. Denying all contributions of medieval Muslim rulers, British rule was deemed less harmful than ‘Muslim rule.’ British rule was viewed as an environment favorable to the flourishing of ‘Bengali Hindu talent,’ and it was asserted that the British had liberated Bengali Hindus from the ‘darkness’ of Muslim oppression and despotism.
The reaction of Muslim politicians to the Award was not as clear-cut as that of Hindu leaders. Following the death of Chittaranjan Das and the annulment of the Hindu-Muslim Pact, many Muslim leaders and workers left Congress. The old Khilafat Committee was no longer active at the time, nor had an alternative forum been established to propagate Muslim political views. There was no single Muslim leader who possessed the authority or social stature to speak on behalf of Bengali Muslims. Consequently, mixed reactions emerged from Bengali Muslim politicians regarding the Award. Everyone observed that the Award contained explicit benefits for the Muslim ‘community.’ However, some leaders expressed regret over the emphasis placed on community, noting that although beneficial to Muslim interests, the Award damaged the possibility of unity above communal lines. They criticized the Award for dividing the legislature on a communal basis.
However, in response to the continuous anti-Muslim propaganda by the Bengali Hindu Bhadralok, Muslim leadership gradually began to unite in support of the Award. Although Barrister Fazlul Huq initially condemned the Award, he later acknowledged the situational compulsions and supported it.
Over the next few years, opposition to the Award among the Bengali Hindu Bhadralok spread widely. The spectre of ‘Muslim rule’—which had been brought to an end through the Battle of Plassey with British assistance after nearly 600 years—returned to haunt the Bhadralok through the Communal Award. As a result, the stance and perspective of Muslims in favor of the Award grew even firmer. Thus, the Award became the epicenter of division and dispute, serving as a ‘wedge’ in the rift between Hindu and Muslim politicians. That Award increasingly divided Bengal’s politics into two separate communal groups, with each group acting as a rival to the other.
The Poona Pact
While violent frenzy surrounding the Award was ongoing, another new dimension was added to the debate: the signing of the Poona Pact. Lower-caste Hindus believed that without the help of the British government, they would not be able to reclaim their dignity; thus, they kept themselves aloof from anti-British movements. In the Namasudra Conference held in Faridpur on December 28 and 29, 1927, a resolution declaring the loyalty of the Namasudras to the British Emperor was passed. Delivering the presidential address at the All-Bengal Namasudra Conference in 1928, Rai Sahib Rebati Mohan Sarkar (a member of the Legislative Council) emphasized that “Without the British government, his community (the Namasudras) would not have received the opportunity to regain their dignity, and therefore, his community should not join the current political movement (against the Simon Commission), as doing so would be suicidal for them.”
Gandhi held the view that untouchability was a religious matter—not a political one. Only Hindu society itself could resolve this problem through religious reform. Mahar leader B. R. Ambedkar maintained that since power was going to be transferred to the Hindu majority, they must have at least some political safeguards—provisions that, if not superior, should at least be on par with the benefits granted to Muslims and other minority communities.
Ignoring Gandhi’s objections, provisions for a separate electorate for the Scheduled Castes were included in the Award. Gandhi commenced a ‘fast unto death’ against this specific aspect of the Award. Due to Gandhi’s stubborn insistence, a separate electorate could not be created for the Scheduled Castes; instead, a portion of the Hindu seats was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. It was decided that out of eighty total Hindu seats in Bengal, thirty seats would be reserved for candidates of the Scheduled Castes.
As a result of that pact, the proportional number of seats for caste Hindus in Bengal was drastically reduced. Their seat share in the proposed legislature fell from approximately 32 percent to precisely 20 percent. The reaction of the Bhadralok Hindus turned into disbelief, agitation, and rage. To the Bhadralok Hindus, that pact emerged as a far greater threat than the Communal Award itself.
Hindu-Muslim Discord and Communal Violence
To increase the number of upper-caste Hindus in the Bengal Assembly, the Hindu Mahasabha in 1931 issued an appeal through campaign pamphlets calling upon tribal people to adopt upper-caste Hindu names and list themselves as ‘Kshatriyas’ in the upcoming census. At a public meeting in Munger, Savarkar formally accepted five Santhal boys into the Hindu fold.
In January 1939, the Bengal Hindu Sanghati was established. In March of that year, members of this organization in Kolkata stated that “it is necessary for tribal people to be identified as Hindus.”
These efforts were essentially part of a larger blueprint aimed at increasing Hindu numbers to achieve a Hindu majority in the Bengal Assembly.
