Marathas in Bengal 1731-1760

[khabib]

again stuck with 1857??

Anyway orissa was under muslim rule for only 200 years that explains why over 97% of orissa population is non muslim.[/B]

Khajur, FYI within 50 yrs of spainard and Portugeese rule, all of the central and south america converted to catholic. Only 200 yrs and that explain why only 3% are muslim ??

What is your point ??

 

[eastwatch]

Khajur, FYI within 50 yrs of spainard and Portugeese rule, all of the central and south america converted to catholic. Only 200 yrs and that explain why only 3% are muslim ??

What is your point ??

A long 200 yrs of Muslim rule was there in Orissa, but even then the Muslim population there is limited to below 3% also proves that no compulsion was used by the Muslims to convert to Islam.

 

[khabib]

A long 200 yrs of Muslim rule was there in Orissa, but even then the Muslim population there is limited to below 3% also proves that no compulsion was used by the Muslims to convert to Islam.

Lets see how Khajur see that !!

 

[PostColonial]

A long 200 yrs of Muslim rule was there in Orissa, but even then the Muslim population there is limited to below 3% also proves that no compulsion was used by the Muslims to convert to Islam.

Damn. Then a hell of a lot of compulsion must have been used in Bangladesh. Lots of muslims there!

 

[eastwatch]

Damn. Then a hell of a lot of compulsion must have been used in Bangladesh. Lots of muslims there!

No Sir, it was the immigrants from Afghanistan in 1203 that composed the base core of Muslims in Bengal. The Turkey Afghan immigrants that were invited by Bakhtier Khilji were no less than 300,000 when the local population itself in Bengal was probably no more than 3 million at that time.

They were added with continuous immigration from the central India including Delhi mostly due to political turmoils during the many centuries afterwards. Population was small and land was abundant. So, the Bengal sovereigns always welcomed new arrivals. With them were added the local Budhists as well as quite a number of Hindus who accepted Islam as their religion. Moreover, there were Muslim immigrants from Arabia, Persia, Central Asia and Ethiopia.

Today's muslims of Bengal are the descendents of these mixed up groups of people. A Muslim sovereign never thought that preaching was part of his duty. By the way, during these six centuries muslims were more busy waging wars against and killing each other rather than preaching their religion.

Most of these Muslim sovereigns themselves were not strict adherers of Islam. Womanizing and drinking alcohol were their two favourite pastime. Hindus try to demonize muslim sovereigns by making false arguments that they had forced the locals to accept Islam. If it were true, then India would have become the Islamic Republic of Hindustan today.

Not a bad idea then. All of us together could have formed the great dreamland called Akhand Bharat.

 

[kalu_miah]

Here is a link about spread of Islam in Bengal region:

The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204?1760

Mughals used Bengal as the bread basket to finance wars that spread its empire within Indian subcontinent. The establishment of the regional capital Dhaka and clearing forests for wet rice cultivation in the "Bhati" areas with teams of indigenous people under immigrant sufi holy men, was a Mughal project partnered with both Hindu and Muslim local nobility and it probably shaped the region and made it what it is today.

Banglapedia is a good source as well, but nothing better than original contemporary historians accounts mainly written in persian, some of which or their translations eastwatch seem to have studied.

Now a slightly different topic:

I personally think that the partition was a great mistake, so was the breakup of Ottoman empire due to Arab betrayal, both of which have created instabilities that cannot be resolved easily and have become global problems, some of which are:

- Bangladesh, an overpopulated country with very very difficult future prospect, considering that both India and China are poised to divert its main rivers upstream, not to mention rise of sea level due to global warming
- Pakistan, an increasingly unstable entity
- Afghanistan, an orphan country that was associated with South Asia, but drifted apart during British Indian rule and became a global hot spot
- India, the country that aims for greatness but always shooting itself in the foot, unable to resolve its problems with neighbors where China is eating its lunch every time, starting with Xinjiang (East Turkestan), Tibet and finally in the sub-continent
- Kashmir problem
- water sharing of regional rivers
- Western protectorate oil rich states of Persian gulf, that are squandering resources for purposes with little future value
- the Arab-Israeli conflict
- rise of pea brained global Islamic resistance movements, a bad combination of north African intellect (read Islamic Brotherhood), Wahabi ideology (salafi, ahle hadith and their deobondi variant) and Gulf Arab oil money

The architects of the breakup of these two regions were of course the British and the French, but the short sighted inhabitants of these two regions didn't play a small role either and as a result they are paying a price today and will continue to pay a price in the foreseeable future.

One interesting thing to note is that the old Roman empire is getting back together as European Union today, after many centuries of ethno-nationalistic fervor and ethno-linguistic nation states. Ironically this ethnic nationalism, an European gift, seems to divide both of these regions today and stunt their growth. The question I have is how many decades or centuries will it take for South Asians and former Ottoman regions to rise above the pettiness and start working together again?

China had interaction with South Asians, but their role today is not based on history, but sheer opportunism, which cannot be a basis for any kind of integration and close working relationship such as what we see in European Union.

Sorry this is probably off topic. But I always try to tie the past, present and future, because they are related. By studying the present and well recorded past, we can I believe chart a course for the future.

Hopefully its not a flame invitation, just wanted to throw out some ideas as food for thought.

 

[Halaku Khan]

The question I have is how many decades or centuries will it take for South Asians and former Ottoman regions to rise above the pettiness and start working together again?

Some cooperation is already happening amongst countries of South Asia. For further progress, people will have to start becoming more open-minded and rational, rather than being blind followers of imperialistic religious and political ideologies.

 

[TopCat]

Here is a link about spread of Islam in Bengal region:

The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204?1760

Mughals used Bengal as the bread basket to finance wars that spread its empire within Indian subcontinent. The establishment of the regional capital Dhaka and clearing forests for wet rice cultivation in the "Bhati" areas with teams of indigenous people under immigrant sufi holy men, was a Mughal project partnered with both Hindu and Muslim local nobility and it probably shaped the region and made it what it is today.

Banglapedia is a good source as well, but nothing better than original contemporary historians accounts mainly written in persian, some of which or their translations eastwatch seem to have studied.

Now a slightly different topic:

I personally think that the partition was a great mistake, so was the breakup of Ottoman empire due to Arab betrayal, both of which have created instabilities that cannot be resolved easily and have become global problems, some of which are:

- Bangladesh, an overpopulated country with very very difficult future prospect, considering that both India and China are poised to divert its main rivers upstream, not to mention rise of sea level due to global warming
- Pakistan, an increasingly unstable entity
- Afghanistan, an orphan country that was associated with South Asia, but drifted apart during British Indian rule and became a global hot spot
- India, the country that aims for greatness but always shooting itself in the foot, unable to resolve its problems with neighbors where China is eating its lunch every time, starting with Xinjiang (East Turkestan), Tibet and finally in the sub-continent
- Kashmir problem
- water sharing of regional rivers
- Western protectorate oil rich states of Persian gulf, that are squandering resources for purposes with little future value
- the Arab-Israeli conflict
- rise of pea brained global Islamic resistance movements, a bad combination of north African intellect (read Islamic Brotherhood), Wahabi ideology (salafi, ahle hadith and their deobondi variant) and Gulf Arab oil money

The architects of the breakup of these two regions were of course the British and the French, but the short sighted inhabitants of these two regions didn't play a small role either and as a result they are paying a price today and will continue to pay a price in the foreseeable future.

One interesting thing to note is that the old Roman empire is getting back together as European Union today, after many centuries of ethno-nationalistic fervor and ethno-linguistic nation states. Ironically this ethnic nationalism, an European gift, seems to divide both of these regions today and stunt their growth. The question I have is how many decades or centuries will it take for South Asians and former Ottoman regions to rise above the pettiness and start working together again?

China had interaction with South Asians, but their role today is not based on history, but sheer opportunism, which cannot be a basis for any kind of integration and close working relationship such as what we see in European Union.

Sorry this is probably off topic. But I always try to tie the past, present and future, because they are related. By studying the present and well recorded past, we can I believe chart a course for the future.

Hopefully its not a flame invitation, just wanted to throw out some ideas as food for thought.

In the absence of partition, it was the most roral region in the sub continent. Only 8% of the people used to live in urban areas. Contribution of Industry to the GDP was only 0%. 5% of the muslim could read or write. Only very few muslim was allowed to enter prestigious colleges like presidency college. There was oppositon to even establishing a university in Dhaka.
If there were no partitiion we did not have an independent country. E. Bengal could have been a backyeard of thriving India, not the front yeard. We would not be any different than Bihar, Orissiya, or WB or Assam, even worse.

