Bengal Muslim Thought (1818-1947) Pardip Kumar Lahiri
Bengali Muslim Thought
1818-1947
Its Liberal and Rational Trends
Pradip Kumar Lahiri
K P BAGCHI & COMPANY
CALCUTTA NEWDELHI
First published 1991
K P Bagchi & Company
286, B.B. Ganguli Street, Calcutta 700012
1-1698, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi 110019
© Pradip Kumar Lahiri
ISBN 81-707-067-3
The Publication of this book has been financially supported by the Indian Council of Historical Research. The responsibility for the facts stated or opinions expressed is entirely of the Author, and not of the Council.
Composed by Shagun Composers, 92-B, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029
Printed at Chaman Enterprises, R-69, Ramesh Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
In Sacred Memory of my father
PRAMATHA NATH LAHIRI
Contents
INTRODUCTION Page ix
I The Features of the Bengali Muslim Society and their impact on the Political Thought in the Nineteenth Century 1
II The Impact of Islamic Revivalism upon thoughts of the Bengali Muslims in the Nineteenth Century 26
III A Change in the Bengali Muslim’s Political Ideas in the Late Nineteenth Centrury 39
IV Ideas of the Bengalis Muslims towards Constitutional Politics and the Partition of 1905 61
1
INTRODUCTION Page ix
V The Bengali Muslims and the Khilafat Ideas 84
VI The Post Khilafat Era (1924-1936)—A Period of Confrontation between Orthodox Rational and Communist Ideas 101
VII Consolidation of the Orthodox Communal Elements centering round the Muslim League 1937-1947 130
CONCLUSION 165
BIBLIOGRAPHY 169
GLOSSARY 180
ABBREVIATION 182
INDEX 183
Introduction
The subject undertaken for the dissertation work is the study of political thought of the educated urban Muslim community of Bengal during the period under the British rule. The commencing year 1818 bears a chronological significance as the Faraizi-Wahhabi movements started in 1818 and involved the Muslims in direct poltical confrontation with the British Government. The concluding year 1947 is equally significant as it withnessed the political division of the entire sub-continent. The long period has been selected for research work, in order to study the evolution of political ideas of the urban Muslim intelligentsia of Bengal in different phases of history under the British rule. So far so I know, no other scholar as yet has made any effort to analyse the political thought process of the urban Muslim intellectuals of Bengal during the period under review.
The purpose of the study is to survey the political thought of the educated urban Muslim community of Bengal. The political thought of the urban Muslim intellectuals has been traced as reflected in their speeches, writings, views on the pattern of education. Objectives of their associations, agitational politics, approaches to development of the Muslim community, national problems and their relations with other major religious communities and to assess the liberal, rational, orthodox and humanistic trends contained in it. The trends of political thoughts have been studied while tracing the different features of the political thought of the educated urban Muslim intellectuals of Bengal.
The term ‘Muslims’ and ‘Hindus’ used in the thesis required little clarifications. The ‘Muslims’ and ‘Hindus’ were not homogeneous entities. Both the communities were divided into different sections. Each section differed widely from others with regard to their beliefs, development and ideas. The terms ‘Muslim’ and ‘Hindus’ used in the study denote the educated upper and middle class sections of the urban society belonging to two major communities of Bengal. They were the products of the British rule. Many of them adopted English education ans Western sciences. The broad categorization is taken up to explain the political ideas of the Muslims and to trace main trends of political thought among different sections of the Muslim population. The study takes into consideration of the ideasof the dominant non-Bengali urban Muslim elite of Bengal who joined hands with the upper and middle class urban Bengali Muslims to participate in the political life of the country.
The terms, ‘rational’, ‘liberal’, ‘orthodox’ and ‘humanistic’ used in the study need some clarifications.
2
The term ‘rational’ should be meant to rely on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth. A rational intellectual should be sensible and moderate in his views. He should believe in reason and experience as the fundamental criteria for these solution of problems confronting the society. The idea to adopt Western education and science for the welfare of a community should be taken as a qualification of a rational intellectual.
The term ‘liberal’ should be construed as a broad minded, tolerant and non-sectarian outlook, not bound by orthodoxy or traditional forms. The political intellectuals belonging to this group should be generally unprejudiced, open-minded and believe in communal harmony. They should accept issues aiming at the welfare of all sections in the society and development of Indian natioanlity.
The term ‘Orthodox’ is used in the work to denote ideas of established religious or political groups. It refers to the section in the society who believed in established doctrine in religion. The orthodox impact in the Muslim society can be traced in the ideas of the Muslim divines and community oriented ideas of the Muslim intellectuals.
The term ‘humanistic’ is used in the work refers to intellectuals who asserted dignity and worth of man, promoted human welfare and social reforms.
It may be mentioned that the liberal and rational trends in the thoughts of the Muslim had its origin in the medieval period of India. Bengal’s association with Islam is an ancient one. The Muslims of the Middle East were associated with the people of East Bengal thorough the medium of trade and missionary work long before the advent of the Turks. Islam in its march to propress adopted contributions from the states of the Arabic world, the Byzantine Empire and liberal Europe. The impact of the Greek ideas, Vedantic philosophy, Buddhist and Hindu ideas can be discerned in the ideas of the Muslims. In spite of emphasis on the Holy Law and Holy War (Sharia and Jihad) during the Muslim rule in India, a sense of Liberal, rational and humanistic considerations were found in the attitude of the Muslim monarchs towards state and society.
The Muslim occupation of India was marked by the political subjugation on one side and socio-religious assimilations on the other. The liberal measures of the Turko-Afghan rulers, the encouragement given to religious literature of the Hindus by the Iliyas and Hussain Shahis of Bengal and the initiation of the Bhakti movement based on the essential unity of Islam and Hinduism paved the way to attain liberal ideas. The mission for Sulh Kul or peace for all and the Din-i-Ilahi initiated by Akbar inaugurated a process of assimilation of different faiths. Dara Shiko, the great grandson of Akbar was a Sufi scholar, translated the Gita and the Upanisad into Persian. His Majma-ul-Baharain (Mingling of the Oceans) or a comparative study of Islam and Hinduism, was a great contribution to promote peace and concord between the Hindus and Muslims.1 The Sufis or Mystics contributed to initiate liberal trend and cultural fusion with Hinduism in Bengal. In spite of the opposition of Aurongjeb and Nagshbandi school, the liberal trend remained active among the Muslims during the late medieval period. The process of liberal trend was discerned in the evolution of popular religions. The followers of the popular religion were ‘neither the Hindus nor Muslims but a mixture of both’. Long before the advent of Rammohun Roy the liberal group led by Karam Shah, Poet Lalan, Dodraj of Nornowl, Paltu Saheb of Faizabad preached the gospel of love, fraternity in religion and denounced idolatry. The liberal trend sustained a setback during the British rule as a result of the movements and initiation of communal ideas in the political life of the country. A small minority among the Muslims were found following liberal and rational ideas during the period under review.
1. K.R. Qanungo, Dara Shukoh, Vol. I, pp. xi-xiii.
3
An important feature in this thought movement was that the political ideas of the Muslim politicians and theologians of north India moulded the political ideas of the Muslim elite of Bengal, although the Muslims of Bengal had a long heritage and their association with Islam was of much longer duration than their counterpart of north India. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Karamat Ali, the Caliphs of Patna, Syed Ameer Ali, Sir Ameer Hossein, Abdul Jabbar, Abul Kalam Azad, Mohammed Ali, Shaukat Ali, M.A. Jinnah and others influenced the thoughts of the Urban Muslim intellectuals of Bengal but they did not belong to Bengal. The Bengali Muslims were greatly influenced by the exponents of the Aligarh and Deobond schools and the Pan-Islamic ideas. The Muslim intellectuals of Bengal played a significant role in the political life of the state but they could hardly initiate independent political ideas. They had to subscribe to the views of their counterpart of north India. The Muslim league played a vital role in moulding the political ideas of the urban Muslim elite of Bengal.
The work has primarily dealt with the political thought of the urban Muslim intellectuals, still an attempt has been made to establish co-relations in the political ideas of both the urban made to establish co-relations in the political ideas of both the urban and rural Muslims. The impact of the writings of Sir W.W. Hunter, Rev. J. Long, the Aligarh and Deobond schools and the British machinations manifested in the thoughts of the urban Muslims a sectarian outlook and a spirit of exclusiveness. The common rural masses remained at the initial stage outside the impact. The reformist movements, process of Islamization, gradual alienation from the Hindus, economic weakness of the Muslim community and propagation of ideological ideas developed awarness among the rural Muslims. In this context the Mullahs, Ullamas, Anjumans and organisation of the Bahas, Waz-Mahfils or religious meetings in the rural areas helped to spread orthodox ideas and sectarian outlook. The movement for the identity of the Muslims and two-nation theory placed greater section, both among the urban and rural Muslims under one banner. In this way a synthesis of ideas of the elite and non-elite sections in the Muslim society was established.
In this work I have attempted to analyse the features of the Bengali society, contributions of the Muslim writers and role of the pioneres of the Bengal renaissance to find out basic issues involved in the subject. The trends of Muslim political thought have been analysed taking into considerations of the land system, nature of education imparted to the Muslim, role of the Muslim divines, writings of the British officials and missionaries, uneven development of the Hindus and Muslims, revivalist movements, policy of the British Government to the Muslim intelligentsia in the late nineteenth century. The attitude of the Muslim elite towards constitutional politics, Partition of 1905 and the Khilafat movement have been examined in the context of different trends of political thought. The thoughts of the urban Muslim political intellectuals have been analysed in the post-Khilafat era to trace different trends of political thought.
The research work has been prepared on the basis of the records and files of the Government of India and Government of Bengal (1818-1947). The Proceedings of the Judicial Department, records of the Partition of Bengal (1905), Khilafat movement, debates of the Legislative Assembly and Councils have been examined. The contemporary journals, newspapers, and literature has been studied. The writings of both the Muslim and non-Muslim writers have been studied amd incorporated in the thesis. The writings and speeches of writers like Mir Mosharraf Hossain, Reazuddin Ahmad Mushadi, Muhammad Lutfar Rahman, Kazi Imadadul Huq, Begum Rokeya Sakhwat Hossain, Najibur Rahman, Kazi Abdul Wadud, Abul Hussain, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Muzaffar Ahmad, Abdul Halim, Motahar Hussain Chowdhury, Abdul Sadaq, Humayun Kabir have been studied and utilized in my research work. The writings and speeches of contemporary leaders like Sir W.W. Hunter, Rev. J. Long, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Abdool Luteef, Syed Ameer Ali, Syed Ameer Hossein, Nawab Salimullah, Mohammad Ali, Abul Kalam Azad, Muhammad Iqbal, Nawab Ali Chowdhury, Delawar Hossian Ahmead, Mujibur Rahman, Akram Khan, Sir Abdul Hashim, A. K. Fazlul Huq, M.A. Jinnah, Khwaja Nazimuddin, Abul Hashim and H.S. Suhrawardy have
4
been consulted and referred to in my work. The files of The Mussalman have been extensively used in my
thesis. The short biographies of writers extensively used in my thesis. The short biographies of writers ans and political intellectuals have been provided.
I am extremely grateful to my wife Purnima but for whose constant encouragement and enthusiasm, this research may never have been completed.
I am greatly indebted to my mother Srimati Latika Debi and grandmother Srimati Profullah Nalini Debi for their inspiration and confidence in all my academic endeavours.
I express my gratitude to the authorities of the Indian Coucil of Historical Research, New Delhi for the publication grant.
I am thankful to the authorities of the State Acrchives, National Library, Asiastic Society, Calcutta University Library, Presidency College Library, Muzaffar Ahmad Pathagar, Institute of Historical Studies, Calcutta for permitting me to collect materials for my thesis. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Dr. Amalendu De, Head of the Department of History, Jadavpur University, under whose valuable guidance and encouragement this research work has been completed. I am also thankful to Shri Dibakar karmoker of Jadavpur University for undertaking the ordeal of typing my thesis.
15 September, 1989 PRADIP KUMAR LAHIRI
Presidency College,
History Department
Calcutta-700073
০০০
VII
Consolidation of the Orthodox-Communal
Elements centering Round the Muslim League
(1937-1947)
THE orthodox trend assumed great propensity after 1937 in the political thought of the urban Muslim intellectuals of Bengal. The orthodox trend in Muslim’s thoughts gathered communal complexion in the closing years of the independence. The liberal trend could not make much progress in the political life of the country. Fazlul Huq could not maintain his liberal stand for long. He shared adiministration with the Muslim League and became a follower of their communal ideas. The Muslim writers of the period showed very little of liberal element in their writings. A noticeable feature in the Muslim political thought in the period was the confrontation in the ideas of the state and central leaders of the Muslim League. The domination of Jinnah in Bengal Muslim politics was resented both by Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy.
The ideas of Fazlul Huq about the Hindu-Muslim relations and welfare of the peasantry introduced a rational trend in the political thought of the Muslims in the period under review. The manifesto of Huq in the election of 1937 demanded the abolition of the Zamindari system, reduction of land tax, tree education and the right of self-government.1 His Krishak Praja Party represented the ideas of the middle class prajas and cultivators. Huq put prime importance on the solution of the food problem and abolition of the Zamindari system.2 The Krishak Praja Party never talked of the Muslim unity but pleaded
5
for the unity of the peasants. The Muslim League championed the cause of the Muslim community’s interest. The results of the election of 1937 demonstrated the hold of the Krishak Praja Party over the rural mass.3
The Muslim League in Bengal represented the ideas of M.A. Jinnah. Nazimuddin, Ispahani, H.S. Suhrawarday and Akram Khan were the followers of the ideas of Jinnah in Bengal. The Non-Bengali Muslims as well as the well-to-do Muslim elite represented Muslim League in Bengal. Their papers viz. Star of India (English) and Mohammadi (Bengali) represented communal trend of the thoughts of the Muslims.4
In 1936 Akram Khan started the ‘Azad’ a daily in Bengali with the financial assistance from the Government to mould views of the urban and rural Muslim masses in favour of the League. It became the mouthpiece of the Muslim League.
The communal outlook of the Muslim League was manifested during the election of 1937. The League propagated the fatwas issued by the ulamas among the voters to defeat the condidates of the Krishak Praja Party.5 The Muslim League leaders like Jinnah and Shaukat Ali with the co-operation of Maulana Mufti Kefaytullah saheb of All India Jamiyal-al-Ulema issued appeals to the voters to support the League. Fazlul Huq condemned the Pirs who supported the stand of League.6 The League preached views in favour of the Muslim unity and described the Congress as a Hindu organization. After 1935 the Congress alienated the Muslims and raised a protest against the Communal Award. The League did not like the Krishak Praja Party and described it as a Hindu sponsored party. The communal ideas preached by the Leauge influenced both the urban and rural Muslims. The League got 27.10 per cent of the Muslim votes as against 31.51 per cent of all Muslim votes received by the Krishak Parja Party in the election of 1937.7
Huq tried to enlist the support of the Congress in order to establish Hindu-Muslim unity and to implement liberal reforms.8 The League and the Ulamas combined to frustrate the attempt of Huq to establish Hindu-Muslim unity. The League leaders wanted Praja-League Pact instead of Praja-Congress Pact.9 The Congress and the Krishak Praja Party could not come to an agreement due to opposition by the Congress High Command led by Jawaharlal Nehru.10 The Bengal Congress and the Krishak Praja Party differed on some issues which prevented them from forming al alliance.11 The refusal of the Congress to form an alliance with the Krishak Praja Party compelled Huq to establish the Praja League Coalition Ministry in April 1937. The Muslim League welcomed the Coalition Ministry with great jubilation.
The communal ideas of the Muslim League developed to a great extent during the tenure of the Praja-League Ministry (1937-1941). During the tenure of the Praja-League Ministry the political thought of the urban Muslim intellectuals of Bengal assumed communal complexion. An attempt has been made to seclude the Muslims from other communities in Bengal society by infusing in them Islamic ideas and separate identities. The separatist forces were found active among the Muslims in the All India context. It was about this time Sir Muhammad Iqbal in a letter to Jinnah (21st June 1937) wrote about the necessity of redistribution of the country on the basis of racial, religious and linguistic affinities and establishment of a separate federation of Muslim provinces. Sir Iqbal wrote : “We are actually living in a state of civil war…In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is a redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities… I remember Lord Lothian told me before I left England that my scheme was the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that may take 25 years to come…To my mind the new constitution with its idea of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces, reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of Non-Muslims.”12 The League leaders tried to consolidate their position and to bring the entire Muslim
6
community of Bengal within their fold. Huq joined the League unconditionally The Muslim League in order to implement Jinnah’s ‘Mass line’ formed Muslim Samity in different districts of Bengal with the help of the ulamas and spread orthodox view among the Muslim masses. The Ulamas held conferences to spread Islamic ideas.13 The Muslims were given education on Islamic history and civilization. A large number of books on Islam and its history were written to establish a separate identity for the Muslims.14 The Muslim League through the medium of 15 branches established in different districts of the province influenced the Muslim’s thoughts towards the communal direction and counter-acted Nehru’s ‘Muslim mass Contact Movement.’15 The Praja League Ministry in Bengal controlled the ‘Praja Somity’, ‘Praja-Sammelan’ and ‘Rayat and Khatak Organization’. These organizations advocated for the abolition of the Zamindari system, abolition of abwabs and other illegal exactions, introduction of free compulsory primary education and assessment of proper rent.16
The League leaders criticized the peasant movements organized by the Congress and the communists. The League organized the peasant movement amalgamating the economic demands of the organizations with those of community interests.17 The League and the Ulamas declared a Jihad against the Hindu character of the University of Calcutta.18 The orthodox Muslims protested against the use of the ‘Hindu Symbols’ and Syllabus of the University of Calcutta. They could not tolerate the singing of ‘Bandemataram’ song at the Convocation of the University.19 The orthodox Muslims led by Akram Khan went to the extent of describing Dacca University as a ‘Dhakeswari Vidyapith’ because it had a good number of Hindu teachers.20 The ‘Muslim Samities’ tried to safegurd the interests of the Muslim Bengal. The impact of the Leaguers upon the political life of Bengal became more vigorous. The retirement of Nausher Ali and Nalini Ranjan Sarkar (two supporters of Huq) put Huq in a predicament and the League was able to consolidate its position. Between 1937-1940 the League grew from a ‘limited interest group to a vast mass movement.’21 The Praja-League Coalition Ministry introduced legislations and measures benefiting the Muslims. The legislations of Huq improved the conditions of the peasantry but the Hindu zamindars suffered.22 Huq gave benefits to the Muslims in a bid to reconstruct the secondary education. The grants to the Sanskrit and the Buddhist schools were discontinued. Even the University of Calcutta was deprived of a part of the grant. The Krishak Praja Party became dissatisfied with Huq’s land revenue policy and expelled him from the party. Huq introduced Debt Settlement Boards in all districts to give relief to the peasants.23
Huq’s Ministry extended the influence of the League over the local bodies and authorised the local bodies to appoint men who were not opposed to the policy of the Ministry. It provided nominations to the members of the Union Boards. The Government of Bengal changed rules of educational qualifications of voters prescribed under the Act of 1935 which helped to increase the number of the Muslim voters. Khwaja Nazimuddin was the Home Minister under the Coalition Ministry. He extended the job opportunities to the Muslims and the Muslims were appointed in large numbers in the Government offices. In the Bengal Junior Civil Service and in the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the Muslims were apointed in large numbers. Nazimuddin helped the leading Muslim football club i.e., The Mahommedan Sporting Club of Calcutta to make it popular among the Muslims. A few other Mahommedan clubs were establised in the districts to increase the popularly of the League and to consolidate the communal thoughts of the Muslims.24
H.S. Suhrawardy held the portfolio of Commerce and Labour under Huq’s Ministry and the interested Muslims in the trade union activities in Bengali. He created the Government sponsored trade unions i.e., ‘White Flag Unions’ to settle industrial disputes to a successful end and to counteract the influence of the ‘Red Flag Unions’.25
In this context we cannot ignore the role of Fazlul huq to advance the cause of communal trend in the way initiated by the League. Huq sided with the views of Hunter that the Hindus were not superiors to
7
the Muslims in any way during the Muslim rule. Under the British rule the Hindus enjoyed more benefits. Huq supported the cause of Islam. Huq condemned the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha for following anti-Muslim policies.
Referring to the battles of Panipat and Thaneswar he urged the Muslims to rise against the Hindus. Huq said : “It is our incumbent duty to bear constantly in mind that in India we hold the integrity and safety of Islam as a sacred trust. We are born unto this traditions inherited form generation to generation, and the sacred duty to protect Islam and uphold its traditions devolves upon us as a heritage from our forbears…After all, the British came to India as traders and as traders they are now anxious to remain. They would sooner part with power than with trade. They believe that their commercial interests will be best served through an alliance with the Congress and, therefore, they are anxious for that alliance. Their guarantees to the minorities and particularly, to the Muslims of India have proved to be shallow through and through. The sooner we cease to rely on them the better. We must fight the battle of Islam alone and with our resources. Let us resolve to fight it to the bitter end, relying on the justice of our cause and undaunted by the gathering forces against us. Let us prepare to fight, if need be, on a double front and with our backs to the wall. If Panipat and Thaneswar must repeat themselves let the Muslims prepare to give as glorious as account of themselves as did their forbears… May the all-merciful God guide these deliberations on the right lines and may your dicisions bring nearer the day of Islam’s deliverance in India.”26
He alleged that the Muslims in the Congress ruled provinces were denied of the privileges but the Bengal Government tried to maintain communal harmony. He urged his co-religionists to get united under the banners of the League in order to relieve the Indian Muslims who were in distress. Huq even recommended reprisals against the Hindus if the Muslims of other provinces were opposed.27 Huq recommended Urdu in place of Hindi as lingua franca. He said that he was ready to enter into an agreement with the Congress and to form a Ministry provided the Congress agreed to recognize the interests of the Muslims. Huq asserted further that the leaguers would fight to the last drop of their blood for the sake of Islam.28 Huq’s policies and utterances turned the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha into critics of the Coalition Ministry. The Hindu Mahasabha in its annual meeting held at Calcutta in 1939 criticized the Coalition Ministry and called for the formation of a ‘Hindu National Militia’.29 The communal trend spread in different districts of Bengal. The Muslim League published parpers to create feelings of enmity among different communities.30
The Muslims took part in the defilement of images in some districts.31 The communal tension intesified the irrational trends in the Muslim’s thoughts. The utterances of Huq branded his as a communal leader.32 The inconsistent statements of Huq in favour of the League helped Jinnah greatly as he was eager to bring all sections of the Muslims under the banner of the League. The pro-League statements of Huq were favoured by circumstances. A few words may be, added in support of Huq’s conduct during the tenure of Praja-League Ministry. Huq’s position in the Ministry was not secured. He had to depend on the votes of the League and European members in the assembly. The opposition of the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha to his Ministry were responsible in a way for his pro-League statements. Huq got the Ministry with the assitance of the League. Therefore, it was incumbent on him to speak in conformity with the ideals of the League. The rational element in the outlook of Huq was discerned when he tried to solicit co-operation of the Congress in 1937 to form the Ministry. The all India Congress as well as the policy of Jinnah stood in the way of forming an alliance between the Krishak Praja Party and the Congress. Even in the days of communal riots Huq urged Jinnah to initiate dialogue with the Congress to come to a settlement. In spite of his inconsistent statements, Huq was not influenced by a communal spirit. Dr. R.C. Mazumdar accepts this view when he writes : “But in spite of occasional lapses, in words more than in deeds, Fazlul Huq, was least influenced by a communal spirit.”33
8
The Praja-League unity did not last long. Fazlul Huq and his followers came into direct confrontation with the Muslim League. The old tussle between the ideals of the Muslim Leauge dominated by the Non-Bengali Muslims and the Praja Party of the Bengal Muslims remained alive during the tenure of the Coalition Ministry. Jinnah’s control over the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and its Parliamentary wing continued during the period. The Muslim league leaders had no other alternative but to follow the dictates of Jinnah. Jinnah’s authoritarian attitude was resented by Huq. Huq said : “It is not the ministers functioning under the Government of India Act that are ruling Bengal, but it is the autocracy of Jinnah which guides the administration. And Mr. Jinnah is exercising all this authority without being hampered by any responsibility to any body. All this may be a very clever imitation of Congress methods and very flattering to Congress minded people, but it is not decmocracy. In the case of Congress the mandates used to come from Wardha; in the case of the Muslim League the mandates come from Malabar Hill.”34 Huq opposed Jinnah in many ways and adopted measures much to the annoyance of the League. Huq tried to maintain his influence with the help of his paper the Navayug (published in 1941) on the Bengali Muslims. The confrontation in the ideas of Huq and the Muslim League culminated in the dissolution of the Praja-League Ministry in 1941.
It may be mentioned that in spite of the domination of communal ideas in the political thought of the Muslim intellectuals in the period, we get a liberal trend and broad ideas in the writings of some Muslim writers. Motahar Hossain Chowdhury, a writer expressed liberal views in his article entitled “Swadhinata-Jatiata-Sampradayikata (Freedom, Nationalism and Communialism). He wrote : “We lost freedom because wre are not nationalists. In order to remove communalism and establish good relations among different communities, ideas of ideal nationalism should be introduced. The intellectuals should come forward and establish a common platform to express views. Every one should love his country and help the progress to the country with the help of science.” He urged all to sacrifice like the Nawab Sirajudulla who sacrificed his life for the cause of the country.
Professor Abdul Sadaq in an article entitled “Nikhil Bharat Federation Gathan Ki Sambhav” (It is possible to establish All India Federation?) wrote : “Hindu-Muslim unity is inevitable and not every far. Bengal has a special feature. People of other provinces have anti-Bengali feelings.” He also referred to maltreatment of Subhas Chandra Bose by the people of other provinces. He believed that the communal ideas would not reign supreme if democratic administration was introduced in the country. The impact of the liberal trend was very much limited but it had a significance in the context of the preaviling sectarian ideas.35
Huq formed the Progressive Coalition Ministry on 11 December 1941 with the help of the Congress, Hindu Mahasabha, Forward Bloc and Krishak Praja Party. Sarat Chandra Bose and Shyamaprasad Mukherjee helped Huq to form the Ministry. The Union of the two Hindu leaders with Huq was criticized by the League. Jinnah criticized the Governor for allowing Huq to form the Ministry.
Huq’s cooperation with the Hindu intelligentsia initiated a liberal trend in Bengal’s political life during the tenure of the Progressive Coalition Ministry. Huq was expelled from the Muslim League in 1941 as he was regarded a betrayer to the League leaders. Huq said that Jinnah had expelled him from the League to crush him politically. Huq said : “Mr. Jinnah passed an order of expulsion on me without the slightest justification and his followers in Bengal, for personal and other reasons, are busy organizing the League in order to crush me politically. I feel that it will not be in the interest of the Muslims of Bengal that any Muslim League should function in Bengal in which I will not be allowed to take part. Of all the Muslim political leaders, I have the greatest right to lead the League. I proposed to do so, and with mercy of Providence, I am determined to succeed in my efforts.”36 He was very much concerned for the welfare of the Bengali Muslims and wanted to establish the right of self-determination for the Bengal Muslims. Huq condemned the domination of the All India Muslim League over the Muslims of Bengal. Huq
9
described Jinnah as an autocrat who guided the destiny of the League disregarding the opinions of the Provincial League members. Huq said : “The whole atmosphere is entirely un-lslamic and undemocratic. It is the will of one man that prevails and the members of the League are generally not permitted to have any will or opinion of their own, and this one man is more haughty and arrogant that the proudest of the Pharaohs. To add to our miseries, this superman has been allowed to exercise irresponsible powers which even the Czars in their wildest dreams might have envied.”37
Huq’s sincerity for restoring the Hindu-Muslim unity is praiseworthy. Huq formed the Progressive Muslim League under the presidentship of the Nawab of Dacca and Syed Badruddojja became its secretary. The Progressive Muslim League described Islam as its ideal but it did not ignore the rights of other communities. It was not a communal organization as its regarded Hindu-Muslim unity as a fundamental necessity for the political advancement of India. Huq said : “The ideal of the Progressive Muslim League will be Islam first, and Islam throughtout, but without ignoring the legitimate rights of other communities. I feel that it is also necessary to inculcate the great truth that Islam came with a mission for the whole of minkind and that it preached to the world Catholicism and toleration in the highest form. Unity between Muslims and other communities has got to be regarded as a fundamental necessity for the political advancement of India.”38
To counteract the two-nation theory of Jinnah, Huq organized the Hindu-Muslim Unity Conference at Calcutta (20 June 1942) for establishing cooperation between different communities. The liberal gesture was appreciated by Abul Kalam Azad, president of the Indian National Congress. Abul Kalam Azad said : “We have had enough of quarrels in the past and we may indulge in them in future if we so desire but it must not hinder us from creating an atmosphere of mutual confidence and goodwill at a time when the invader is knocking at our doors. I cordially wish this auspicious movement a complete success.”
This attempt was praised by the Christian Missionaries. Lord Bishop of Calcutta and the Metropolitan of India in a letter to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee wrote : “India is in one sense the land of divisions with its numerous races, languages and religions, but diversity does not of necessity involve disunion. Where there is a spirit of mutual goodwill and fellowship, it both provides that varied contributions which the several parties can make for the enrichment of the whole shall have their due effect, and also it does apply the necessary corrections of party prejudices. The Punjab has set an example which I sincerely hope Bengal will endorse by her own action.”39 The Muslim League under the guidance of Nazimuddin and Suhrawardy organized the Muslims in Bengal to counteract the influence of the Progressive Muslim League and the followers of Huq.40 The League’s Newspaper Azad and Star of India carried on campaign against Fazlul Huq.
Huq’s liberal and nationalist outlook were manifested when he supported the Congress against the British Government in the ‘Quit India’ movement. He went to the extent of ordering a judicial inquiry into the incidents of repression perpetrated by the British Government in Tamluk and Contai sub-divisions in the district of Midnapore. This was opposed by the British Government.41 He was accused by Nazimuddin of helping Sarat Chandra Bose and Subhas Chandra Bose for disrupting the War efforts of the Government.42 The League helped the Government in the war. Suhrawardy spread communal ideas and criticized Huq for siding with the Hindus. Suhrawardy did not like that Huq should get cooperation of the Hindus. Suhrawardy went to the extent to state that the League was eager to establish Hindu-Muslim unity. He said that the removal of Huq was necessary to establish understanding between the two communities. Suhrawardy said : “As long as Fazlul Huq stays there, as long as the Hindu parties think that they can use him as a puppet, as long as they can bolster him up and support him, there is very little chance of compromise and understanding between us. An honourable understanding will only come if this impediment in our way is removed… We can not come to an agreement as along as one particular
10
person is being propped up by one party.” Nazimuddin also voiced the same view with Suhrawardy. Nazimuddin said : “I would also like to urge the Non-Muslim leaders who are supporting the Ministry to request Mr. Fazlul Huq to resign for the establishment of a better relation between the Hindus and Muslims.”43 The European group in the Leagislature led by David Hendry sided with the League to demand resignation of Huq.44
The Governor of Bengal, English officials, newspapers and the entire Indian bureaucracy supported the League in its attempt to spread communal ideas.45 The British residents of Calcutta openly supported the League and urged the Government to reinstate the League into power in Bengal. The League even solicited the cooperation of the Hindus to dethrone Huq from the Ministry.46 The progressive ideas which were initiated under the guidence of Fazlul Huq in 1941 came to an abrupt end with the dissolution of the Progressive Coalition Ministry on 29 March 1943.
