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

[Nilgiri]

I am a simple man. I look at the cards I have in my hand and try to play my best with whatever hand I am given.

I am happy with Bangladesh as it is. A united Bengal could have worked as well. And if Bangladesh remained a part of India, I would have tried my best as an Indian citizen. My paternal grandfather moved from Calcutta in his twenties leaving his relatives, his house and his job behind and relocated to Dhaka in 1947. I respect his decision. And I love Bangladesh as it is.

Have you visited your relatives on Indian side?

 

[Mage]

Have you visited your relatives on Indian side?

Never.

My grandfather used to visit India once in every 2-3 years, I have heard. I think my father visited them too as he's been to India many times. But the connection was weakening over the years. My Grandfather died long before I was born.

 

[jamahir]

The Mughal rule would have devolved into a representative rule.

What is happening now? Democracy is representing

"Representative democracy", like followed in India, Pakistan, Britain, USA etc is not real democracy.

Real democracy is "Direct democracy" like was the system in Libya until the 2011 war. The government of the people. Jamahiriya, from which I derive my user-name ( meaning propagator of the Jamahiriya system or one who lives in a Jamahiriya system ).

 

[Placemat]

"Representative democracy", like followed in India, Pakistan, Britain, USA etc is not real democracy.

Real democracy is "Direct democracy" like was the system in Libya until the 2011 war. The government of the people. Jamahiriya, from which I derive my user-name ( meaning propagator of the Jamahiriya system or one who lives in a Jamahiriya system ).

Are you for real? Libya? It was a dictatorship. Really I don't know about Libya but do know what happened to its ruler. There is no perfect govt system but some work well in the long term some dwell in the short term. East Asia calls themselves democracy but is not so really but it works well for their people for now.
But Libya c'mon

 

[Kandari-Hushiyaar]

Yes.

My father was a serving policeman. A friend of Suhrawardy, incidentally. You have a better source than that?

Considering that it was a Muslim League call, and considering that there was preparation on one side and not on the other, do you think that the Muslims would have been at the receiving end on the first day, and retaliated on the second day? Does that make sense even to you?

Well, For a Bangladeshi Who is a better source than Sheikh Mujib? I can only quote him. The call from Muslim league was not " about killing Hindus" but to demonstrate against the British. The riot took place because The Hindus came out as well against this planned demonstration. According to Him there were days of propaganda on both side before direct action day - Hindus were not sleeping at the morning as you meant so say. Sheikh Mujib wrote that The flag he hoisted at the dawn, was torn right after he left , and he would have killed if he had stayed at that place few minutes more. The Muslim activists who wanted to join the meeting "where allegedly weapons were distributed" were attacked before reaching that meeting in different parts of the city... Mujib himself received lot of injured activists in his hostel at the morning of direct action day.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

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.

A fifth column like yourself are free to go to India at anytime and be part Indian Union as much as you like. 99 percent Bangladeshis can not think joining India even in a bad dream.

 

[bluesky]

@ May be for that reason Chittagong Hill Tracts was given to East Bengal.

May not be the exact reason that CHT was given to east Pakistan. It was the remotest territory that was more suitable with Pakistan than with India.

It was the old Khulna District that was virtually exchanged with Murshidabad. Khulna had Khan Abdus Sabur Khan who fought tooth and nail to keep it with Pakistan. In exchange, Murshidabad was allotted to India. Murshidabad was Muslim-majority. On the contrary, Khulna was Hindu-majority.

Had Murshidabad a strong Muslim leader like Khan Abdus Sabur Khan it could have joined Pakistan without a doubt. Pakistan flag remained hoisted there for about four days before the Indian flag was raised.

 

[itsanufy]

My impression and my information is that the Marwari was kept out of East Bengal by the Saha bene community almost entirely.

1. He, and his brother, Hussain Shaheed, were the kingpins of Calcutta gangland society, certainly those from the central Calcutta areas ranging up to Baghbazar in the north, and in the pockets of Watgunge and Khidirpur. There were Hindu gangs elsewhere. My grandfather, the professor, had his pocket picked and lost his watch, the loss of which was a heavy blow for a not lavishly paid professor. He presented himself to Hussain Saheb, and the watch was restored the next morning.
2. He delivered that threatening speech on the day, during the first half, at a meeting in the Maidan, near the Monument. While he was winding up his speech, weapons were being handed out. There was definitely a demonstration of some sort intended.
3. The first violence broke out soon after the crowd started dispersing. For about three hours, there was a one-sided slaughter of Hindus.
4. Suhrawardy went to the control room at Lalbazar. This was the part that was controversial. He says that he went there to gain an appreciation of the situation; there were dark stories that he obstructed the actions of the police. The Police Commissioner of the time did not distinguish himself by his actions.
5. The Sikhs, who were present in much, much larger numbers then than today, had gathered themselves by then. They joined the Bihari milkmen and Bengali Hindu gangsters, and began retaliation by around six in the evening.
6. The tide was definitely against the Muslims. Some of the most horrific slaughter happened at this stage.
7. When the Army was called out, there had been a great deal of slaughter already. At the earlier stages, the soldiers were nowhere to be seen. As has been pointed out, in any British administration, and in the succeeding Indian administration, the Army is not entitled to even take notice of civil disturbance until it is asked to intervene, through a chain of command very clearly defined and that cannot be short-circuited.
8. Who was responsible for their late calling out is not known very clearly. Did Suhrawardy oppose it or delay it? There is no evidence to that effect. Did Suhrawardy expedite it? Again, nothing.
9. Tuker himself gives a strange account. He claims to have seen Sikhs being transported into the city on lorries. That is a ridiculous story, to imply that they were imported from elsewhere; those familiar with Calcutta will ask where that distant location was, as Calcutta is next to Howrah, and then there is nothing for miles, until Burnpur, Durgapur (a post-independence development) and Asansol. On the other hand, Sikhs lived all over the city, in large numbers; they only left after the 1984 riots, that did not affect their physical security in Bengal, but that weakened their confidence outside the Punjab because of the ghastly goings on in north India.

I don't think your sources could have said anything more than to say that he delivered the lecture, he was the Prime Minister (of Bengal), and he was therefore responsible. The chain of evidence is not conclusive. Afterwards, one year later, he supported Gandhi fully. If you have more than this, do share it with us.



Since when was Shyama Prasad Mukherjee a 'popular' leader? Other than the Hindu Mahasabha, not rooted in Bengal, whom did he lead? Second, do you know his record in the Assembly against Fazlul Huq? And what he was plotting, and the wording of the resolution that he moved against Huq Sahib?



Very, VERY misleading.

I request you to read the account of the arrangement that was made for the determination of the wishes of the people, by polling the elected representatives. Please read how the assembly was divided into two, and how the votes were taken separately. Please check for yourself the wording of the resolutions to be voted on. There is a lot of interesting detail; it is appropriate that you learn about it before coming to a conclusion.



Prafulla Ghosh had nothing to do with the Hindu Mahasabha; it was Shyama Prasad.



By that line of thinking, the Chittagong Hill Tracts should have been excluded.



Thank you for your expert comments telling us what we were grateful for.

1. Agreed, Marwaris were nobody.
2. Agreed to most part. I have read a narration by respceted scribe Sankar ghosh (founding member of Press Club, Kolkata). He had pointed that Suhrawardy stopped police in taking actions. Even Commisonior was astonished by his action.
3. I have no problem in dropping 'Popular' from SP. But before Indipendence he was elected multiple times as an Indipendent legislature, other than getting elected from CU. Some short of mass following was there for him. IMO he was popular.
Not defending him, just a fact, his ideology got completely changed after Gandhi's Assassination.
4. From WIKI "On 20 June 1947, the Bengal Legislative Assembly met to decide on the partition of Bengal. At the preliminary joint meeting, it was decided by 120 votes to 90 that the province, if it remained united, should join the "new Constituent Assembly" (Pakistan). At a separate meeting of legislators from West Bengal, it was decided by 58 votes to 21 that the province should be partitioned and that West Bengal should join the "existing Constituent Assembly" (India). At a separate meeting of legislators from East Bengal, it was decided by 106 votes to 35 that the province should not be partitioned and 107 votes to 34 that East Bengal should join the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in the event of partition.[11]".

