What's new

Why did British PM Attlee think Bengal was going to be an independent country in 1947?

The Ronin

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,386
Reaction score
0
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
pogusahgle-1546370345-1546833896170.jpg


It is little known, but in 1947, along with India and Pakistan, there almost emerged a third sovereign country: United Bengal

On December 28, Pakistan newspaper Dawn published a somewhat curious bit of news. “UK PM Attlee believed Bengal may opt to be a separate country,” read the headline. As per recently declassified documents, Clement Attlee had briefed the US ambassador in the United Kingdom on June 2, 1947, about the plan to partition India. “A division of Punjab is likely,” said Attlee, but he added there was a “distinct possibility Bengal might decide against partition and against joining either Hindustan or Pakistan.”

The news caused some buzz on social media, which is not unexpected: This is a little discussed facet of India’s partition. What Attlee was speaking about was a plan to have not two but three successor states to British India: India, Pakistan and Bengal. Rather than divide Bengal and apportion each half to India and Pakistan, a third option held that Bengal would be kept united and be given the status of a dominion alongside India and Pakistan.

Looming partition

As 1946 drew to a close, India was in shreds. The British were desperate to leave but, somewhat tragicomically after two centuries of a colonial occupation, did not know how to. The 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan, a scheme to transfer power to a united India had been rejected by the Congress, wary of how little power it gave the Centre. Some form of partition now seemed to be emerging as a Hobson’s choice.

British Bengal roughly consisted of modern-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of West Bengal. Like North India’s Muslims, Hindus in Bengal were wary of the British exiting, leaving them a minority. Since 1937, ever since democratic government had been introduced in the provinces of British India, Muslim-majority Bengal had seen Hindus out of power. Matters were exacerbated by horrific communal rioting in August, 1946, in Kolkata. By the end of the year, there was a growing acceptance that, as historian Joya Chatterji wrote, “Bengal must be divided and that Hindus must carve out for themselves a Hindu-majority province.” A Bengal Partition League was set up, but most of the grunt work to prepare public opinion was done by the Bengal Congress as well as the Hindu Mahasabha. As could be expected, there was a distinct geographical split to this demand, with the Hindu-majority western districts and specifically Kolkata most enthusiastic. Also providing crucial support was the city’s Marwari business community. “I am in favour of separation, and I do not think it is impracticable or against the interest of Hindus,” GD Birla said as early as 1942.

The campaign was an instant success. A poll in April, 1947, conducted by Amrita Bazar Patrika, a newspaper influential amongst elite Bengali Hindus, saw 98% in favour of Partition. All of 0.6% of respondents supported any scheme for a united Bengal.

The United Bengal plan

It was against these odds that HS Suhrawardy, the then premier of Bengal, addressed a press conference in Delhi on April 27, 1947, in order to make the case for an “independent, undivided and sovereign Bengal:”

“Let us pause for a moment to consider what Bengal can be if it remains united. It will be a great country, indeed the richest and the most prosperous in India capable of giving to its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will truly be plentiful. It will be rich in agriculture, rich in industry and commerce and in course of time it will be one of the powerful and progressive states of the world. If Bengal remains united this will be no dream, no fantasy.”

Apart from an appeal to Bengali exceptionalism, there was also an undercurrent of left-wing populism, with Bengal’s ills being blamed on non-Bengali capitalists. Abdul Hashim, the socialist ideologue who was secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and a strong opponent of Partition argued that “Cent percent alien capital, both Indian and Anglo-American exploiting Bengal…visualize difficulties in a free and united Bengal.”

The plan did attract some support. The British saw in it a way to better protect their commercial stakes in Kolkata. On May 8, 1947, Viceroy Louis Mountbatten cabled the British government with a partition plan that made an exception for Bengal: it was the only province that would be allowed to remain independent should it so chose to. On May 23, in a cabinet meeting Prime Minister Attlee also hoped that Bengal would remain united.

However, by far the most-influential supporter of the plan was Sarat Chandra Bose, senior Congressman and elder brother of Subhas Chandra Bose (who was abroad, unreachable – probably dead). On May 20, 1947, a plan for a United Bengal was thrashed out between Suhrawardy and Bose. The proposed country would have joint electorates and universal adult franchise. Hindus and Muslims would have equal quotas in the military and the police which would be indigenized and “manned by Bengalis.” A Hindu-Muslim coalition government would be set up with parity between the communities in the cabinet. The prime minister would be Muslim and the home minister a Hindu. The plan was made public on May 24, 1947, ten days before the final partition plan was announced.