The communal trend in the political thought of the Muslim intellectuals got nourishment during the tenure of Khwaja Nazimuddin’s Ministry (1943-1946).47 A good section of Muslims led by Fazlul Huq and Shamsuddin Ahmad (Krishak Praja Parliamentary Party) urged the Viceroy to form a Coalition Ministry taking members from all political parties which the Viceroy refused. The undemocratic attitude of the Governor in allowing Nazimuddin to form the Ministry and his encouragement to communal ideas of the League were opposed by both the Hindus and a section of the Muslims. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee said : “Mr. Fazlul Huq had been ousted because he roused the ire of Clive Street and the Governor by his independence. The fact that they, Hindus and Muslims, had gathered on the same platform in pursuance of a common cause augured well for the future of the province.”48
The Bengali Muslims were guided by the ideas borrowed from outside Bengal. The All India Leauge leaders attempted to keep the Muslims of Bengal separated following an independent policy of their own.
In the cultural field the influence of the Dacca Sahitya Samaj was no longer active. The Muslims of Bengal developed a separate culture distinct from the Hindus. The Muslim intelligentsia along with the masses sponsored the Pakistan movement. The Bengali Muslims wanted to establish Purbo Pakistan on the basis of the Lahore Resolution and to retain Bengali as the language of Purba Pakistan. In establishing Purbo Pakistan they did not like to be guided by the non-Bengali culture.49 The Purba Pakistan Renaissance Society established at Calcutta (August 1942) and the Purba Pakistan Sahitya Samsad established at Dacca (1942) tried to spread ideas on Pakistan.50 These two organizations tried to assert the right of self-determination of the Muslims in the cultural and literary life of Bengal.51 This group did not accept the Hindu writers for their anti-Muslim approach. Abul Kalam Shamsuddin, a Muslim writer pleaded for the cause of Muslim separatism in the domain of literature. He said in a meeting at Dacca in 1943 : “The Muslim culture, social organization and way of life should be reflected in literature and if this is done, then the study of literature by the Muslims will be justified.” The same spirit of separatism was expressed by the Muslim writers in the Conference of the Purba Pakistan Renaissance Society held at Calcutta in July 1944. In the Conference Abul Mansur Ahmed, president of the first session said : “The cultural movement of the Bengali Muslims originated out of Muslim’s culture and literature. The Bengali literature produced during the period from the time of Vidyasagar and Bankim Chandra to the days of Rabindranath—Sarat Chandra was not the literature of the Purba Pakistan because it contained no Muslim spirit.” He went to the extent to state that “there is not point to dispute that culturally the Muslims and Hindus are different nations.”52 Some of tghe journals advocated separate culture for the Bengali Muslims. An attempt has been made by some writers to establish the Nawab Sirajudulla as a liberal and nationalist ruler of Bengal. This was done to remind the Hindus of their long subjugation under the Muslims in the past and to add separate entity of the Muslims in Bengal. Mujibur Rahman in his article Siraj Kalanka (Blot of Siraj) in Mohammadi criticised the European historians, viz., Mill, Macaulay and
11
the Hindu poet Nabin Chandra Sen for their critical approach to Sirajudulla.53 Fazlur Rahman of Dacca University asserted that the Muslims would be able to develop their culture and literature through the establishment of Pakistan.54 The Ulamas came forward to support the Pakistan Resolution through their organization named Nikhil Bharat Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Islam. This association attempted to counteract the growing influence of the Jamiyat-al-Ulama-i-Hind which lost its importance as it propagated the ideals of the Congress.55 The Ulamas urged the Muslims to support the Muslim League in its mission to achieve Pakistan. Pir Janab Abdul Hai Siddiqui Saheb, Sharif of Furfura Sharif, in the historic Conference of the Nikhil Bharat Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Islam held at Calcutta (26-29 October 1945) asserted that it became ‘fard’ of all Muslims to strengthen the League. This was the direction embodied in tha Quran.56 Janab Allama Azad Sobhani Saheb, Chairman of the reception committee and Principal Maulana Zafar Ahmad Osmani Thanavi of Dacca University urged all Muslims to work for realizing Pakistan.57 Allama Golam Murshed Lahori, the Imam of Lahore Jama Alamgir Mosque and President of this Conference spoke in favour of Pakistan and urged all to support the League in the forthcoming election.58 Janab Hazrat Maulana Shah Sufi, Haji Nesaruddin Ahmad Saheb, Pir of Sarsuna, referred to the impact of Hazrat Khwaja Mainuddin Chishti Ajmiri and Hazrat Khwaja Ahmad Sirhindi Mujjaddid Alif Sani on the Indian Muslims and equated the movement of Pakistan with the movement for self-determination of the Indian Muslims.59 Both Jinnah and Akram Khan expressed joy at the establishment of the Nikhil Bharat Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Islam. Maulana Abul Hamid Khan, popularly known as Maulana Bhashani, strengthened the League. Ulama alliance and mobilized the Muslim masses in favour of the Leauge.60 The spirit of Islamization was strengthened by the Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Islam and the Muslim League alliance. The Muslim League after 1943 tried to consolidate in Bengal.61 Abul Hashim (son of Abul Kasem of Burdwan) became the secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League. He organized the League in different districts. He introduced progressive and democratic ideas in the League organization. The draft manifesto of Abul Hashim on the ideals of the League gave stress on the ideals of Islam and the law of Shariat in the Muslim society. Abul Hashim declared his objectives to fight capitalism, feudalism and superstition and to utilize Islam as a force in democratic movememt. Abul Hashim enunciated the moral, social, political and economic objectives of Pakistan.62 The Muslim League also organized the Muslim students under a single platform to spread ideas of the League. The All Bengal Muslim Students League, a branch of the All India Muslim Students League, under the guidance of its president and secretary Sadegur Rahman and Anowar Hussain respectively organized the Muslim students under the banner of the League to spread the ideal of Pakistan in the urban and rural areas of Bengal. Shah Azizur Rahman group controlled the All Bengal Muslim Students League since 1944.63
Abul Hashim worked in conformity with the ideals of Jinnah to sponsor the Pakistan movement and to initiate the Muslims with the communal ideas. The Muslim National Guards formed by Jinnah in 1942 helped to spread the ideals of the League. The Muslim masses including the students section were consolidated by the League to strengthen the communal ideas.
Some of the rational Muslims like Muzaffar Ahmad and Abdul Rasul tried to preach non-communal and communist ideas in order to spread rational ideas and to restore cordial relations among the peasant masses, through the conferences of the All India Kisan Sabha. This attempt could not retard the progress of communal ideas in Bengal.64
The process of Islamization and the movement for separate national and cultural identity of the Muslims continued during the tenure of H.S. Suhrawardy’s Ministry in Bengal (1946-1947). Suhrawardy in collaboration with the Ulamas helped the process of Islamization and the movement for Pakistan. Both Suhrawardy and Liaqat Ali Khan mobilized the views of Muslims in favour of the Pakistan movement.65 Ustadul Ulama Maulana Muhammad Sahul Osmani of Bhagalpur referred to Shariat in his fatwa and urged the Muslims to join in the struggle for Pakistan. The same ideas were found in the utterances of Suhrawardy and Liaqat Ali Khan after the central election of 1945. Suhrawardy admitted that the Ulamas
12
were the followers of the Muslim League. The Ulamas led by Maulana Zafar Ahmad Thanavi Saheb in a meeting of the Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Islam held at Gaffargaon (Mymensingh) on 13 February 1946 stated that India should be partitioned into Pakistan and Hindustan. This was necessary for the development of the two nations. The Ulamas criticised the Congress and Fazlul Huq for their anti-Pakistan views.66
The success of the League in the Provincial Election of 1946 revealed the fact that the Muslim mass favoured the idea of Pakistan and rejected the concept of undivided India. The League realized that the British Labour Government was not in favour of the Partition of India and separate Muslim state. Jinnah wanted to get a separate state of Pakistan.67 Suhrawardy co-operated with the ideas of Jinnah and voiced the demand for a single Pakistan in the Convention of the Muslim League Legislators of the Central and Provincial Assemblies held at Delhi in April, 1946. Jinnah lost faith in the ‘Cabinet Mission’ and sponsored the ‘Direct Action’ realizing the constitutional methods as ineffective for getting the state of Pakistan.68 The ‘Direct Action’ in Bengal was ‘a camouflage for an organized anti-Hindu campaign of loot, arson, indiscriminate murder of men, women and children in broad day light with impunity’ under the support and backing of the League Ministry headed by H.S. Suhrawardy. The League leaders issued leaflets and instigated the Muslims in organizing the ‘Direct Action’. This was the worst form of expression of the communal ideas. The Direct Action was condemned by the Hindu press. The Muslims also charged the Hindus of involving themselves actively in the riots as many Muslims died. Abul Kalam Azad and Fazlul Huq condemned the Bengal Ministry for the Direct action.69 The Bengal Governor was criticised for inaction. The communal ideas enjoyed prominence as the riots spread in some districts of East Bengal and Bihar.70 Lord Mountbatten realized that the ‘Cabinet Mission’ would be ineffective. To him the Partition of Bengal seemed to be an inevitable ineffective. To him the Partition of Bengal seemed to be an inevitable event.71 The idea of Partition of Bengal was accepted by two Congress leaders—Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (1876-1950). In a letter addressed to Binoy Kumar Roy, a resident of Bengal, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel wrote : “Bengal cannot be isolated from the Indian Union. Talk of the idea of a sovereign republic of Independent Bengal is a trap to induce the unwary and unwise to enter into the parlour of the Muslim League. The Congress Working Committee is fully aware of the situation in Bengal, and you need not be afraid at all. Bengal has got to be partitioned, if the non-Muslim population is to survive.”72 The Hindu Mahasabha under the presidentship of N.C. Chatterjee supported the proposal of the Partition. N.C. Chatterjee said : “Let us declare to-day that as the Muslim League persists in its fantastic idea of establishing Pakistan in Bengal, the Hindus of Bengal must constitute a separate province under a strong National Government.”73 Supporting the Partition of Bengal Shyama Prasad Mukherjee said : “I can conceive of no other solution of the communal problem in Bengal than to divide the province and let the two major communities residing herein live in peace and freedom.”74
The Bengal Provincial Congress Committee adopted a proposal for the Partition of Bengal. Surendra Mohan Ghosh, President of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee supported the Partition of Bengal and said : “An undivided Bengal in a divided India is an imposibility. Let Mr. Suhrawardy repudiate the two-nation theory and abandon communalism, and he will be able to prevent the Partition of Bengal.” He said that Congress wanted a united Bengal in a united India. He said boldly “We, too dream of a united and greater Bengal in a united India. We have lived for it, worked for it, and suffered for it.” Some of the Congressmen opposed the Partition scheme and explained their views to Mahatma Gandhi.75 The major prominent parties and prominent members of both the Hindu and the Muslim communities accepted the proposal of Partition.
A change in the ideas of some League leaders was visible after the communal riots in the state. Suhrawardy wanted to form a Coalition Government in alliance with the Congress to restore confidence among the Hindus but Jinnah did not approve of his plan. The Congress High Command did not endorse the plan of Suhrawardy.76 Suhrawardy was afraid that the Hindus would attempt to remove him and his
13
ministry, so he wanted a Coalition Government. The Muslims held the British Government responsible for the tragedy and Frederick Burrows, Governor of Bengal, wanted to establish a Coalition Government in Bengal. Suhrawardy did not like to be guided by the leadership of Jinnah. He felt that the Hindu-Muslim unity should be established in order to solve Bengal’s problems. This idea prompted him to initiate a plan of an undivided sovereign Bengal against the leadership of the All India Muslim League. Suhrawardy expressed his views in favour of a United and greater Bengal on April 8, 1947. Suhrawardy said : “I have always held that Bengal cannot be partitioned. I am in favour of a united and greater Bengal.”77 The declaration of Suhrawardy on April 8, 1947 about the establishment of an undivided and sovereign Bengal created a division in the thoughts of the Muslim political intellectuals of Bengal. The Central leaderships of the Muslim League at the initial stage did not oppose Suhrawardy’s plan of ‘undivided sovereign Bengal.’ The all India League leaders hoped that it would be possible for them to include United Bengal in Pakistan.
There was a division in the leadership of the provincial Muslim League of Bengal. The majority group in the Provincial Muslim League was led by Maulana Akram Khan. Akarm Khan was assisted by Habibullah Bahar. General Secretary of the Provincial Muslim League, Nurul Amin (the Speaker), Usuf Ali Chowdhury, M.L.C. and Hamidul Huq Chowdhury, M.L.C. This group formed the majority group in the Bengal Muslim League and worked under the guidance of Jinnah. They wanted to keep Bengal in the Pakistan according to the Lahore Proposal.
Suhrawardy, Abul Hashim and Fazlur Rahman formed the minority group in the Bengal Muslim League and supported the establishment of the undivided and sovereign Bengal.78 A bipolar division was manifested in the political thoughts of the Muslim intellectuals of Bengal on the issue of partition of Bengal. It is necessary to analyse the ideas of political intellectuals of other communities and organizations to assess the impact of the Muslim political thought bearing on the issue of Partition of Bengal.
Suhrawardy submitted arguments in favour of his demand of a united and sovereign Bengal. Suhrawardy regarded the ‘Partition’ as ‘sucidal even from Hindus’ point of view. He submitted a bright picture of future Bengal. He said that Bengal would “be a great country in India, the richest and the most prosperous in Indian, capable of giving its people a high standard of living, where a great people will be able to rise to the fullest height of their stature, a land that will be truly plentiful.”79
Suhrawardy said that the people who wanted prosperity of Bengal felt depressed at the news of the Partition of Bengal. He stated further that the Hindus would get adequate advantages in the sovereign Bengal which they were not getting at present due to conflict between different factions of All India importance. Suhrawardy said : “The frustration is largely the result of a failure to realize that present conditions in Bengal, which is linked to India, are not applicable to an independent sovereign state as I hope Bengal will be. Today we are in a midst of a struggle in India between contending factions of all-India importance, each intent on enforcing its views on the other and neither willing to give way except at a price which the other is not prepared to pay. Their disputes profoundly affect the politics of all the provinces and the problems are being treated as a whole. An entirely different state of circumstances will arise when each province will have to look after itself and when each province is sure to get practical, if not total independence, and the people of Bengal will have to rely upon each other.
It is unbelievable that under such a set of circumstances there can exist a Ministry in Bengal which will not be composed of all the important elements in its society or which can be a communal party Ministry, or where the various sections will not be better represented than they are now.”80
Suhrawardy ruled out the possibility that the Muslims by virtue of their majority in the new state
14
would oppress the Hindus. He cited some reasons in favour of his contention. Suhrawardy said : “There are several factors which make such a thing impossible and unbelievable. There is the internal strength of the Hindus themselves, their internal strength which can paralyse any unfair Administration. They occupay the most important places in the administration. They are a majority in the services. The administration in the Secretariat is in their hands. The most important and the experienced officers of the Government are Hindus. It is just ridiculous to think that their position and influence can be ignored.”81 Suhrawardy said that the demand for ‘Partition’ was not the demand of the majority of the Hindus. There was a difference between the division of India and Partition of Bengal. Suhrawardy said : “I by no means admit that the demand for the partition of Bengal is the demand of the majority of the Hindus even of West Bengal, let alone of the majority of the Hindus of Bengal. The ties and culture of the Hindus of every part of Bengal are so much the same that it is not open to the Hindus of one part of Bengal to sever those ties in the hopes of grasping power.
