A tale of two Bengals

Few regions in the world have gone through the trauma of partition twice. In 1905, Bengal was divided into East Bengal and West Bengal. This partition was revoked in 1911, only to be enforced again in 1947. And this time the partition meant that the two Bengals belonged to two different countries.

The common factor was that both the partitions revolved around the tumultuous relations between the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal. The paradox that a partition revoked through popular movements in 1911 was once again endorsed and accepted by the same people 36 years later is the subject dealt with here. It is a fascinating story of the interplay of communal forces (aided of course by some hard-boiled, pragmatic and occasionally opportunistic politicians) that triumphs over the statesmanship of some leaders and the romantic yearning of a united Bengal that most Bengalis cherish even now.

The premise of Sengupta's thesis relies on four facts. One, the Muslim population in united Bengal always had a majority. Two, the Muslim League, the prime force behind the creation of Pakistan, had no real base in Bengal. Three, the British were more suspicious of the Hindu Bengalis and saw in the Muslims a powerful countervailing force. And, finally, the Hindus in Bengal, though smaller in number, were more affluent than the Muslims and had greater access to education. The net result was that in spite of several proponents of a united Bengal, the dream remained unfulfilled in 1947.

The historic misjudgement of dividing Bengal in 1947 and making it part of Pakistan resulted in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, the author argues. Sengupta's analysis reveals even though the politics in 1947 could not prevent the division of Bengal, the cultural connections and even economic complementarities between the two Bengals were never in doubt.

Thus, in less than three decades, the Bengalis of East Pakistan realised that being reduced to a "colony" of Pakistan in the east was not what they wanted. It was a far worse option than being part of a united Bengal under India. A movement that began with the demand for asserting the Bengali cultural identity turned into a battle for independence.

But in spite of the author's romantic yearning of a united Bengal, the recounting of the historical events spanning over half a century shows that cultural similarities notwithstanding, the two Bengals could not have really come together simply because of the sharp religious polarisation.

The partition of Bengal in 1905 pleased the Muslim peasantry and the politicians representing them. This was because East Bengal and its newly created capital""Dacca""promised to offer them an alternative where they could assert their identity. The Hindu Bengalis realised their folly and, led by Chittaranjan Das and other like-minded visionary politicians, managed to persuade the Muslim leadership of Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy to agree to the restoration of a united Bengal.

The revocation of Bengal's partition had another reason, of which the author makes no mention. The British had made up their mind to shift India's capital from Calcutta to New Delhi. As a sop to Bengal, they decided to revoke the partition. Sentiments were soothed, but bickering started soon. On as simple an issue as providing more funds to improve Dacca University, the Hindu Bengali leadership expressed reservations on the grounds that this might undermine the importance and growth potential of Calcutta University.

To undo the damage to the Hindu-Muslim relations, Das produced the draft Bengal Pact, which gave the Muslims rights linked to their share in the population. But this was rejected by the Congress leaders. On several occasions the Congress leaders in Bengal tried to forge links with Muslim leaders but their plans were foiled by either Gandhi or Nehru.

A move to form an alliance with Fazlul Huq's Krishak Praja Party to form the government in Bengal was rejected by Gandhi, after discussion with GD Birla, among others (a move that pushed Huq to join hands with the Muslim League). Nehru's rejection of the Cabinet Mission plan also brought Jinnah and Suhrawardy closer in their demand for Pakistan, provoking riots and killings in Calcutta. In spite of that, Sarat Bose convinced Suhrawardy to propose a sovereign united Bengal. But that move too was rejected by Gandhi.

Sengupta's analysis reconfirms the widely-held belief that Bengal's political leaders""both Hindus and Muslims""in the first 50 years of the twentieth century felt let down by the all-India leaders at the helm. In that sense, nothing seems to have changed in Bengal even 60 years after Independence.

---

Bengal Divided
The Unmaking of a Nation (1905-1971)

Nitish Sengupta
Penguin/Viking
Price: Rs 495; Pages: 260