Supporters and detractors

MA Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, was not averse to the idea since, as he said in his talks with Mountbatten, “What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta.” However, the Bengal Muslim League itself pulled in every direction. A sub-committee set up by the Bengal League to discuss the plan itself saw four out of six oppose a Bengal that was not part of Pakistan. Much of this was split along linguistic lines. While Urdu-speaking Muslims in Bengal did not want Bengal partitioned they also desired union with Pakistan. Muslim Bengalis, on the other hand, were fine with a free Bengal. Similar to Hindu Bengalis, there was also an East-West split. Speaking to Jinnah, one Calcutta League member accused East Bengali Muslims of being “happy to see this partition.”

In the Congress, Mohandas Gandhi was an initial supporter of United Bengal but then backtracked given that the Congress Working Committee had “taken him to task for supporting Sarat Babu’s move.” Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were implacably opposed to a United Bengal, seeing in it a possibility that every province might get similar ideas. On May 27, Nehru formally announced that the Congress would “agree to Bengal remaining united only if it remains in the [Indian] Union,” leading to Bengal governor Burrows announcing that “Bengal will be sacrificed at the altar of Nehru’s all-India outlook.” Nehru’s opposition to the proposal was enough for Mountbatten to backtrack on pushing the plan any more with London.

Failure and Partition

But Bose did not back down. “It is not a fact that Bengali Hindus unanimously demand partition,” Sarat Bose wrote to Vallabhbhai Patel on May 27, 1947. “The demand for partition is more or less confined to the middle classes”. Bose also pointed out the conundrum of partitioning a region that was as contiguous as the Bengal delta: a West Bengal province would have “only about half of the total Hindu population in Bengal” leaving East Bengali Hindus in the lurch.

Sarat Bose’s plan, however, did not attract much backing. Hindu Mahasabha leader SP Mookerjee was not very far off the mark when he wrote to Patel on May 11, saying: “Sarat Babu has no support whatsoever from the Hindus and he does not dare address one single meeting”.

Eventually, the United Bengal plan came a cropper. On June 3, 1947, when Mountbatten announced his plan to transfer power to native hands, there were only two contenders: India and Pakistan. Bengal was partitioned, the western part joining the Indian Union and the east, Pakistan. The mass upheavals and the population transfers it caused is still buffeting the politics of Assam. However, Attlee’s prediction wasn’t completey off the mark: within just 24 years of the British transfering power, East Bengal broke from Pakistan to emerge as Bangladesh.

This article was first published in the Scroll.in

https://www.dhakatribune.com/world/...X4oDbb3P3hkEeGje9LCrDBsr1awV1V57FolKVndOTP7CE
 
The ideal solution would have been to restore the Mughal Empire. There were progeny still alive. Transition would have been smooth and United
 
The ideal solution would have been to restore the Mughal Empire. There were progeny still alive. Transition would have been smooth and United
Yes, it could have been a solution to let India remain united. But, no one ever talked of such a solution. The leaders were busy only to portray themselves as the saviors.

However, about the main topic of this thread, it was probably Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee or Dr. Profullo Chandra Ghosh who demanded a divided Bengal by saying, "India is divided or not, Bengal must be partitioned". The Hindu leaders of Hindu Mahasava and other organizations started this even before the Calcutta riot.
 
Yes, it could have been a solution to let India remain united. But, no one ever talked of such a solution. The leaders were busy only to portray themselves as the saviors.

However, about the main topic of this thread, it was probably Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee or Dr. Profullo Chandra Ghosh who demanded a divided Bengal by saying, "India is divided or not, Bengal must be partitioned". The Hindu leaders of Hindu Mahasava and other organizations started this even before the Calcutta riot.
I am glad that Bengal was partitioned. We gained so much by getting rid of minor part of our border. But Murshidabad and Some part of Assam should had been included in Bangladesh.
 
The ideal solution would have been to restore the Mughal Empire. There were progeny still alive. Transition would have been smooth and United
Yeah and who would do that? Not the British and not the Puranists? Why on earth would they restore a Muslim dynasty???
 