During the 1941 Census, reports arrived from across Bengal alleging that “efforts were being made to enlist Scheduled Caste people strictly as Hindus,” and in some places, these attempts led to communal clashes. The most significant protest took place in Rajshahi involving the Santhals. Initiatives to register Santhals as Hindus were undertaken almost everywhere. In districts with large Santhal populations, attempts were made to maximize Hindu numbers by declaring the Santhals as Hindus.
In response, local Muslim League workers mobilized among the Santhals, encouraging them to register themselves as tribal indigenous people instead.
In the 1930s and 1940s, these movements aimed at bringing lower-caste people into the Hindu fold pulled them further into communal political conflicts. In 1932, Jitu Sanyal and a group of his Santhal followers attacked the abandoned, historic Adina Mosque and arranged an “unscriptural” Kali worship on its ruins. Jitu was killed in police firing during the incident.
When efforts to bring lower-caste populations into Hindu politics reached a peak in the early 1940s, numerous attacks and counter-attacks occurred between lower-caste groups and Muslims. In early 1941, “tensions arose locally in Rajshahi when a Saraswati Puja procession passed in front of a mosque with music.” Saraswati Puja in spring was traditionally a festival of the Bengali Hindu Bhadralok. However, this time “heightened tension emerged as nearly two thousand Santhals joined the Saraswati Puja procession carrying bows, arrows, and wooden staves.” Such participation by Santhals signaled that the Bhadralok Hindus were employing tactics to impose Hindu ‘culture’ on the Santhals according to their wishes, utilizing them in communal disputes.
Two months later, a major confrontation near Asansol’s Burnpur in Narsinghabad was narrowly averted. Members of the Goala (milkman) community began obstructing Muslims from carrying beef to the Burnpur beef market from Asansol—even though these very Goalas had long been selling cattle to Muslims for slaughter.
In January 1945, in the Lalbagh area of Dinajpur district, “apprehensions of trouble arose between Muslims and Santhals over a Santhal-led procession for Kali Puja passing by a local mosque during prayer times.” That same year, in the Mithapur market of Jessore’s Lohagara police station area, a severe confrontation took place between Namasudras and Muslims.
On a market day, while Muslims were offering prayers, a group of Namasudras passed in front of the mosque carrying an idol, singing and dancing. The Muslims inside the mosque asked them to leave, and they complied. The following day, nearly four thousand Namasudras arrived armed with shields and spears, dancing and singing in front of the mosque again. They departed without hindrance since the Muslims were unprepared.
Following this incident, Muslims organized believers from surrounding villages, preparing to launch a collective counter-attack should the Namasudras return.
During this period, lower-caste populations played an increasingly active role in communal riots, with the Mithapur market incident standing as an example. The Namasudras who marched past the mosque aggressively asserted their newly acquired ‘Hindu’ identity. In another similar incident at Jalshi in Jessore’s Narail subdivision, “tensions escalated between Namasudras and Muslims over the removal of a ‘Kali’ idol by unknown individuals.”
In Kulti, within the Burdwan division, a riot broke out when a Muslim crowd blocked a Hindu Mahavir Jhanda procession passing by a mosque. Police opened fire to quell the riot, killing four people—all of whom belonged to the Scheduled Castes.
In the wake of the 1941 Dhaka riots, violent clashes erupted between Namasudras and Muslims in Khulna. In this incident, “a large number of casualties were believed to have occurred—one Namasudra Hindu village and one Muslim village were burned to ashes.”
Among the Hindu rioters in Dhaka city, the Goalas were highly organized. Five years later in Noakhali, a horrific massacre took place in the bloody history of Bengal’s communal riots. Among the victims were many Namasudras, including “one hundred and one impoverished Namasudra families in Chandipur under Ramganj police station.”
During the partition riots, Santhals of Midnapore were seen heavily involved. S. Rahmatullah, who served as District Magistrate in 1947, described his experience: “Troublemakers came from Kolkata to incite local Hindus; they were wealthy men and large truck-owners. They hired militant Santhals, who tipped their arrows with burning wicks and shot them into Muslim huts, burning people alive. I faced a frenzied Santhal mob armed with large bows, arrows, and spears—beating drums, performing war dances, and shouting war cries… Driving in a jeep or car, we repeatedly noticed Santhals firing flaming arrows to set fire to houses in Muslim villages along the road to Kharagpur. I had no choice but to use my personal .315 Mauser Magnum to deter the Santhals.”