Indeed by the same analogy the wishes of all the peoples of Bengal, Muslims, Hindus and Scheduled Castes and others ought to be ascertained on the question of the Partition of Bengal, which can only be undertaken if there is a substantial majority in its favour. It is these fundamental factors peculiar to Bengal which differentiate the question of Partition of Bengal from the Muslim demand for the division of India, apart from such factors as economic integrity, mutual reliance and the necessity of creating a strong workable state.”82 Referring to the inconvenience he experienced during the famine in Bengal (1943) Suhrawardy said : “I have visualized Bengal all along, therefore, as an independent state and not part of any union of India. Once such states are formed, their future rests with them. I shall never forget how long it took for the Government of India to realize famine condtions in Bengal in the year 1943, how in Bengal’s dire need it was denied foodgrains by the neighbouring privince of Bihar, how since then every single province of India has closed its doors and deprived Bengal of its normal necessities, how in the Councils of India Bengal is relegated to an undignified corner while other provinces wield undue influence.”83 Suhrawardy contended that is order to be a great state Bengal must stand on its legs and prevent others to exploit her. He said : “If Bengal is to be great, it can only be so if it stands on its own legs and all combine to take it great. It must be master of its own resources and riches and its own destiny. It must cease to be exploited by others and shall not continue to suffer any longer for the benefit of the rest of India. So in the end the tussle will rage round Calcutta and its environments, built up largely by the resources of foreigners, inhabited largely by people from other provinces who have not roots in the soil and who have come here to earn their livelihood, designated in another context as exploitation. Alas, if this is the main objective, as my figures would demonstrate, then no claim for the partition of Bengal can remain static, and a cause for enmity and future strife would have been brought into being of which we can see no end…To those, therefore, of the Hindus who talk so lightly of the partition fo Bengal I make an appeal to drop the movement so fraught with unending mischief. Surely some method of Government can be evolved by all of us sitting together which will satisfy all sections of the people, and revive the splendour and glory that was Bengal.”84
Suhrawardy said that the divided Bengal would be exploited by the people of other areas of India and expressed displeasure at the idea that the culture of the Bengali Hindus would be safe if they linked themselves with the Hindu dominated ‘Centre’. He said : “Bengal divided will mean a Bengal prey to the people of other parts of India, waiting to be exploited for their benefit. The desire that the Bengal State should be linked to the Centre seems to have been prompted by the belief that, if it is linked to the Centre, which will be predominantly Hindu, the life and liberty and culture of the Hindus of Bengal will be saved, otherwise they will perish in a united Bengal. Is this not a doctrine of defeatism and a confession of a terrible moral weakness, that the Hindus of Bengal should stand in need of protection from a loose Centre?85 Suhrawardy criticised some Hindu leaders of Bengal who demanded ‘Partition’ by being infuenced by the Hindu leaders of other areas of India. He said : “Once more I find that some Hindu leaders of Bengal are succumbing to the pressure of the Hindus of India and are playing their game; that
15
the Hindu leaders, although they know full well that partition of Bengal means the doom of Hindus and Muslims alike, have subscribed to this partition under pressure from Hindu leaders of other parts of India who want to use Bengal as a pawn in their game and who do not care what happens to the people of Bengal.”86
Abul Hashim, Secretary of the Provincial Muslim League, supported the stand taken by Suhrawardy with regard to independent and sovereign Bengal. He said that Bengal guided the destiny of India in 1905 and produced eminent men like Surendra Nath Banerjee, Rabindranath Tagore, C.R. Das and Subhas Chandra Bose but now the Hindus have become backward and failed to adopt broad ideas. He urged the Hindus and Muslims to restore Bengal’s lost prestige in order to secure a honourable place in the comity of nations.87 Abul Hashim held the Anglo-American capital responsible for sponsoring the Partition proposal only to maintain the interests of the alien exploiters. Abul Hashim said : “Cent per cent alien Capital, both Indian and Anglo-American, is invested in West Bengal. The growing socialistic tendencies amongst us have created fears of expropriation in the minds of our alien exploiters. They have the prudence to visualise difficulties in a free and united Bengal. It is in the interest of alien capital that Bengal should be divided, crippled and incapacitated so that neither part thereof may have strength enough to resist it in future.”88
Abul Hashim believed that the foreign interests were responsible for the communal disturbances in the country. He said : “From a study of the nature of the communal disturbances in Bengal, I am of opinion that these are being engineered and encouraged by foreign vested interests and their Indian allies.”89 Abul Hashim noticed the absence of outstanding leaedersihp in the country and urged both the Hindu and Muslim youths of Bengal to unite and save the country from the extraneous influences. He believed that “Hindus and Muslims of Bengal, preserving their respective entitles had, by their joint efforts, in perfect harmony with the nature and climatic influence of their soil, developed a wonderful common culture and tradition which compares favourably with the contribution of any nation of the world in the evolution of man.”90
Abul Hashim explained the difference between the Partition of Bengal and Partition of India. He ruled out the contention that the movement for the Partition of Bengal was designed to donounce the Pakistan demand. The Lahore resolution did not contemplate any artificial Muslim majority or creation of the ‘Akhand Muslim State’. He said : “Partition of Bengal bears no analogy to the partition of India. The lamentable perversion in thinking which suggests that the movement for the partition of Bengal is a convenient counterblast to Pakistan arises out of a colossal ignorance of the contents and implications of the Lahore resolution, to which and which alone and not this or that interpretation thereof, Muslims of India owe allegiance. That resolution never contemplated the creation of any Akhand Muslim State or any artificial Muslim majority either by forcible important of alien elements as is being done in Palestine or by any mass transference of population as was done between Turkey and Greece. It merely demands complete sovereignty for those countries of India which are known to the world as Muslim majority countries, and by implication demands complete sovereignty and right of self-determination of all the nations and countries of India. It gives Bengal and other cultural units of India complete sovereignty while keeping open the possibility of creating an Indian international on a purely voluntary basis for the benefit of all.”91 Abul Hashim tried to win confidence and support of the Bengali Hindus in favour of the independent and sovereign Bengal. He said that there was no provision in the Pakistan resolution which would empower the Muslims to administer Bengal and Punjab. He stated further that Jinnah declared that the Free Pakistan States would be established on the basis of the universal suffrage and administer the country according to the wishes of the people. Abul Hashim did not believe that the Hindus of Bengal would be denied of their legitimate rights in the independent Bengal. He apprehended the domination of the foreign capitalists in a divided Bengal. He said : “But in a divided Bengal, West Bengal is bound to be
16
treated as a far-flung Province, possibly a colony of an alien Indian Imperialism. However, high they may pitch their expectations on partition it is clear to me that the Hindus of Bengal shall be reduced to the status of daily wage-earners of an alien capitialism.”92
Abul Hashim intended to safeguard the interests of the people of Bengal and to recognise the nationality of Bengal. He said that the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal should work unitedly without any interference of the Indians on them. Abul Hashim said : “Hindus and Muslims of Bengal left to themselves and freed from the menace of Indianism can settle their affairs peacefully and happily. Unfortunately, the paramount interests of Muslim parliamentarians have always been shuffling and re-shuffling the Ministry, like a pack of cards. They could hardly concentrate on any policy and programme good, bad or indifferent.”93
Abul Hshim believed that the Muslims should come forward to remove the suspicious of the Hindus against them. He suggested that the establishment of the united and sovereign Bengal would put an end to the present unrest. He said : “Since, reasonably or otherwise, there is a suspicion on the part of the Hindus against them, it is now up to Muslims to clear the deck and convince them, not merely by sermons and Press statements but by actions that they do not mean to be unfair to them. The present unrest, perverse thinking, and suicidal moves constitute a disease of the social organism. Partriotism for the creation of a united and sovereign Bengal, having all the attributes of an independent country, is the remedy and not partition.”94
Abul Hashim felt that both the Hindus and Muslims should enjoy equal political power and privileges. He urged the youths to save Bengal from the impending disaster. Her said : “Mr. C.R. Das is dead. Let his spirit help us in moulding our glorious future. Let the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal agree to his formula of 50 : 50 enjoyment of political power and economic privileges. I again appeal to the youths of Bengal in the name of her past traditions and glorious future to unite, make a determined effort to dismiss all reactionary thinking and save Bengal from the impending calamity.”95
Khwaja Nazimuddin also sided with Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim to demand for an independent and united Bengal. He believed that the people of Bengal were competent enought to settle their own affairs. Nazimuddin said : “It is my considered opinion that an independent sovereign Bengal is in the best interests of its people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, and I am equally certain that partition of the province is fatal to the interests of Bengalis as such. I have always maintained that there is no limit to the progress and development of this province and its people if they are in a position to manage their own affairs. Bengal has always received step-motherly treatment from the Centre and the rest of the provinces. Whenever I talk to my Hindu friends their one demand is : Let Bengal settle its own affairs. Thje logical conclusion of this demand is recognition of sovereign status for Bengal. Then and then only can Bengalis settle their own affairs.”96
The demand for an independent and sovereign Bengal submitted by the minority group of the Bengal Provincial League led by Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim got response from the Hindu political intellectuals of Bengal. Sarat Chandra Bose opposed the ‘Pakistan’ and regarded the ‘Partition’ as “suicidal to the cause of Indian independence and also the cause of social progress.”97 He formed the All Bengal Anti-Pakistan and Anti-Partition Committee in April 1947 in Calcutta. He believed that a union of Socialist Republics should be established in India for the solution of the political and communal problems in the country. Sarat Chandra Bose said : “I have always held the view that India must be a union of autonomous socialists republics and I believe that if the different provinces are redistributed on a linguistic basic and what are called provinces are converted into autonomous socialist republics, those socialist republics will gladly cooperate with one another in forming an Indian Union. It would be an Indian Union of Indian conception and Indian making. I look forward to that Union, and not to a Union of
17
British conception and British making.”98 Like the Muslim political intellectuals Sarat Chandra Bose believed that the ‘Partition’ would help the imperialists, communalists and reactionaries to exploit the province. The government should not look to communal interests but common welfare of all communities. He said : “It will make the partitioned provinces happy hunting grounds for imperialists, communalists and reactionaries. It will dissolve the existing linguistic bonds and instead of resolving communal differences, will accentuate and aggravate them. Instead of thinking and talking of Pakistan and partition and thereby bringing into existence armed communal camps we have to devise ways and means as to how to live and work together and how to form people’s governments which will look not to communal interests but to common political, social and economic interests of the people. The real situation of the existing differences to my mind lies in the creation of socialist republics on a linguistic basis and in the establishment in this country of a Central Union of Socialist Republics.”99 Sarat Chandra Bose submitted along with Suhrawardy, Abul Hashim and others the plan of united and sovereign Bengal.100
Mahatma Gandhi pleaded against the ‘partition’ and urged the Muslims to save Bengal from the menace of Partition. Gandhiji in hi prayer meeting in Sodepur Khadi Ashram said; ‘He was not in a position to pronounce an opinion himself. But he could say without any fear of contradiction that, if there was partition the Muslim majority would be responsible for it, and what was more, the Muslim Government that was in power.’101 Gandhiji said that differences in religion should not divide the country because both the Hindus and Muslims spoke the same language and belonged to the same culture. He said : “If he were the Prime Minister of Bengal, he would plead with his Hindu breathren to forget the past. He would tell them that he was as much a Bengali as they were. Difference in religion could not part the two. They spoke the same language and had inherited the same culture. All that was Bengal was common to both, of which they should be equally proud. Bengal was Bengal. It was neither, the Punjab nor Bombay nor anything else.”102 Gandhiji said that fear and suspicion had seized the minds of both the Hindus and Muslims. He said : “He believed in the sovereign rule of the law of love which made no distinction between race, colour, caste or creed.” Regarding establishment of better Hindu-Muslim relations he said : “…enmity cannot last for ever. The two communities were brothers and must remain so in spite of temporary insanity.”103
The Muslim intellectuals belonging to the Krishak Praja Party did not approve of the Partition of Bengal. The Krishak Praja leaders in an appeal urged every patriotic Indian to stop communal warfare. They felt that no fruitful purpose will be served by the division of the Punjab and Bengal. The Krishak Praja leaders said : “Some inisist on division of India before the British quit and others demand partition of Bengal and the Punjab, if the former becomes inevitable. We are opposed to both, as no good or useful purpose will be served by these divisions. On the other hand, it will definitely weaken India’s defence, increase communal strife and decrease India’s political and economic influences before other nations of the world. The Muslim League will get a moth-eaten and truncated Pakistan, if it refuses to join the Indian Union. We shudder at the disastrous fate of the Muslims in the mutilated Pakistan.”104 The Krishak Praja leaders believed that ‘in our opinion only a socialist state based on justice and democratic principles can solve the communal and other vital problems of this country. In such a State religion must be separated from politics.”105
Humayun Kabir, former General Secretary of the Krishak Praja Party opposed the partition of India and Bengal. He regarded the short-sighted policy of the Muslim Leauge was responsible for the Partition. He said : “The uncontrolled campaign of hatred and violence and methods of grangsterism pursued by the Muslim League combined with inefficiency and corruption to create conditions of unparalleled maladministration in Bengal would make the Partition inevitable.”106 Kabir did not accept Suhrawardy’s proposal of a sovereign and united Bengal in a simple way. He told Suhrawardy to take steps to justify his position in the demand of the united and free Bengal. He urged Suhrawardy ‘to retrieve
18
his position even now and justify his recent professions of racial unity of all Bengalis and his united Bengal by passing a bill or at least a resolution accepting jont electorates for the province and inviting the Congress party in the Bengal Leagislature to join his Cabinet on the basis of equality and joint responsibility.”107 He believed that the unity of Bengal could be saved in this way.
Fazlul Huq was not then an influencial politician in the Muslim politics of Bengal but his reaction to the partition proposal of Bengal was significant. He wanted to solve administrative and communal problems, keeping intact the united India and Bengal. He condemned the circumstances that led to the partition of Bengal. He said : “I am one of the few Indians who condemn all that has happened in Indian politics during the last two years and I say publicly that I condemn the circumstances which led to the unfortunate division of the province.”108
The Communist Party of India did not accept the division of India and Bengal. The Communist Party of India declared that the United Bengal with the right of self-determination should be established in the united India. Regarding the partition of Bengal the Communist Party of India declared its plan. It said : “The Commnunist Party stands for a united and Free Bengal in a free India. Bengal as the common homeland of the Bengali Muslims and Hindus should be free to exercise its right of self-dertermination through a sovereign Constituent Assembly bassed on adult franchise and to define its relation with the rest of India.”109 The Communist Party did not find any reason in the contradictory ideas of the Muslim League. The Muslim League regarded the Hindus and Muslims as different nations in the All India context in order to establish Pakistan. Both Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim regarded both the Hindus and Muslims of Bengal as one nation in order to establish United Sovereign Bengal. The Muslim League leaders wanted the division of India on the basis of religion but did not extend the same principle in the case of Bengal. Both Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim did not feel about the necessity of the Indian Union and wanted to establish United Bengal detached from the Indian Union. The Communist Party also criticised Suhrawardy for not alllowing the electorate to make a choice by their votes between the alternatives of United Bengal in a United India or United Bengal outside the Indian Union.110
The majority group in the Muslim League of Bengal under the guidance of Jinnah opposed the views of Suhrawardy and his followers with regard to the establishment of a united and sovereign Bengal. Jinnah said : “The question of division of India as proposed by the Muslim League is based on the fundamental fact that there are two nations—Hindus and Muslims—and the underlying principle is that we want a national home and a national state in our homelands which are predominantly Muslim and comprise the six units of the Punjab, the N.W.F.P., Sind, Baluchistan, Bengal and Assam. This will give the Hindus their national home and national state of Hindustan which means three-forths of British India.”111 Jinnah criticised the demand for the partition of the Punjab and Bengal submitted by the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha. Jinnah said : “The question of partitioning Bengal and the Punjab is raised not with a bonafide object but as a sinister move actuated by spite and bitterness, as they feel that India is going to be divided first, to create more difficulties in the way of the British Government and the Viceroy; and secondly, to unnerve the Muslims by repeatedly emphasizing that the Muslims will get a truncated or mutilated Pakistan. This clamour is not based on any sound principle except that the Hindu minorities in the Punjab and Bengal wish to cut up these provinces and cut up their own people into two in these provinces.”112
Akram Khan was the President of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and leader of the majority group in the provincial Muslim League. He upheld the views of Jinnah. He said : “Muslim Bengal remains firmly wedded to the ideal defined unambiguously in the famous Lahore Resolution of 1940 and stands solidly behind the Qaid-e-Azam.”113 Akram Khan did not accept the proposal of a separate independent state in Bengal detached from other Pakistan areas. He said : “The question of a separate independent state in Bengal isolated from other Pakistan areas does not arise. The Muslims of
19
India constitute a single united nation and we aim at setting up a single united nation and we aim at setting up a single united state which will include all the Muslim majority provinces.”114 He condemned the attempt to dissociate Bengal from other Pakistan areas in order to counteract the partition move. He said : “I strongly deprecate the suggestion that in order to counteract the partition move Bengal should dissociate herself from the other Pakistan areas. Such a policy will prove suicidal.”115
Akram Khan said that the people who talked of a separate sovereign Bengal were playing into the hands of our enenmies. He said : “Those who talk oa a Bangalee nation consisting of Muslims and Hindus and of a separate Sovereign Bengal upon that basis are clearly playing into the hands of our enemies who propose openly to sandwich Muslim Bengal between Hindu provinces in the West and in the East. The Muslims of Bengal can not in their own interests afford to isolate themselves from the Muslim national state for which the League has been working.”116 Akram Khan felt that some disunited Pakistan states would be liquidated by the united Hindustan. He said : “It will be impossible for a number of disunited Pakistan states to face the might of united Hindustan. The only remedy, therefore, lies in our working together and welding all the six units mentioned in Jinnah’s statement.”117 He rejected the proposal of joint electorates and undemocratic 50 : 50, formula as a solution to the problem. Akram Khan said : “I have noticed that the proposals which include joint electorates and the discarded and undemocratic 50 : 50, formula have been put forward from certain quarters. Let me declare as clearly and unequivocally as possible that these proposals are completely repudiated by the Muslims Bengal.”118
Akram Khan criticised the scheme of Sarat Chandra Bose about the future constitution of Bengal. He did not believe that the nine-point formula of Sarat Chandra Bose would help the freedom struggle of Bengal Muslims. He said : “It’s acceptance will deal a death blow to the Pakistan Scheme and Pass 30〖1/2〗 million Muslims in Bengal from the hands of the British into those of the caste Hindus.”119 Akram Khan said on the question of parity that the Hindus of Bengal attempted to make the Muslim majority of Bengal ineffective under the false pretext that their life and property were in danger. He also spoke for the protection of the Muslims of the minority provinces according to the Lahore Proposal.120 Akram Khan categorically said that the Muslims of Bengal did not want partition of Bengal. He said : “Muslim Bengal is positively against the division of Bengal. I assure everyone concerned with the question of separation that the Muslims of Bengal will fight against it.