I am glad that Bengal was partitioned. We gained so much by getting rid of minor part of our border. But Murshidabad and Some part of Assam should had been included in Bangladesh.
No, united Bengal could have brought together Bangladesh, west Bengal, 7 sisters in the Indian NE including Tripura. There was no question that India could have set foot in the Siliguri corridor when the entire Bengal is a single unit.

Politics then would have been so different because Muslims and Hindus would have shared the same country. Anyway, we lost something like geographical vastness but we gained also something like a Muslim majority country.
 
Last edited:
these are fantasies of bangladeshis ,they know they got raw deal out of partition , and encompassed by all sides by India ,british also thought republic of india will collapse in less than decade ,no one cares about ramblings of british ,bengali hindus as well as republic of india is very grateful to Dr Syama prasad Mukherjee for its stuggle for state of west bengal in india
Syama Prasad.png
 
As long as BD and Ind have friendly relations like now, it does not matter.
 
No way.. Marathas would have been better or maybe the Sikhs , because these defeated Mughals .
Which Maratha and which Sikh you are talking about? Marathas supported the Bahadur Shah Zafar the Mughal Emperor in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.

Maratha troops were totally annihilated in the 3rd Battle of Panipat in 1761 by Ahmed Shah Abdali, but Mughals remained in Delhi as the Sovereign of Hindustan. 200,000 Maratha troops were killed at that battle. Read history before you talk ignorance.
 
It was basically the Marwari baniya community in Kolkata who funded the Hindu Mahasabha to agitate against the Independent Bengal plan. These Marwaris didn't care about the Bengali Hindu cause but knew that in an independent Bengali nation-state, Marwari influence would be considerably weakened. Congress didn't want further divisions of India so they were also in the same page as the Hindu Mahasabha.

Obviously the Marwaris came out as the winners but the real losers are the Bengali Hindus - Kolkata has lost its glory while West Bengal has been reduced to a mere marginalized province.

For Bangladesh, we ultimately achieved what we envisioned earlier, an independent Bengali nation-state, going forward and growing stronger.
 
Last edited:
Which Maratha and which Sikh you are talking about? Marathas supported the Bahadur Shah Zafar the Mughal Emperor in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.

Maratha troops were totally annihilated in the 3rd Battle of Panipat in 1761 by Ahmed Shah Abdali, but Mughals remained in Delhi as the Sovereign of Hindustan. 200,000 Maratha troops were killed at that battle. Read history before you talk ignorance.
Maratha's may have lost a few bat
Which Maratha and which Sikh you are talking about? Marathas supported the Bahadur Shah Zafar the Mughal Emperor in the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.

Maratha troops were totally annihilated in the 3rd Battle of Panipat in 1761 by Ahmed Shah Abdali, but Mughals remained in Delhi as the Sovereign of Hindustan. 200,000 Maratha troops were killed at that battle. Read history before you talk ignorance.
Marathas lost that war but it only stopped their expansion and abdali went back to Afghanistan. The marathas were defeated only by British on 1818.
Meanwhile Mughals emperor was only in name. Zafar had an area only in red fort where he could so called rule. After aurangzeb the empire tore apart in a few years mostly because did marathas who went beyond Declan and into the north.
Zafar was just a mascot in 1857 first war and it was largely run by marathas but unfortunately lost.
Anyways Mughals ended by 1707. And 100 years later marathas ended and a few years later Sikhs ended.
 
Last edited:
Either West Bengal, Bangladesh, Assam & Tripura were one country or it would have been better had Bangladesh been a state of India named East Bengal and avoided genocide by Pakistani army in 1971 war. Millions of Bangladeshis got martyred in that war.

It is not that Bangladeshis are 'sooooo' different from Indians. Same people. Foreigners even mistake us as Indians. So it would have been much better if Bengal was united under Indian union.
 
The ideal solution would have been to restore the Mughal Empire. There were progeny still alive. Transition would have been smooth and United

A king's rule ( monarchy ) is neither Islamic nor suitable for the modern world. Even the current European monarchies are titular, just in name.

Only day before yesterday you were talking of people's rule, yes ??
 
A king's rule ( monarchy ) is neither Islamic nor suitable for the modern world. Even the current European monarchies are titular, just in name.

Only day before yesterday you were talking of people's rule, yes ??
The Mughal rule would have devolved into a representative rule.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom