পরিশিষ্ট
Appendix – A
Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose’s Statement
Mr Sarat Chandra Bose, on February 15, 1947, in an interview with the API on the resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee regarding division of the Punjab, had said:
“I think I ought to raise my voice of protest and sound a note of warning against the resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee with reference to Punjab. The Resolution in question recommends a division of Punjab into two Provinces—one predominantly Muslim and the other predominantly non-Muslim. In the course of a press interview, the Congress President has announced that the principle of division underlying the resolution applies also to Bengal.
I confess that the resolution has surprised me not a little. By accepting religion as the sole basis of the distribution of provinces, the Congress has cut itself away from its moorings and has almost undone the work it has been doing for the last sixty years. The resolution in question is a departure from the traditions and principles of the Congress. And I am forced to the conclusion that it is the result of a defeatist mentality. A sort of fear complex seems to have worked havoc in the minds of many of us. To my mind, a division of Provinces on the religious basis is no solution of the communal problem. Even if the Provinces were to be so divided, Hindus and Muslims will still have to live side by side in them and the risk of communal conflicts will remain. Supposing we divide Bengal and Punjab on the basis of religion, what about the Muslims in Western Bengal and the Hindus in Eastern Bengal or about the Muslims in Eastern Punjab and the Hindus and Sikhs in Western Punjab? What again is going to happen to the minority religious groups in the other Provinces of India? Are we going to have Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Parsee and other religious states or pockets throughout the country? The resolution of the Congress Working Committee pushed to its logical conclusion would mean the creation of such religious states pockets and the result would be that the risk of armed communal conflicts or clashes would increase hundred fold. The concept of religious or theocratic states is not a new one, but all the advanced countries of the world have dismissed it or grown out of it. To accept that concept in the year of grace is 1947 and to apply it to India will mean pushing her back into the medieval ages. It is obviously a reactionary and anti-revolutionary step and shuts out progress for long years to come. It will further aggravate the communal problem, and will make its solution extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible. As the population of India all over the country is composite in character, this sort of communal segregation or religious quarantine is neither desirable nor feasible. We have to find out a solution that applies to the entire country. The solution of the communal problem lies ultimately in social justice, and, so far as our collective life is concerned, in an emphasis on the political and economic aspects and interests of life and in the divorce of religion from politics and economics. Whether we are Hindus or Muslims, Sikhs or Christians, our political and economic problems and interests are the same for all of us. In Socialism, therefore, and in all it means lies a solution of this vexed communal problem. Any division of the country or of the provinces on religious basis will not help us in bringing about amity, not to speak of unity, which the Congress has so long stood for. An overhasty surgical cure will involve us in confusion and disorder.”
[The Nation, Calcutta, Sunday,
March 19, 1950, p. 4.]
Appendix – B
Views of Mahatma Gandhi on the Partition of Bengal and on the role of Suhrawardy published in the paper on 11 May, 1947.
“Can partition of Bengal be avoided in view of the rising Hindu opinion in its favour?” This question was answered by Mr. Gandhi at his prayer meeting in Sodepur Khadi Ashram yesterday.
Mr Gandhi said that he recognised the force of this opinion. He was not in a position to pronounce an opinion himself. But he could say without any fear of contradiction that, if there was partition, the Muslim majority would be responsible for it, and what was more, the Muslim Government that was in power.
If he were the Prime Minister of Bengal, he would plead with his Hindu brethren to forget the past. He would tell them that he was as much a Bengali as they were. Difference in religion could not part the two. They spoke the same language and had inherited the same culture. All that was Bengal was common to both, of which they should be equally proud. Bengal was Bengal. It was neither Punjab nor Bombay nor anything else.
If the Prime Minister could possibly take up this attitude, he (Mr. Gandhi) would undertake to go with him from place to place and reason with Hindu audiences, and he was sure that there would not be a Hindu opponent left to the unity of Bengal—the unity for which Hindus and Muslims had fought together so valiantly, and undone ‘the settled fact’ of so powerful a Viceroy as Lord Curzon. If he were Mr. Suhrawardy, he would invite the Hindus to partition his body before they thought of partitioning Bengal.
If Mr Suhrawardy had that sturdy love for Bengal and Bengalees—whether Hindus or Muslims—that love would melt the stoniest Hindu heart, as it was fear and suspicion which had seized the Hindu mind. Mr Gandhi could not forget Noakhali or even Calcutta if all that he had heard was ture. This was equally true of the Muslim mind in Bihar and he had not hesitated to tell the Hindus or Bihar that they should remove all suspicion and fear from the Muslim mind. He believed in the sovereign rule of the law of love which made no distinction between race, colour, caste or creed. He was glad that he had in Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah a powerful partner in this belief which was no secret from the world.
