What were the short term significances of the Bengal
partition? nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 
Viceroy Curzons partition of Bengal caused a huge uproar, generated by
all of its inhabitants. However, as well as the initial conflagration, the
partition created a ripple effect throughout Indian politics, revitalising the
desire for autonomy and a nationalist sentiment. Porter states that Curzon left
a [1]legacy
of discontent and Kumar agrees as he describes the outrage at what some
regarded as an [2]ugly
specimen of the British Policy of Divide and Rule from this very outrage, sprang
the Swadeshi Movement. The damage that the partition caused also extended to
Hind-Muslim relations, for it completely undermined Congress aspirations of
self-rule and gave birth to a Muslim communalism that opposed anti-partition
agitation. Resentment of the partition was sustained all the way until its
abolition and it demonstrated that Britains exploits in India, ventured no
further than their own self interest and in trying to maintain their grip on
Indian soil, they, in the eyes of Kumar, [3]injected
a poison in the body-politic of [his] country. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 
The Bengal partition created a great deal of tension between Indias two
largest religious creeds and this was a critical blow to Indias ambitions of
nationalism. In essence, Britains policy of Divide and Rule had the desired
effect enfeebling the ever growing nationalist clamour. H.H. Risley, an
ethnographer-administrator at the time, supports this as he stated that [4]Bengal
divided will pull it different ways, and that the partition was devised to
split up and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents that oppose [British]
rule. This source can be trusted because the purpose of a man in Risleys
position was to diffuse any threats to British rule, in the face of nationalist
opposition and here, he is merely outlining the aims of the partition.
Furthermore, his language is quite methodical and concise with phrases such as
a solid body of opponents and split up and thereby weaken. Risleys words
demonstrate a clear intent to drive a wedge between the various proponents of a
nationalist campaign. The fact that there is intent at all, is a sign that the
divisions that did materialise between Islam and Hinduism, are of a direct
result of the partition and that it was a conflict, explicitly crafted by the
British. Thus, one aspect of the significance of the religious tension in India
was that it illuminated Britains desire to subdue the cry for self-rule by
splitting up its opposition. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp The
way the British managed to manipulate the clash of religions was to use the
Muslims to counter the Hindu dominated Indian National Congress. By giving the
Muslims their own Muhammadan province, this provided an adequate distraction
from the mainstream nationalist movement, something de Bary describes as a[5]
tacit alliance with the British against Hindu ambitions. However, the word
alliance is a little optimistic and it is more of a gift of obedience to the
Muslim community. Yet the sense that Muslims seemed to be grateful for the
partition can be supported by that fact that Salimullah, the Nawab of Dacca
roared, [6]This
is the Golden opportunity which god and his prophet have offered us. This
source reflects the joy with which the Muslims welcomed the partition and it is
largely accurate in that it was very much the intention of the British to grant
the Muslims with a new found autonomy, which could certainly be conceived as a
Golden opportunity. Furthermore, when it was overturned Falul Huq, to become
the Muslim Leagues President in 1914, demanded [7]compensation
and retorted of the unceremonious annulment of the partition. This source is
incredibly biased because Huq used these words for a public condemnation and he
exaggerates the injustice of the partitions revocation with emotive language
such as unceremonious, as if the Muslims had been violated, despite the real
crime lying within the original reasons for the creation of the partition. Hindo-Muslim
conflict was also exposed during the anti-partition agitation where Aurobindo,
described by McDermott as an [8]ardent
nationalist, thought that the partition necessitated an [9]organised
resistance to an existing form of government, for the vindication of national
liberty. This source is quite biased, for not everyones definition of
national liberty was resisting British rule, however, this was just the
published opinion of Aurobindo, which he shared with many other nationalist
protestors, voicing their desire for self-rule in India. The Swadeshi movement
was the means by which the Hindus saw the vindication of national liberty,
could be achieved, a vision that the Muslims certainly did not share. For the
Muslim league, something Ghosh calls a [10]political
organisation to ventilate [Muslim] grievances, regarded the India,
pre-partition, as a Hindu dominated political system from which they sought an
escape, thus they openly condemned the singing of the nationalist anthem Bande Mataram (Hail to the Motherland), written