Yes due to partition, we now have to live in a smaller geographical areas with highest density of population squeezing each other. But with good urban planning, population is not a problem.

Sometimes you need to distant yourself from bigger mass, in order to take care of your own $hit.

 

[kalu_miah]

Some cooperation is already happening amongst countries of South Asia. For further progress, people will have to start becoming more open-minded and rational, rather than being blind followers of imperialistic religious and political ideologies.

Thanks for your kind response. The problem is that when people are hungry and worried about their next meal, its hard to open their minds and become rational. Just today their was a report that 200 million children of the world have permanently stunted growth due to malnutrition and 83 million of them are in SAARC countries. But it is difficult to improve economies and provide better living conditions and nutrition for its people when a region is fragmented and conflicts are endemic. So its a vicious cycle. I guess time will solve all problems eventually and hopefully technology will help accelerate the changes. But leadership, specially Indian leadership will play a critical role, I believe. As the largest and strongest SAARC country, the initiative and vision has to come from that source in my opinion. Sometimes I lurk at Bharat-rakshak site and all I see is jingoistic plans to conquer the rest of the sub-continent and convert the Muslims to some kind of Indic Islam, very very immature minds I should say and these are the best minds that will determine the future for all of SAARC unfortunately, hopefully there are better minds than what I see there among real leaders and politicians. That is why I say what a great mistake this partition was, because it has inherently created instabilities, by breaking a living working system.

Again sorry about being off topic, but I am replying to a post and hopefully the moderators will forgive as these are important issues.

 

[kalu_miah]

In the absence of partition, it was the most roral region in the sub continent. Only 8% of the people used to live in urban areas. Contribution of Industry to the GDP was only 0%. 5% of the muslim could read or write. Only very few muslim was allowed to enter prestigious colleges like presidency college. There was oppositon to even establishing a university in Dhaka.
If there were no partitiion we did not have an independent country. E. Bengal could have been a backyeard of thriving India, not the front yeard. We would not be any different than Bihar, Orissiya, or WB or Assam, even worse.

Yes due to partition, we now have to live in a smaller geographical areas with highest density of population squeezing each other. But with good urban planning, population is not a problem.

Sometimes you need to distant yourself from bigger mass, in order to take care of your own $hit.

Agree and understand your points, partition is a reality for us now and so is 1971. These three entities (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) evolved with their own dynamics since 1947. One of the things I like to point out is that Bangladesh's border was actually drawn by one Sir Radcliffe and in a way its fate was sealed in 1947, that it would eventually separate from the West wing, with a powerful large India sandwiched in between to engineer this separation. In fact Lord Mountbatten I think predicted that it will take 25 years for Pakistan to break up, it took 24 years and 8 months. Now we have no choice but to deal with our current reality and manage as best as we can what we have at our hand, difficult as it may be.

However, the larger regional geographic, political and economic issues some of which I have mentioned, those I believe can only be resolved with a closer integration of these economies of the SAARC region, which do have a somewhat common history. Unfortunately there is no movement there, mainly due to incompetence and lack of vision from Indian leadership, no other country and its leadership can take their place.

Just because we made separate countries by drawing borders and putting up fences, it is not possible or practical to make the societies completely separate which have coexisted for a long time without such intrusive borders. A tight regional integration like EU in phases can solve some of the problems.

About being proud of our own Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, people have existed in these lands for a long time, entities like these have come and gone, so will be the fate of these. Important thing in my opinion is to remove as many man made barriers and obstacles as possible to improve living conditions of people.

Again replying to a post, sorry for being off topic.

 

[kalu_miah]

On the topic of forced conversion to Islam in Bengal, the following is a chapter from the book, the link of which I provided earlier:

The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204?1760

The Administration of Mughal Law—the Villagers’ View

The Mughals’ policy of not interfering with Hindu society was also noted by outsiders, in particular Fray Sebastião Manrique, the Augustinian friar who traveled through Bengal in 1629–30 and 1640.[61] Manrique’s narrative richly illustrates how a Mughal court of law actually adjudicated, at the village level, a dispute involving Bengali Muslims and Hindus.