To a second question: Whether in view of the bitter feelings between Hindus and Muslims that seemed to be daily growing, it was possible for the two communities to become friends. Mr Gandhi answered emphatically: ‘Enmity cannot last for ever.’ The two communities, he said, were brothers and must remain so in spite of temporary insanity.
[Statesman, Calcutta, Sunday,
11 May, 1947, pp. 1, 9.]
Appendix – C
Bengal and Punjab Partition Move ‘Sinister’: Mr. Jinnah Wants Muslim National State of Six Provinces: New Delhi, April 30
Denouncing the demand for partition of Punjab and Bengal as ‘a sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness’, Mr. Jinnah in a statement tonight says: “I do hope that neither the Viceroy nor HMG will fall into this trap and commit a grave error.” Mr. Jinnah reiterates his demand for the creation of a Muslim National State consisting of six provinces. “The transfer of power to Pakistan and Hindustan Governments must mean a division of the defence forces. This is a clearcut road and the only practical solution of India’s constitutional problem.
Mr. Jinnah also envisages that an exchange of population will have to take place and ‘the Constituent Assemblies of Pakistan and Hindustan can take up the matter and subsequently the respective Governments in Pakistan and Hindustan can effectively carry out the exchange of pupulation wherever it may be necessary and possible.’ The following is the text of Mr. Jinnah’s Statement:
I find from press reports that the Congress has now started by emphasizing that in the event of Pakistan and Hindustan being established, Punjab will be partitioned, and the Hindu Mahasabha has started a vigorous propaganda that Bengal should be partitioned.
I would like to point out that there is a great deal of confusion created on purpose. The question of division of India as proposed by the Muslim League is based on the fundamental fact that there are two nations—Hindus and Muslims—and the underlying principle is that we want a national home and a national state in our homelands which are predominantly Muslim and comprise the six units of Punjab, the NWFP, Sind, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam. This will give the Hindus, their National home and national state of Hindustan, which means three-fourths of British India.
The question of partitioning Bengal and Punjab is raised not with a bonafide object but as a sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness, as they feel that India is going to be divided first, to create more difficulties in the way of the British Government and the Viceroy; and secondly, to unnerve the Muslim by repeatedly emphasizing that the Muslims will get a truncated or mutilated Pakistan. This clamour is not based on any sound principle except that the Hindu minorities in Punjab and Bengal wish to cut up these provinces and cut up their own people into two in these provinces. The Hindu’s have their homelands, as I said, consisting of six vast provinces. Merely because a portion of the minorities in the Pakistan provinces have taken up this attitude, the British Government should not counternance it because the result of that will be logically that all other provinces will have to be cut up in similar way, which will be dangerous. To embark on this line will lead to the breaking up of the various provinces and create a far more dangerous situation in the future than at present. If such a process were to be adopted, it will strike at the root of the administrative, economic and political life of the provinces which have for nearly a century developed upon that basis and have grown and are functioning under the present constitution as autonomous provinces.
It is a mistake to compare the basic principle of the demand of Pakistan and the demand of cutting up the provinces throughout India into fragmentation.
It is obvious that if the Hindu minorities in Pakistan wish to emigrate and go to their homelands of Hindustan, they will be at liberty to do so and vice versa; those Muslims who wish to emigrate from Hindustan can do so and go to Pakistan; and sooner or later an exchange of population will have to take place.
The Congress propaganda is intended to disrupt and put obstacles, obstructions and difficulties in the way of an amicable solution. It is quite obvious that they have put up the Hindu Mahasabha in Bengal and the Sikhs in Punjab and the Congress Press is inciting the Sikhs and misleading them. The Sikhs do not stand to gain by the partition of Punjab but they will be split into halves. More than half of their population will have to remain in Pakistan even if a partition of Punjab takes place according to their conception. Whereas in Pakistan, as proposed by the Muslim League, they will play, as one solid minority, a very big part. We have always been very willing to meet them in every reasonable way. Besides, the White Paper of Feb. 20 lays down that power will be transferred to authority or authorities which will be made in a manner that will be smooth and create the least amount of difficulties and trouble. If power is to be transferred to various Governments it can only be done successfully to the Pakistan Group and Hindustan Group which will establish stable, secure Governments and will be able to run these Governments peacefully and successfully.
The transfer of power to Pakistan and Hindustan Governments must mean a division of the defence forces as a sine qua non of such a transfer and the defence forces should be completely divided—and in my opinion can be divided before June, 1948—and the states of Pakistan and Hindustan should be made absolutely free, independent and sovereign. This is a clearcut road and the only practical solution of India’s constitutional problems.