From the mid-1940s onward, lower-caste populations and tribals were deployed as vanguard troops for Hindu religious warriors. Shuddhi (purification) drives and organizational efforts appeared to exert a strong influence over lower-caste and tribal communities. In the eastern region, Namasudras, and in the northern region, Rajbanshis and Santhals, had independently been asserting claims to higher religious status for several decades. Impoverished individuals like Jitu Sanyal increasingly took up arms on behalf of the ‘Hindu community’ that had enlisted them. Ultimately, it was men like Jitu Sanyal who headed the casualty lists.
Disappointment of the Hindu elite
Following the announcement of the Communal Award, a competition to establish authority over local institutions began. Emerging Muslim groups continuously challenged Hindu Bhadralok dominance. The number of Muslim representatives on local and district boards in the Muslim-majority areas of East Bengal steadily increased. Even in the western districts, despite Hindus being in the majority, Muslim influence in local autonomous government institutions grew significantly.
The local institutions—namely unions, local and district boards, and municipalities—had previously been under the control of the Hindu Bhadralok, who became deeply incensed as they lost control over these bodies. In almost all cases, the result was communal friction, which often escalated into open clashes.
The same trend was observed in school boards, which had historically been monopolized by the Bhadralok. Even in Dhaka, the traditional bastion of the Bhadralok, Hindus failed to prevent the control of the municipality and schools from slipping out of their hands. Losing control over educational institutions was truly intolerable for caste Hindus, as they regarded themselves as the guardians of Bengal’s intellectual and cultural heritage.
The conflict became particularly pronounced in Hindu-majority areas where Hindu authority was diminishing. In February 1935, Muslims in Deyara town, under the Kalna subdivision, celebrated Eid by sacrificing a cow. Cow sacrifice had never been performed in Deyara before. This incident agitated the Hindus of Kalna, who viewed it as a provocative act by the Muslim community. The Hindus of Burdwan town retaliated by forcibly restraining Muslims from performing cow sacrifice, even though the Muslims of Burdwan had traditionally sacrificed cows every year during Bakri-Eid. Although a violent clash was averted after this incident, underlying tension persisted between the two communities.
The following year, during the immersion ceremony of Durga Puja, riots broke out in Burdwan town over the playing of music in front of a mosque. At 8:40 PM, a procession accompanied by flutes and drums arrived in front of the mosque in the Bara Bazar area. Muslims were offering prayers inside the mosque at the time. Angered by this, both sides engaged in a clash. News of this spread rapidly to the Berikhana Mosque, from where a group of Muslims rushed out with wooden staves (lathis) to prevent the idol procession from passing. Heated exchanges ensued—the Muslims asserted firmly that music would never be allowed in front of the mosque. The Hindu processionists left the idol by the roadside and departed in anger. The local magistrate intervened; the Muslims eventually agreed after 10:00 PM to allow music in front of the mosque. The processionists then passed along that route very late at night.
Similar incidents occurred in other Hindu-majority districts as well. In 1934, a major dispute broke out at Mollarchak under Kakdwip police station in the 24 Parganas district. Like Burdwan, 24 Parganas was more urbanized than other districts and was home to a large number of educated Hindus. However, the influence of educated Hindus on local politics was loosening with each passing year. In fact, the number of Muslim members on local boards in 24 Parganas grew even faster than in Burdwan. In the Basirhat and Barasat subdivisions, the proportion of Muslim members significantly exceeded their share of the population. By 1932, Muslims achieved parity with Hindu members on the Barasat Board, despite it being a Hindu-majority area.
In 1933, a major altercation occurred in Behala, South Kolkata. During Eid, a group of Muslims was transporting some animals toward Shapoor for sacrifice when a group of Hindus and Sikhs launched a premeditated attack on them. Severe injuries were sustained on both sides during the fighting. In 1934, a riot took place at Mollarchor near Kakdwip police station in the Diamond Harbour subdivision. Here, Muslims announced their intention to sacrifice a cow, while the majority Hindus were determined to stop it. No prior communal tension had been reported in the area. The Hindus were angered by the intention to sacrifice a cow, viewing it as an unprecedented act that would defile a Hindu-majority region. A similar incident occurred in neighboring Midnapore district in 1935. Conflict erupted from a minor incident under Barhola police station in Kharagpur, as a new initiative by Muslims to perform cow sacrifice severely hurt Hindu sentiments. Like Burdwan and 24 Parganas, Midnapore was a Hindu-majority district and a major stronghold of Bhadralok politics.