May not be the exact reason that CHT was given to east Pakistan. It was the remotest territory that was more suitable with Pakistan than with India.

It was the old Khulna District that was virtually exchanged with Murshidabad. Khulna had Khan Abdus Sabur Khan who fought tooth and nail to keep it with Pakistan. In exchange, Murshidabad was allotted to India. Murshidabad was Muslim-majority. On the contrary, Khulna was Hindu-majority.

Had Murshidabad a strong Muslim leader like Khan Abdus Sabur Khan it could have joined Pakistan without a doubt. Pakistan flag remained hoisted there for about four days before the Indian flag was raised.

Murshidabad was traded for Khulna. Popular version is to save Calcutta port.
CHT a 97% non muslim majority was given to Pakistan, official version they were inaccessible to India. Again popular version is to have E Pakistan to have diff neighbour than India. Malda a slight Muslim majority, but was divided and was traded for it.

 

[jamahir]

Are you for real? Libya? It was a dictatorship. Really I don't know about Libya but do know what happened to its ruler. There is no perfect govt system but some work well in the long term some dwell in the short term. East Asia calls themselves democracy but is not so really but it works well for their people for now.
But Libya c'mon

The Libyan system for decades was similar to India's very own Aam Aadmi Party's concept of "Swaraj" : decentralized rule by the people, for the people.

Read this post of mine from January 2016 to understand the Libyan system roughly. Read also the articles quoted in that post and then the OP for that thread.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, For a Bangladeshi Who is a better source than Sheikh Mujib? I can only quote him. The call from Muslim league was not " about killing Hindus" but to demonstrate against the British. The riot took place because The Hindus came out as well against this planned demonstration. According to Him there were days of propaganda on both side before direct action day - Hindus were not sleeping at the morning as you meant so say. Sheikh Mujib wrote that The flag he hoisted at the dawn, was torn right after he left , and he would have killed if he had stayed at that place few minutes more. The Muslim activists who wanted to join the meeting "where allegedly weapons were distributed" were attacked before reaching that meeting in different parts of the city... Mujib himself received lot of injured activists in his hostel at the morning of direct action day.

Who will contradict Bongobondhu?

ভাই আমার, এইখানে কোনো জোর জবরদস্তি'র ব্যাপার তো নাই। আপনি প্রথমেই যা বলসেন তাই থাক; মুজিব'রে ভুল দেখাইয়া কার কি লাভ! ৩০ লক্ষ বীরাঙ্গনা যদি হইতে পারে, এতেই বা আপত্তি কিসের?
এই বিষয়ে যা কইসি, তাতেই থাক।
মনে রাইখেন আমার বাবা সুহরাবর্দি সাহেবের বন্ধু সিলেন শত্রু নন, আমার ঠাকুরদাদা ফজলুল হক সাহেবের সেই ভাবে বন্ধু সিলেন, আমরা শত্রু-পক্ষ নই।

 

[dray / Rain Man]

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.

Marwaris? That's a stupid but convenient way to whitewash the truth. Two things have caused most of the divides, persecution, and genocide around the world throughout history; religion, and politics. And both religion and politics (with greed for power) played a role in partition of India, religious divide was always there, and Jinnah wanted power.

 

[khanmubashir]

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.