It was August 1640, and Manrique, having just been shipwrecked in a violent monsoon storm off the coast of Orissa, had elected to return to Europe overland. Riding a horse and accompanied by a party of Muslim attendants, the missionary was making his way up Bengal’s western corridor from Orissa toward the Ganges River, which he intended to take through Upper India. He had adopted the dress of a Muslim merchant, apparently in the hope of not drawing undue attention to his true vocation. As the monsoon rains were then drenching lower Bengal with full force, Manrique and his party became bogged down in muddy swamps about ten miles north of Jaleswar, near the present border between Orissa and West Bengal. Unable to make further progress that day, the travelers were obliged to pass an uncomfortable night, tormented by swarms of mosquitoes, in the cowshed of a Hindu village. There they spent the next day, too, for heavy rains prevented immediate resumption of their journey.

While Manrique was dozing through the gray afternoon, one of his Muslim attendants, with an eye to a good meal, seized and killed a couple of peacocks that had wandered into the cowshed.[62] Awakened to what had happened, Manrique suddenly became agitated lest the Hindu villagers learn of the killing, which he knew would be seen as a grave transgression. So he ordered his attendants to conceal the birds until nightfall. Then, under the cover of darkness, they cooked and ate their quarry, promptly burying the birds’ feathers so as to hide the crime. The next day, however, a few uncovered feathers betrayed the deed to the villagers who, armed with bows and arrows, pursued the travelers out of the village and along the road with great fury. Manrique fired a musket shot over the heads of the villagers, but the gun blast so terrified his Hindu guide that the latter fell down in panic, causing the villagers to believe they had mistakenly killed one of their own with an arrow. In the confusion, Manrique revived his guide and got him to lead the party to the nearby town of Naraingarh, in present-day Midnapur District, where there was a caravansarai intended for travelers such as himself.[63]

Once in the safety of Naraingarh, Manrique tried with a gift of pepper to persuade his Hindu guide to forget about the unfortunate peacocks, while he and his party made themselves comfortable in the caravansarai. But the attempted bribe failed in its purpose, and the guide, together with another aggrieved villager, hastened to the house of the local shiqdār where they filed a formal complaint against the entire party. The shiqdār, appointed by Mughal authorities to supervise the collection of revenue, also maintained law and order at the pargana level, and it was in this capacity that he was approached by the aggrieved Hindus. Throwing themselves on their knees before the shiqdār in the middle of the night, the two loudly remonstrated that although they and the other villagers had received the foreigners with great kindness, these “robbers” and “men of violence” had nonetheless violated their religion by killing the peacocks. Evidently aware that to Hindus the peacock was a sacred bird, the shiqdār promptly ordered Manrique and his party arrested, bound, and brought to a dungeon beneath his house, where they spent the night and all the next day in a state of misery and fright.

After a detention of twenty-four hours, around midnight the next day the prisoners were brought before the shiqdār, who, seated in his tribunal, prepared to adjudicate the dispute. Summoned before the official, Manrique presented a document he had received from the Mughal governor of Orissa, affirming that he was a Portuguese from Hooghly (Manrique here dropped his Muslim guise) and permitting him to travel through Mughal territories. After hearing the document read out loud, the shiqdār salaamed and asked Manrique to approach nearer. “He told me of the Heathens’ complaint,” Manrique related,

in reply to which I gave him the true story of the occurrence. He then asked which of my attendants had committed the outrage on the peacocks; and while I hesitated in my reply, pretending not to understand, so as not to condemn the offender, one of his companions, with greater assiduity, at once named him. The Siguidar [shiqdār] then turned to the offender and said, “Art thou not, as it seems, a Bengali and a Musalman…? How then didst thou dare in a Hindu district to kill a living thing?”

As the wretched man was more dead than alive with fear, and unable to reply, I was obliged to take his hand and, after the usual salaam, exclaim, “Sahib! as a good Musalman and follower of your Prophet Maomet’s [Muhammad’s] tenets he pays no heed to the ridiculous precepts of the Hindus; as you yourself would not. This, principally because God in His final, sacred, and true faith has nowhere prohibited the slaying of such animals; for His Divine Majesty created all of them for man’s use. And, if we accept this dictum, this man has committed no fault against God or against His precepts or those of your Alcoran [Qur’an].”[64]

The shiqdār and several other venerable Muslim officials on hand leaned forward in rapt attention to Manrique’s speech, an impromptu homily on Islamic teachings respecting animal life. When it was finished they stared at one another in surprise and approval, while the shiqdār commented to his colleagues that “Allah, the sacred, has bestowed much wisdom on the Franguis [European].”