Due to the welfare measures of the Fazlul Huq government, the Bengal government gained widespread popularity among the general poor, lower-middle-class, and middle-class populations of both Hindu and Muslim communities through actions such as:
- Passing the Bengal Tenancy Act Amendment to curb the unbridled oppression of landlords (1938);
- Issuing the “Jute Ordinance” to ensure fair prices for jute farmers (1939);
- Amending the “Agricultural Debtors Act” to strengthen Debt Settlement Boards and protect poor peasants from usurious moneylenders (1939);
- Passing the “Moneylenders Act” in the Legislative Assembly (1940);
- Enacting the “Shops and Establishments Act” mandating one paid weekly holiday and other benefits for shop workers (1940);
- Introducing the “Primary Education Bill” in the Bengal Assembly to make primary education free and compulsory, among others.
The Hindu Bhadralok in Hindu-majority districts had hoped to compensate for the power they lost at the provincial level by asserting greater control locally. However, this proved impossible. Instead, they found themselves losing ground to Muslims across all spheres, even in Hindu-majority districts.
The 1946 elections brought the Muslim League back to power in Bengal. In April 1946, Suhrawardy formed a government and became Bengal’s new Prime Minister. However, over the following months, he took virtually no steps to allay the fears that many Bengali Hindus harbored regarding their future under Muslim rule. He reduced the cabinet size from 13 to 11 members, decreased the number of Hindu ministers to 3, and selected two of those three Hindu ministers from the Scheduled Castes.
During this time in Delhi, Congress was attempting to form an interim government excluding the Muslim League. Suhrawardy warned Congress of the consequences: “The probable consequence of bypassing the League to install Congress in power will be the declaration of complete independence for Bengal and the setting up of a parallel government… We will ensure that such a Central Government receives no revenue from Bengal, and we will regard ourselves as a separate state having no connection with the Center.” He threatened a declaration of complete independence for Bengal.
Hindu newspapers reacted strongly to Suhrawardy’s statement, interpreting it as a threat to turn all of Bengal into ‘Pakistan’ immediately. To Hindu Bengalis, the arrival of ‘Pakistan’ meant losing political sovereignty forever and living under the subjugation of the Muslim majority.
Great Calcutta Killing
Against this backdrop, the infamous Great Calcutta Killing took place. At least five thousand people were killed in this riot. Once the situation was brought under control, it was discovered that several thousand people on both sides had been brutally slaughtered. Ten days after the killings began, over three thousand corpses still lay strewn across the pavements of this “city of dreadful night.” The city’s existing facilities for cremating and disposing of bodies were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the dead. Consequently, the government had to assemble lower-caste Doms to collect the corpses and stack them in mass graves.
The Great Calcutta Killing was not an isolated or sudden event. Hindus were already prepared to prevent all of Bengal from falling under Muslim-majority rule. Far more Muslims than Hindus were killed in that conflict. Evaluating this gruesome event, Patel remarked: “The Hindus have had the best of it.”
Campaign for the Partition of Bengal
In 1945, after the Second World War, the British no longer retained any power to rule India. Out of their own necessity, they wanted to transfer power and leave India as quickly as possible. The only subject of discussion now was how quickly, to whom, and under what conditions power would be transferred.
Since Muslims constituted the majority in undivided Bengal, there was a higher probability that Muslims would assume power through democratic elections after the British departed. Under these circumstances, the upper-caste Hindus of West Bengal came to believe that the partition of Bengal was far preferable to being ruled by Muslims, many of whom had converted to Islam from lower-caste Hinduism.
The very caste Hindus who had overwhelmingly opposed the Partition of Bengal in 1905 became the principal proponents of Bengal’s partition in 1947. There was a single reason behind this: in 1905, the dominance of caste Hindus—who were ahead in politics, education, and professions in Bengal—was unquestioned. The preservation of their influence and prestige in an undivided Bengal was assured. Had Bengal been partitioned then, the scope of their influence and prestige would inevitably have shrunk.
However, in 1947—after an interval of 42 years—the dominance of the majority Muslim population had become established in Bengal’s politics. If Bengal remained undivided, Muslim dominance would persist, with no possibility of Hindu supremacy. Conversely, partitioning Bengal would secure Hindu dominance in West Bengal. For this reason alone, Hindu leaders became staunch supporters of partitioning Bengal. They realized that even if an undivided Bengal remained within India, Muslims would still hold sway there, and the head of the cabinet would be a Muslim. This prospect was unacceptable to Hindu leaders.
