People in general are submissive & followers, and they tend to adjust and survive. That's why a small group of rulers like kings, feudal lords or colonialists like British could rule a much larger population for a long time. People only rise and revolt when there is a strong leader leading them to a revolution, for a good or bad cause. I am almost sure that ordinary poor and oppressed people living under rajas and sultans in this part of the world have revolted in many places under some local leader who took charge, but they were crushed and those local leaders were killed even before they could become big enough to find their places in the history books. Killing any potential leader to contain any scope of revolt is a method that communists also followed quite openly.
The other method of preventing a revolt is to keep the local leaders happy. There is a strong opinion that the fall of Mughal empire started because of Aurangzeb's efforts to push Islam and refusal to grant regional autonomy to strong ethnic groups like Marathas, Rajputs and Jats that angered them and made them to revolt. British in India followed both the methods to contain any revolt, while they didn't spare the revolutionaries of armed revolution, they did allow the local kings and zamindars to live in comfort, and also allowed the political activities of Indian political leaders (A Stalin or a Hitler probably wouldn't have allowed such political activities).
In fact, I believe that the glorification of "Non-violence" as an effective method of revolution was a British idea to contain the rising activities of armed revolutionaries. There was only a small number of British officials employed in their Indian colony to govern it, if the revolutionaries start killing them summarily, then it becomes a problem for the British to make their officials to go to India and govern it. So the glorification of harmless "Non-violence" to divert people from armed revolution. It's not that Gandhiji didn't believe in his methods, but it was the British who made him believe that it was working. If Gandhiji was so dangerous for the British government, then they could have easily got rid of him in a way that looks like ''Death due to natural causes". If you see, his methods didn't made the British leave the country, the last major "Quit India" movement failed miserably long back, and Gandhiji wasn't really running any movement when freedom actually became a reality! But that's a different topic altogether.
The point is, submissive behaviour of people before 30's was not because of the absence of socio-economic and communal tension among the people, it's just that no credible leaders picked up the issue before that.
And this part forms the base for my further argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East Pakistan / Bangladesh got independence twice, in 1947 and then in 1971. In the events before the independence and partition of India, Muslim League under Jinnah actually wanted more share of power that Congress leaders (rightly) refused. Hence, Muslim League started a separate revolt within the revolution for independence of India for a Muslim homeland where they can be in charge. Congress was in no position to contain the movement by force, and they could not accept the unrealistic demands of Muslim League, so they chose to let it happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
A brilliant counter argument but I do not concur it wholeheartedly. Such lack of socio-economic parity and religious harmony did not suddenly led to Bengali Muslims to the premise of a separate homeland, finally when they got a voice. They looked upon C R Das and his rightful political heir Subhash Bose for their economic and as well as political liberation. Untimely death of Das and the frequent captivity of Subhash Bose caused the emergence of a true representation of rural Muslim and scheduled caste Hindu voice in Bengal and that was Krishak Praja Party. The Bengali Muslims were not seeking justice for century old repressive policies in the form of a separate nation but by demanding Tenancy Amendment Bill and more representation in government jobs which were bitterly opposed by Congress. This is why I said, the problem was more economic than a religious one.
But please note that Muslim League didn't pick up cause of socio-economic oppression as the primary driver of revolt, they exploited the religious fault-line among the masses to drive the cause which was communal in nature.
Actually they did use the socio-economic dissension among Lower caste Hindus and Muslims, or in other words they were compelled to. Muslim League was always a party of aristocrats and landlords, away from the mass based
Dal Bhat politics of Fazlul Haque. Political acumen of Jinnah who felt the undeniable necessity of mass support, suggested him to form a coalition with the KPP to survive in Bengal but he failed. The Bengal Muslim masses led by Haque did not coordinate with the communal politics of Muslim League. It was the Hindu nationalists within the Congress who opposed any idea of a Congress-KPP coalition that will eventually give ML a much needed breathing space in Bengal. Otherwise, communal politics would never had met with success in my opinion.
Now, did the mass equate the religious differences with socio-economic differences? Maybe, or maybe not! Maybe not because:
1. Though both Hindus and Muslims of lower socio-economic class were oppressed by the Hindu and Muslim 'elite class', it was only the Muslims irrespective of their socio-economic status who demanded a separate Muslim homeland, and not a socialist country. (That's why I marked the words "Muslims and lower class Hindus" and "Them" in red in your post to point out that lower class Hindus didn't want East Pakistan).
2. Not only the elite class Hindus were targeted and evicted / killed in the process, the lower class/caste poor Hindus (the have-nots) also got similar treatment. Yes, in this part of the border Muslims also suffered (probably at a lesser degree in eastern India) irrespective of their socio-economic status.
3. It was actually the elite Muslim class (the haves) that lead the charge in 1947, and their socio-economic status mostly remained unaffected even after the creation of East and West Pakistan.
Actually they started to give it a thought to equate their religious differences with the Socio-economic ones. The emerging psyche of an ordinary Bengali Muslim was brilliantly expressed in Rabindranath’s Ghare Baire where a Muslim cloth merchant was aghast and exasperated when he saw his shop getting burnt by Swadeshi babus. A time came when a Hindu extremist resolutely devoted to the slogan
vande mataram, started drawing their sustenance of Nationalist spirit from deeply communal literatures like Anandamath, where Muslims were a necessary evil invaders. So, it was a time when economic and social grievances demanded a religious atonement which finally left Haque deserted and caused the triumph of ML in Bengal politics.
I have seen many articles attempting to whitewash the partition of undivided India in 1947 (especially Bengal) as some kind of great socio-economic revolution, a fight between the haves and have-nots, a Bengali Bolshevik revolution, etc. etc., but that was not the case when it is analysed in detail. Besides,the manner in which partition happened and how the maps were redrawn based on religious demography don't support the idea that Proletariat sensibilities were the driver of partition, and that's why I am of the opinion that the primary cause of partition (in 1947) was religious / communal in nature.
I will again beg to differ. If religion was the primary motivation of partition, it no way explains why Suhrawardy vehemently defied Two nation Theory and called for an ‘Independent sovereign undivided Bengal in a divided India’. He declared
“Future will be unlike the present….We Bengalis have a common mother tongue and common economic interests.”
This simple comment expresses eloquently the motivational psyche of Bengali Muslim politicians (and from a Muslim Leaguer). Though this idea got enthusiastic response from Sarat Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy, it was opposed by both Congress and ML.It will sound strange today, but back in 1947, a Muslim League leader told Gandhi and I quote,
“Language, tradition and history have created an unshakable bond of unity between Hindus and Muslims of Bengal. We are after all Bengalees in spite of religion. It is a matter of shame that Pakistan would rule us from a distance of thousand miles.”
Thus I am not agreed or convinced with the notion that religion was the sole encouragement for drawing boundaries. If it was so, even Muslim League leaders would not have ventured for a common land where both Hindus and Muslims have equal numerical representation.
The post-1947 part I will try to address as soon as possible. I don’t have to differ much with it any way.