The partition of Bengal can be effected only over the corpses of the Bengal Muslims. But we may consider the proposal provided this procedure in adopted as a matter of principle in all small zones and pockets where Muslims are in the minority in Hindu-dominated provinces.”121
The Muslim political intellectuals belonging to two groups in the Provincial Muslim League of Bengal did not recommend the partition of Bengal. Suhrawardy and his followers wanted to establish a united sovereign Bengal. But Akram Khan and his group intended to include Bengal as a unit in the Pakistan. The Hindu intelligentsia, the Hindu Mahasabha and the All-India Congress submitted the demand for the division of Bengal. The Hindu political intellectuals belonging to the Bengal Congress Committee regarded Suhrawardy as a communal politician. His involvement in communal politics and Direct Action branded him a communal leader of a particular community. His arguments in favour of a free and united Bengal could hardly satisfy the Hindu intellectuals. The rational element was not visible in his plan for a united and sovereign Bengal because from the practical point of view such a sovereign Bengal could hardly be established. About Suhrawardy’s plan of a united and sovereign Bengal it was said that ‘he has evoked the ghost of provincialism’.122
Dr. Rajendra Prasad (1884-1963), President of the Constituent Assembly asserted that ‘the demand for the division of the Punjab and Bengal was in terms of the League’s Lahore Resolution’. He
20
supported the partition of Bengal.123 The Hindu intelligentsia of Bengal and other provinces supported the partition of Bengal. The distinguished educationists of Bengal sent a telegram urging the British government for the formation of a separate West Bengal province. The telegram contained : “Education, trade and industry in Bengal have almost collapsed owing to recurrent riots causing insecurity of life and property. The present communal Ministry is totally incapable of maintaining law and order. We strongly support the immediate formation of a separate West Bengal Province guaranteeing under a Non-Communal Ministry safety of life nad unhindered propress in education, industry and commerce, with the continuance and development of Calcutta a vital part of West Bengal, as a moral, intellectual, social and economic centre’.124 The industrialists contended that the partition of Bengal would not hamper in any way the economic progress of the country.125
The communal trend and the sectarian ideas dominated the political life of the country. The spirit of liberalism lost its entity in the thoughts of political intellectuals belonging to major communities of Bengal. The polarization of thoughts of the Hindus and Muslims reached to such a stage where communal adjustment seemed next to impossible. The trend of community oriented ideas and the spirit of separatism initiated in the late nineteeth century reached its apogee and culminated in the partition of India in 1947.
০০০
NOTES
1. A.H. Ahmed, Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchas Bachar, p. 111; Muslim Politics, p. 79.
2. B.D. Habibullah, Shere-e-Bangla, p. 68;
Kalipada Biswas, Jukta Banglar Sesh Adhyay, p. 27;
Muslim Politics, pp. 86-87.
3. The Krishak Praja Party got 31.78 per cent of the rural votes, 15.39 per cent of the urban votes and 31.51 per cent of the Muslim votes.
Muslim Politics, p. 89.
4. Star of India was founded by Nazimuddin in 1932.
Mohammadi was edited by Akram Khan.
Naresh Kumar Jain (ed.) Muslim in India, Vol. I, pp. 221-222.
M.A.H. Ispahani (b. 1902) was an industrialist and president of the Muslim Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, and Deputy Mayor (1941-42) of Calcutta. He was the joint secretary of the Provincial Muslim League 1936-37 and a member of the All India Muslim League Working Committee. He was the representative of the Non-Bengali Muslims of Calcutta.
5. Firfura’s Pir Saheb Maulana Sufi Abu Baker and Pirs of Jaunpore issued fatwas supporting the League. Role of Ulama, p. 95.
6. Azad, 19 January and 23 January 1937.
Role of Ulama, p. 95.
The Jamiyat-i-Ulama-i-Banglah and Assam under the guidance of its secretary Muhammed Abul Kasem Siddiqi, visited different areas of the province in 1937 to mobilize the Muslim masses behind the League.
7. Muslim Politics, pp. 88-89,
8. Pakistan Prastab, p. 34.
21
9. Azad, 5 and 6 February 1937;
Role of Ulama, p. 96.
10. B.M. Chowdhury, Muslim Politics in India, p. 41.
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 33-40.
11. The issue of release of political prisoners and the question of inclusion of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar in the
cabinet developed a controversary and prevented the union of the Krishak Praja Party and the Congress.
Kalipada Biswas, op. cit., pp. 32, 36-37.
Muslim Politics, p. 93.
12. Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938) was a poet, thinker and advocate of Pan-Islamism. He pleaded for a separate Muslim State in India. Jinnah was influenced by his ideas.
G. Allana (ed.) Pakistan Movement Historic Documents, pp. 132-133.
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 79-80.
13. Role of Ulama, p. 96.
14. Maulana Akram Khan, Maulvi Fazlur Rahim Chowdhury, Poet Mainuddin, Maulvi Shafiuddin Ahmad, Maulvi Nazir Ahmad Chowdhury, Maulvi Abul Mansur Ahmad wrote books on Islam, translated The Quran into Bengali and spread orthodox views.
15. Ibid., Role of Ulama, p. 96;
Azad criticised Nehru’s Muslim Mass Contact Movement.
16. Ibid., p. 97.
17. Azad, Editorial, 23 May 1937;
Role of Ulama, p. 97.
18. The Ulamas wanted to take one of them as a Minister for Islamic affairs in the Praja-League Ministry. This proposal was not accepted by Huq and the League leaders.
Abul Mansur Ahmad, End of a Betrayal and Restoration of Lahore Resolution, pp. 223-224; Role of Ulama, p. 97.
19. Role of Ulama, p. 97.
20. Ibid.
Mohammadi, Magh 1343 B.S.
21. Myron Weiner, Political Change in South Asia, p. 4;
Hossainur Rahman, Hindu-Muslim Relations in Bengal, 1905-1947, p. 91.
22. H. Rahman, op. cit., p. 91.
23. Azizul Hauq, The Man Behind the Plough, p. 169;
Muslim Politics, pp. 103, 105, 109.
24. M.A.H. Ispahani, Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah As I Knew Him, p. 10;
Abul Kalam Shamsuddin, Atit Diner Smriti, pp. 154-158;
22
Humaira Momen, Muslim Politics in Bengal : A Study of Krishak Praja Party and the Elections of 1937, p. 72;
Muslim Politics, pp. 109-112.
25. H.S. Suhrawardy was the Secretary of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League from 1937 to 1943. The ‘Red Flag Unions’ were controlled either by the Congress or the Communists.
26. Speech of Fazlul Huq at Mohammad Ali Park, Calcutta, 17 April 1938, vide The Amrita Bazar
Patrika, 18 April, 1938.
J.H. Broomfield, Elite Conflict in a Plural Society : Twentieth Century Bengal, pp. 293-297;
Pakistan Prastab, p. 164.
27. K.P. Biswas, op. cit., p. 332;
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 169-170.
28. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, 19 April and 2 October 1938;
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 169-170.
29. R. Coupland, Indian Politics 1936-1942, p. 27;
H. Rahman, op. cit., p. 93.
30. The Government prescribed a booklet entitled ‘Muslim Jagarani’ written by Farrukh Siar in 1939 (alias Lutfar Rahman) on the ground that it spread feeling of enmity among different classes.
Muslim Politics, p. 117.
31. Muslim Politics, p. 117.
32. Pakistan Prastab, p. 170.
33. A.K. Fazlul Huq is regarded by some writers as the mover of Lahore Resolution or the Pakistan Demand in 1940.
A.S.M. Abdur Rab, A.K. Fazlul Huq, p. 101;
R.C. Mazumder (ed.) Struggle For Freedom, p. 579;
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 102-106, 173.
34. Huq decided to remove the Holwell Monument in Calcatta to support the demand of the students of Calcutta. It displeased the European supporters of the Coalition Ministry and the League leaders.
Bengal Legislative Assembly Proceedings, Eighteenth Session, 1944, Vol LXVII, No. 2, p. 208.
Morning News, 2 and 5 July 1940.
Muslim Politics, pp. 126-128.
35. Mohammadi, 1346 B.S. Paus, pp. 168-173 and 1346 B.S. Falgun, pp. 333-341.
36. Resolutions of the All India Muslim League from April 1941 to April 1942, p. 39.
Muslim Politics, pp. 133-134.
The Hindusthan Standard, 21 June, 1942.
37. Speech of Huq in the Hindu-Muslim Conference on 20 June 1942.
The Hindusthan Standard, 21 June, 1942.
Pakistan Prastab, pp. 34, 130, 135.
23
Muslim Politics, pp. 135.
In 1937 the Nawab of Murshidabad established the Hindu-Muslim Unity Association. The League opposed this association.
38. The Hindusthan Standard, 21 June, 1942.
39. Ibid.
40. The Muslim League leaders like Nazimuddin, Suhrawardy, Tamizuddin Khan, Akram Khan, Muazzamuddin Hossain, Nawabzada Khwaja Nasrullah and student leaders like Waseque and Fazlul Kader Choudhury visited different areas of Bengal to mobilize opinions in favour of the Muslim League.
Muslim Politics, pp. 164-165.
41. Speech of Fazlul Huq, 15 February 1943;
Bengal Legislative Assembly Proceedings, Vol. LXIV, No. 1, p. 98;
Muslim Politics, pp. 140-141.
42. Pakistan Prastab, p. 186.
43. In an incident of police firing on 19 September 1942 over the issue of a Puja procession before the mosque at Kishoregunge in the Mymensingh district, Huq did not side with the Muslims. The pro-Hindu attitude of Huq was criticised by the League.
The Amrita Bazar Patrika, 20 October, 1942;
Muslim Politics, pp. 144-145.
44. Bengal Legislative Assembly Proceedings, Fifteenth Session, Vol. LXIV, No. 3, pp. 557, 728-733.
Muslim Politics, pp. 146.
45. The Statesman and the Star of India remained faithful to the British Government as their ideas were consistent with the ideals of the League.
46. Pakistan Prastab, p. 189.
47. Khwaja Nazimuddin (1894-1964) was born at Dacca (Bangladesh). He studied at Dacca and M.A.O. College, Aligarh. He was influenced by Jinnah. In 1922 he became Chairman of the Dacca Municipality and Education Minister under the ‘Dyarchy’. He passed the Primary Education Bill in 1930. He became the member of the All India Muslim League for 1937-1947. He became the Home Minister in Huq’s Ministry in Bengal. In 1943 he became the Chief Minister of Bengal. After Partition he became the Chief Minister of East Pakistan and Governor-General of Pakistan. In 1951 he became the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
S.P. Sen (ed.) Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. II, pp. 351-353.
48. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee (1901-1953) was the President of the Hindu Mahasabha and founder of the Jan Sangh Party. He became a Minister of the Union Government after independence.
A meeting held in the Town Hall at Calcutta on 24 April 1943 under the Chairmanship of A.H. Ghaznavi, criticised the Bengal Governor Sir John Herbert for allowing Nazimuddin to form a new Ministry.
The Statesman, 22 and 25 April 1943;
Pakistan Prastab, p. 199.
49. Mujibur Rahman Khan, Pakistan, pp. 66-67;
24
Muslim Politics, pp. 177-178.
50. Abul Kalam Shamsuddin, op. cit., pp. 225-234.
51. The first Conference of the Purba Pakistan Renaissance Society was held at Calcutta (1 and 2 July 1944). Professor Susobhan Chandra Sarkar presided over the Political Science and Manoranjan Bhattacharyya presided over the Music and Art Section.
Mohammadi, Asar-Sravan-Bhadra, 1351 B.S.;
Bengali Buddhijibi, p. 310.
52. Sardar Fazlur Karim (ed.), Pakistan Andolon O Muslim Sahitya, pp. 124, 146.
Bengali Buddhijibi, p. 310.
53. Mohammadi, 1346 B.S. Aghrayan, pp. 136-141.
54. Muslim Politics, pp. 180.
55. Role of Ulama, pp. 97-99.
56. Millat 1st issue, 16 November, 1945, p. 11;
Role of Ulama, pp. 97-98.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Kazi Ahmed Kamal, Politicians and Inside Stories, p. 151;
Role of Ulama, p. 99.
62. Badruddin Umar, Purba Banglar Bhasa Andolan O Tatkalin Rajniti, pp. 214-215.
Muslim Politics, pp. 184.
63. Muslim Politics, pp. 189-190.
The Muslim students associated themselves with the all India postal strike held in 1946 and the movement related to trial of the Indian National Army (I.N.A.) (November 1945) and Rashid Ali Day (11 Febraury, 1946).
64. Proceedings of the Nineth Session of the All India Kisan Sabha held at Netrokona in Mymensingh District (Bangladesh) from 5-9 April 1945.
M.A. Rasul, A History of the All India Kisan Sabha, pp. 115-134.
65. Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy (1893-1963) was born in Midnapore in West Bengal, studied at the Calcutta Madrassa and St. Xavier’s College Calcutta. He became a barrister of the Calcutta High Court. He became the Deputy Mayor of Calcutta Corporation during the Mayoralty of C.R. Das. He joined the Muslim League and became a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1921. He was the Prime
25
Minister of Bengal 1946-47. In 1949 he went to Pakistan and broke with the League. He organized the Awami League, won the election and became a Law Minister under Muhammad Ali of Bogra (Prime Minister of Pakistan). He became Prime Minister of Pakistan 1956-57.
Liaqat Ali Khan (1895-1951) was born at Karanail (Punjab) and became a barrister in 1921. He was a member of the U.P. Legislative Council, Central Legislative Council and General Secretary of the Muslim League in 1937. In 1940 he became the leader of the Muslim League in Central Legislative Assembly and in 1946 joined the Interim Government as a Finance Minister and supported the demand for Pakistan. After independence he became the Prime Minister of Pakistan for 4 years.
S.P. Sen (ed.) Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. II, pp. 411-412, Vol. VI, pp. 275-276.
66. Millat, 4th Issue, 7 December 1945, p. 6;
Role of Ulama, p. 100.
67. Nicholas Mansergh, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs : Problems of wartime Co-operation and Post-war Change 1939-1952, p. 211;
Muslim Politics, pp. 204.
68. V.P. Menon, The Transfer of Power in India, p. 294;
Hector Bolitho, Jinnah Ceretor of Pakistan, p. 164;
Freedom Movement, Vol. III, p. 777.
69. In 1946 Fazlul Huq joined the Muslim League.
Freedom Movement, Vol. III, p. 779-780;
Prabhas Chandra Lahiri, Pak Bharater Ruprekha, pp. 333-334.
70. Francis Tuker, While Memory Serves, p. 46;
Pakistan Prastab, p. 216;
Muslim Politics, pp. 212.
71. The Muslim attempted to implement the Pakistan Proposal and the Congress Hindu-Mahasabha wanted to bring the Hindu and Sikh areas of the Punjab and Bengal in the Hindusthan when the British Government declared its intention to transfer the power to ‘responsible Indian hands’ by June 1948.
C.H. Philips, The Evolution of India and Pakistan, 1858-1947;
C.H. Philips & Mary Doreen Wainwright (ed.), The Partition of India, Policies and Perspectives, 1935-1947;
Freedom Movement, Vol. III, p. 795.
72. Jawaharlal Nehru was a barrister and scholar. He played a great role in the freedom movement of the country and was the prime Minister of India (1947-1964). His books viz., Glimpses of World History, Discovery of India are famous.
Sardar Vallabhai Jhaverbhai Patel was a barrister and freedom fighter. He was the Deputy Prime Minister of free India and was responsible for the integration of the Princely States into the Indian Union.
Durga Das (ed.), Sardar Patel’s Correspondence 1945-1950, Vol. IV, PP. 42-43.
Leonard Mosley, The Last Day of British Raj, p. 248.
Freedom Movement, Vol. III, pp. 796-797.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, p. 68.
73. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, 5 April, 1947.
74. Ibid., 6 April, 1947.
26
75. The Statesman, 2 May 1947.
U.N. Pyarelal, Mahatma Gandhi, The Last Phase, Vol. II, p. 178.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, p. 5.
76. Penderel Moon (ed.), Wavell the Vice-roy’s Jounral, p. 348.
V.P. Menon, op. cit., p. 306;
Muhammad Waliullah, Yug Bichitra, p. 487;
Muslim Politics, pp. 219-221.
77. The Statesman, 9 April 1947.
The Amrita Bazar Patrika, 22 April, 1947.
Under the leadership of Major-General A.C. Chatterjee, Srikumar Banerjee, S.N.. Modak and N.C. Chatterjee, the New Bengal Association was formed in April 1947 to materialise the demand for the Partition of Bengal.
78. The Statesman, 14, 15 and 17 May 1947.
79. The Statesman, 28 April 1947.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid.
83. The Statesman, 26 April 1947.
84. Ibid.
85. The Statesman, 8 May 1947.
86. Ibid.
87. Star of India, 30 April, 1947.
Serajuddin Hussain, Days Decisive, p. 102.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid.
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.
27
96. The Statesman, 23 April, 1947.
97. The Statesman, 21 May, 1947.
Sarat Chandra Bose (1889-1950) was a barrister of the Calcutta High Court. He was the leader of the Congress Party in the Central Leagislature and a member of the Interim Government. In 1946 he left the Government and the Congress Working Committee and established the Socialist Republician Party.
98. Ibid.
99. Ibid.
100. “I warned My countrymen”. Being the collected works of Sarat Chandra Bose, compiled by Netaji Research Bureau, p. 188.
According to the plan Bengal would be a free state. Elections to the Bengal Legislature would be held on the basis of joint electorate and adult franchise with reservation seats proportionate to the population among Hindus and Muslims. Suhrawardy, Fazlul Rahman (Minister), Mohammad Ali (Minister), Abul Hashim, Abdul Malik (M.L.A.), Kiran Sankar Roy, Satyaranjan Bakshi and Sarat Chandra Bose drew up the plan of independent united Bengal.
101. The Statesman, 11 May, 1947.
102. Ibid.
103. Ibid.
104. The Statesman, 29 May, 1947.
105. Ibid.
106. The Statesman, 13 May, 1947.
107. Ibid.
Naresh Jain (ed.), Muslims in India, A Biographical Dictionary, Vol. II, pp. 202-203.
Humayun Kabir (1906-1969) was a professor of English in the Calcutta University. He was the president of the All India Muslim Student’s Conference in 1938, member of the Bengal Legislative Council 1937-45, deputy leader of the Krishak Praja Party, 1937-45, and president of the Nikhil Banga Krishak Praja Samity, 1945-47, He was the Educational Adviser and Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Government of India and worked ad Minister in the Union Government. He was the editor of the Bharat (1929), Baromashi (1934) and Chaturanga (1938) (Journals).
108. The Hindustan Standard, 27 July 1947.
109. P.C. Joshi, For the Final Bid for Power, Freedom Programme of Indian Communists, pp. 105-106.
Bhabani Sen, Bangobhango O Pakistan, pp. 19, 36-40.
G. Adhikari, Pakistan O Jatiya Yakya.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, pp. 82, 85-86.
110. Bhabani Sen, op. cit., pp. 36-51.
111. The Statesman, 1 May, 1947.
28
112. Ibid.
113. Star of India, 5 May, 1947.
Dr. Abul Kasem, Banglar Protibha, pp. 9-24.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, p. 49.
Maulana Akram Khan (b. 1868) was born in Hakimpur, a village in the district of 24-Parganas. He was a nationalist in his early life, participated in the Khilafat Movement. He became a devoted follower of Jinnah. He took up the cause of Bengali Muslims and criticised the Hindus and the Congress through the columns of Mohammadi. He was the president of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and opposed the plan of a united and sovereign Bengal.
114. Star of India, 5 May, 1947.
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid.
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid.
119. The Statesman, 15 May, 1947.
120. Ibid.
121. The Statesman, 20 May, 1947.
122. The Statesman, 2 May, 1944.
123. The Statesman, 1 May, 1947.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad was a lawyer, freedom fighter and participated in the Non-cooperation Movement. He was the President of the Constituent Assembly and later on became the first President of the Indian Republic.
124. The Hindusthan Standard, 8 May 1947.
The Statesman, 8 May, 1947.
Cable to Lord Listowel Sir Strafford Cripps and Sir John Anderson by Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar,
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar, Dr. Meghnad Saha
Dr. Sisir Mitra and Dr, Suniti Kumar Chatterjee.
Sri Aurobindo supported the partition of Bengal vide Tribune, 7 May 1947.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, pp. 58-59.
125. G.D. Birla, Basic Facts Relating to Hindustan and Pakistan.
Swadhin Bangobhumi, p. 111.
০০০
29
Conclusion
THE Muslim political thought underwent a gradual transformation in India during the period under review. The consolidation of the British rule in the nineteenth century and inadequate development of the Muslim community in the spheres of education and commerce had definite roles to play in the political thought process of the Muslims. The political thought of the Muslims, both its liberal and orthodox trends, moved into different directions in the different phases during the period under study. The Muslim society was composite in character and maintained an orthodox tradition. The Muslims looked with disfavour the advent of the British rule in India. They could not forget the glorious days of the medieval period when their material adventages and cultural influence reigned supreme. During the medieval period the Hindus enjoyed prominence in the commerce and land revenue departments, but their religion relegated them to the position of the second grade citizens. The consolidation of the British rule after 1772 disheartened the Muslims. They could not compromise with alien rule. The Hindus adopted Western education and reaped the benefits of the British administration. The new liberal ideas or the Bengal renaissance definitely influenced the thought process of the Hindus and the Brahmos. The emphasis on the Persian Arabic culture together with a veneration for Urdu language kept the Muslims separated from the progressive trend which was initiated with the establishment of the British rule and introduction of Western education. Even then, a section of the Muslims could detach themselves from the socio-religious tradition of their community and adopt a liberal and rational approach to the problems confronted the Bengal society.
In the early part of the nineteenth century the Muslims tried to introduce new ideas through the initiation of the reform movements. The socio-religious movements of the Wahhabis or Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah, under Titu Mir, a disciple of Sayyed Ahmad of Rai Barelly and the Faraizis, under Shariat Allah and Dudu Miyan inaugurated an era of reforms in Islam in Bengal and helped the process of Islamization. This movement gave vent to some extent the separatist and communal forces and dealt a blow to the liberal trend in the Muslim thought which was processed during the different chapters of the medieval period. The British Government ruthlessly suppressed the reform movements which made the Muslims bitter to the British rule. Their anti-British attitude was amply demonstrated in their participation in the national rising of 1857 against the British.
The post-mutiny period witnessed a new change in the political ideas of the Muslims. In course of time the Muslim population increased to a great extent. A sense of awareness and a spirit of cooperation were discerned among the Muslims. Rev. J. Long and Sir W.W. Hunter helped profoundly the British administrators to reconsider their attitude towards the Muslims. The Muslim leaders thought in worthful to pursue a co-operative attitude towards the British Government. The Muslim elite desired to regenerate to Muslims on Western lines. The two ideas found prominence to regenerate the Muslims. One section turned to Western learning and advocated alliance between the Muslim elite and the British Government. Sir Syed Ahmed, Abdool Luteef, Syed Ameer Ali, Ameer Hussein and Delawar Hossain became the exponents of this idea.
Another section sponsored the cause the religious education under the guidance of Maulana Muhammad Qasim Nanautvi at Deobond. The two Muslim institutions founded at Aligarh and at Deobond helped the regeneration of the Muslims. The Muslim elite of Bengal campaigned for Western education retaining at the same time the Persian-Arabic-Urdu culture and Islamic education. The Muslim education in Bengal was conducted throught the Madrassas and maktabs. The Calcutta Madrassa imparted education on religious lines and could not afford to preach English education. Abdool Luteef’s Mahomedan Literary Society and Ameer Ali’s Central National Mahomedan Association made a compromise between the English eduaction and the Madrassa-Maktab education but failed to introduce secular education. They succeeded in creating an educated Muslim community who remained loyal to the
30
British Government. The national education based on the study of vernacular was not sponsored by the Hindu and the Muslim intelligentsia so as to create a common nationality. The pattern of Muslim education infused in them a spirit of exclusiveness and a separatist outlook. The impact of the Aligarh and Deobond schools were felt by the urban Muslim society. The non-elite society developed in them a spirit of separatism and in this respect the Bahas or meetings, Mullahs and Anjumans played the necessary role. An ethnic identity based on the ideas of Islam widened the gulf already existed between the Hindus and the Muslims. The orthodox contents in their political thought not nourishment in the establishment of the Muslim Leauge in 1906.
In the Partition agitation of 1905 the Muslims in general hailed the British proposal as a great bargain, though a few sided with the Hindu middle class to raise their protests against the proposed partition. The British policy also helped to develop a separatist outlook among the Muslims. The idea of soliciting cooperation of the British Government dissociated the Muslims from the constitutional politics. Following the ideas of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the Muslims kept themselves aloof from the Indian National Congress and regarded the National Congress as an organization of the Hindus.
In the twenties of the present century the Khilafat issue helped the Hindus and the Muslims to stage a common programme of agitation against the British Government. This trend developed in 1916 when the Lucknow Pact was signed. The Khilafat movement was based on a religious issue and extra-territorial considerations. The Hindu-Muslim rapprochement was established under the guidance of Gandhi. Materially, the rapprochement was realized basing on religious considerations and it had no bearing on the development of a rational trend. Leader like Jinnah kept himself away from the issue and regarded the rapprochement as of little efficacy. The failure of the Khilafat movement gave vent to wide eleavage in relation of the two communities.
In the second quarter of the twentieth century the religion dominated the Muslim politics in Bengal. Sir Abdur Rahim and Maulana Akram Khan gave encouragement to the orthodox-communal trend in the political thought process of the Muslims. Side by side the liberal cultural ideas permeated the thought process of the Bengali Muslims. The Muslim Sahitya Samaj of Dacca released rational and liberal ideas and created an atmosphere of congeniality. K.A. Wadud and Abul Hussain initiated the movement for salvation from the bondage or emancipation of the intellect. Along with them, the Communist group under the guidance of Kazi Nazrul Islam, Muzaffar Ahmad and Abdul Halim organized a movement to free the peasants from exploitation of the feudal lord and pleaded for introducing communism in the country. The Peasants Congress was organized. They tried to improve the lot of the peasants and workers and criticized the Indian National Congress as an organization of the bourgeoisie. The liberal trend in the Muslim political thought could not move on smoothly as the obscurantists and communalists denounced the liberal trend and helped the process of communal trend. The orthodox section already advocated the ‘Two-Nation Theory’.
The period after 1937 witnessed the consolidation of the orthodox and communal forces. A.K. Fazlul Huq with the help of the Nikhil Banga Krishak Parja Samity tried to establish communal harmony and adopted a programme aiming at promoting welfare of the peasants. Huq even solicited cooperation of the Congress to maintain communal harmony. Huq’s ministry had a short duration. He failed to maintain his liberal stand against the communal forces. Nazimuddin and Suhrawardy group implemented the communal ideas of Jinnah in the political life of Bengal. The cultural diffusion was discerned during the period. In the cultural sphere the Purba Pakistan Sahitya Sansad of Dacca and Purba Pakistan Renaissance Society of Calcutta propagated ideas to mark the division in the Bengali Society as the Hindu and Muslim cultures.
The Muslim League under the guidance of Jinnah, Nazimuddin, Suhrawardy and Ispahani spread
31
the gospel of communal and separatist forces. The Hindu Mahasabha organized a movement to counteract the growing communal ideas of the League. The next stage that followed in 1946 was nothing but the growing communal tensions. The ‘Direct Action’ was the climax of the phase. Suhrawardy and Abul Hashim’s scheme of a united and free Bengal did not materialize. Politically, the trend of liberal forces got a set-back in 1947 when the Indian sub-continent was partitioned. Still the liberal trend in the Muslim political thought was not destroyed. The liberal trend initiated with the establishment of the Muslim Sahitya Samaj at Dacca in 1926 did not extinguish. Its influence remained ever active in the ideas of Wadud. Wadud lived long after 1947 to carry out the mission of the Sahitya Samaj in his liberal ideas. Its influence was found operating not only in India but also in East Pakistan. Some followers of the liberal trend in East Pakistan preached the liberal ideas and its adherents had a role to play in the establishment of Bangladesh.
০০০
Bibliography
Primary Source
A. GOVERNMENT RECORDS
Proceedings of the Juducial Departments, 1843-1858, 1858-1990.
Home Political Files, 1912-1947.
Home Poltical File on the Partition of Bengal (1905).
Home Political File on the Khilafat Movement in Bengal.
Bengal Legislative Assembly Proceedings, 1937-1947.
Bengal Legislative Council Proceedings, 1883-1902, 1921-1935 and 1937-1947.
B. REPORTS
1. India, Census
(a) Report on the Census of Bengal, 1872.
(b) Report on the Census of British India, 1881, Vol. I, London. 1883.
(c) Report on the Census of Bengal, 1881, Vols. I & III.
(d) Census of India, 1891, Vol. III, The Report, Calcutta, 1893.
(e) Census of India, 1901, Vol. VI, Part I, The Report, Calcutta, 1902.
(f) Census of India, 1911, Vol. V, Bengal, Part II, Tables, Calcutta, 1913.
(g) Census of India, 1921, Vol. V, Bengal, Part I, Report, Calcutta, 1923.
(h) Census of India, 1931, Vol. I, Delhi, 1933.
(i) Census of India, 1941, Vol. I, India, Tables, Simla, 1943.
(j) General Report on Public Instructions, 1871-72, 1883-84, 1884-85, 1913-14.
(k) The Zamindary Settlement of Bengal, 2 Vol., Calcutta, 1879.
(l) Report of the Indian Education Commission, 1882.
(m) Report of the Administration of Bengal, 1886-1887, 1887-1888.
(n) The Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East India Company, Vol. I, Bengal Presidency Madras, 1883.
(o) Quinquennial Review of Education in Eastern Bengal and Assam, 1901-02 to 1906-07.
