07-19-2005, 03:07 AM
From Deccan.com, 18 July 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The First Partition
By Akhilesh Mithal
If a list were to be made of dread words, words to send a chill down the spine at their very mention, âpartitionâ would figure at the very top. For the inhabitants of the subcontinent that was once âIndiaâ (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians) few words pack the sinister power and punch carried by âpartition.â The Hindi âvibhaajanâ is perhaps as heart rending as partition, although the Urdu âtuqseemâ is less frightening because one of its meanings could be âsharing.â The effects of âpartitionâ were first seen a hundred years ago. On July 19, 1905 the Partition of Bengal became a fact and sent Bengal into a paroxysm of anti-British feeling leading to terrorism.
Why did the British divide Bengal into two?
This province and its capital Calcutta had become a great stronghold of the Indian National Congress. Indians were, increasingly and with growing vehemence, demanding a greater say in the running of the land of their birth.
What perception Indians and their rulers, the British, had of each other may be seen from what Jawaharlal Nehru had to say of the ideology of the British government as embodied in the Viceroy and what George Nathaniel Curzon, the Viceroy, and perpetrator of the Partition of Bengal, had to say about Indians agitating for political space to live in the country of their birth with a modicum of self respect.
Jawaharlal writes: âVice-roys who come to India direct from England have to fit in with and rely upon the Indian Civil Service structure. Belonging to the possessing and ruling class in England, they have no difficulty in accepting the ICS outlook, and their unique position of absolute authority unparalleled elsewhere, leads to subtle changes in their ways and methods of expression. Authority corrupts and absolute authority corrupts absolutely, and no man in the wide world today has had or has such absolute authority over such large numbers of people as the British Viceroy of India.
The Viceroy speaks in a manner such as no Prime Minister of England or President of the United States of America can adopt. The only possible parallel would be that of Hitler. And not the Viceroy only but the British members of his Council, the governors, and even the smaller fry who function as secretaries of departments or magistrates. They speak from a noble and unattainable height, secure in the conviction that what they say and do is right but that it will have to be accepted as right, whatever lesser mortals may imagine, for theirs is the power and glory.â
Curzonâs perception of Indians as recorded in a letter to London reads: âYou can scarcely have any idea of the utter want of proportion, moderation or sanity that characterises native agitation in this country. Starting with some preposterous fiction or exaggeration, the Bengali after repeating it a few times, ends up firmly believing in its truth. He lashes himself with a fury over the most insignificant issues, and he revels in his own stage thunder in the happy conviction that owing to the circumstances of the case it can provoke no reply.
All these petty volcanoes screamed unendingly; constant repetition of such invective tended to sway the minds of the educatedâ¦â Calcutta was, he said, âthe centre from which the Congress party is manipulated⦠Any measure in consequence that would divide the Bengali speaking population ⦠or would weaken the influence of the lawyer class, who have the entire organisation in their hands, is intensely and hotly resented by them.â
The reaction to the Partition of Bengal was swift and all pervasive. The Swadeshi movement of boycotting English imports was popular with the masses while the elite of Bengal organised underground cells in which homemade bombs became the weapon of assertion of national dignity.
The Anushilan Samity, a terrorist group, was led by a barrister of the Calcutta High Court, Pramathnath Mitra. When the Special Branch of the Calcutta Police raided five residences in the most respectable areas of Calcutta they had to arrest 26 educated Bengali young men as they were found to be in possession of bomb making equipment. One was Aurobindo Ghosh.
Various statistics were given to make out that the move was purely administration oriented. The unwieldy size of Bengal was cited and the fact of its population being 30 million larger than the United Provinces and 40 million larger than Madras, mentioned. The object was âdivide and ruleâ and a Muslim majority area was created as a counterpoise to the Congress dominated area with Calcutta as its centre.
In divided Bengal the numbers were:
* East Bengal area 196,540 sq miles housing 18 million Muslims and 12 million Hindus.
* (Old) Bengal area 141,580 sq miles housing 9 million Muslims and 42 million Hindus.