But still.your majority voted to join Pakistan in 47
As for 71 yes atrocities were committed but from both sides as mentioned in book dead reckoning by NRI Oxford professor shermila bose and deaths were in 1000s not millions sonny

 

[Nilgiri]

"Representative democracy", like followed in India, Pakistan, Britain, USA etc is not real democracy.

Real democracy is "Direct democracy" like was the system in Libya until the 2011 war. The government of the people. Jamahiriya, from which I derive my user-name ( meaning propagator of the Jamahiriya system or one who lives in a Jamahiriya system ).

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Guess what, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro all had "direct democracy" too...."people councils" and all that stuff. Simply letting the riffraff play with their little lego block optics for the most ineffectual bottom rung of power (that too by inserting your lackeys and controlled opposition there in first place....or just having one party exist in first place)...mean ZILCH. Real Democracy only begins if the people can put leaders into place right at the highest most powerful levels. NEVER happened with gaddafi the moron...and he got his comeuppance for it at the end (as much as I despise that movement that did such as well).

@Joe Shearer

 

[bluesky]

Murshidabad was traded for Khulna. Popular version is to save Calcutta port.
CHT a 97% non muslim majority was given to Pakistan, official version they were inaccessible to India. Again popular version is to have E Pakistan to have diff neighbour than India. Malda a slight Muslim majority, but was divided and was traded for it.

Yes, it was inaccessible to India. Reality is, even Tripura is inaccessible to it. Dinajpur (east in BD and west), Nadia (Kushtia in BD and Nadia) and probably Sylhet/Karimganj districts were also divided into two.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. Guess what, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro all had "direct democracy" too...."people councils" and all that stuff. Simply letting the riffraff play with their little lego block optics for the most ineffectual bottom rung of power (that too by inserting your lackeys and controlled opposition there in first place....or just having one party exist in first place)...mean ZILCH. Real Democracy only begins if the people can put leaders into place right at the highest most powerful levels. NEVER happened with gaddafi the moron...and he got his comeuppance for it at the end (as much as I despise that movement that did such as well).

@Joe Shearer

Here I have to agree with @Nilgiri. People's democracies have never been truly representative of the people. The reason is that they are uniformly based on the 'civil contract' as being between the state and one class at a time. In contrast, in a liberal democracy, it is considered to be between the state and an individual. In people's democracies, it is always about an individual's class character. Nowhere has it been other than tyrannical, in an irreversible sense, quite different from what we see in a liberal democracy. Even in a hugely imperfect one such as India, as the last round of state elections hinted.

@jbgt90

Yes, it was inaccessible to India. Reality is, even Tripura is inaccessible to it. Dinajpur (east in BD and west), Nadia (Kushtia in BD and Nadia) and probably Sylhet/Karimganj districts were also divided into two.

Most of the Mizo rebels walked into their hospitable camps in the CHT. How was it inaccessible if the Mizo Hills themselves were accessible? And even Tripura, what used to be known as Hill Tipperah, is perfectly accessible; roads were rough then all over the place. For that matter, Bastar was even less accessible than CHT or Tripura. I can't take that 'inaccessible' bit too seriously.

As a result of Dinajpur being divided, a portion of Purnea had to be attached to West Bengal in the 50s, to afford contiguity. Before that, there was a gap, and coming to and going from North Bengal (Cooch Behar, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling) meant traversing a bit of Bihar; in other words, East Pakistan had Bihar as a neighbour on part of its borders, with West Bengal before and after. The present district map of West Bengal or whatever Didi calls it nowadays shows Uttar Dinajpur (the Bihari portion) and Dakshin Dinajpur (headquartered in Balurghat) as two districts.

Sylhet/Karimganj being divided left the Cachar Valley uneasily embedded in Assam. It is a peculiar pocket of very high literacy in a not otherwise educationally distinguished hinterland. Getting students from there was a target for every university that wanted good students capable of good results and therefore good for the name and reputation of the university. Coincidentally, I live near an entirely different Karimganj today; this one is in Telengana.