(p) Quinquennial Review of Education in India, 1907-1912, Vol. I.
(q) Sedition Committee Report, 1918, Calcutta, 1918.
(r) Report of the Bengal Provincial Banking Committee 1929-30 (Calcutta, 1930).
(s) Report of the Land Revenue Commission Bengal, Vol. I, with minutes of dissent, Calcutta, 1940.
32
(t) Resolutions of the All India Muslim League, December 1938-December 1946 (Delhi, n.d), 4 Vols.
(u) Indian National Congress, Reports 1885-1912.
(v) Report on the Condition of the Lower Classes of Population in the Bengal, Calcutta, 1888.
C. GAZETTEERS
1. O’Malley, L.S.S., Murshidabad District Gazetteer, Calcutta, 1914.
2. O’Malley, L.S.S., 24-Parganas District Gazetteer, Calcutta, 1914.
3. Sachse, F.A., Mymensingh District Gazetteer, Calcutta, 1917.
Articles
1. Long, J. (Rev.), “The Social Condition of the Muhammadans of Bengals, and the remedies” (In
Transactions of the Bengal Social Science Association, Calcutta, 1869 and 1870).
2. Lond, J. (Rev.), “Brief Review of the past and present state of Vernacular Education in Bengal” (In Reports on the State of Education in Bengal, 1835 and 1838, by W. Adam, Calcutta, 1868).
3. Luteef Abdool, “Mahomedan Education in Bengal” (In Transactions of The Bengal Social Science Association, Calcutta, 1868).
Tracts
1. Ali, Syed Ameer., “A Cry from the Indian Muhammadans, in Nineteenth Century”, Cacutta, 1882.
2. Chowdhury, Syed Nawab Ali, “Vernacular Education in Bengali”, Calcutta, 1900.
3. Hossein, Syed Ameer., “A Pamphlet on Mahomedan Education in Bengal”, Calcutta, 1880.
4. Karim, Abdul., Letters on Hindu-Muslim Pact, Calcutta, 1924.
—Muhammadan Education in Bengal, Calcutta, 1990.
Secondary Source
ENGLISH BOOKS
Adam, W., Reports on the State of Education in Bengal (1835 and 1838), edited by A. Basu, Calcutta, 1941.
Ali, Syed Ameer, A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed, London, 1873.
—The Spirit of Islam, Reprinted, London, 1967.
Ahmad, Abul Mansur, End of a Betrayal and Restoration of Lahore Resolution, Dacca, 1975.
Ahmad, Imtiaz (ed.), Caste and Social Stratification Among the Muslims, Delhi, 1973.
Ahmad, Aziz, Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan 1857-1964, London, 1967.
—Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment, Oxford, 1969.
Ahmad, Qeyamuddin, The Wahabi Movement in India, Calcutta, 1969.
Ahmed, Salauddin A.F., Social Ideas and Social Change in Bengal 1818-1835, Leiden, 1965.
Ahmed, Rafiuddin, The Bengal Muslims 1871-1906 : A Quest for Identity, Delhi, 1981.
Ahmed, Sufia, Muslim Community in Bengal 1884-1912, Dacca, 1974.
Alburini, A.H., Makers of Pakistan and Modern Muslim India, Lahore, 1950.
Allana, G. (ed.), Pakistan Movement Historic Documents, Vol. I, Karachi, n.d.
Ambedkar, B.R., Pakistan or the Partition of India, edn. 3, Bombay, 1946.
Andrews, C.F. & Mukerjee, G., The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India, London, 1938.
Arnold, T.W., The Preaching of Islam, edn, 2, London, 1913.
Azad, Abul Kalam, India Wins Freedom, Calcutta, 1959.
33
Azad, K.K. (ed.), Ameer Ali : His Life and Work, Lahore, 1968.
Baden-Powell, B.H., (The) Land-Systems of British India, Vol. I, 1972 (Johnson Reprint Corporation, N.Y.)
Bagal, J.C., History of the Indian Association 1876-1951, Calcutta, 1953.
Bagchi, Amiya Kumar, Private Investment in India 1900-1939, Cambridge, 1972.
Bahadur, Lal, The Muslim League, Its History, Activities and Achievements, Agra, 1954.
Banerjee, Surendra Nath, A Nation in Making, London, 1925.
Bhatia, B.M., Famines in India, A Study in Some Aspects of the Economic History of India 1860-1945, Bombay, 1963.
Birla, G.D., Basic Facts Relating to Hindustan and Pakistan, New Delhi, 1947.
Blunt, W.S., India Under Ripon : A Private Diary, London, 1909.
Bolitho, Hector., Jinnah : Creator of Pakistan, London, 1954.
Bose, Nirmal Kumar., Calcutta, 1964 : A Social Survey, Bombay, 1968.
—Modern Bengal, Calcutta, 1959.
Bradley-Birt, F.B., Twelve Men of Bengal in the Nineteenth Century, Calcutta, 1910.
Broomfield, J.H., Elite Conflict in a Plural Society : Twentieth Century Bengal, Bombay, 1968.
Buchanan, Francies, (a) (A) Account of the Districts of Bihar and Patna in 1811-1812,
Vol. I. Introduction and Books, I-II, Patna, n.o.
(B) (An) Account of the District of Purnea in 1809-1810, Patna, 1928.
(b) (A) Geographical, satistical and Historical description of the district, or zila, of Dinajpur, in the province or soubah, of Bengal, Calcutta, 1833.
Campbell, G., Memoirs of My Indian Career, Vol. II, London, 1893.
Carstaris, R., Human Nature in Rural India, London, 1876.
Chattopadhyay, Gautam (ed.), Awakening in Bengal in Early Nineteenth Century,
Selected Documents, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1965.
Chatterjee, D.K. C.R. Das and Indian National Movement, Calcutta, 1965.
Chatterjee, Sanjib Chandra, Bengal Ryots : Their Rights and Liabilities, Calcutta, 1864.
Chaudhury, Nirod C., The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, London, 1951.
Chaudhury, S.B., Civil Disturbances during the British Rule in India 1765-1857, Calcutta, 1955.
Chirol, V., Indian Unrest, London, 1910.
Chowdhury, B.M., Muslim Politics in India, Calcutta, 1965.
Das, Durga (ed.), Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Vol. III and IV, Bombay, 1972.
Das, M., India under Morley and Minto, London, 1964.
Das Gupta, S., Obscure Religious Cults, edn. 2, Calcutta, 1962.
De Amalendu, Roots of Separatism in Nineteenth Century Bengal, Calcutta, 1974.
Dodwell, H.H. (ed.) The Cambridge History of India 1858-1918, Vol. VI, Cambridge, 1932.
Dutta, Kalikinkar, Studies in the History of Bengal Subah 1740-70, Vol. I, Social and Economic, Calcutta, 1936.
Dutta, R.C., The Econom History of India, Vol. II, Reprinted. London, 1956.
Dutta, Rajni, Palme, India To-Day, Bombay, 1947.
Farquhar, J.N., Modern Religious Movements in India, New York, 1915.
Faruqi, Z.H., The Deobond School and the Demand for Pakistan, Calcutta, 1963.
Fazl, Sayyid Abul, On the Muhammedans of India, Calcutta, 1862.
Fileld, C.D., Landholding and the Relation of Landlord and Tenant, Tenant, Calcutta, 1883.
Fraser, Lovet., india Under Curzon and After, London, 1911.
Gallaghar, John, et al (edns.), Locality, Province and Nation : Essays on Indian Politics 1870-1940, Cambridge, 1973.
Ghosh, Jogendra Chandra, (ed.), The English Works of Raja Rammohan Roy, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1885.
Ghose, P.C., The Development of Indian National Congress 1892-1909, Calcutta, 1960.
Gibh, H.A.R., & Kramers, J.H., A Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1953.
34
Gopal Ram, Indian Muslims (1858-1947), Bombay, 1959.
Gopal S., British Policy in Indian 1858-1947, Cambridge, 1965.
Gordon, Leonard A., Bengal : The Nationalist Movement 1876-1940, Delhi, 1974.
Graham, G.F.I., The Life and Works of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, London, 1909.
Gupta, A.C. (ed.), Studies in the Bengal Renaissance, Jadavpur, 1958.
Haldar, Gopal, Kazi Nazrul Islam, Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 1973.
Hampton, H.V., Biographical Studies in Modern Indian Education, Madras, 1947.
Haque Enamul (ed.), Nawab Bahadur Latif, His Writings and Related Documents, Dacca, 1968.
Hardy, P, The Muslims of British India, Cambridge, 1972.
Hartog, Philip, Some Aspects of Indian Education, Past and Present, London, 1939.
Hayat, Abul, Musalmans of Bengal, Calcutta, 1960.
Hodson, H.V., The Great Divide, Britain India—Pakistan, London, 1986.
Holt, P.M., et al (edns.), The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. II, Cambridge, 1970.
Hunter W.W., The Indian Musalmans, edn. 2, London, 1872.
Huq, A.K. Fazlul, Bengal To-day, Calcutta, 1944.
Hussain, Serajuddin, Days Decisive, Dacca, 1970.
Ian, Stephens, Pakistan, London, 1963.
Ikramullah, Begum Shaista S., From Purdah to Parliament, London, 1963.
Islam, Mustafa Nurul, Bengal Muslim Public Opinion as Reflected in the Bengali Press, 1901-1930, Dacca, 1973.
Ispahani, M.A.H., Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah As I Knew Him, Karachi, 1966.
Jain, Naresh Kumar (ed.), Muslims in India, A Biographical Dictionary. Vols. I and II, Manohar (1979).
Jinnah Mahomed Ali, An Ambassador of Unity : His Speeches and Writing 1912-1979 : With a Biographical Appreciation by Sarojini Naidu, Madras, Ganesh n.d.
Joshi, P.C. (ed.), Rebellion 1857 : A Symposium, New Delhi, 1957.
Kabir, Humayun, The Indian Heritage, Bombay, 1955.
—, Muslim Politics, 1906-1942, and other Essays, Calcutta, 1969.
Kabir, Rokeya Rahman, Administrative Policy of the Government of Bengal, 1870-1890, Dacca, 1965.
Karim, A.K.M., The Modern Muslim Political Elite in Bengal, Dacca, 1972.
Karim, A.K. Nazmul, Changing Society in India and Pakistan, Dacca, 1956.
Keer, J., A Review of Public Instruction in the Bengal Presidency from 1835-1851, Part I, Calcutta, 1852.
Khan, Aga, The Memoirs, London, 1954.
Khan, M.A., History of the Faraizi Movement in Bengal, 1818-1906.
Karachi, 1956.
Kling, Blair, B., (The) Blue Mutiny, the Indico Disturbances in Bengal 1859-1862, Philadelphia, 1966.
Lal, K.S., Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India (A.D. 1000-1800), Delhi, 1973.
Leach, Edmund., & Mukherjee, S.N. (ed.), Elites in South Asia, Cambridge, 1970.
Lewis, Bernard (ed.), The World of Islam : Faith, People and Culture, London, 1976.
Lokhandwalla, S.T. (ed.), Indian and Contemporary Islam, Simla, 1971.
Lovett, V., A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, London, 1921.
Madan, T.N. & Sarma, Gopala (ed.), Indian Anthropology : Essays in Memory of D.N. Majumdar, Bombay, 1962.
Maitra Jyanti, Muslim Politics in Bengal, 1855-1906, Calcutta, 1984.
Majumdar, A.C., Indian National Evolution, edn. 2, Madras, 1917.
Majumdar, B.B., Indian Poltical Associations and Reform of Legislature 1818-1917, Calcutta, 1965.
—, History of Political Thought from Rammohan to Dayananda 1821-84, Calcutta, 1934.
Majumdar, R.C., Glimpses of Bengal in the Nineteenth Century, Calcutta, 1960.
—, History of the Freedom Movement, Vols. I-III, Calcutta, 1962-63.
Majumdar, R.C., British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Vol. IX, Bombay, 1968.
—, Struggle for Freedom, Vol. X, Bombay, 1969.
35
Mallick, Azizur Rahman, British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal, 1757-1856, Dacca, 1961.
Mansergh, Nichoilas, Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs : Problems of Wartime Cooperation and Post-War Change 1939-1952, London, 1938.
—, Transfer of Power (London, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974), Vols. I-V.
Menon, V.P., The Transfer of Power in India 1939-1947, London, 1957.
Meerza, Dilawar Hosain Ahmaed, Essays on Mohammedan Social Reform, Vols. I-III, Calcutta, 1869.
Minault, Gail, The Khilafat Movement, Religious Symbolism and Political Mobilization in India, Delhi, 1982.
Misra, B.B., The Indian Middle Classes : Their Growth in Modern Times, London, 1961.
Mitra, Lalit Chandra, History of the Indigo Disturbances in Bengal, Calcutta, 1903.
Mitra, N.N., The Indian Quarterly Register, 1923-1929.
—, The Indian Annual Register, 1930-1947.
Momen, Humaira, Muslim Politics in Bengal : A Stduy of Krishak Praja Party and the Elections of 1937, Dacca, 1972.
Moon, Penderel, Divide and Quit, London, 1961.
—, (ed.), The Vice-roy’s Journal, London, 1973.
Mosley, L., The Last Days of British Raj, London, 1961.
Mujeeb, M., The Indian Muslims, London, 1967.
Mukherjee, H., & Mukherjee, U., Bepin Chandra Pal and India’s Struggle for Swaraj, Calcutta, 1959.
—, India’s Fight for Freedom or the Swadeshi Movement, Calcutta, 1959.
Mukherjee, P. (ed.), All About Partition, Calcutta, 1906.
Nehru, Jawaharlal, The Discovery of India, London, 1956.
—, An Autobiography, London, 1958.
Netaji Research Bureau, compiled : “I Warned My Countrymen”, Being the Collected Works 1945-1950 of Sarat Chandra Bose, Calcutta, 1968.
Noman, Mohammed, Muslim India, Allahabad, 1942.
Nooruzzaman, A.H.M., Rise of the Muslim Middle Classes as a Political Factor in India and Pakistan 1858-1947, Dacca, 1970.
Panandikar, S.G., The Wealth and Welfare of the Bengal Delta Comprising the Districts of Mymensingh, Dacca, Bogra, Pabna, Faridpur, Bakerganj, Tippera and Noakhali, Calcutta, 1926.
Philips, C.H. (ed.), The Evolution of India and Pakistan 1856-1947, Selected Documents, London, 1962.
Philips, C.H., & Wainwright, Mary Doreen (ed.), The Partition of India, Policies and Perspectives, 1937-1947, London, 1970.
Pirzada, Syed Sharifuddin, Foundations of Pakistan : All India Muslim Leauge Documents : 1906-1947, Karachi, n.d.
Presidency College, Calcutta Centenary Volume, 1953.
Pyarelal, U.N., Mahatma Gandhi : The Last Phase of Ahmedabad, 1958.
Qanungo, K.R., Dara Shukoh, Vol. I, end. 2, Calcutta, 1952.
Quereshi, I.H., The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent (S-Gravenhage, 1962).
Rab, A.S.M. Abdur, A.K. Fazlul Huq, Lahore, 1966.
Rahman, Hossainur, Hindu-Muslim Relations in Bengal 1905-1947, Bombay, 1974.
Rahman, Matiur, From Consultation to Confrontation : A Study of the Muslim League in British Indian Politics, 1906-1912, London, 1970.
Rajpur, A.B., Muslim League Yesterday and To-day, Lahore, 1948.
Risley, H.H., (The) People of India, 2nd edn. by W. Crooke, New Delhi, 1969.
—, (The) Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Calcutta, 1892, Vol. I, Ethnographic Glossary.
The Earl of Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon, Vol. II, London, 1928.
Roy Asim, The Syncretic Tradition in Bengali Muslim Culture.
Roy, Beny Gopal, Religious Movements in Modern Bengal, Visva Bharati, 1965.
Roy, Rajat Kanta, Social Conflict and Political Unrest In Bengal 1875-1927, Delhi, 1984.
36
Rubee, Khondkar Fuzli, The Origin of the Muhammedans of Bengal, First Published in 1895 (Dacca, 1968).
Sarkar, Sir Jadu Nath, History of Bengal, Vol. II, Dacca, 1972.
Sarkar, Jagadish Narayan, Islam in Bengal, Thirteenth to Nineteenth Century, Calcutta, 1972.
Sarkar, S.C., Notes on the Bengal Renaissance, Calcutta, 1946.
Sarkar, Sumit, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal 1903-1908, New Delhi, 1968.
Sayeed, Khalid B., Pakistan : The Formative Phase 1857-1948, edn. 2, London, 1968.
Seal, Anil, (The) Emergence of Indian Nationalism : Competition Collaboration in Later Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, 1971.
Sen, D.C., History of Bengali Language and Literature, Calcutta, 1954.
Sen, S.P., (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, Institute of Historical Studies, Vol. I-IV, Calcutta 1972, 1974.
Sen, Shila., Muslim Politics in Bengal 1937-1947, New Delhi, 1976.
Sinha, N.K., Economic History of Bengal : From Plassey to the Permanent Settlement, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1961 : Vol. II, Calcutta, 1962.
—, History of Bengal : 1757-1905, Calcutta, 1967.
Sinha, Pradip, Nineteenth Century Bengal : Aspects of Social History, Calcutta, 1961.
Sitaramayya, B.P., The History of the Indian National Congress, 1885-1935, Vol. I, Bombay, 1946.
Smith, W.C., Modern Islam in India, A Social Analysis, Reprinted, New Dehli, 1979.
Spear, P., Indian Pakistan and the West, edn. 3, London, 1958.
Stark, Herbert Alick, Vernacular Education in Bengal from 1813 to 1912, Calcutta, 1916.
Tahmankar, D.N. Lokamanya Tilak, London, 1958.
Tarafdar, M.R., Hussain Shahi Bengal 1494-1538, Dacca, 1965.
Titus, M.R., Indian Islam, London, 1930.
Trevelyan, Charles E., On the Education of the People of India, London, 1838.
Tripathi, Amales, Extremist Challenge Indian between 1890 and 1910, Calcutta, 1967.
Tucker, Sir Francis, While Memory Serves, London, 1950.
Wadud, Kazi Abdul, Creative Bengal, Calcutta, 1950.
Wasti, Syed Razi, Lord Minto and the Indian National Movement, 1905-1910, Oxford, 1964.
Weiner, Myron, Party Politics in India, Princeton, 1957.
Wise, James, Notes on the Races, Castes and Trades of Eastern Bengal, London, 1883.
Wilson, S.G., Modern Movements among Moslems, London, 1916.
Zachariah, K., History of Hooghly College 1836-1936, Alipore, 1936.
ARTICLES
De, Amalendu, “Role of the Ulama in Bengal Muslim Politics (1937-1947)” in The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, 1978-1979, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, Edited by S.P. Sen, Calcutta.
—, “The Muslim Sahitya Samaj of Dacca (1926-1936) : Its Contribution to the Growth of Nationalism in Bengali Muslim Society”, a paper read in the U.G.C. Seminar on The Regional Roots of Indian Nationalism held at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, 1979. Islam Zafarul & Jenseen Raymond, L., Indian Muslims and the Public Service, 1871-1915” (In JASP., Vol. IX, No. 1, June, Dacca, 1964).
Wali, M.A., “Ethnological Notes on Muhammadan Castes of Bengal” (In J. Anth, S.B., vii : 2, 1904).
Wise, James, “The Muhammadans of Eastern Bengal” (In J.A.S.B., Lxiii : i, 1894).
BENGALI BOOKS
Adhikari, G., Pakistan O Jatiya Yakya, Calcutta, 1944.
37
Ahmad, Hasabuddin, Khulasat al-Nasihat, Dacca, 1876.
Ahmad, Muzaffar, Samakaler Katha, Calcutta, 1963.
—, Nazrul Smriti Katha, Calcutta, 1965.
—, Amar Jivan O Bharater Communist Party 1920-1929, Calcutta, 1969.
—, Prabandha Sankalan, Calcutta, 1377 B.S.
Ahmad, A.M. Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchas Bachar, edn.2, Dacca, 1970.
Ahmad, D.N., Ramzan Sharif, Calcutta, 1909.
Ahmad, Ibn Maazuddin (peeudonym), Amar Samsar Jiban, edn.I, Calcutta, 1916.
Ahmad, Moniruddin, Samaj Chitra, Brahmonberia, 1908.
Ahmad, R., Girish Turasker Yuddha 1899 and 1908.
Ahmad, S.C., Islam Pradip, Calcutta, 1907.
Ahmad, M.I.A., Unnati Sopan, Calcutta, 1910.
Ali, A.M.A., Kasem Badh Kavya, Calcutta, 1906.
Ali, Wazir, Moslem Ratnahar, Barisal, 1927.
Anizummaman., Muslim Banglar Samayikpatra 1831-1930, Dacca, 1969.
—, Muslim Manas O Bangla Sahitya 1757-1918, edn.2, Calcutta, 1378 B.S.
Aziz, Abdul, Tariqah-i-Muhammadiya, Calcutta, 1876.
Bagal, Jogesh Chandra, Banglar Janashikha 1800-1856, Calcutta, 1366 B.S.
—, Kalikatar Sanskriti-Kendra, Calcutta, 1366 B.S.
Bandyopadhyay, Brojendra Nath (ed.), Sambadpatra Sekaler Katha, Part III, Calcutta, 1342 B.S.
—, Mir Mosharraf Hossain, Calcutta, 1355 B.S.
Bandyopadhyay, Chandi Charan, Vidyasagar, Calcutta, 1376 B.S.
Basu, Minendra Nath, Bangalir Parichay, Calcutta, 1352 B.S.
Basu, Rajnarayan, Bibidha Prabandha, Pratham Khanda, Calcutta, 1289 B.S.
Biswas, Kalipada, Jukta Banglar Sesh Adhyay, Calcutta, 1966.
Chattapadhyay, Bankim Chandra, Bangladesher Krishak, Reprinted, Calcutta, 1957.
Chattopadhyay, Sati Kumar, Bhai Girish Chandra Sen, Calcutta.
Chowdhury, M.A.W., Srihatte Shah Jalal, Sylhet, 1908.
Chowdhury, Pramatha, Prachin Banga Sahitye Hindu-Musalman, Calcutta, 1360 B.C.
Chowdhury, Syed Nawab Ali, Maulud Sharif (1905).
—, Idul Azha (1900).
Danesh Muhammed, Nurul Imaner Puthi, Calcutta, 1876.
De, Amlendu, Pakistan Prastab O Fazlul Huq, Calcutta, 1972.
—, Bangali Buddhijibi O Bichchinnatabad, Calcutta, 1974.
—, Swadhin Bangabhumi Gathaner Parikalpana : Prayash O Parinati, Calcutta, 1975.
Chirosthayi Bandobasto O Bangali Buddhijibi, Calcutta, 1981.
Dutt, Rajni Palme, Bivedh Nitir Nutan Pala, Calcutta, 1946.
Faruquee, Rashid Ali, Muslim Manas : Sanghat O Protikria, Calcutta, 1981.
Fazl, Abul, Sahitya O Sanskriti Sadhana, Dacca, n.d.
Gani, Abdul, Muktahar Sonar Khani, 1919.
Habibullah, B.D., Shere-e-Bangla, Dacca, 1966.
Hai, A.M., Tauhid Nama, 1906.
Hai, M.A., & Ahsan, S.A., Bangla Sahityer Itibritta, Dacca, 1956.
Haldar, Gopal (ed.), Vidyasagar Rachana Sangraha, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1972.
Halim, Abdul, Russiar Gono Andolon 1605-1900, edn.2, Calcutta, 1940.
—, Communism, Calcutta, 1934.
—, Bolshevik Partir Itihasa, Calcutta, 1939.
—, Nabajibaner Pathe, Calcutta, 1966.
Hossain, M.G., Banga Desiya Hindu Musalman, Calcutta, 1911.
Hossain, Mir Mosharraf, Jamider Darpan, Calcutta, 1873.
38
—, Bisadha Sindhu, Calcutta, 1885.
—, Udasina Patheiker Maner Katha, Calcutta, 1890.
—, Amar Jivani, Calcutta, 1908.
—, Moslem Biratta, Calcutta, 1909.
—, Bibi Kulsum, Calcutta, 1910.
—, Maulud Sharif, Calcutta, 1912.
Huq, M., Maharshi Mansur, Calcutta, 1908.
Huq, Muhammad Enamul, Msulim Bangla Sahitya, Dacca, 1957.
Haque, Muhammad Mozammel, Maulana Parichaya, Calcutta, 1914.
Islam, Mustafa Nurul, Muslim Bangla Sahitya, edn.2, Dacca, 1969.
Jamiruddin, S.M., Meher Charit, Calcutta, 1909.
Kaiser Rafiq, Tin Purusher Rajniti, Dacca, 1987.
Karim, S.F., Paritrana Kavya, Calcutta, 1904.
Karim, Sardar Fazlul & Islam Amirul (ed.), Shere Bangla Smarne Sankalan, Barisal, 1970.
Karim, Sardar Fazlul (ed.), Pakistan Andonlon O Muslim Sahitya, Dacca, 1968.
Kasem, Abul, Banglar Protiva, Calcutta, 1347 B.S.
Kaviraj, Narahari, Swadhinatar Sangrame Bangla, Calcutta, 1957.
Khaleque, KA., Ek Satabdi, Dacca, 1376 B.S.
Lahiri, Pravas Chandra, Pak Bharater Ruparekha, Nadia, 1375 B.S.
Long, Rev. James, Muhammader Jivan Charit, Calcutta, 1855.
Mahsenullah, M., Budir Suta, Calcutta, 1909-1910.
Majid, Abdul, Muslim Samaj Tattva, Calcutta, 1929.
Mallick, Muhammad, Akhbar-al-Marifat, Calcutta, 1876.
Manna, Qazi Abdul, Adhunik Bangla Sahitya Muslim Sadhana, edn.2, Dacca, 1969.
—, Unis Sataker Sahitya Patra O Muslim Manas, Dacca, 1959.
Maniruzzaman, Mohammad, Adhunik Bangla Kavya Hindu Musalman Samparkya, Dacca, 1970.
—, Samayika Patrey Sahitya Chinta, Dacca, 1981.
Mansuruddin, Muhammad (ed.), Haramani Lokasangit Sangraha, Calcutta, 1942.
Mansur, A., Hindu Dharma Rahashya O Deb Lila, Calcutta, 1905.
Meherullah, M.M., Khrishttiya Dharmer Asharata, Calcutta, 1907.
Mian, Sekander Ali, Musalmaner Samaj Tattva, Dacca, 1917.
Mitra, Indra, Karunasagar Vidyasagar, Calcutta, 1969.
Mitra, Krishna Kumar, Atma Charit, Calcutta, 1937.
Moudud, Abdul, Madhyabittya Samajer Bikash : Sanskritir Rupantar, Dacca, 1969.
Muhammad, Maleh, Tanbih al-Nissa, Calcutta, 1875.
Mukhopadhyay, Bhudev, Banglar Itihasa, Part III, Chinsurah, 1310 B.S.
—, Samajik Prabandha, edn. 7, Chinsurah, 1355 B.S,
Mukhopadhyay, Debendra Nath, Dayanand Charit, edn.2, Calcutta, 1929.
Mukhopadhyay, Prabhat Kumar, Rabindra Jivani, Vol. III, (Calcutta, 1359 B.S.)
Mukhopadhyay, Saroj, Dui Pathikrit, Calcutta, 1981.
—, Duti Samaraniya Din, Calcutta, 1982.
Naimuddin, Muhammad, Zubdat al-Masail, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1889.
—, Adellaye Manifiya, Karatia, 1905.
Pandit, Haji Nur Buksh, Ahmad Charit, Lakshimpur, 1914.
Qadir, Abdul, Akhbar-i-Pir-i-Najdi, Calcutta, 1874.
Qadir, Abdul, Kazi Abdul Wadud, Dacca, 1976.
Qadir, Abdul (ed.), Abul Husainer Rachnavali, Pratham Khanda, Dacca, 1968.
Rahim, S.A., Hazrat Muhammader Jivan Charit O Dharmoniti, Calcutta, 1887.
—, Islam Itibritta, Calcutta, 1911.
Rahman, Abdur., Ketab Nasihat al-Azam, Mymensingh, 1876.
39
Rhaman, Fazlur., Bhanda Fakir, Poradah, 1914-1915.
Rasul, Muhammad Abdulla., Krishak Sabhar Itihas, Calcutta, 1376 B.S.
Roy Chowdhury, Debi Prasanna, Bibaha Sanskar (Samajik Prabandha), Calcutta, 1295 B.S.
Samad, Abdul, Khilafat O Makka Madina, n.d.
Samiruddin Fakir Syed, Wasiyat al-Nabi, Mirzapur, 1871.
Samirauddin, Munshi, Bedar al-Ghafilin, Calcutta, 1868.
Sarkar, Behari Lal, Titumir O Narikel Beriar Larai, Calcutta, 1304 B.S.
Sen, Bhabani, Muktir Pathe Bangla, Calcutta, 1946.
—, Bango Bhango O Pakistan, Calcutta, 1947.
Sen Bhai Girish Chandra, Atma Charit, Calcutta, 1908.
Sen Kshiti Mohan, Bharatiya Maddhajuga Sadhanar Dhara, Calcutta, 1930.
—, Bharate Hindu Musalmaner Jukta Sadhana, Calcutta, 1356 B.S.
Sen Nobin Chandra, Amar Jivani, Part III, Calcutta, 1910.
Sen Gupta, Promode, Neel Bidroho O Bengali Samaj, Calcutta, 1960.
Shah, Muhammad, Gulzar-e-Momenine, edn.2, Calcutta, 1909.
Shamsuddin, Abdul Kalam, Atit Diner Smriti, Dacca, 1968.
Shome, Nagendra Nath, Madhusmriti, Calcutta, 1327 B.S.
Siddiqi, Abdul Ghafur, Hadayetul Ichlam O Niyet Nama, 1919.
Sobhan, Sheikh Abdus, Hindu Musalman, Part I, Calcutta, 1888.
Umar Badruddin, Sampradaikata, edn.3, Calcutta, 1378 B.S.
—, Sanskritir Sankat, edn.2, Dacca, 1970.
—, Purba Banglar Bhasa Andolon O Tatkalin Rajniti, Dacca, 1970.
Wadud, Kazi Abdul, Hindu Musalmaner Birodh, Calcutta, 1342 B.S.
—, Saswata Banga, Calcutta, 1358 B.S.
—, Banglar Jagaran, Calcutta, 1363 B.S.
Waliullah, Muhammad, Yug Bichitra, Dacca, 1967.
—, Amader Mukti Sangram, Dacca, 1969.
Yusufzai, Nausher Ali Khan, Bangiya Musalman, edn,2, Calcutta, 1914.
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS (IN ENGLISH)
Bengal Native Newspaper Reports (Weekly sumary of Newspaper reports maintained by the Government of Bengal [1871-1921])
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.
Journal of the Anthropoloigical Society of Bombay.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan.
The Bengal Magazine.
Bengal : Past and Present
The Calcutta Gazette
The Calcutta Monthly
The Calcutta Review
Modern Review
The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies
Amrita Bazar Patrika
The Bengalee
The Comrade
The Englishman
Forward
40
The Hindoo Patriot
The Hindustan Standard
The Moslem Chronicle
The Mahomedan Observer
The Mussalman
Morning News
The Nation
Star of India
The Statesman
The Tribune
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS (IN BENGALI)
Azad
Bangiya Muslman Sahitya Patrika
Banglar Katha
Dhumketu
Ganabani
Grambarta Prakashike (Saptahik)
Hitabadi
Hitakari
Islam Pracharak
Itihasa
Kohinoor
Langal
The Mihir O Sudhakar, The Sudhakar
Millat
Masik Mohammadi
Moslem Bharat
Nabanoor
Prabashi
Sambad Prabhakar
Saogat
Sultan
Shikha
Saptahik Bichitra
Tatvaboidhini Patrika
০০০