On May 22, 1947, the Hindu Mahasabha leader Syama Prasad wrote in a letter to Patel: “Even with a weak central government as proposed by the Cabinet Mission, our safety in Bengal will not be ensured. Whether Pakistan comes into being or not, we demand the division of the present Bengal to form two provinces.”
The previous month (April 4, 1947), in his presidential address at the Provincial Hindu Conference, N. C. Chatterjee stated: “The Hindus of Bengal must form a separate province under a strong central government. This is not partition—it is a matter of life and death for Hindus.”
On June 5, 1947, B. C. Sinha, a member of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee, wrote in a letter to Patel: “Even if the whole of Bengal joins India, the existing state of affairs will more or less persist, and the idea of establishing nationalism in Bengal will fail completely. Nationalism cannot be established unless we hold the reins of administration in our own hands. Therefore, even if we wish to stay in India, Bengal cannot be kept undivided.”
The Muslim League is generally held responsible for the partition of Bengal in 1947. However, Congress—led by the Kolkata Bhadralok—along with its ally, the Hindu Mahasabha, carried out an extensive and well-planned propaganda campaign across Bengal for the partition of the province.
The Cabinet Mission proposal of May 1946 was the final attempt to keep India unified. That proposal envisioned a confederation comprising an autonomous region of Muslim-majority provinces in Northern India, an autonomous region consisting of Bengal and Assam, and another autonomous region comprising the rest of India.
The Cabinet Mission proposed the establishment of a true federal government in India. It specified that the central government in Delhi would handle only all-India responsibilities such as monetary policy, defense, and foreign affairs, while all other powers would rest with the provinces. Jinnah agreed to this proposal, but Congress opposed it. Congress wanted a central government vested with supreme authority, with the provinces remaining dependent on and beholden to the Center.
Jinnah realized that under such an arrangement, the provinces would retain no real autonomy and would forever remain at the mercy of Delhi for their development. Consequently, he ultimately resolved in favor of the partition of India.
In 1946, during the discussions in Delhi between the Cabinet Mission and Indian leaders, speculation and tension reached a fever pitch. At that time, the Bhadralok Hindus of Kolkata and the heartland of West Bengal began to view the plan to partition Bengal favorably, contemplating the creation of a Hindu homeland comprising the Hindu-majority areas of West Bengal. Finding the prospect of remaining under permanent Muslim rule intolerable, a majority of Hindus in the Hindu-majority districts of West Bengal came to favor this solution.
During the final months of 1946 and early 1947, an intense propaganda drive in favor of partitioning Bengal gained momentum. Following the Great Calcutta Killing, Hindus were subjected to relentless, violently communal propaganda fueled by hate. Pamphlets asked: “In these extreme days of calamity for the Hindus of India, will Hindus stay quietly inside their homes like cowards? Will they not organize immediately to protect themselves and destroy the enemy? Will the Hindu youth of Bengal not avenge the oppression of their mothers and sisters? You must take a vow of self-sacrifice today! Defensive measures must be taken!”
False rumors were systematically circulated: “Do you know what is happening in a city like Kolkata in the name of law and order under curfew? They have built secret slaughterhouses in Kolkata. Punjabi police officers transport violators of curfew laws in police trucks and hand them over to squads of killers stationed at these slaughterhouses or residing in their quarters. Do you know what happens to most of those arrested? They are murdered, their bodies are chopped into pieces, packed into wooden boxes, and carried away to unknown places outside the city.”
Calling upon Hindus not to forget the events of August 16, a pamphlet proclaimed: “We must always remember that the memory of those people cannot be allowed to fade. Those atrocities were committed by people who consider it their religious duty to build mosques on Hindu land, violate the chastity of Hindu women, destroy and desecrate Hindu places of worship, and interfere with Hindu customs and religious practices. During the observance of ‘Direct Action Day’ on August 16, whipped into religious frenzy, they raped our beloved mothers and sisters, split open their vaginas and anuses with sharp weapons, and mutilated the breasts that we Hindus take pride in nursing from.” The Intelligence Branch described this as a “hymn of hate.” The pamphlet concluded with a call to “annihilate” anyone who opposed the partition of Bengal.
