An expert weighs in: On the 1947 Partition of Bengal, after the recent Foundation Day row in the state

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee wrote to the Governor on Monday, describing June 20 as a “painful” episode in the state’s history, and said it would “rekindle bitter memories of crores of people… and re-incite undesirable forces”. Mamata also said that West Bengal was carved out of a “historical necessity”. What was the situation at the time of independence in the state and what was its impact on the people? We asked an expert for an explanation:

What were the circumstances around the partition of Bengal in 1947?

The partition of Bengal was the result of firstly, a demand made by the Muslim League that the Indian Muslims were a nation in themselves, and hence ought to have a separate nation-state of their own. Therefore, all the Muslim-majority provinces were claimed under this scheme. Secondly, a massive communalisation of the society along religious lines, culminating in serious communal violence in what was then known as Calcutta in August 1946.

How were the contours of East Pakistan finalised?

It was decided in June 1947 that India would be partitioned into India and Pakistan and Punjab and Bengal, which had numerically significant non-Muslim minorities of around 44% in each province, would also be partitioned along religious lines as far as possible.

Gandhi in Noakhali, present-day Bangladesh, in 1946. (Via Wikimedia Commons)

Following this, a boundary commission was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Radcliff, to carve out separate and contiguous districts with Hindu and Muslim majority, respectively. The lines that were drawn came to be known later as the Radcliffe Line.

Were there circumstances that led to the concentration of Muslims in what became East Pakistan?

The composition of the population in Bengal was such that the districts of East Bengal constituted a Muslim majority and those of the West had a Hindu majority. Therefore, the eastern districts were all grouped under East Pakistan. This was similar to Punjab, where Muslims were concentrated more in the western districts, and Hindus and Sikhs in the eastern ones.

Please tell us about Curzon’s partition of Bengal earlier, and if that had any bearing on the 1947 process.

The partition of Bengal that was done by Curzon in 1905 was entirely different. Bengal then was virtually one-fourth of the country, with Bihar and Orissa included in it as well. Bengal was partitioned by Curzon to break the unity of the Bengali-speaking people and also to create a separate province with a Muslim majority.

Assam and East Bengal were grouped together to constitute one province, which had a Muslim majority. This partition was withdrawn in 1911 and the linguistic unity of Bengal was restored. Bihar and Orissa were separated from Bengal.

The two partitions (of 1905 and 1947) were not connected with each other, except in the sense that the new Bengal that emerged after 1911 had a Muslim majority. Likewise, Sind was separated from the Bombay presidency and made into a separate province in 1935.

Please tell us about the aftermath of the 1947 partition of Bengal on the population, in terms of loss of lives, displacement, disruption of livelihoods, and the larger impact on the economy.

Bengal had witnessed considerable communal violence in 1946 before the partition. Calcutta and Noakhali were the worst hit. After partition, Bengal escaped large-scale violence (unlike Punjab), largely because of MK Gandhi’s presence there.

But there was a long chain of migrations and displacement. People migrated from East to West (and vice versa) not in one major push (as was the case in Punjab) but in a continuous trickle. These migrations continued for a long time creating a large refugee population, requiring rehabilitation and settlements.

Salil Misra is a History Professor at the School of Liberal Studies at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Delhi.