But the friar’s appeals to Islam and Islamic sentiment were to no avail. The shiqdār turned to Manrique and replied that notwithstanding the religious truths he had just uttered, when Akbar had conquered Bengal—sixty-five years previous to this time—he had given his word “that he and his successors would let [Bengalis] live under their own laws and customs: he [the shiqdār] therefore allowed no breach of them.” With that the Muslim offender was led off to prison, while the others were given leave to return to their caravansarai, it now being 3:00 A.M. The punishment would be severe. By local custom, Manrique tells us, this particular offense required a whipping and the amputation of the right hand. Feeling compassion for the prisoner, Manrique tried the next day to intervene on his behalf by plying the shiqdār’s wife with a piece of silken Chinese taffeta, worked with white, pink, and yellow flowers. This time his gift yielded its intended effect. “She, by importuning her husband, cajoling him, and pretending to be annoyed with him,” he wrote,

at length accomplished what we so ardently desired, that no mutilation of any of the prisoner’s members should take place; for although the Governor had decided to forgo the punishment of the amputation of a hand, it did not follow that they would not cut off the fingers from it. But such is the power of a lovely face, strengthened by the seal of matrimony, that even the remission of the fingers was acceded to, and in the end it resolved itself into no more than the carrying out of the whipping.[65]

What is remarkable in this narrative is not that the culprit was released with only a whipping. Given that the accused was a Bengali Muslim being tried and sentenced by a Muslim judge, and that the offense was understood as one that violated specifically Hindu sensibilities, it may seem remarkable to modern readers that the man was punished at all. Yet we hear the words the shiqdār used when interrogating the accused: “How then didst thou dare in a Hindu district to kill a living thing?”[66] The shiqdār clearly ruled on the principle that the district’s predominantly Hindu population must be judged according to its own customs and not by Islamic or any other law. Nor were Muslims to be judged differently from Hindus when it came to breaching local custom, informed in this case by Hindu sentiment. Notwithstanding Manrique’s appeals to the official’s own religious beliefs, the shiqdār, though duly impressed by the friar’s knowledge of Islam, at once invoked the pledge made by Akbar to allow non-Muslims to live under their own laws and customs.

The incident compares with Islam Khan’s refusal to encourage or reward religious conversion while subduing Bengali rebels some thirty years earlier. The Mughal government was simply not interested in imposing or advancing religious causes, either in its official pronouncements or, what is more important, in the way provincial commanders or local district officials implemented official policy. Ultimately, the Mughals had conquered Bengal in order to augment the wealth of the empire, and not for the glory of Islam. And they understood that the application of social justice was a more practical means to achieving this end than was religious bigotry. This, in any case, was the policy that a lowly shiqdār of Naraingarh professed on that rainy night in August 1640. Neither a foreigner’s appeal to the common Islamic faith binding the judge and the judged nor bribes slipped to the shiqdār’s wife prevented the execution of that policy.

In sum, the vignette of Fray Manrique and the several peacocks illustrates the functional compartmentalization of religion and politics in Mughal Bengal. Legally, such compartmentalization was expressed in the strict protection of Hindu custom in local courts. Spatially, it was expressed in the emergence of two functionally discrete cities—Dhaka, the administrative center, and Gaur-Pandua, the sacred center. It was also expressed in the lack of congruence between the Mughal heritage and the Islamic religion in the imperial service, since non-Muslims were not obliged to convert to Islam on entering the Mughal ruling class. This de facto separation of religion and state permitted a distinctively Mughal style of political authority, etiquette, patronage, and architecture to survive and flourish throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Yet the functional compartmentalization of religion and politics also encouraged an autonomous Muslim ashrāf class to view itself as a self-contained community encapsulated within the larger Mughal ruling class. Seeing Islam as the proud emblem of their cultural heritage, ashrāf Muslims did not regard their religion as something that should properly be assimilated by the indigenous classes of non-Muslim “natives,” whether those were the more Sanskritized Hindus of West Bengal or the less Sanskritized semi-tribals of the east. Hence the Mughals did not officially encourage conversion to Islam among the general population. Nonetheless, Bengalis in various parts of the delta responded quite differently to the imposition of Mughal rule and the influx of Mughal culture, including Islam. Politically, responses ranged from placid acceptance to outright rebellion; religiously, they ranged from indifference to an exceptional degree of Islamization. Let us look closer at these responses.