by the novelist Bankim Chatterjee. This is a clear demonstration of how deeply
seated this division was and how two religions had been placed in direct
opposition on either side of British Policy. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 
One of the most significant aspects of the Partition of Bengal was its
repeal for it illustrated, not only the eventual success of the unrelenting
Swadeshi campaign, but also the changing attitudes of the British. The first
voice to speak out about the iniquities of the partition, from a British point
of view was Sir Henry cotton, when he exclaimed that [11]No
administrative reason that lay at the root of this scheme and that it sought
to destroy the political tendencies of a patriotic spirit. This is a very
reliable source because, although said in protestation, Cotton was the retired
Chief commissioner of Assam and had no motive to be biased. Furthermore, he
canvased for the eliciting of public opinion, showing that he had a genuine
concern for Indias wellbeing. But the attacking of Britains motive for
creating the partition allows for the eventual recognition that it was sprung
out of a self-seeking desire to preserve their command, over a country on the
brink of seizing autonomy. After Curzon, Morley was immediately confronted with
what Ahmed describes a a [12]seditious
and anarchical situation and as a result, Morley had to concede that [13]the
partition [was] a disagreeable pill and that they should take any chance of
guilding it. Morley said this amongst his peers so it can be considered
reliable in that his only audience is those that he must inform. Moreover,
language such as disagreeable is very balanced, almost too much so and his
critique of the bill shows no elements of bias. This source is incredibly
useful because not only does it show a confession, but also, a more liberal Britain
willing to grant concessions under pressure from the uproar that was, Hindu
Nationalism the growth of such attitudes culminating in the abolition of the
partition. The words of the next viceroy, Lord hardinge, corroborate with
Morley, as he believed that [14]this
injustice should certainly be rectified, and again this is reliable because
the only purpose for the utterance of these words is to outline the aims of his
policy. The reason why his words are important is that it shows the effect of a
Liberal government on the ruling of India and having won the election of 1905, the
following Viceroys, including Hardinge, were more inclined to sympathise with
the nationalist agenda, in turn, signifying an element of progress and that
those imminent concessions would extend further than to merely repeal the
Partition of Bengal, but to take steps towards an India emancipated of colonial
rule. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp
One of the most significant products of the Bengal partition was the
Swadeshi movement, for it was the first time nationalists mobilised determined
opposition against British rule. Pannu describes what the British government
faced as the [15]the
growing menace of unrest in Bengal, however, this does not best reflect the
situation, for mere menace does not do justice to the upheaval. Senguptas
statement that [16]the
whole continent was galvanised into active movement, is more fitting for it
gives an indication of the scale on which the movement transpired, furthermore,
it gives the sense of an instantaneous outrage with the potential to topple
British rule, rather than just threaten it. The reaction to the partition
proved that Britains attitude towards ruling India needed to evolve. For
example, in 1904 Curzon, in a private letter to the secretary of state, wrote
that one of his [17]great
ambitions while in India, [was] to assist [congress] to a peaceful
demise." Even adding that the partition would [18]undermine
their intentions and destroy their dreams. This is a brilliantly reliable source because
it is said privately, thus, he has no need to voice anything but his
unadulterated opinion. Curzon here, displays that British rule was based on a
desire to sustain complete control over India, with no regard for the dreams
of the Indian people. In addition, it shows Curzon to hold a contempt for
nationalist sentiment, almost thinking directly against the interests of the
Bengalis and it was for this reason that this policy instigated such an
uproar. The Swadeshi movement showed a force hail bent on seizing autonomy and
that they would do everything in their power to keep those very dreams alive.
As Gokhale describes, [19]all
sections of the Indian community [had] been moved by a common impulse, a
sentence that really captures the hype surrounding the protest. However, this
is quite an unreliable source, for despite him being a moderate, as a
nationalist, it was in Gokhales best interests to exaggerate the popularity of
the movement and the fact it was published, gives him a platform from which to
do so. Furthermore, in its use of the words whole community it fails to
acknowledge that large amounts of the Muslim community opposed the movement.
