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 Curzon’s 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 Britain’s 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 India’s two largest religious creeds and this was a critical blow to India’s ambitions of nationalism. In essence, Britain’s 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 Risley’s 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”. Risley’s 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 Britain’s 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 League’s 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 partition’s 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 everyone’s 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 Hindu’s 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 India’s wellbeing. But the attacking of Britain’s 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. Sengupta’s 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 Britain’s 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 Bengali’s 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 Gokhale’s 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 Sloan’s (Forest School) source booklet 

14.  Mohammad Shabbir Khan, Tilak and Gokhale: A Comparative Sudy, (New Delhi, Ashish Publishing House, First edition 1992)