The Muslim League soon came into existence. The stage was set for fracturing India into Hindu and Muslim and the fulfilment came in 1947. The British success owed a great deal to the Hindutva of Savarkar and âMuslim heiyn humwatan heiynâ (being Muslims makes us compatriots) of Muhammad Iqbal. The Bengal Partition was annulled in 1911. Is there any hope for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh having an adult and mature relationship?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The First Partition
By Akhilesh Mithal
If a list were to be made of dread words, words to send a chill down the spine at their very mention, âpartitionâ would figure at the very top. For the inhabitants of the subcontinent that was once âIndiaâ (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians) few words pack the sinister power and punch carried by âpartition.â The Hindi âvibhaajanâ is perhaps as heart rending as partition, although the Urdu âtuqseemâ is less frightening because one of its meanings could be âsharing.â The effects of âpartitionâ were first seen a hundred years ago. On July 19, 1905 the Partition of Bengal became a fact and sent Bengal into a paroxysm of anti-British feeling leading to terrorism.
Why did the British divide Bengal into two?
This province and its capital Calcutta had become a great stronghold of the Indian National Congress. Indians were, increasingly and with growing vehemence, demanding a greater say in the running of the land of their birth.
What perception Indians and their rulers, the British, had of each other may be seen from what Jawaharlal Nehru had to say of the ideology of the British government as embodied in the Viceroy and what George Nathaniel Curzon, the Viceroy, and perpetrator of the Partition of Bengal, had to say about Indians agitating for political space to live in the country of their birth with a modicum of self respect.
Jawaharlal writes: âVice-roys who come to India direct from England have to fit in with and rely upon the Indian Civil Service structure. Belonging to the possessing and ruling class in England, they have no difficulty in accepting the ICS outlook, and their unique position of absolute authority unparalleled elsewhere, leads to subtle changes in their ways and methods of expression. Authority corrupts and absolute authority corrupts absolutely, and no man in the wide world today has had or has such absolute authority over such large numbers of people as the British Viceroy of India.
The Viceroy speaks in a manner such as no Prime Minister of England or President of the United States of America can adopt. The only possible parallel would be that of Hitler. And not the Viceroy only but the British members of his Council, the governors, and even the smaller fry who function as secretaries of departments or magistrates. They speak from a noble and unattainable height, secure in the conviction that what they say and do is right but that it will have to be accepted as right, whatever lesser mortals may imagine, for theirs is the power and glory.â
Curzonâs perception of Indians as recorded in a letter to London reads: âYou can scarcely have any idea of the utter want of proportion, moderation or sanity that characterises native agitation in this country. Starting with some preposterous fiction or exaggeration, the Bengali after repeating it a few times, ends up firmly believing in its truth. He lashes himself with a fury over the most insignificant issues, and he revels in his own stage thunder in the happy conviction that owing to the circumstances of the case it can provoke no reply.
All these petty volcanoes screamed unendingly; constant repetition of such invective tended to sway the minds of the educatedâ¦â Calcutta was, he said, âthe centre from which the Congress party is manipulated⦠Any measure in consequence that would divide the Bengali speaking population ⦠or would weaken the influence of the lawyer class, who have the entire organisation in their hands, is intensely and hotly resented by them.â
The reaction to the Partition of Bengal was swift and all pervasive. The Swadeshi movement of boycotting English imports was popular with the masses while the elite of Bengal organised underground cells in which homemade bombs became the weapon of assertion of national dignity.
The Anushilan Samity, a terrorist group, was led by a barrister of the Calcutta High Court, Pramathnath Mitra. When the Special Branch of the Calcutta Police raided five residences in the most respectable areas of Calcutta they had to arrest 26 educated Bengali young men as they were found to be in possession of bomb making equipment. One was Aurobindo Ghosh.
Various statistics were given to make out that the move was purely administration oriented. The unwieldy size of Bengal was cited and the fact of its population being 30 million larger than the United Provinces and 40 million larger than Madras, mentioned. The object was âdivide and ruleâ and a Muslim majority area was created as a counterpoise to the Congress dominated area with Calcutta as its centre.
In divided Bengal the numbers were:
* East Bengal area 196,540 sq miles housing 18 million Muslims and 12 million Hindus.
* (Old) Bengal area 141,580 sq miles housing 9 million Muslims and 42 million Hindus.
The Muslim League soon came into existence. The stage was set for fracturing India into Hindu and Muslim and the fulfilment came in 1947. The British success owed a great deal to the Hindutva of Savarkar and âMuslim heiyn humwatan heiynâ (being Muslims makes us compatriots) of Muhammad Iqbal. The Bengal Partition was annulled in 1911. Is there any hope for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh having an adult and mature relationship?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->