Social Scientist

Partition Revisited Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-47 by Joya Chatterji Review by: Subho Basu Social Scientist, Vol. 26, No. 11/12 (Nov. - Dec., 1998), pp. 114-118 Published by: Social Scientist Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517663 . Accessed: 31/10/2011 04:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEW

PartitionRevisited

and Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism Partition, 1932-47, by Joya Chatterji,CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 303+xvii. Existing studies of the partition of British India have tended to emphasise on the tripartitenegotiations between the colonial state, the IndianNational Congressand the Muslim Leagueprecedingthe transfer of power to the independent governments of India and Pakistan. The creation of these two new nations from among the ruinsof Britain'sIndianempirehas been represented historiansof by all shades of opinion as the culminating triumph of the activities undertakenby Muslimseparatistsbetween 1930-47. Joya Chatterji's book is a refreshingaddition to this voluminous historiography.Its primarycontribution lies essentially in providing us with alternate axes for analysingthe divisionof Bengal,a Muslimmajorityprovince. Chatterjiencourages us to locate the roots of the partition in the increasinglyvocal communalismsespousedby the Hindu bhadralok. Apart from highlighting their campaign for the division of their homeland (which she attributesto their attempts to regain greater institutional power from Muslim politicians), she also shows the connivance of the Congress high-commandin articulating 'Hindu demands'. A substantial section of the book studies the development of a sense of communityamong the 'class' of Hindu bhadralok,which is seenby the authoras a productof theirperception theireducational, of and consequentcultural, ascendancyin Bengal. Chatterjiviews this as an outcome of a systemwhere a regularincomewas derivedby the tenureholdings,providingthem bhadrolokas rentfrom intermediary with the time and the materialresourcesto pursuehighereducation. This resulted, according to Chatterji, in their holding a virtual monopoly over appointments to the lower-level bureaucracy, structures.The influence reinforcingtheir presencein administrative

PARTITION REVISITED

115

of the Hindu bhadralokwas bred by this and manifested itself in various'realms',most noticeablythat of 'culture'.Bhadralok cultural idioms were to draw a markeddifferencesbetween their 'class' and that of the 'other' bengalis:the Muslims. However, this dominance did not manifest itself politically in the period after 1932 as the in 'communalaward'introduced thatyearreducedthe BengaliHindus to a statutory minority in the Bengal legislature. According to Chatterji,bhadralokpoliticians instead of confronting the colonial state for engineeringsuch an ingenious 'award' blamed their fellow BengaliMuslims for the award. Chatterjialso underlinesthe inability of the Bengal Congressto form an alliance with the Muslim tenant dominated KrishakProja Partyafter 1937 election due to its refusalto give primacyto peasant welfare. This, in her opinion, gave rise to political understanding betweenthe KrishakProjaPartyand the Muslim Leagueand resulted in the creation of a new ministry which, Chatterji has argued, concentrated on promoting the interests of the Muslim tenantry througha plethoraof legislation.All this happenedin a period when the incomesfromlandholdingsweredecliningsteadilydue to a worldwide depression. Chatterji maintains that the Muslim League's attemptsto impose a moratoriumon the collection of rent arrears and its championingof the cancellationof outstanding debts owed by peasantsfortifiedthe Hindubhadraloks' oppositionto the 'League The bhadralokwere furtherincensedby the gradualrise in ministry'. Muslim representation in the local boards even in the Hindu dominated districts of West Bengal by the nomination of Muslim membersby the existing administration. A section of the book also describesbhadralokattempts to win over low caste Hindus to counter the growing Muslim influence. who constituted Chatterji arguesthatit was difficultfor the bhadralok, a small minority of the Hindus in Bengal, to speak for the entire Hinducommunityin orderto resistthe 'Muslim legislativeonslaught' on their privileges.She links this up with their attempts to mobilise low caste Hindu peasants (whom they otherwise despised for their low caste background).Accordingto her,this caused the bhadralok to initiatevarious social reformmovementsto uplift the ritual status of the lower castes within the Hindu caste hierarchyand proselytise semi-Hindutribals. linksup the changesin the social and economic Chatterji effectively in Bengal under the league period with the changes in the spheres strategies of the Congress party. The association of the Congress,