The movement for the partition of Bengal was not confined to Kolkata alone. In districts where Hindus constituted the majority yet local power had passed into Muslim hands, the movement for partition grew formidable—namely in Burdwan, Midnapore, 24 Parganas, Hooghly, and, of course, Kolkata. However, this movement in the districts was not entirely spontaneous; rather, it was a well-organized campaign driven by a specific group. Standardized printed petitions were used everywhere, requiring signees to fill in their names and addresses.
While many attribute sole responsibility for the Bengal partition movement to Syama Prasad Mookerjee, local Congress groups were deeply intertwined with the Hindu Mahasabha in this coordinated effort. Bengal Congress leaders decided at the time that partitioning Bengal was the only way to convert their internal party authority into external state power. To achieve this objective, they deployed their newly disciplined cadre, working hand in hand with the Mahasabha wherever necessary. In the 1940s, there was little distinction between Congress and the Mahasabha in terms of recruitment and ideological stance. The Hindu Mahasabha had failed to win a single seat in the 1946 elections and had become a powerless party. While the Mahasabha had influenced Congress in the early 1940s, this dynamic was now reversed. Both parties worked closely toward the goal of partitioning Bengal, with Congress assuming the leadership role in directing the movement.
Congress was unequivocally the dominant partner in this joint campaign for the partition of Bengal. Throughout Bengal, Congress independently organized public meetings calling for partition without the participation of the Mahasabha. A meeting held in Ballygunge, Kolkata, was presided over by the prominent Gandhian leader of Bengal, Dr. Prafulla Chandra Ghosh.
Out of 76 recorded public meetings organized for the partition of Bengal, Congress alone convened at least 59. Twelve meetings were organized under the auspices of the Hindu Mahasabha, and only five were joint ventures. Burdwan district served as the epicenter of this movement. Congress committees in Burdwan organized public rallies supporting partition not only in towns like Katwa, Kalna, and Asansol, but even in small villages like Rayan, from where one hundred petitions bearing signatures and thumb impressions were dispatched.
The Hindu Bhadralok of Kolkata formed the core driving force behind this movement. Having lost their political grip on provincial governance, and with zamindari landholdings no longer lucrative, the disillusioned Bhadralok hoped that partitioning Bengal would allow them to re-establish political power in the Hindu-majority region.
Support came not only from Congress or the Hindu Mahasabha; the Municipal Commissioners’ Association, union boards, the Landholders’ Association, local clubs, and even the Entally Boys’ Library submitted petitions demanding the partition of Bengal. Lawyers’ associations, medical practitioners’ associations, major commercial firms, business houses, lawyers, doctors, engineers, professors, landlords, and managers—all endorsed declarations stating that “life, property, education, and culture will be destroyed under a Muslim League government,” concluding that they had no alternative but to demand the “immediate partition of Bengal.”
Alongside the British government, the non-Bengali merchant class of Kolkata was equally responsible for the Bengal Famine of 1943. By hoarding rice, they amassed fortunes overnight at the cost of three million Bengali lives in that man-made catastrophe. This illicit wealth, extracted at the expense of Bengali lives, was heavily invested in coal mines and other industrial enterprises. However, the Marwari community of Kolkata had no faith that they would thrive in a Muslim-majority undivided Bengal or that a Muslim League government would cooperate with them. Conversely, partitioning Bengal would establish a Congress government in West Bengal—a government that would effectively serve as a client to the Marwari business interest. Since Congress could come to power in Bengal only if the province were partitioned, G. D. Birla and members of his community played a crucial role by contributing vast financial resources to the partition movement out of calculated commercial self-interest.
Both Bengali and non-Bengali businessmen from Kolkata and rural areas played pivotal roles in directing this movement. Industrialists and millionaires like Birla, Ishwar Das Jalan, Goenka, and Nalini Ranjan Sarkar sat on high-level committees to map out campaign strategies. Marwari merchants from across the province submitted petitions to the All India Congress Committee, stating that commerce in Bengal under the Muslim League government had been “completely ruined,” and expressing their wholehearted support for the partition of Bengal. They declared this measure “essential for restoring peace and prosperity.”
In various parts of Bengal, numerous public meetings passed resolutions demanding the immediate creation of a separate Hindu province; these meetings were presided over—and funded—by local business leaders with vested interests. In fact, G. D. Birla had been an advocate for partitioning Bengal for several years: in July 1942, he admitted to Mahadev Desai, “I am in favor of partition [of Bengal]. I do not think it is impractical or against the interests of Hindus.” For Kolkata’s business community, the partition of Bengal was clearly viewed as the superior financial outcome.