[Statesman, Calcutta.
Thursday, May 1, 1947, p. 1, 7.]
Appendix – D
Muslim Bengal Wedded to Pakistan: Moulana Akram Khan’s Statement
On Sunday, May 4, Moulana Mohamed Akram Khan, President, Bengal Provincial Muslim League, issued the following statements:
Muslim Bengal remains firmly wedded to the ideal defined unambiguously in the famous Lahore Resolution of 1940 and stands solidly behind the Qaid-e-Azam. Our Ideal, as the Qaid-e-Azam has explained it in his latest statements, is the establishment of a Sovereign Muslim National State comprising the six units of Punjab, Sind, the NWFP, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam.
The question of a seperate independent state in Bengal isolated from other Pakistan areas does not arise. The Muslims of India constitute a single united nation and we aim at setting up a single united nation and we aim at setting up a single united state which will include all the Muslim majority provinces.
I strongly depreciate the suggestion that in order to counteract the partition move Bengal should dissociate herself from the other Pakistan areas. Such a policy will prove suicidal. One of its immediate consequences will be that Muslim Assam, which depends are relies upon us, will be completely laid down and ruined politically.
Those who talk of a Bengalee National consisting of Muslims and Hindus and of a separate Sovereign Bengal upon that basis are clearly playing into the hands of our enemies who propose openly to ‘Sandwich Muslim Bengal between Hindu Provinces in the West and in the East’. The Muslims of Bengal cannot in their own interests afford to isolate themselves from the Muslim national state for which the League has been working.
It will be impossible for a number of disunited Pakistan states to face the might of united Hindustan. The only remedy, therefore, lies in our working together and welding all the six units mentioned in Mr. Jinnah’s statement, namely, Bengal, Assam, Punjab, the NWFP, Sind and Baluchistan into a strong national state for the Mussalmans.
I have noticed that the proposals which include joint electorates and the discarded and undemocratic 50:50 formula clearly and unequivocally as possible that these proposals are completely repudiated by the Muslim Bengal. Besides on such all India issues, the All-India Muslim League and the Qaid-e-Azam are alone competent to express an opinion. I warn the people from whom such proposals have come that the consequences of the game they are playing will be dangerous.
I hope this statement of mine will banish from the minds of all any illusions that they may have been cherishing about the opinion in Muslim Bengal and also remove doubts as to the actual feelings of the Muslims in this province.’’
[Star of India. Calcutta, Monday, May 5, 1947, p. 2.]
Appendix – E
Sarat Chandra Bose’s Formula Criticized by Moulana Akram Khan
‘‘The nine-point formula of Mr. Sarat Bose about the future constitution of Bengal is designed to bury for all time the freedom struggle of Bengal Muslims,’’ said Moulana Mohamed Akram Khan, President of the Provincial Muslim League, in a statement yesterday.
“It’s acceptance”, he added, “will deal a death blow to the Pakistan scheme and pass 30 million Muslims in Bengal from the Hands of the British into those of the Caste Hindus. It will simultaneously stifle the rising movement of the Scheduled Castes and perpetuate their state of serfdom.
The Caste Hindu game behind the formula is to break somehow the Muslim League Ministry and gatecrash into the Cabinet with the Home Portfolio so that they may have full control over the administration at the time of trnasfer of power.’’
On the question of parity, he said: “The Hindus of Bengal, who are perhaps the strongest minority, are manœuvering to render the Muslim majority of the province ineffective and powerless under the false pretext that their life, property, culture and civilization are in danger. If parity is the only guarantee for their protection are they prepared to grant parity to the Muslims of the minority provinces, which, according to the principle of reciprocity in the Lahore resolution, we are bound to demand?
The Ministry has been asked not to introduce any controversial legislation during the interim period. It is designed to shelve the proposals for tenancy, educational and other reforms and thus to protect vested interest.
Referring to the introduction of joint electorates, the Moulana said that the proposal was impracticable in the present state of affairs. The Scheduled Castes were already demanding separate electorates and their right in the present position of their backwardness could not be challenged. Muslims too, could not agree to a system of election in which the Caste Hindus, with their superior financial, educational and political status, would have a right to interfere. In practice, joint electorates would be the negation of democracy, rather than a help.
Depreciating the suggestion that the question of joining the Indian Federation should be deferred till the new Constituent Assembly come into being, he said that the idea was ‘pure humbug’ in as much as the Muslims had already decided to have no truck with any centre dominated by the Caste Hindus.