116

SOCIALSCIENTIST

to of with the interests rentieraristocracy seriously according Chatterji, limitedtheir capacityof mobilisingthe peasantson economic issues. She points out that Bose brothers' attempt to radicalise Congress alienatedmany bhadraloksupporters.Chatterjimaintainsthat Bose brothers'exit from the provincialCongressunderpressurefrom high command was welcomed by the activists of Bengal Congress and their bhadraloksupportedthe partition agitation by the bhadralok Bengalis. to contribution the existingliterature DespiteChatterji's significant on the natureof Bengalpolitics in the closing decadesof the Raj, one may feel uncomfortablewith her representationof the communal award as a cultural and a political watershedin the transformation of Bengalibhadraloks'nationalisminto communalism.For example, her attempt to link up the communalsocial and political realities of Bengalin 1930s with allegedly'communal'Hindu attempt to revise nationalist historiographyof Siraj (the last independentnawab of Bengal)as a symbolof nationalhero,is farfetched.Hinduconservative opinion in Bengalhad always been suspiciousof all attempts to use symbols associated with Muslim rule to mobilise support against In Britishimperialism. the late nineteenthcenturya section of Bengali bhadralokactively protested against Nabin Chandra'sportrayal of Sirajin PalasirJudhaas a tragicfigureand the battle of Plasseyas the beginning of enslavement of India by alien rulers. This evidence contradicts Chatterji'sargumentthat communal narrativeswritten only duringthe 30s and 40s reworkedthe nationalisthistoriography in orderto directtheirhostilityagainstthe Muslims.Hindu nationalist writings, in contrast to more seeminglysecularprojectsof left wing Congressmen like like SubhasBose and JawaharlalNehru, always portrayedMuslim rulersas sinisterdespots. in similarities styleand idiom Chatterji's proposesthat "[w]hatever between nationalist rhetoric and Hindu communal posturings, the differences critical."[p.268] "Nationalism" are accordingto her "was directed against imperialism,and gave top priority to anti-British actionwhile [t]hecommunalism the bhadralok directedagainst of was their fellow Bengalis."[p.268] This formulationmay invite serious criticism. In Bengal it is difficult to recognise a clear distinction between nationalist discourses and Hindu communalism. Various trends within Indian nationalist movement in Bengal were product of Hindu revivalismof the late nineteenthcentury.Hindu revivalism createda new myth of Hindu valour not in the distant glorious past of ancient India but in the history of the fight of Rajput chleftains

PARTITION REVISITED

117

against 'Muslim' rulers.BengaliHindu revoluitonaries,who played a significantrole in the anti-colonialstruggle,took inspirationfrom these Hindu heroes and, not unnaturally,many of them exhibited uninhibited hostility to Muslims. Members of Karmi Sangha, the followers of C.R. Das, playedthe most significantrole revolutionary in rescindingthe Bengalpact afterDas' death. Duringthe 1946 riots in Calcutta many formerBengalrevolutionariesled the most brutal attackson Muslims. It is perhapsimportantto recognisethe fact that thereneverexisted one uniformnationalistdiscourseeven duringthe height of the anti-imperialist struggles.Thereexisted a distinct body of patriotic literaturewhich were not anti-imperialistin their tone and content but the authorsof these texts also perceivedthemselves as nationalists. Chatterji's emphasison 1930s as a decadewhen Hindu communal discourse appropriatednationalist writings and reworked it subtly towardsa notion of Hindu identityalso deservesa greaterscrutiny.It ignores the complex and complicated patterns of developments in Bengali culture in the 1930s. For example, in 1930s a significant to numberof Bengaliwritersaddednew radicaldimensions nationalist discoursesin Bengal. Satinath Tarashankar Bhaduri, Bandapadhyaya, evolved a new tradition SubodhGhosh and Manik Bhandapadhaya in Bengalinovel writingthat for the firsttime broughtforthin Bengali literaturethe hitherto ignored domain of tribals, workers, miners and boatmen.Jibananda Das, Sudhindranath Datta, Buddhadev Basu, Premendra Mitraand ManikBandapadhaya revoltedin theirwritings against notions of sexual purity of women before marriage,family in normsandconceptof love as prescribed putative'Hindu'traditions. Thus in 1930s one also notices a new iconoclasm among young bhadralokwho challengedthe so called Hindu traditions and tried to create a more seculararenaof culturalactivities. It was this new wave of literaryactivitiesthat might have spurredSaratChandrain writing Bipradas as a defence of 'Hindu values' which Chatterji cites as an exampleof construction new Hinduidentity of erroneously as opposed to Muslims. This new developmentin cultural and literary spheres was not without significance in Bengal politics. Trade unions, peasant organisations,cultural associations, student federations and youth movementsmushroomedin the 1930s and 40s. Not only suddhiand sangathan organisationsworked to incorporate lower classes into the fold of Hinduism but also there existed secular traditions of and protestsand resistance againstzamindary uppercaste domination

118

SOCIALSCIENTIST

which gained momentumfrom the late 1930s. Finallyone may feel that Chatterjioveremphasisesthe bhadralokstrategyof mobilisation of lower castes.Whilethis view analysesbhadralokmotivescorrectly, it does not take into account the lower castes' perception of their participationin bhadraloksponsoredagitation. Despite these limitations, Bengal divided ... makes a significant of contributionto the understanding the tragic event of the second of Bengal.It challenges stereotype Muslimseparatists the that partition were solely responsible for the partition of Bengal. This work has thus wider political implicationsin the debatesrelated to the future of secularismin India.

Subho Basu SeniorMember,Wolfron College Universityof Cambridge

Indian
in for

People
Struggle Freedom

the

A collection of five essays Irfan Habib, K.N. Panikkar, Amit Kumar Gupta by with an introduction by Prabhat Patnaik
Price:Rs. 70

Orderyour copies from: SAHMAT VithalbhaiPatel House, RafiMarg 8, New Delhi 110 001