British Annulled patition of Bengal in 1911 Under Pressure From Hindus

What does this Resolution contemplate? A reference to para 3 of the Resolution will show that the Resolution contemplates that the areas in which Muslims predominate shall be incorporated into independent States. In concrete terms, it means that the Punjab, the North-Western Frontier Province, Baluchistan and Sind in the North-West and Bengal in the East instead of remaining as the provinces of British India shall be incorporated as independent States outside of British India. Is the sum and substance of the Resolution of the Muslim League. The Resolution is so worded as to give the idea that the scheme adumbrated in it is a new one. But there can be no doubt that the Resolution merely resuscitates a scheme which was put forth by Sir Mahomed Igbal in his Presidential address to the Muslim League at its Annual Session held at Lucknow in December 1930. The scheme was not then adopted by the League. It was, however, taken up by one Mr. Rehmat Ali who gave it the name Pakistan. Mr. Rehmat Ali, M.A IL.B., founded the Pakistan Movement in 1933. He divided India into two, namely, Pakistan and ‘Hindustan. His Pakistan included the Punjab, N.W.F. Province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. The rest to him was Hindustan. His idea was to have an “independent and separate Pakistan” composed of five Muslim provinces in the North as an independent State. The proposal was circulated to the members of the Round Table Conference but never officially put forth. It seems an attempt was made privately to obtain the assent of the British Government, who, however, declined to consider it because they thought that this was a “revival of the old Muslim Empire.” The League has only enlarged the original scheme of Pakistan. It has sought to create one more Muslim State in the East to include the Muslims in Bengal and Assam. Barring this, it expresses in its essence and general outline the scheme put forth by Sir Mahomed Igbal and propagated by Mr. Rehmat Ali. The schedule not only called Hindu India to attention but it shocked Hindu India. Now it is natural to ask, what is there that is new or shocking in this scheme? (p.23). This division of one province into two, which is known in Indian history as the Partition of Bengal, was an attempt to create a Muslim State in Eastern Bengal, in as much as the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was, barring parts of Assam, a predominantly Muslim area. But the partition was abrogated in 1911 by the British who yielded to the Hindus, who were opposed to it and did not care for the wishes of the Muslims, as they were too weak to make themselves felt. If the partition of Bengal had not been annulled, the Muslim State in Eastern Bengal, instead of being a new project, would now have been 39 years old. (p.25). Be that as it may, the fact remains that separation on linguistic basis is now an accepted principle with the Congress. It is no use saying that the separation of Karnataka and Andhra is based on a linguistic difference and that the claim to separation of Pakistan is based on a cultural difference. This is a distinction without difference. Linguistic difference is simply another name for cultural difference. If there is nothing shocking in the separation of Karnataka and Andhra, what is there to shock in the demand for the separation of Pakistan? If it is disruptive in its effect, it is no more disruptive than the separation of Hindu provinces such as Karnatak from Maharashtra or Andhra from Madras. Pakistan is merely another manifestation of a cultural unit demanding freedom for the growih © of its own distinctive culture. (Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Volume VII 1990 Rs.40, Gout. of Maharashtra, Bombay). The book may be had. from Director, Government Printing, Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay – 400 004.