Muslim Bengal will oppose all schemes and machinations that are likely to sabotage the Pakistan Scheme, and if votes are taken on the basis of this formula not even 5% of Muslims will support it. Moreover, we cannot agree to any constitutional arrangement with the Caste Hindus in which the minorities, especially the helpless Scheduled Castes, do not get effective and unassailable power of self-determination.
The Maulana intends to visit Delhi shortly to consult Mr. Jinnah about the future of Bengal to appraise him of the conditions now prevailing in political circles in the provinces. He advised Muslims to stand solid as a rock at this hour and wait for the advice of Mr. Jinnah who is one of the biggest Statesman history has produced.”
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Thursday, May 15, 1947, p. 6.]
Appendix – F
Partition Will Not Solve Problem: Majority of Non-Muslims Against Proposals: Says Mr. J N Mandal : New Delhi, April-21
Mr J N Mandal, Law member, Government of India, in a press statement today, declared that majority of non-Muslims in Bengal were not behind the demand for the partition of the province and that this could be proved by a referendum.
Mr Mandal said that the present communal trouble was a temporary phase which could not last long and that the division of the province was no solution to the problem. It was not in the interest of Hindus to divide the province and the Scheduled Castes were definitely opposed to partition.
Although the agitation for the partition of Bengal originated as a sort of bargaining counter to resist and discourage the demand for Pakistan of the Muslim League,’’ says Mr Mandal, ‘‘it now appears to have assumed serious proportions. I had been under the impression that the nationalist Hindus of Bengal would neither welcome nor support the proposal for partitioning Bengal, which when made by Lord Curzon—1905, was successfully resisted by them with immense courage and sacrifice. But I have been disillusioned by the resolution passed by the Working Committee of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee supporting the proposal for partition.
Mr Mandal says he does not mind if the Hindu Mahasabha leader Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee and his colleagues and a few Western Bengal inhabitants support the move for partition, “but I am really astonished to find Mr N R Sarkar, ex-member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, also supporting the move which, I am sure, he knows better than anybody else, will produce no fruitful results in the solution of the problem which concerns the Hindus of Bengal today. It also pains me to find that Mr Kiran Shankar Roy, a Hindu Zamindar of Eastern Bengal, Rai Bahadur Satyendra Nath Das, MLA (Central) also a Zamindar of Eastern Bengal, and Mr A M Poddar, MLA (Central) a big merchant of Eastern Bengal have supported the partition proposal. I take it that they have done so after due consideration of all the aspects, but to one coming from Eastern Bengal, as I do, it appears that the sense of communalism has made them oblivious of the welfare and the very existence—both present and future —of the Hindus of Eastern Bengal.
The creation of West Bengal Province will only reduces the area of Bengal and will make the border line narrow and nearer for both the contending parties, affording better scope and facilities for direct combat. I have no doubt in my mind that if such an eventuality happens, the Hindus of Eastern Bengal will have no other alternative than to take shelter in Western Bengal. If, of course, the leaders and propounders of the partition movement have in view the ultimate course of transfer of population, then I have little to say against this move; but I must feel amused that the Caste Hindu leaders who once so vehemently criticized Dr. Ambedkar for his ‘Thoughts on Pakistan’ and Mr Jinnah for his proposal for the transfer of population, appear now themselves to advocate those very proposals.
I would like to appeal to those leaders to examine and reconsider the question of partition from a more practical and realistic point of view before they proceed to the extreme step. In my opinion, the remedy suggested to cure the disease is more desperate and agonizing than the disease itself.
Further, it is to be noted that out of a total Hindu population of 2,69,48,413 in Bengal, the proposed West Bengal province will contain only about 1,28,57,431 Hindus and remaining 1,40,90,982 will remian in East Bengal, that is, the Pakistan area.
Whatever may be the result of the partition move, I wish to make it absolutely clear that the voice so loudly raised in the press and elsewhere is not the voice of the majority of the Hindus of Western Bengal, which is to constitute the contemplated Hindu Bengal. Let me support my contention with facts and figures.
The proposal of the caste Hindus is that the Burdwan Division consisting of the districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura, Midnapore, Hooghly and Howrah, and the districts of the 24 Parganas and Calcutta of the Presidency Division, where the Hindus are in a majority, should form the proposed province of Western Bengal. They also claim the district of Jalpaiguri in the Rajshahi Division as a Hindu Majority district, but so far as Jalpaiguri is concerned, the population of the Scheduled Castes being 32,540 and that of the caste Hindus being 15,501, the Scheduled Castes are in a majority there and, as such, their voice should prevail.
