Table Of Content

COP Eph! Foe Wetarpara Joykcishas pubtiv Libres Govt. of West Beugad Reprintea Irom “The kadian Evonomite ant Social History Review? 1973, Tfinda-Muslim Relations in Swadeshi Bengal, 1903-1908 Suit Sarkar HINDU-MUSEIM RELATIONS IN SWADESHE BENGAL, 1903-1908" SUMIF SARKAR Deparknent oF Histury, University of C: ita Eo Hindus saul Muslims in Beal sHindu-Musdiin refations nosed est challenge before the Swadeshi movement, sind ahimuely proved its greatest fibre, The campuige sigsinst an arbitrary administrative partition, faunch- ed im the nemee of the esscmtiat anhy of the Berygalies,eakinte peoples ended with the 60 2u coups iniy which ext comm fost matuilly divided! further apart front cueh other J busily than eve ly. The projustices Foertary of tasighed Gnin very dilicel! even today. Ristovions tnd port nf two sauilieving siecemypes, Gn the owe haud ther J of soides age of Hinds Muslim amity, deliberately destroyed by the Britisir through their dévide- anclrale techniques-with Curzon, Faller, amd Minto figuring pto- mineady among tke villains of the piece. Such ideas were very frequently reilecled it Stvadeshi speeches sad pamphtets, Bipit- chandra Pal for instance stating culeroriea!ly in one of his Madras o-retiss aniry wes a sind sions conseisie of Uae mus Some a ninderstund tie &: befivre. one sions hed by fi ctive assess HinueMustim relatinas, wensed fs 4D. folie tu wuilly i ce “he present. tele book The Ssradoshe Slur Publsinng Horse, Raw Leis Le Phe feyunt axtaustranve visages whe ai eva. t estimate @liele dificult Bengal jmior (@ the 1908 partition hed das onhey ia che ceniae of 1901) a penvlation wf ES hori AQT ruthions wae Besgeliapeaking. Mfvslims wume dered 25.3 niltons: hey wees mostly concerted om Fast Bengal, But Uiere were ss quite a qyumber i Bibas, Fopersai Gaserver of indie, Provinviat Sreies Bene gal Fatumte T(Calatta, 1909), pp. 4-47, SU ghily medial yercor ofa eh.pse i my fortheoming ie Bengal, 1402-/0H being pabitslied by she Peaple's 162 SUMIP SARKAR, lectures (7 May 1907} that “un the duys of my youth, aot te go further before, we had no Hindu-Muhummidsa problem ia any part af India"? Biographical literawre composed by nationalist Jeaders of this generation is full of nostalgic recollections of this idylire past,* and as the [ull yravily af che communal danger came to be realized, the theory of pust unity and British responsibility hecame at kind of Congress shidbaleth. The polis apposite of this viewpoint is of conrse tie fecisus {or saterioas) heo-nation theory", according fo which Hindus snd Muslims have always boo entie ties Funda meutaliy distinct im cthoie osigia, Jangavye, and culire as well as in religcon, Given chusig form in ihe Pakistun re solution of the Muslim Peagae in JY40, tis theary has had many non-Maslim adherents, more or less outspoken. From the days of Dufferin and Lord Cinss, the separate “nterests af the Mohommedans” served as the most convenient British conserva tive pretext for obstructing or delayiig palitical reterm in Inika. Among the majority community, too, there has never bee any lack of support for the view that India has beea end aust remain primarily the tazd of the indus, in which the Mustws are out siders who must be kept in their place and should never he Irasted 2. Bapinchanslea Pa}, "The Comirdbutiant of bs le Fk 7 Moy 1907. “The folLtext of chis speach 1s given is Fame Fn 1007 n, 44, Enetasere B AVES, p |. {The Monte Public asd Home Political Proccediogt refer 19: unpublished Home Deparinett files oF the Governanent of india, peserved at the National Arch:vesT 3 Surendranoh Bererit, 4 Narion fa Mokine (€oientia, W25, 186%). p.1LS, Kasbnakumat Mitra, Atma hari :Celenla, WN, pp. 4142. Bpmehandia Fab, Sattar Batsar-Atmjivant iCaleusla, 1925, 1960}, pp, 1821, 10-tOs, Nu@wnuachandea Banerin, tt che Crase wads ‘Calcutta, 19503, 7.4 J.C. Baga, Prowathanath Boxe (Caleta, 19583, pHi 4. Lord Cross warned Lord Duiferin on 14 Apow (X87, after the fatter Nid sunges ted a partial introduction of the clocuve pruncinlg "4 shad be very pled Ww cousider apy really matured plan, because Lam quive rvs to che prownl ssugtion of alsits Jn Tndin, but in any seep that mtsy be taken. the sudecests of the Mohammedins mast be considered quite as mich a8 cle interests of tke noisy Hungulee Baboo A K. Majumdar, Advent of taependence \Bomibay, 1362), p. 364 TINDU-MUSLIM RELATIONS 163 twcause of their atlegedly incorrigible communal proclivities.* Both stereatypes oversimplify Uhough nat probably to the same extent) the complex and changing realities of our sub-continent, Hindu-Mustiat celations in fact seem to have varied greatly with region and tine, and fave always been bound up in an extremely complicated manmer with sacio-cemromic, political and cultural developments, “In pre-Plassey Bengal, the Muslims ay the raling community controfied the ariny and the machinery of criminal justice, and as amils aud faujdars stalled the topmost rung ef the administrative ladder, But the Hid upper castes retained am impartant and in some ways even st preeminent pusition m suciety, since fay “nines tenihs of zamindaris wore held by Hindus”. Hindus also manned the ganungo offices and comprised Ure principal traders and bankers. Tall the ehkinge in the official language in the (830s, Persian seewed as a kind of link heaven the eilacated af the two communities it is noteworthy thet Ranunohian wrote his dirst major reatise in that kinguage, andl brought ous the Mirufsn AMter the StunPad Keused'—but there waa tute in polile sociely to correspond to the cich Utdu-bised Hindustani culture which bad flourished in the hewrtland of Ie Mughal Empire. The Ashraf community unong the Muslims numbered celasively few in Bengal, and. perhaps uneasily conscious of living in “the backwoods of Indiae Islam’, ofien tried right down to recont times—to flaunt its upeountey or foreign origins and Persian and Arabie foarning at the cost of the mere natural Bengal.” ‘The Hindu gentry on ils part might have resented oceasionally the politically inferior position tw which it had been relegated and disfiked the inequities ang harsh S. In 1987, these worry Refore Swe Pekan resolicion of the Musan Lesgu, Swarkar declued in 9 prosidemia? address te he Hine Malisshlo: “tinfia ean- tet be asuned today w be 4 wicaeyta tind Samegenedus nation, ful, an the cons hhary, there ure so nin sm themwin. the Mendis axl Me Mudiss™. Quoted it S. Abul Hsscin, De Dostiay af Titian Murine “Asi, 108. ROB G DeN K. Sinha, Keonomie History af Benigal from Plassey to. the Permanent Serstemane, Polume BF Caton. 19D, pp. 29-24, 7. Di. Predip Sinha, Nuw-tecott Century Betvead: Aspects of Sustal Hisniry ‘Calvutta, 19651, pp. 50-57,