But it still very important in recreating the sort of nationalist fervour that
swept the nation in reaction to the Partition. What made the Swadeshi movement
so powerful was that, in its use of tactics such as boycotts and non
co-operation it directly attacked British interests, something that
nationalists had never been able to achieve before. Chandra Pal sets out the objective
of passive resistance is saying that it was [20]an
organised determination to refuse to render any voluntary and honourary service
to the government. This source was written to outline, very simply, what the
aim of the protest was and any sort of deviation from this this would undermine
its purpose thus it can be trusted. The technical language used is also an
indicator of how it is void of any bias or persuasion. This is an incredibly
significant sentence for it shows the Swadeshi movement, as a whole, to adopt a
distinctly political tone. Rather than inflicting blows by force, nationalists,
via the boycott, plunged their sword into British industry. In 1906, the cotton
textile imports decreased by 30,000,000 yards, cigarettes by 50% and shoes by
75% a great deal more painful than a violent upheaval. The word organised,
sticks out because nationalists now had structure with which to express their
grievances. This was no longer a collection of sporadic outcries, this was a
political force, a nationwide movement. nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp 
The Bengal partition was significant because it produced an immediate
reaction, the outrage of the Bengali people. The partition also created huge
Hindu-Muslim conflict, [21]fomenting
communalism, in an effort to disperse the various patriotic forces in India. Its
repeal was a sign that nationalists had succeeded in [22]bringing
the powerful British Government to its knees, and that more concessions were
to follow. However, the main significance of the Bengal partition was that, not
only did it give birth to a huge, politically fuelled, anti-partition movement,
but it reignited a movement that eclipsed the very partition itself the fires
of nationalism were well and truly aflame. 
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-GB
JA
X-NONE
. Style Definitions .
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0
mso-style-noshow:yes
mso-style-priority:99
mso-style-parent:""
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt
mso-para-margin:0cm
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt
mso-pagination:widow-orphan
font-size:12.0pt
font-family:Calibri
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin}
 Bibliography 1. nbsp nbsp Bernard
Porter, The Lion`s Share: A Short History of British
Imperialism, 1850-2004 (Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, Fourth edition 2004) 2. nbsp nbsp Ravindra
Kumar, Problem of Communalism in India, (New Delhi, Mittal Publications, First
edition 1990) 3. nbsp nbsp Peter
van der Veer and Hartmut Lehmann, Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe
and Asia (New Jersey, Princetown University Press, 1999) 4. nbsp nbsp W.Theodore
de Bary and Stephen.N.Hay, Sources of Indian Tradition: Volume 2, (New York, Motilal
Banarsidass, First edition 1958) 5. nbsp nbsp J.H.Broomfield,
Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Twentieth-century Bengal, (Berkley and Los
Angeles, University of California press, 1968) 6. nbsp nbsp
Meghna Guhathakurta, Willem van Schendel, The bangladesh Reader: History, culture, politics,
(Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2013) 7. nbsp nbsp Sources
of Indian Tradition: Modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, (New York, Columbia
University Press, First edition 2014) 8. nbsp nbsp Partha
Sarathy Ghosh, Cooperation and Conflict in South Asia, (New Delhi, Menohar,
Reprint 1995) 9. nbsp nbsp S.N.Sen,
History: Modern India, (New Delhi, New Age International Limited, Revised Third
edition 2006) 10.  Bangladesh:
Past and Present, (New Delhi, A.P.H publishing corporation, 2004) 11.  M.S.Pannu,
Partners of British Rule: liberators or collaborators, (New Delhi, Allied publishers,
2005) 12.  Nitish
K.Sengupta, Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to
Mujib, (New Delhi, Penguin Books Indian, First edition 2011) 13.  Mr
Sloans (Forest School) source booklet 14.  Mohammad
Shabbir Khan, Tilak and Gokhale: A Comparative Sudy, (New Delhi, Ashish
Publishing House, First edition 1992)  
Bernard
Porter, The Lion`s Share: A Short History of British
Imperialism, 1850-2004 (Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, Fourth edition 2004)
Fazlul Huq is quoted by Meghna Guhathakurta, lt;/span>Willem van Schendel, The bangladesh Reader: History, culture,
politics, (Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2013)
This resource was uploaded by: Tayo
Other articles by this author