This is an interesting article, a final piece to add to the Bangladesh series of articles.
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/271202/editor/opi3.htm
Dr Noor ul Haq
India takes the credit of having shed blood for the creation of an independent Bangladesh. In retrospect, we come to know that an independent state comprising united Bengal along with the Andaman and Nicobar islands was agreed to in May 1947, by some Muslim League leaders and approved by the British Cabinet’s India and Burma Committee, for presentation in the next session of British Parliament for enactment. When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the Indian National Congress learnt of this, they rejected the proposal forcefully.
Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, the then Bengal Chief Minister, had championed the cause of a united and Greater Bengal because, according to him, the people of West and East Bengal had business interests in both parts, spoke the same language and were bound by ties of life and cultural affinities. He felt that a united Bengal could be a great nation and, if divided, contempt by the rest of India would be their lot.
Suhrawardy confirmed to Lord Mountbatten, the British Viceroy, that the Quaid-i-Azam would agree to Bengal not joining Pakistan if it was to remain united. According to him, the Quaid considered a united independent Bengal better than an East Pakistan without Calcutta, because he was sure that an independent Bengal would be “on friendly terms” with Pakistan. Liaquat Ali Khan also believed in a united independent Bengal.
When discussing the Bengal question with Mountbatten, Suhrawardy also emphasised having a separate Army for Bengal. Earlier it had been realised that, unlike the Muslim Northwest, the Muslims of the Northeast suffered from lack of representation in the armed forces.
Accordingly, Suhrawardy wanted to establish a Military Training College in the province and create a Bengali Regiment. The Bengal Council also passed a resolution to this effect in February 1947). But the idea could not make headway as the Congress forcefully rejected it.
Whereas Muslims wanted a united Bengal, the opinion among Hindu leaders was mostly against it. Karan Shankar Roy, leader of opposition in the Bengal Legislative Assembly told Bengal’s Governor Burrows in March 1947 that it was “inconceivable that Bengal should stand by itself as an independent state” and it was not possible for Hindus to cooperate if the Muslim majority made that an issue.
The idea of a united Bengal with a “Constitution on a fifty-fifty basis” corresponding roughly to the status of “Quebec in the Canadian Constitution” was not acceptable to the Congress Working Committee. They insisted in May that Calcutta and the western districts of Bengal must join the Indian Union. Yet some left wing Congress leaders, such as K.S. Roy and Sarat Chandra Bose of Bengal, were favourably disposed towards the idea of a united independent Bengal.
Mountbatten however gladly supported the idea of a united Bengal. Perhaps the idea of a secular state of Bengal was more acceptable to him than a purely Muslim state of Bengal, or perhaps in this proposal he saw the military supremacy of Hindu India, or perhaps he wanted the Indian Armed Forces to remain united and intact so as to be useful in the global defence of the British Empire, because he told Suhrawardy that it would take five years to divide the Army. Already, the British press was highlighting the difficulties of dividing the Army and creating two new armies for India and Pakistan.
Mountbatten was so keen to have a united Bengal that he asked Governor Burrows how to get the agreement of the Hindus. With a view to avoiding any possible opposition from the leadership of the All-India Muslim League, he argued in May before the Quaid and Liaquat that East and West Bengal were interdependent and partition would ruin them both. Mountbatten conveyed to Burrows that he was “delighted” that the idea of a united Bengal was progressing so well.
Mountbatten informed the India and Burma Committee of the British Cabinet that Bengal’s Governor and Muslim League Chief Minister, were for a united Bengal on the basis of “joint electorate and a Coalition Government.” The Viceroy was told that the Quaid was agreeable to considering it a “subsidiary Pakistan.” However, the Viceroy was of the opinion that Sylhet, which was a Muslim majority area, would not be allowed to join Bengal because it would throw the communal composition of the state out of balance and Hindus would overthrow the agreement. Accordingly he recommended the creation of three independent states of Pakistan, India and Bengal.
The India and Burma Committee approved the proposal of three independent states. An 11-page printed ‘Draft of a Bill’ dated May 8, 1947 envisaged three dominions, viz., ‘Hindustan,’ ‘Pakistan’ and the ‘Free State of Bengal,’ each of which was to be an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The territories of the Free State of Bengal were to include the Province of Bengal and the Chief Commissioner’s Province of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The assets including Armed Forces were to be divided between these three states.
Mountbatten brought the printed draft as already approved by the Cabinet Committee from London. When he reached Simla in the evening, he handed over a copy to Nehru, who was already staying there. The next morning Nehru showed his annoyance to the Viceroy. He expressed his indignation in writing through a letter and a note, both dated 11 May 1947 at Simla, rejecting the idea of the independent state of Bengal.
He threatened the Viceroy that it would lead to “worsening of relations between India and Britain”. He further stated: “H.M.G. [His Majesty’s Government] seems to function in an ivory tower of their own isolated from realities in India. They proceed apparently on certain assumptions which have little relevance and ignore the basic factors of situation in India.” And the “obvious consequences of the proposal” would be “to invite the Balkanization of India,” he added. He also told the Viceroy that the reaction of his colleagues in the Congress would be even more hostile.
Mountbatten, who was friendly to Nehru and the Congress, submitted to their wishes and telegrammed to the British Government that a “bombshell” has fallen. This was in obvious reference to the opposition of the Congress. Even later efforts by Mountbatten for the ‘Free State of Bengal’ did not bear any fruit. Thus the creation of an independent Bangladesh, which was to include the provinces of Bengal and Andaman and Nicobar islands, was denied in 1947.
Email comments and queries to: [email protected]
Life is full of surprises!
Good information
Zakk,
You seem to find some interesting little articles. This is a good one.
A very interesting article. Some things confuse me though. How legitimate would a call for a secular united Bengal sound alongside a call for a Punjab/rest of the subcontinent divided along religious lines?
If "the people of West and East Bengal had business interests in both parts, spoke the same language and were bound by ties of life and cultural affinities", how about the millions who would be forced to migrate to a completely different part leaving behind their trade and cultural ties behind forever?