The total population of all the above mentioned eight districts is 1,59,32,646 of which the Muslim population is 30,75,215; hence, the total non-Muslim population comes to 1,28,57,431. The Caste Hindu population of these districts according to the Census of 1941 amounts to 53,50,877. This figure includes the population of a number of communities which are as backward, illiterate and poor as the Scheduled Castes, and these communities are. I am sure, not happy under castes Hindu domination.
The total non-Muslim population of these eight districts being 1,28,57,431, the position is that the caste Hindus are only 37.5% and the rest 62.5% of the total non-Muslim population. Even if cent per cent of the caste Hindus of West Bengal support partition, it cannot obviously be taken as the verdict of a majority. In order to assess the view of the Hindus, it is necessary that the views of the 62.5% non-Muslim population should be correctly ascertained.
Apart from all these facts and figures, it must be borne in mind that the last general election to the provincial legislature was held on the basis of existing provinces with their present boundaries. All the political developments that have taken place as a result of the Cabinet Mission’s proposal, and the statement of HMG of February 20, 1947, have happened subsequently and it is only just and fair that the British Government should procced on the basis of existing facts.
In conclusion, I want to make it quite clear that the Scheduled Castes are opposed to the proposal for the partition of Bengal.’’
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Wednesday,23April,1947, p.3.]
Appendix – G
Abul Hashim’s Reply to Critics
Mr Abul Hashim, Secretary, Bengal Muslim League, has issued the following statement to the Press: “My statement on the partition of Bengal was merely a suggestion for a possible basis of discussion between the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal. My critics have questioned my authority to do so. No authority is necessary for doing a good thing. In my statement I addressed both Hindus and Muslims and did not speak on behalf of either.
Much confusion is being created over my suggestion of a 50: 50 enjoyment of the political power and economic privileges of the country. My critics conveniently forget that the 50-50 ratio is the existing rule which was brought about by an agreement between the Hindus and Muslims during the first Muslim League Ministry under the leadership of Mr. Fazlul Hauqe. In a system of an unadulterated joint electorate, which I have suggested no question of 50-50 or 60-40 arises in the matter of seats in the legislature or ministry. My 50-50 suggestion refers merely to the political privileges enjoyed by having a share in the services, and nothing more.
Some of my Muslim critics suggest that Muslims, who are in a majority in Bengal, will find no place in a system of joint electorate with adult suffrage. If any one would suffer at all under the said system, it will be the Muslims of West and the Hindus of East and North Bengal.
It appears that some Muslim and Hindu leaders, while admitting that a joint electorate is the ideal, apprehended that, by following the said system, one section would be swamped by the other. If these fears are deemed genuine and universal, some other system may be evolved which may secure proportionate reservation of seats in the legislature, radically cure communal bitterness, provide protection against the election of Quislings and help the development of parities on healthy political, social and economic lines.
I fully appreciate the incovenience to foreign capital in a united sovereign Bengal. I am equally conscious of the resources of foreign capitalists who would spare no pains on expense to find supporters for theri heinous plan of dividing and weakening Bengal.
I shall appeal most earnestly to the gentlemen of the Negotiating Committee of the Muslim League to go ahead with their job of negotiation with the Hindus and to give a concrete suggestion regarding Bengal’s future instead of beating about the bush and vilifying us.
If a united sovereign Egypt, where there is a mixed population of Muslims, Jews, Christians and others, can be a Pakistan, if a united sovereign Iran can be a Pakistan, I fail to appreciate why a united and sovereign Bengal, where the Muslims are in a majority, will be anti-Pakistan. I wonder what sort of Pakistan a crippled and partitioned Bengal can be.’’
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Saturday, May 17, 1947, p. 8.]
Appendix – H
Hindu Demand for Partition: Sarker Criticizes Suhrawardy’s Plan
A resolution supporting the move for the partition of Bengal and suggesting that the Indian Union should be treated as one economic unit was adopted at a representative meeting of various industrial and commercial organizations in Calcutta, held at the premises of the Bengal National Chamber of Commerce, yesterday (30 April). Mr D C Driver, of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, presided.
In moving the resolution Mr N R Sarker said: ‘‘If Mr Suhrawardy is serious in his plea for a united Bengal, the first thing he should do is to come out of the League and to advocate that Bengal should join the Union Centre. Otherwise, Mr. Suhrawardy’s anxiety to have the Hindu majority areas of Bengal with him can have but one meaning—namely realization that without substantial areas in which Muslims are in a minority included in his Pakistan State, it cannot be administratively and economically workable.
We demand partition in a spirit altogether different from that in which the League wants Pakistan. It is not the result of our choice, but of the impossible situation in which we find ourselves due to the demand of the Muslim League for creating a sovereign Pakistan State in Bengal outside the Indian Union. For we do not believe in the prospects of an isolated sovereign Bengal State as envisaged by Mr Suhrawardy. The economic development of the province, so essential for the well-being of the people, makes it imperative for Bengal to remain attached to an Indian Union, however, loose a union it may be—even envisaged in the Cabinet Mission scheme.
It is no doubt pleasing to find Mr. Suhrawardy championing the cause of a United Bengal and speaking in highly flattering terms of the Hindu community in Bengal. But the basis of Mr. Suhrawardy’s advocacy of a United Bengal is essentially different from that of the Muslim League. Mr. Suhrawardy is very categorical in his assertion that the partition agitation is a move by the privileged class, that the issue does not have the common man behind it and that it does not have the support even of the majority of the Hindus of West Bengal. The politics Mr. Suhrawardy has so far pursued has been aimed only at dividing Hindus, but now, surprisingly enough, he seeks to support his plea for a United Bengal by the argument that Hindus of East and West Bengal have such cultural ties and affinities as should not be severed. Such sentiments and solicitude for Hindu culture and unity hardly sound real all that has happened during recent years in Bengal.
Referendum Question:
Why Should a referendum of the whole of Bengal be necessary to decide whether a part of Bengal could or would remain with the Union Centre or not? Would Mr Suhrawardy or his party agree to a referendum of the whole of India on the question of whether Bengal is to remain in or outside the Indian Union?
Mr Suhrawardy has kept silent on the most vital and significant question in a united Bengal. He is not prepared to tell us whether there would be joint electorates in force. He should be told clearly that the picture he visualises of an independent, undivided, sovereign Bengal in a divided India, is nothing more than an illusion and a figment of his imagination.
Both from the point of view of present international relations and considerations of economic development, it would be preposterous to suggest that an isolated sovereign state in one corner of India would be able to make headway in any department of life. Contrary to Mr Suhrawardy’s belief, Bengal would lack adequate resources for maintaining its huge population at a high standard of living.
One is surprised to find how he can so soon and so easily forget the friendly and generous help so often received by Bengal from the much-maligned Central Government and other provinces. If the ship of state in Bengal is shaking so perilously in spite of such help generously extended, imagine the condition in which Bengal would be placed as an isolated Sovereign State, befriended and sympathized with by none.
Mr Suhrawardy apparently would continue to have his own type of Government in Bengal—the type which places the interests of a communal party above everything else. Although he has thrown out the suggestion that a constitution acceptable to Hindus and Muslims alike might be devised, it is difficult to take him at his word, since on the vital issue as to whether there would be joint electorates or not he has not been able to hold out any assurance.
The meeting demanded that in the event of the Muslim majority in Bengal deciding to form a Pakistan State outside the Indian Union, the Burdwan and Presidency Divisions, Calcutta and portions of Rajshahi Division and such other contiguous areas where there is a non-Muslim majority should be allowed to constitute themselves into a separate province to be run on a truly democratic basis and forming a part of the Indian Union.’
A Committee consisting of the following members was formed to take the necessary action for securing the objective: Mr D N Sen, Mr D C Driver, Mr B M Birla, Mr B L Jalan, Mr J K Mitra, Mr M L Shah, Mr S C Roy, Mr N R Sarker, Bir Badridas Goenka and Dr S B Dutt.
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Thursday, May 1,1947, p. 5.]
Appendix – I
Division Should Be Thorough—Dr. Rajendra Prasad
New Delhi, April 30-Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, tonight declared that if there was to be a division of India then it should be as complete and thorough as possible, including the division of Punjab and Bengal. So that there might not be left any room for conflict…. “If that requires division of the defence forces, that should also be brought about, and the sooner the better.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad asserted that the demand for the division of Punjab and Bengal was in terms of the League’s Lahore resolution.
Dr. Prasad Said: “Neither the Congress nor the Hindus or the Sikhs ever wanted a division of India. It is the Muslim League and Mr Jinnah who have been insisting on it. In terms of their own resolution they cannot demand any areas to be included in the Muslim zone which are not contiguous and in which Muslims are not numerically in a majority. If the areas of Punjab and Bengal where Muslims are not in a majority demand, a fulfilment of the League’s resolution, how does it lie in the mouth of Mr. Jinnah to accuse them and abuse them? He cannot have it both ways. Either he wants division or he does not. If division is insisted on by him as evidently it is, then it can only be on a basis which suits both and not him alone.
He speaks of the administrative, economic and political life of the provinces being disrupted by their division. He forgets that he is responsible for disrupting these and many more valuable ties which have been forged in the course of centuries by seeking to divide India. In an exchange of population has to take place, its magnitude will be reduce immensely if the provinces are divided and the distance to be travelled by the exchanged population of these provinces will also be considerably cut down.
The problem of minorities is not solved by the creation of Pakistan as now demanded by Mr Jinnah, as the non-Muslim minority in the North-Western zone comprising Punjab, Sind, the NWFP and Baluchistan will be 38.4%, and in the Eastern zone, comprising Bengal and Assam, it will be 48.3%. If the non-Muslim majority areas are cut out and separated from the Muslim majority areas the non-Muslim minority in the North-Western and Eastern Zones will be 24.6% and 30.5% respectively, and the Muslim minority in the rest of India will be 13.2% and the magnitude of the minority problem will be proportionately reduced.”
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Thursday, May 1, 1947
p. 7.]
Appendix – J
Krishak Proja’s Appeal : Communal Warfare Condemned : Cabinet Mission Plan Commended
One hundred Prominent Krishak Proja leaders and workers in an appeal ask every patrotic Indian to help stop communal warfare. The appeal says : “We have reached the gate of freedom of our great and noble country. Power will soon be transferred to Indian hands. Tact, statesmanship, vision and magnanimity are essential for the leaders to steer the nation clear through the critical and difficult transitional period.
It is really very unfortunate that we are engaged in a destructive fratricidal warefare at a time when all our resources should be pooled for the great tasks that lie ahead. Communal murders and disturbances can never solve any problem, rather these may possibly mar the propects of the country’s impending freedom for generations. Every decent and patriotic Indian, whatever community or party he may belong to, must use his individual as well as collective influcence to stop these mad acts. British imperialistic exploitation must immediately cease, if Indians irrespective of religion or creed are to survive like men of other free nations. It should be the foremost duty of every Indian to compel the British to quit India in the shortest possible time.
Truncated Pakistan
“Some insist on division of India Before the British quit and others demand partition of Bengal and Punjab. If the former becomes inevitable. We are opposed to both, as no good or useful purpose will be served by these divisions. On the other hand, it will definitely weaken India’s defence, increase communal strife and decrease India’s political and economic influence before other nations of the world. The Muslim League will get a moth-eaten and truncated Pakistan, if it refuse to join the Indian Union. We shudder at the disastrous fate of Muslims in the mutilated Pakistan.
The Congress and the Muslim League are not prepared to give up their respective stands. In the face of the opposing claims of major political parties, the Cabinet Mission’s Plan of May 16 is a solution of the difficult and complex problems of India. The Congress has accepted the plan in its entirely. We request the Congress High Command to insist on the British Government implementing this without further delay. The Muslim League at first accepted but subsequently rejected this plan. We appeal to the Muslim League to reaccept it for the sake of the country’s peace and prosperity.
In case of the League’s refusal to accept this, we demand fresh elections on the issue of a united Bengal in a united India or a divided Bengal in a divided India. These issues were not raised during the last election by any party. The present legislature has no right to decide the future of Bengal on these alternatives. It is the people of Bengal who will pass the ultimate verdict through a fresh election before any vital decision is taken regarding Bengal. To ensure free and fair elections, the present ministry must be dissolved. A caretaker government with redpresentatives of all the contesting parties should conduct the elections.
In our opinion only a Socialist State based on justice and democratic principles can solve the communal and other vital problems of this country. In such a State religion must be separated from politics.
Signatories of this Krishak Proja’s appeal are: Dr. R Ahmed, Mukilesur Rahaman, Jehangir Kabir, Abdul Malek, Abdur Rashid Khan, Abdul Latif Biswas ex-MLA Asinuddin Ahmed, ex-MLA Muqbal Hossain, ex. MLA, Syed Ahmed, ex. MLA, Mafizuddin Ahmed, Atawar Rahman, Shah Sufi, Jonab Ali, Mazharul Haque Chopdar, Abdul Karim, Jamiruddin Pandit, Shamshur Ali Molla, Syed Ahmed, AKM Abdul Hakim, Ashraf Ali Raninagari, Kaviraj Abdul Aziz, Jillur Rahman, Ashaf Ali Beg, Haider Ali, Abdul Wahud Bokainagari, ex-MLA, Nuranabi and 75 others.
[The Statesman, Calcutta,
Thursday, May 29,1947,
p.5, Amrita Bazar Patrika,
Friday, May 30,1947]
Appendix – K
Prof. Humayun Kabir’s Statement
Simla, May 11—Prof. Humayun Kabir, former General Secretary of the Krishak Proja Party (Bengal) has suggested steps to avert the partitioning of Bengal which he feels, has otherwise become inevitable due to the short-sighted policy of the Muslim League and “the uncontrolled campaign of hatred and violence and methods of gangsterism pursued by the Muslim League combined with inefficiency and corruption to create conditions of unparalleled maladministration in Bengal.
Pointing out that the division of Bengal was just as meaningless and harmful as the division of India, Prof. Kabir in an interview today asked the Bengal premier, Mr. Suhrawardy, to retrieve his position even now and justify his recent professions of ‘racial unity of all Bengalees’ and ‘his united Bengal’ by passing a bill or at least a resolution accepting joint electorates for the province and inviting the Congress party in the Bengal Legislature to join his cabinet on the basis of equality and joint responsibility.”
He added that, “If these two steps were taken forthwith the unity of Bengal may be saved.”
Referring to Mr. Suhrawardy’s claim that he stood for the independence of Bengal Prof. Kabir said that he must act without waiting for a solution of the Congress-League tangle in other provinces and if he performed these two simple acts that would prove his sincerity.
“The last general elections in Bengal were a farce on account of violence, terrorism and corruption practised by the League.” Prof. Kabir said: “Today when the policy of the League has recoiled on itself and compelled a choice between the alternatives of a united Bengal in a united India or half of Bengal outside the Indian Union, the electorate should be called upon to express its opinion. If the League persisted in its demand for the division of India with its natural sequence in a division of Bengal, there must be an immediate dissolution of Bengal Ministry and the Bengal Legislature and fresh elections to decide the future of the province.”
[Statesman, Calcutta,
Tuesday, May13,1947. p.4.]
Appendix – L
Appeal to India and Pakistan by Sarat Chandra Bose
Writing on Saturday before last, the 11th instant, under the shadow of a great personal bereavement, I appealed to my brother Bengalees in East and West Bengal for peace, for peace with honour—honour to prudence, honour to sobriety, honour to sanity. I appealed to them in the name of all that was sacred, in the name of Bengal’s past, in the name of the comradeship that was and will remain, in the name of humanity, to abjure the cult of violence, restore sobriety and sanity and to re-establish communal peace and harmony. I asked them not to look either Delhi way or Karachi way, for light would not come from there. I asked them to be guided by the light that was within them.
During the last eleven days I have been thinking deeply as to what is the real solution for the present state of things. I have considered in turns the suggestions offered from different quarters, namely, mass evacuation of Hindus from East Bengal or exchange of population between the two Bengals. As a result of deep thinking and mature consideration, I have been forced to the conclusion that neither of them is the solution. I need only remind the people of India and Pakistan that compulsory mass evacuation in and from Punjab has left behind numerous problems each of which has defied solution up till now.
The solution that I offer for the acceptance of the people of India and Pakistan is that East Bengal as a distinct and separate state should join the Indian Union and that the people of India and Pakistan should bring pressure to bear upon their respective governments to bring it about as soon as possible. I have been saying repeatedly during the last three years, that to my mind, a division of provinces on the religious basis was and in no solution of the communal problem, that even if the provinces were so divided. Hindus and Muslims would still have to live side by side and that communal segregation or religious quarantine was neither desirable nor feasible. That being my political opinion, I have never made any distinction at any time of my life between Hindu or Muslim in undivided Bengal or in divided Bengal. The population in both the Bengals remains as composite in character as before. I do not wish to disturb the partition of Bengal which has already taken place. I am well aware that there was in the recent past a sense of frustration among the people of East Bengal, which was one of the reasons which gave rise to the demand for partition. The solution which I am offering will mean the least possible interference in the present state of things. Let East Bengal live and flourish as a distinct and separate state, but in the interests of the future well-being of the communities living in the two Bengals which, as I have said before, are integral to each other, which are each other’s bone of bone and flesh of flesh. Let East Bengal live and flourish under the fostering care of the Indian Union.
In the name and on behalf of my colleagues in ‘The Nation’ as well as on my own behalf I offer this solution for the consideration of and acceptance by the people of India and Pakistan. The nation believes that this solution will conduce to the peace and prosperity not only of the two Bengals, but also to the peace and prosperity of India and Pakistan and it will dedicate itself to the task of speeding up the solution by all peaceful and legitimate means.’’
11-10 p.m.
Feb 20, 1950
Sd/-Sarat Chandra Bose
Chairman, Editorial
Board, The Nation.
[The Nation, Calcutta,
Tuesday, February 21,1950, p.1.]