Efforts for an Undivided, Independent, Sovereign Bengal
The success of organizing Hindu public opinion in the movement for the partition of Bengal does not mean that everyone was swept away by it. The then Prime Minister of Bengal, H. S. Suhrawardy, presented a plan proposing that East and West Bengal, rather than joining as parts of India or Pakistan, could emerge as an independent sovereign state. Suhrawardy outlined his proposal at a press conference in Delhi on April 24, 1947. Although the All-India Muslim League rejected the plan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave tacit support to Suhrawardy’s scheme. After securing Jinnah’s endorsement, Suhrawardy began mobilizing support for his plan. Abul Hashim, a leader from Burdwan, supported Suhrawardy’s proposal.
From the Congress side, only a handful of leaders agreed with this plan. Among them were Sarat Chandra Bose, the elder brother of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and Kiran Sankar Roy. However, the majority of Congress leaders, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, rejected the plan. Furthermore, the Hindu Mahasabha, led by Syama Prasad Mookerjee, fiercely opposed it.
Under the leadership of Sarat Bose, a small group within Congress attempted to form an independent, sovereign, undivided Bengal state. But it soon became clear that no one in the provincial Congress supported Bose. Eleven Hindu members of the Bengal Constituent Assembly met Lord Mountbatten and presented him with a demand for “a separate and autonomous province in West and North Bengal within the Indian Union.” Nevertheless, with the assistance of Kiran Sankar Roy, Sarat Bose reached an agreement with Muslim leaders at the last moment to form a “united and sovereign Bengal.” In May 1947, Bose drafted an outline featuring the main characteristics of this proposal, which Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim enthusiastically accepted.
For the independent Bengal state, the principles of joint electorates, adult franchise, and reservation of seats in proportion to population were adopted. In the “independent state” of Bengal, there would be an equal number of Hindu and Muslim ministers, with the Prime Minister being a Muslim and the Home Minister a Hindu. Equal representation for Hindus and Muslims in government service would be ensured. It was unanimously decided that the independent state of Bengal would be a “socialist republic,” based on the concept that “the solution to the communal problem actually lies in establishing social justice.”
Gandhi also offered conditional support to the plan to keep Bengal united, but he was forced to withdraw his backing. His colleagues on the Working Committee “called for an explanation from him for supporting Sarat Babu’s initiative.”
On April 26, H. S. Suhrawardy told Viceroy Lord Mountbatten that instead of partitioning Bengal, it should be recognized as an independent and sovereign country. Mountbatten did not disappoint Suhrawardy. He stated that if the Congress and the Muslim League agreed, the British government would have no objection to an undivided Bengal.
On April 26, Mountbatten held a meeting with Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah stated that he had no objection to the proposal for an undivided and independent Bengal, remarking: “I should be delighted. What is Bengal worth without Calcutta? It would be far better for them (the Bengalis) to remain united and independent.”
The following day, during a speech at a press conference in Delhi, Suhrawardy said: “Let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and most prosperous country in India. It will be capable of providing its people with a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the full height of their dignity—a land truly of plenty. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce, and in time, it will become one of the most powerful and progressive states in the world. If Bengal remains united, this will be no dream or fantasy.”
On April 18, Mountbatten informed the Governor of Bengal, Frederick Burrows, via telegram: “Do not forget that my plan leaves the door open for a united yet independent Bengal that belongs neither to Pakistan nor to Hindustan.”
Despite Jinnah’s support, central leaders of the Congress fiercely opposed the plan for an undivided Bengal. Furthermore, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel personally wrote letters to Congress leaders in Bengal, asking them to stand firm on the demand for partition, and strongly condemned those advocating for an undivided Bengal. Nehru, too, did not want Bengal to become an independent state.
Bengal got divided
Direct Translation:
Despite these intense efforts by the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha, the British government was unwilling to take a unilateral decision regarding the partition of Bengal. On May 17, the British government decided that the Bengal Legislative Council would be divided into two sections to determine the province’s partition: one representing the Muslim-majority districts and the other representing the Hindu-majority areas. The elected members from these districts would vote separately. If either side voted in favor of partitioning Bengal, the province would be partitioned. Otherwise, if both sides voted against partition, Bengal would remain undivided.
In accordance with this plan, on June 20, 1947, the members of the Bengal Legislative Assembly convened to decide the fate of Bengal. Voting took place over several successive rounds.
