What's new

What If Bengal emerged as a unified nation post 1947 ?

Following the dissolution of the British Raj, Should Bengal have emerged as an independent nation ?

  • Yes, Bengal should have emerged as an independent nation held together by Bengali Culture.

    Votes: 19 63.3%
  • No, as history has shown, Muslims & Dalits couldn't have lived with the abusive landowning brahmins.

    Votes: 11 36.7%

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Lol article on the Hindu blood suckers sucking Bengal. The title should go to commies for making the richest state of Bengal into one of India's poorest. I guess even Joe would agree on that. It's a sad reality that Indian renaissance leaders originated from Bengal has reduced the state for mainly bad reasons in the last 5 decades.

As for united Bengal, Hindus and other minorities would have to live as a second class citizen state. Would have been Nigeria in South Asia except Bengal doesn't have natural resources to compensate with. It's good for both the state and the BD country that such mishaps didn't happen.

BD people are moderate, but their life is based on fighting the Pakistani Muslim state and hence it is what it is today. If an united state has formed in 47', it would have been very different and a radicalised majority.
 
.
p7-lead-1598018003299.jpg



Imagining what could have a been a strong, vibrant, democratic state

In 1947, the Partition of British India was essentially the partition of the presidencies of Bengal and Punjab and people of these two provinces suffered the most due to the bifurcation.

In the run-up to the dates of independence with the suspense of the pending disclosure of Redcliffe line, mass riots broke out across Punjab forcing 1.5 million people from east to west and vice versa within the province before, during and immediately after August 14 and 15.

A kind of violent population exchange took place, and almost all the Muslims were dispatched to Pakistan from Indian Punjab, and similar things happened to Sikhs and Hindus from Pakistani Punjab in the reverse direction.

Punjab or, at least the Western part of it, was central to the idea of Pakistan; whereas Bengal, or the eastern part of it, a much bigger area by population, wasn’t.

Punjab was also a core issue for the Sikhs -- almost all of whom lived in that one province where they had the heartland of their short-lived, independent empire, before the British colonial occupation of it in mid-19th century.

Also, not much violence took place in Bengal, at least during the actual Partition. But because of the partition, the Hindus of East Bengal who were sizeable and economically well-off suffered a lot.

A momentum to migrate from their ancestral homes in the East Bengal for West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura developed gradually, induced by both pull and push factors of migration over the next two decades.

A vast and relatively well-off settled population slowly and quietly got uprooted from the land, where their forefathers lived since time immemorial.

But it was the majority of the Bengali-Hindu leadership of the then Bengal who pitched for the Partition of Bengal to salvage a smaller than half-Bengali Hindudom in the western part of the province for the community.

A flawed understanding

But their assessment of Bengali Hindu interests had been highly flawed. The vast Hindu population of the bigger part of Bengal gradually became a refuge after 1947 in neighbouring parts of India, including West Bengal itself. In neither of the places were these mostly penniless refugees welcomed.

A new and almost everlasting social cleavage emerged between the natives and the refugees. Generations went through big struggles and were tormented mentally. In Assam, the Axomiya treated them like unwanted intruders and second class citizens.

As time passed, West Bengal turned from the richest province of India into an insignificant one. The supply of raw materials for jute mills from the east dried up as East Bengal set up its own jute mills.

Before 1947, Kolkata was the capital of the vast province of Bengal and the rich across the presidency had commercial, property, investment, employment, and many other interests and ties in Kolkata. After 1947, not anymore.

What happened to West Bengal?

Now, West Bengal, once the birthplace of the rich modern Bengali culture, has become a state in India increasingly dominated by Hindi culture backed by north and western Indian corporate interests. Unlike Bangladesh, hardly any major capitalist in West Bengal is Bengali, and the loyalty of dominant capitalists in the state of western and north India, mostly of Bania origin, lies elsewhere.

Also, unlike Bangladesh, the market of West Bengal isn’t protected, and West Bengalis aren’t in charge of that. Hasn’t it become more like a colony of north and western India, the way East Bengal was of West Pakistan between 1947 and 1971 ?

In hindsight, one has to ask the question of what the West Bengali Hindu gained by their decision to bifurcate Bengal, especially when there was a hasty yet concrete proposal for an independent United Bengal by important leaders like Suhrawardy, Sarat Bose, Abul Hashim, and Kiran Shankar Roy?

Why did the Bengali Hindu leadership get so carried away by the words of Mountbatten, Nehru, Kripalini, Kalipada Mukherjee, Syamaprashad, and so on, who never had either a genuine insight of the intricacies of Bengal or who had a default agenda in contradiction with the interest of all Bengalis?

On part of the Muslim League, some important leaders like Khawaja Nazimuddin and Maulana Akram Khan opposed the idea of United Bengal fearing the perpetuation of Hindu domination in Bengal, and with the prospect of Dhaka’s not becoming the political nerve centre replacing Kolkata.

But in the end, it was an emotion swayed Bengali Hindu call that resulted in the division of the presidency. The All India Congress leadership never understood the uniqueness of Bengal as Kripalini brutely put it, that they have to get as many territories as possible for India. The interest of the common people, and a better future for a big presidency were never on their focus.

Jinnah initially supported the idea of United Bengal, but as he saw no progress, he backtracked later. Gandhi gave it a patient hearing, but was powerless to do anything.

Inclusivity and fairness

The United Bengal proposal had a few important points which indicated a move towards inclusivity and fairness. Proportional representation and a confessional system with rotational premiership and presidency were implied. Parliamentary representation would have been proportional to the population, and government jobs were to be half for the Muslims and half for the non-Muslims, comprising general Hindus, schedule castes, and other minorities.

Within the Hindu pie, a fair chunk was kept for the scheduled caste. For Bengal’s constituent assembly, 16 Muslims and 14 Hindu members were proposed. The interim government would have had a Muslim prime minister and Hindu home minister. Had the negotiation got a real start with all the major Congress and Muslim League factions of Bengal on board, further details would have come out in this promising five points line.

Ironically, the Bengali Hindus vehemently opposed the 1905 division of Bengal and their mobilization, agitation, and revolutionary acts forced the British to annul the first partition of Bengal in 1911. In 1947, the same group went ahead for the partition of the presidency. Many Bengali Hindus tried to justify the 1947 division of Bengal with Kolkata and Noakhali riots of 1946.

There were a few thousands deaths, and in these two places and perhaps in some other places too, people were worried for some time. But these were no way even near to the bloodbath of Punjab or Jammu massacre.

Bengalis could have lived with the memories of these isolated incidents, and time would have healed that. There would have been a gradual shift towards a fair Hindu-Muslim equation in Bengal without much hardship for any community. A joint Bengali Hindu-Muslim society and culture would have flourished. But that was not to be.

A great prospect for the people

A United Bengal would actually have encouraged the entire northeast to join the independent state and make something like the third grouping of Cabinet Mission plan.

The Bengali and Assamese language and cultures are very close anyway, and Assam, a faraway place from Delhi, would not have any direct land connection to northern India due to the presence of big Bengal in between. Neither did it have any direct access to the sea.

Overall, an independent United Bengal would have been a great prospect for the people of the presidency, or even the entire eastern part of the sub-continent. It would have combined the energy of the rising Muslims with the knowledge and expertise of already advanced Hindus to a great effect.

It also would have reduced the suffering of people who migrated, by retaining them in their native places. It would have allowed the growth of a very promising independent democratic state in the eastern part of the sub-continent and, by now, that state would probably have been a major continental power in Asia.

But that one emotional call to divide Bengal in a historically watershed moment has jeopardized a lot of things of immense prospect.



Source



To help put this into perspective :

Population :

WB : 91 Million
BD : 164 Million

GDP (Nominal) :

WB : 180 Billion USD (19 - 20)
BD : 347.9 Billion USD (19 - 20)

GDP per Capita :

WB : 1500 USD
BD : 2065 USD


Bear in mind, West Bengal was historically the more well developed part of Bengal and had a more affluent and educated upper and middle class.

In the context of greater bengal this was a wishful thinking but it would never have come true. The leadership of Bengal would vehemently oppose the partition which consists mainly of upper class elites while vast majority of muslims were not represented at all. The upper class has a thought that their future lies in unity rather than the partition as back due to various reasons. And regarding cultural context the division was wide even after many portrays here about a unified thing.

Historical wirtings by the authors and the rebelion done by Titu mir proved that decisively.
 
.
There was a movement for an independent united Bengal before Pakistan became a contender. Some Hindu guy named bose made sure it died.
 
.
There is no point revisiting something that is settled once an for all probably for the better of both side of Bengal. we just can't ignore the ground realities as it stands today. I wish folks in West Bengal all the best luck.
 
Last edited:
.
Bangladesh in 47 should've been an independent republic of its own.

Even if today west Bengal becomes part of Bangladesh, then Bengalis will have their homeland similar to say Chinese or Koreans or say Germans etc.
 
.
Honesty speaking...

The partition movement started in Bangal... and who can forget DIRECT ACTION DAY...

Eastern and Western Muslims were unable to tolerate each other... which lead to the bifurcation in 1971... Hindus (including dalits) were too much to be TOLERATED by the PEACEFULS... and ratio of minorities is a FACT... compare 1947 with today...

So... nice ASSUMPTION...
 
.
There is no point revisiting something that is settled once an for all probably for the better for both side of Bengal. we just can't ignore the ground realities as it stands today. I wish folks in West Bengal all the best luck.
For the first time in the 50 years, some Bangladeshi writers are becoming interested about 1947 partition. This is obviously due to resurgence of hindutva politics in India which hugely capitalizes on 1947 partition Hindu victimhood narrative.

Personally I believe, it was better that we got separated from West Bengal. Otherwise we would be suffering from communal tension and a huge chunk of Indian loyal population among us. Which would have been detrimental for our national interests. There are only two things I consider should have different in 1947. First, we did not get any compensation for the loss of Calcutta. It was the capital of Bengal, largest city in South Asia, hub of everything in Bengal. East Bengal should have get some territorial compensation for it. For example, rather than dividing Muslim majority Dinajpur district among India and East Pakistan along communal line, it should have come entirely within east Pakistan.

Second is inclusion of Tripura, It was a pricely state totally dependent on East Bengal and a section of it's royal family was willing to merge with East Pakistan. It is within the belly of Bangladesh and even today only a single road connecting it with rest of India. There is no justification for Tripura to remain part of India, either geographic or economic. If our then Muslim League leadership showed some statesmanship of what shown by Sardar Patel for India, then our map on eastern side would have been a smooth north-south line, instead of a deep concave now. Tripura also would have been much better of. It's capital Agartala, lies 2500 km from Delhi, but only 140 km from Dhaka at the Bangladesh border.
1598160284500.png
 
Last edited:
. . .
There was a movement for an independent united Bengal before Pakistan became a contender. Some Hindu guy named bose made sure it died.
May be you are making a little mistake. There was no such thing as Movement for an United Bengal. Before the partition In 1947, the division/partition of India was supposed to be with full Punjab and full Bengal in Pakistan because these two Provinces had Muslims in majority.

But, the Sikh Akali Dal and Bengal Congress demanded the division of Punjab and Bengal on religion line. However, you can say there were talks/proposition/idea of a Bengal united with Assam/NE with Kolkata as Capital.

It was Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy who favored this. He was from Medinipur (?) of west Bengal. So, naturally-----. But, Bengal Congress and Nazimuddin opposed this. Nazimuddin opposed mainly because it would deny Dhaka as the new Capital of the eastern wing of Pakistan. After all, he was a native of Dhaka.
 
Last edited:
.
Instead of thinking about buts, ifs, whens, coulda, woulda and shoulda Bangladesh and Pakistan should strengthen their ties by all means and form a strong Muslim
Block on the Subcontinent. Hindus are not your and our friends (BD knows that) and we have to overcome our past and try to become brothers (and sisters) again.

The euros killed each other in endless wars and the Americans and the UK fought two wars against each other. They have great ties today, if they can do it, why can’t we?
 
.
May be you are making a little mistake. There was no such thing as Movement for an United Bengal. Before the partition In 1947, the division/partition of India was supposed to be with full Punjab and full Bengal in Pakistan because these two Provinces had Muslims in majority.

But, the Sikh Akali Dal and Bengal Congress demanded the division of Punjab and Bengal on religion line. However, you can say there were talks/proposition/idea of a Bengal united with Assam/NE with Kolkata as Capital.

It was Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy who favored this. He was from Medinipur (?) of west Bengal. So, naturally-----. But, Bengal Congress and Nazimuddin opposed this. Nazimuddin opposed mainly because it would deny Dhaka as the new Capital of the eastern wing of Pakistan. After all, he was a native of Dhaka.

This is way before independence, it dates back 1900 or late 1800. I'll try to find the reference.
 
.
This is way before independence, it dates back 1900 or late 1800. I'll try to find the reference.
By listening to the demands from the Muslim leaders of Bengal the British govt divided Bengal into two in 1905 and created East Bengal-Assam Province separate from the west Bengal Province. Dhaka was the new Capital for the East-Bengal-Assam Province. Go to Minto Road, all the old govt houses were built there at that time as residences of ministers of the new Province.

The educated Hindus started Movement to undo it. Khudiram was hanged at this time. Finally, Britishers nullified it and rejoined eastern Bengal with west Bengal again in 1910.

At this point, Nawab Salimullah convened a conference of Muslim leaders in Dhaka and invited all the then Muslim leaders from all over India. This is when the All-India Muslim League was established.
 
.
This is an eventuality.

Polity of '47 didn't allow for a non violent path to a unified Bengal reich.
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom