The Partition of

Lesson | 05

Bengal

Introduction
The British Empire was at its peak at the turn of the 20th century. THE PARTITION OF BE NG AL
Its colony of India (today’s India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan,
and Sri Lanka) was the largest part of a globe-spanning
collection of dominions and colonies overseen by the INTRODUCTION
king/emperor and his government in London. In 1905, George
Curzon was the viceroy and governor-general of India, based in CONTEXT OF BRITISH INDIA
Calcutta. Curzon oversaw a complex administrative machinery by
which a couple of thousand British civil servants oversaw the
THE PARTITION OF BENGAL
lives, safety, and finances of almost 300 million people of wide
religious, ethnic, and linguistic diversity.
IMPACTS OF THE PARTITION
Bengal was the largest province in the British Raj (imperial India).
Its population of 79 million was larger than the United States. A NATIONALISMS
separate sultanate starting in the 14th century, Bengal was
swallowed up by the expansion of the Mughal Empire in the CONCLUSION
16th century. As the British expanded their power in India in the
18th century, much of this territory was designated a separate
administrative unit: The Bengal Presidency.

Late in 1905, after years of discussion, the British rearranged the

regional governmental structure in eastern India and split Bengal
into two provinces. This decision was the product of a particular
administrative perspective that reflected both global and local
influences. Six years later, the British would reverse their
decision. This series of events had profound (and unexpected)
consequences that affected the British Empire, the course of
India’s history, and the development of nationalisms across the
20th century. 1
Context of British India
Key Terms:
Since the early 17th century, Britain had been active in India
as a political, economic, and cultural power through a semi- Bengal
private corporation: the East India Company. The EIC
gradually took on the characteristics of a government,
overseeing vast swaths of greater India as both ruler and
merchant trading house. In addition to establishing deals and British Raj
agreements with local leaders, it gradually established its own
army staffed with British officers and local soldiers, who
launched an uprising in 1857. During the uprising, the British
government intervened, and following its suppression George Curzon
assumed direct rule over much of the territory. To manage
such a large and distant territory, the British ruled some
territories directly, and others indirectly, through regional
Muslim and Hindu princes. The leading imperial official was Partition of Bengal
the viceroy and governor-general, based in Calcutta who
oversaw this complex structure of directly-ruled provinces
and provincial clusters, as well as the various indirectly-ruled Hindus and Muslims
princely states.

British India was managed primarily for the benefit of British

commercial interests. Unlike the parts of the empire George V
dominated by British emigrants (e.g., Canada, Australia, like
New Zealand), the British government did not promote local
self-rule. Rather, as with other European colonies populated
by indigenous people of color, British officials treated India’s Nationalism
indigenous populations as subservient sources of
commodities and as purchasers of British products.

Still, as a matter of public

order, the British sought
efficient administration of
these vast territories. The
configuration of the huge
Bengal Presidency,
comprising dozens of districts
and several large cities had
been seen as problematic for
much of the late 19th century.
Britain ruled its Indian
provinces using a variety of
administrative structures
below the viceroy. Power was
delegated to different levels
of administrative officers,
judges, revenue collectors,
and police.
Map of the British Raj, 1860 2
 Lord George Curzon, 1910

The Partition of Bengal

After consulting with many local leaders across Bengal and

adjacent areas, George Curzon determined to proceed with a
Partition. His decision was announced on 19 July 1905 and
took effect on 16 October, when Sir Bampflyde Fuller assumed
his new post as lieutenant governor of a new province that had
formerly been the eastern half of the Bengal Presidency. The
new province, which was majority Muslim, was called Eastern
Bengal and Assam. The majority-Hindu province in the west
was governed separately by Lieutenant Governor Andrew
Fraser. A month later, Curzon resigned his viceroyalty and
returned to Britain.

The analysis of the Partition contained in the internal imperial memoranda, as well as the public
statements of Curzon and others are striking for their administrative rigidity and lack of adaptive
solutions to the problem of the overwhelming size of Bengal. Rather than design a governmental
structure to fit the needs of the people and territories involved, Curzon’s government prioritized
administrative regularity and imperial structures. Most of official explanation for the partition was
devoted to allocating blocks of population to geographic units, primarily to reduce the
administrative burdens. In this sense, it was reminiscent of territorial deals which had characterized
European empires for centuries. However, in terms of the rationale—with its focus on
administration—it was entirely modern, using statistical analysis to bolster its case and dismissing
potential cultural and social concerns among the people of Bengal. Many have argued that, in fact,
the ‘administrative’ rationale for Partition was a cover for a standard imperial strategy of “divide-
and- conquer.” They suggest that the main goal was to reduce the influence of Hindu elites
centered in Calcutta.

The most vigorous protests petered out after a while, although Indians in Calcutta continued to
express their unhappiness to the British Administration. But many British administrators thought
that over time, people would grow used to the new structure.

Map of the
partition of 1905

3
 Royal Attendants (Chobdars) to King George
V during his visit to Dehli

After a few years, all this was changed by an apparently

unrelated event: for the first time ever, the king/emperor
was coming to India. George V had visited India as a prince,
but neither his grandmother (Victoria) nor his father
(Edward VII) had ever been there. The formal ceremony,
scheduled in Delhi on December 12, 1911, was a grand
pageant called a Durbar (from the Mughal term for “Court”)
at which all the Indian princes and elites, as well as the
leading members of the British community in India, would
gather to honor their emperor. It was customary for the
emperor to grant gifts at such an occasion and the British
imperial leadership also wanted to make major
announcements to commemorate the event. They
determined that the Durbar would be a good opportunity
to announce the creation of a new modern capital for the
British Raj in India, which had been based in Calcutta for
well over a hundred years. Portrait of King George V, c. 1911

The emperor announced at the Durbar

that the capital would be established just
outside the ancient city of Delhi, in an area
to be called “New Delhi.” As part of this
arrangement, in order to ‘compensate’
Indian and British interests in Calcutta, he
also announced that the Partition of
Bengal would be reversed, thus restoring
the huge Hindu-dominated state based
across all of Bengal, pretty much as it had
been before 1905. To appease the sure-
to-be-disappointed Muslims, the British
promised to construct a university in
Dacca.
The Dehli Durbar of King George V, 1911
4
Impacts of the Partition of Bengal

One of the most significant results of the disputes and protests over the Partition of Bengal was
the intensification of feelings of distinctiveness between Hindu and Muslim peoples all across
India. These religious-cultural communities had lived intertwined for centuries, but as people
increasingly demanded participation in the political process and had access to news through new
forms of mass media, disappointment with the British policies in Bengal increased animosities.
There is no neat narrative to describe these sets of feelings or perspectives. For some, there were
inter-communal animosities and feelings of distinction, manifested in cultural, linguistic, and
economic rifts. For others, there was a sense (at least regionally) of desire to protect the
coherence of Bengal. There was also a shared desire to oust the British and have Indians
determine their own government and shape their own future, whatever that might ultimately
mean.

The Partition heightened awareness of

the degree to which the structure of
India was being determined by non-
Indians, and in particular by a few
Europeans whose power was clear, but
whose claim to moral and cultural
superiority many Indians questioned.
Indeed, European political superiority
itself was cast into doubt by the military
triumphs of the Japanese over Russia
in 1904–05, and British officials
themselves were growing increasingly
concerned by rising Indian activism
Postcard of Calcutta, early 1899 and self-assertion.

The 1905 Partition plan provided Indians, particularly Hindu residents of Bengal, with a focal-
point for their frustrations with the British Raj. Meanwhile, as the majority in East Bengal and
Assam Province, many Muslim Bengalis felt recognized in a way they had not prior. They also saw
an opportunity for economic development in the far eastern region of India without feeling
preempted by the majority Hindus. One reflection of these sentiments was the establishment of
the Muslim League in 1906, which went on to be the focal point of Muslim identity for decades.
The Hindu protest movement naturally stirred up counter-protests and newspapers (in different
languages and with antagonistic perspectives) that often exacerbated the tensions and communal
sensibilities.

The reversal of the Partition in 1911 did not make these tensions disappear. Rather, many Muslims
believed the British were caving to Hindu pressure and relegating the Muslims to subservience
under Hindu domination. The reversal of the Partition undermined their trust in the British
administration and increased their determination to become more self-reliant, and heightened
resentment of both the British and Hindus. From the Hindu perspective, the reversal was a
validation of their protests, including boycotts and more violent tactics. However, their commercial
and communal interests in Calcutta were now outweighed by the shift of the British capital across
the country to Delhi. Both Hindus and Muslims would remember these lessons.
5
Nationalisms

The reaction of the various communities in

India to the Partition and its revocation
illustrate the difficulties of using the term
“nationalism” to describe the political
aspirations of ethnic, language, religious,
and ideologically defined groups. This
phenomenon intensified in the 19th century
as many groups in Europe sought political
power by either coming together with
others in their groups (e.g. Italians in
1850s/1860s, Germans in 1860s/1870s) or
escaping the imperial domination of People of Dhaka alongside Islampur Road, waiting to
European empires (e.g. Austro-Hungarian, welcome Sir Fuller, the new Lieutenant Governor of
Russian, Ottoman). Eastern Bengal and Assam, 1905

In the 20th century, nationalism reached its most extensive range, as the driving force behind
the creation of new states out of the ruins of World War I in Europe and, later, in the
disassembly of British, French, and other global empires in the middle of the 20th century. As a
foundation of how we think of the world today—a world comprised of “nation-states”—
nationalism is a key component of modernity. The essential premise of nationalism is the
“nation;” a group of people who—with varying degrees of consciousness, intent, and effort—
desire to live together and govern themselves. In the American experience, this premise is
reflected in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which begins: “We the people…” So, who are
these “people”? Who’s in and who’s out? The answers across the history of nationalism are
messy and complicated.

The varied responses to the Partition of Bengal highlight the complexity of these questions. Did
“nationalism” mean a cohesive and unified Bengal (i.e., anti-Partition)? Did it mean communal
cohesion and exclusivity (i.e., Hindus versus Muslims)? Was it all about “India,” and, if so, who
was part of this great amalgam of peoples and beliefs? Or, was it essentially negative in
character, i.e. unity around feelings of anti-British imperialism? The answer is, of course, “all of
the above.” But where did these models leave those who were neither Hindu nor Muslim? Or
those who were part of the broad scope of British rule, but who did not identify as Indian (e.g.
Burmese, or Afghani?).

Moreover, the answer changed over time. As increasing efforts were made to assert the rights
and powers of Indians across the first half of the 20th century, these complexities regularly
arose in terms of the nature and direction of the Indian National Congress and the Muslim
League, and whether these were “national” or “religious” in scope.

The 1906 All India

Muhammadan Educational
Conference in Dhaka laid
the foundations of the
Muslim League, established
the same year 6
Beyond the question of how individuals and groups identified themselves and define their
political landscape, another aspect of the Partition partakes of the modern mindset: the
dominance of territoriality. Since the 18th century, the British had extended their map making and
geographic analytics of their imperial holdings in India. This shift was part of a larger change
which entailed governments moving from thinking of a country in terms of the people to one
based on territory and lines on a map. The abstract nature of cartography avoided human and
social complexity and fostered an administrative order which was (or, at least, seemed) easier to
manage. In this context, the disruption of cultural connections was inherently downplayed in favor
of imperial line-drawing. There are many comparable examples from the British and French
Empires in Africa, the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement dividing their imperial interests in the post-
Ottoman Middle East, as well as the new European states created at the end of World War I.

There are many aspects to the later story of Indian independence, which occurred in 1947: long-
standing political and economic resentments, demands for independence among various groups
in India, British weariness over the economic and moral costs of colonialism, and the complexities
of its huge global empire in the aftermath of two World Wars. Still, we can draw a direct line from
the Partition of 1905 to the Partition of 1947, in which Britain pulled out of India and split the
country into two: a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-dominated Pakistan (which initially included
eastern

Bengal, until it, too, separated from Pakistan as the independent Bangladesh in 1972). The
Partition of Bengal energized both anti-British sentiments and a sense of separateness between
Hindus and Muslims. The Partition and its reversal showed the limits of the British ability to
manage, as imperial masters, a huge and complex country, with its own complex ancient
traditions. It also illustrated the limits of British ability to navigate the forces of modernity,
including calls for ordinary people to participate in their own governing.

Conclusion

The Partition of Bengal is a classic

example of what historian James
Scott has called “seeing like a state.”
Large bureaucratic organizations,
particularly empires, tend to
categorize and force groups of
people they rule into ‘legible’ units.
These tendencies (for example,
drawing lines on maps, categorizing
people through census, or creating
schemes for economic
development) rely on gathering,
organizing, and analyzing data, in
order to make large territories and
populations more easily managed
by administrators.

Curzon Hall at the University of Dhaka,

founded during his visit in 1904 7
 At first blush, these tendencies may seem sensible. How else
could states manage such huge territories, populations, and
systems? However, as this happens, the complexities of the
human beings living in those places disappear, to be
replaced by numbers, accounts, and simplified
categorizations. Taking such of a perspective of the world is
made easier when bolstered by naïve self-confidence. Such
arrogance allows people to dehumanize others, fitting them
into what Scott calls “the rational design of social order
commensurate with scientific understanding of natural laws.”
What Scott means is that dominant groups treat such
dehumanizing simplifications as expression of the natural March of the Indian National
order of the world, which justifies their continued domination. Congress in new Delhi, 1937

In this case, the British fixation on retaining their model of governance and managing what could
be easily counted (i.e., large groups of population) drove an administrative change (new lines on
the map) with profound social consequences, both immediate and long-term. The disruption
caused by the Partition was made worse a few years later when the British reversed their
decision. For many living in India, these changes only confirmed that 1) British policies in India
were arbitrary, 2) long-term protests could be effective, and 3) such protests had to be rooted in
a coherent community.

We may debate whether the communities involved (Hindu, Muslim, Bengali, ‘East Bengali/West
Bengali,’ or even Indian) were “national” at the time of Partition. Yet, it is clear that peoples’
desires to participate in the political process were certainly intensifying. Some of the energy that
emerged as Indians responded to the Partition may also have been inspired by Japanese victory
against Russia in 1905. These new energies were channeled into new protest movements that
acquired coherence and momentum that continued to expand over the following decades, and
ultimately resulted in the partition between India and Pakistan that marked the withdraw of
British imperial rule in 1947.
Chowringhee Road,
Calcutta, c. 1905

8
Further Reading
Ghosha, Semantī. Different Nationalisms: Bengal, 1905-1947. New Delhi, India: Oxford University
Press, 2017.

Sarkar, Ashim Kumar. Nationalism, Communalism and Partition in Bengal (Maldah 1905-1953).
Kolkata: Readers Service, 2013.

Saxena, Vinod Kumar. The Partition of Bengal, 1905-1911: Select Documents. Delhi: Kanishka Pub.
House, 1987.

Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have
Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.

Sengupta, Nitish K. Bengal Divided: The Unmaking of a Nation (1905-1971). New Delhi: Penguin,
Viking, 2007.

9
Image Citations: Page 6, cont.:
All India Muslim League Conference
Page 1: attendees in Dhaka, December 30, 1906,
Map of the British Empire in 1898, CC BY-SA Public Domain,
3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_India_
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brit Muslim_league_conference_1906_attendees_
ish_Empire_in_1898.png in_Dhaka.jpg

Page 2: Page 7:
Map of the British Raj, 1860, CC BY 3.0, Curzon Hall front view, 2008, CC: BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brit Sajid Muhaimin Choudhury,
ish_India.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Curzon_ha
ll_front.jpg
Page 3:
Lord Curzon, 1910, George Grantham Bain Page 8:
Collections, Library of Congress Prints and Members of the Indian National Congress
Photographs Division, Public Domain, marching in New Delhi in 1937, Public
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lor Domain,
d_Curzon_LCCN2014696090.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ind
Map of the Partition of Bengal between ian_National_Congress,_New_Delhi_,_1937.j
Bengal and East Bengal and Assam in 1905, pg
CC BY-SA 4.0, XrysD, Chowringhee, Calcutta, c. 1905, CC BY 4.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Be Raphael Tuck & Sons, London,
ngalPartition1905_Map.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ch
owringhee_-_Calcutta.jpg
Page 4:
The King-Emperor’s Chobdar’s 1912, Public
Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Th
e_King-Emperor%27s_Chobdars.jpg
Company painting of King George V, c.
1911, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Por
trait_of_King_George_V.jpg
The Delhi Durbar of 1911, with King George
V and Queen Mary seated upon the dais,
1911, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Del
hi_Durbar,_1911.jpg

Page 5:
Early lithographic postcard of Calcutta,
postmarked 1899, CC BY 4.0, Kosmos,
Budapeast,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cal
cutta_-1900.jpg

Page 6:
Citizens of Dhaka waiting along Islampur
Road for Bampfylde Fuller, October 16,
1905, Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isla
mpur_Road_1905.jpg

10