In the initial phase of the session, at the demand of the Congress, a resolution was introduced stating that “Bengal shall be partitioned and the divided whole of Bengal shall join the existing Indian Constituent Assembly.” In the joint session of the House comprising all Hindu and Muslim members of the assembly, this resolution—and thus the proposal for partition—received only 90 votes in favor, while 126 votes were cast against partition. Consequently, this resolution was defeated.
Next, the members representing the Muslim-majority areas of Bengal voted separately on the proposal for partition. Only 35 votes were cast in favor of partitioning Bengal, while 106 votes were cast against it; thus, the partition proposal was rejected by this section.
Following this, a resolution was introduced proposing that this section would not join the existing Constituent Assembly for framing its constitution, but would instead join the new Constituent Assembly to be formed for the Muslim-majority regions. The resolution to join the new Constituent Assembly formed for Muslim-majority regions was passed, with 107 members voting in favor and 34 against.
Thereafter, the members representing the Hindu-majority areas of Bengal voted separately on the proposal for partition. Fifty-eight votes were cast in favor of partition, while only 21 votes were cast against it, and the proposal for partition was accepted. Subsequently, the resolution to join the existing Indian Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the constitution for this region was passed by a vote of 58 to 21.
A total of 225 members participated in this voting. Among them, 80 belonged to the Hindu-majority regions—comprising 58 Hindus, 21 Muslims, 4 Anglo-Indians, and 1 Indian Christian. Meanwhile, 145 belonged to the Muslim-majority regions—comprising 103 Muslims, 41 Hindus, and 1 Indian Christian.
Prominent Hindu figures who voted in favor of the partition of Bengal that day included Gobinda Lal Banerjee, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee (Hindu Mahasabha), Maharajadhiraja Sir Uday Chand Mahtab (Independent), Mukunda Behari Mullick (Independent), Ratanlal Brahman (Communist), and Jyoti Basu (Communist).
Among the prominent Muslim figures who voted to keep Bengal undivided were Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy (Prime Minister), Mr. M. A. H. Ispahani, and many others.
Under the agreed terms, because the members from the Hindu-majority region voted in support of partition, the partition of Bengal became a settled certainty. The plan to split Bengal into two was adopted in the Bengal Legislative Assembly, and the controversial boundaries were subsequently demarcated. On August 15, 1947, Bengal was partitioned into two halves indefinitely.
Conclusion
From the time of Emperor Shashanka to the Battle of Plassey, across a thousand years of history, the Bengali nation passed through many ups and downs. Ever since the reign of Shah-i-Bangala Sultan Shamsuddin Iliyas Shah, Bengalis as a nation were consistently united, and the integrity of Bengal was largely preserved. Throughout this long span of time, internal conflicts and disputes over religious and communal interests certainly occurred on occasion, but no one ever contemplated partitioning Bengal for narrow communal interests. In defending Bengal’s independence and integrity, many Hindu heroes sacrificed their lives and many Muslim mujahids attained martyrdom, yet they never allowed Bengal to be divided.
However, on June 20, 1947, the self-proclaimed Bhadralok of Bengal committed an act of treachery against the Bengali nation for their narrow communal interests—an act for which the nation will never forgive them. Opposing the partition of Bengal, Syed Habib-ul-Rahman of the Krishak Praja Party stated: “Both Hindus and Muslims inhabit a common motherland, share a common language and literature, and take pride in the noble tradition of a shared Hindu and Muslim culture developed through centuries of cohabitation on a common soil.” But his statement failed to leave any impression on the minds of the Bhadralok. Had they set aside their narrow communal interests that day and voted against the partition of Bengal, perhaps a free and sovereign state of Bengal—belonging solely to Bengalis, irrespective of Hindu or Muslim identity—would have been born back in 1947 itself.
Source:
History of Bengal (Medieval Era) — Ramesh Chandra Majumdar
How India Was Partitioned — Bimalananda Sasmal
Bengal Divided — Joya Chatterji
Deshpran Sasmal – Indian Politics and Muslims — Bimalananda Sasmal
My Life and the Communist Party of India — Muzaffar Ahmad
The Unfinished Memoirs — Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
বাংলা এবং বাঙালির জন্য লড়াইকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে যেতে আমাদের সাহায্য করুন।
আমরা কোনো কোটিপতি বা বড় কোনো কোম্পানি নই – আমাদের পাঠকরাই আমাদের সমর্থন করেন। আমাদের এই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এবং সাহসী প্রচেষ্টার জন্য অনুদান দিয়ে আমাদের পাশে থাকুন।
We are not billionaires or big companies – our readers support us. Support us by donating to this important and courageous effort.