 

[Halaku Khan]

Thanks for your kind response. The problem is that when people are hungry and worried about their next meal, its hard to open their minds and become rational. Just today their was a report that 200 million children of the world have permanently stunted growth due to malnutrition and 83 million of them are in SAARC countries. But it is difficult to improve economies and provide better living conditions and nutrition for its people when a region is fragmented and conflicts are endemic. So its a vicious cycle. I guess time will solve all problems eventually and hopefully technology will help accelerate the changes. But leadership, specially Indian leadership will play a critical role, I believe. As the largest and strongest SAARC country, the initiative and vision has to come from that source in my opinion. Sometimes I lurk at Bharat-rakshak site and all I see is jingoistic plans to conquer the rest of the sub-continent and convert the Muslims to some kind of Indic Islam, very very immature minds I should say and these are the best minds that will determine the future for all of SAARC unfortunately, hopefully there are better minds than what I see there among real leaders and politicians. That is why I say what a great mistake this partition was, because it has inherently created instabilities, by breaking a living working system.

Again sorry about being off topic, but I am replying to a post and hopefully the moderators will forgive as these are important issues.

You are right about poverty afflicting large numbers in South Asia. The main reason for the poverty is corruption and mismanagement.

Economic development can certainly be achieved even with current political boundaries. With economic development we also need education. But this education should train people to think rationally for themselves; it should not be religious and political propaganda, as happens in Pakistan. Softening of boundaries can follow only after a change in mindset. I think it will happen, but it will take several decades.

Bangladesh's success in economic growth, empowerment women is very encouraging. All of South Asia can learn from progressive aspects of Bangladeshi policies.

PS: You can safely disregard the Jihadis and Maulanas on Bharat-Rakshak. The internet harbors a large number of crazy folks.

 

[kalu_miah]

You are right about poverty afflicting large numbers in South Asia. The main reason for the poverty is corruption and mismanagement.

I respectfully disagree with that statement, in my opinion, corruption and mismanagement and the resulting poverty is a symptom of disrupted and damaged social entities. I have some detailed theoretical analysis on these issues on a web archive. If anyone is interested I can provide that link in a PM, its rather long and at times tedious and boring.

The core idea is that human societies of sufficient size left undisturbed over a long period of time, evolves into an optimum functioning unit and work much more efficiently compared to newer or more recently disrupted social units that go through convulsive changes mainly due to invasion, occupation and subjugation.

A good example of these type of undisturbed societies are Japan, that was spared from Mongol invasion due to Kamikaze (divine wind) typhoons and Western Europe that also got saved from impending Mongol invasion from Buda-Pest, due to sudden untimely death of Ogedei, a son of Chinggis Khan, the reigning Kaghan at the time. Today these are the same societies that remain at the forefront in GDP and in almost all other aspects of human development, while the rest are still playing catch up, though with time, the gap is getting narrower.

The other important factor for competitive edge of human societies, in a global competitive arena, is size of population and the resulting size of economy, which provides economies of scale. The rise of USA, after WW II, and now the rise of China, India and Brazil are examples of this phenomenon. EU is also an attempt to achieve greater size and economies of scale.

In case of SAARC, a tight regional integration can increase the effective size of economy, providing greater economies of scale and at the same time, it will bring back the historical continuity of earlier times, which will be another healing factor, in my opinion, to reduce the recent disruption of partition.

While in country development efforts are essential, sometimes what happens in the neighborhood is more important than what happens within a country, specially if it is artificially constructed very recently, which is the case with India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, IMHO of course.

Maratha invasion in Bengal could qualify as examples of this kind of disruption, but the greatest of all recent ones is of course the Islamic rule of Bengal, that started with Muhammad Bakhtyar, and then the British company rule and then crown rule and finally 1947. 1971 was a natural outcome of 1947 partition and does not qualify as much of a disruption.