Course: Ideological Foundations of Pakistan (537)
Semester: Autumn, 2021
Assignment No.1
Q.l Explain the endeavors made by Mughal
emperors in creating harmony and an environment of understanding with their
Hindu subjects. Elaborate in detail.
Answer:
The Mughal Empire
has intrigued Europeans for centuries and the huge attendance at the British Library's
splendid Exhibition shows how it still holds our interest.
The Mughal Emperors attained great power in
India from 1526 to 1757. They lived surrounded by incredible opulence, created
magnificent Architecture and developed Arts and Culture. They controlled all of
what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The Empire survived in
a diluted form, for another hundred years, until 1858 when there was a British
presence and the Mughal Empire was absorbed into the Raj.
The Exhibition made me see them as the
embodiment of a true oxymoron, being warrior aesthetes, warlord artists,
equally skilled with pen and sword. These Emperors were ruthless, yet, there
was one among them who was capable of the passion for a lost love that inspired
the creation of the Taj Mahal, a Mausoleum eternal in its ethereal beauty.
The name, 'Mughal' is derived from the original
homelands of the Timurids of the Central Asian Steppes, an area once conquered
by Genghis Khan which was named 'Moghulistan' or 'Land of Mongols'. These
people became Persianised and transferred Persian Culture to India. They also
spread Islam. It must be remembered that in 1500 the Persian Empire was
widespread and powerful. There was a flowering of Art, poetry and literature in
their Courts. The Mughal Emperors encouraged Persian artists to visit and
reside at their own courts.
Although the Mughals and their rulers hailed
from murderous, invading ancestors such as Genhis Khan and Amir Timur ( known
in the West as Timberlaine ) they made a love of Arts and aesthetic principles
very important in their rule. It was a central part of their identity. Their
glorious citadels were a symbol of prestige and power. Their patronage of
Scholarship has left us with many priceless treasures. Milo Beach, the Historian,
observed that it was probably the first time that wealth was used to commission
the Arts. In India there was no shortage of wealth as there was an abundance of
jewels, emeralds, sapphires, rubies and diamonds. He also commented on much
international activity at the Court. The 'Grand Mughal' myth meant literally
that, they were grand.
The British Library has not been phased by
Mughal wealth and opulence as it is the owner of much priceless art from this
Empire. Only twenty exhibits are on loan, the other two hundred and fifteen on
view are from their own collection, many being shown for the first time. The
vaults contain plenty more treasures, as many as there were jewels in the
vaults of theMughal Emperors. Much was acquired from the Persian Library of the
Red Fort at Agra after the uprising of 1857. There is also material from
private collections, for example, that of the 18th century East India Company,
merchant, Richard Johnson, who collected Mughal miniatures. Malina Roy,
Curator,spent months selecting exhibits and they are displayed with artistry
and imagination. We learn from the exhibits the formative stage of Mughal Art,
how it evolved from Persian miniatures and the influences of Hindu, Buddhist
and European art upon it. On view are miniatures, paintings, illustrated books
and manuscripts, ink pots and armour.
Visitors to the Exhibition pass through a
delicately pierced screen gateway, lit from the back, that casts geometric
shapes on the walls and the scene is set with Indian music. The first room has
on view, possibly the oldest surviving document from the Mughal Empire, a land
grant issued by the first Emperor, Babur. The central area has portraits of the
Emperors together with bgood biographical detail. The rest of the Exhibition is
themed and the various subjects included are 'Life inMughal India', 'The Art of
Painting' ,'Religion,Literature,'Science', 'Medicine' and 'Decline of the
Empire'. The last room has two superb scroll paintings of the procession of
Akbar 11 through Delhi. There is also a sad photograph of Bahadur Shah 11, the
last and then deposed Emperor. It was taken by Captain Robert Tytler. The
Captain purchased the Emperor's gilt crown which is on display.
The first Mughal Emperor,Babur, came from
Ferghana ( now Uzbekistan ). He marched into Northern India, defeated Shah Lodi
in the fierce Battle of Panipat in 1526. The illustration of this decisive
battle is rich in colour and action. His daughter wrote about his life and a
copy of the manuscript survives from the 17th century. His diaries show
realistic animals and plants. The Mughal Emperors wrote their memoirs, often
illustrated with scenes of court life, hunting and battles.
Babur was succeeded by his son, Humayun, who
started his reign in 1530. He was exiled for a time due to problems with the
Afghan Suri dynasty. During his exile he was exposed to the Art of miniatures
which he liked. On his return to India he bought two Persian artists with him,
namely Sayyid Ali and Abdus Samad. Humayun commissioned a Khamsa of Nizami with
thirty six illuminated pages. It is on view open at the wonderful painting by
Dharm Das, 'The man Carried Away By The Simurgh' Behold the glorious colouring.
This Emperor welcomed Persian artists to this Court and is on record as having
said,
"Artists are the delight of the
World".
Akbar The Great succeeded his father Humayun at
the age of thirteen in 1556 and ruled until 1605. The Mughal Empire was at its
most opulent and powerful during his reign. There was cultural and economic
progress together with religious harmony. He commissioned the translations of
the great Indian classics from Sanskrit into Persian. He was a free thinker who
set up libraries and cultural institutions. He absorbed Hindu practices, sought
peace among his peoples, presided over a multi ethnic state and filled his
Court with intellectuals and artists, providing an atelier for the latter.
Akbar invited a group of Portuguese Jesuits from
Goa to his Court and following the visit, displayed paintings of Christian
subjects in his Court and on tombs. He had a nativity scene in his private
chamber. The Jesuits failed to convert him to Christianity but tried.
There is a small printed book by Johannes de
Laet published in Leiden in 1631 recording Akbar's wealth on his death in the
Exhibition. His manuscripts were worth more than his weaponry. Unlike most
Muslims he had no problem with the depiction of the human form saying,
"..........for a painter sketching anything
that has life.......must come to feel he cannot bestow individuality on his
work and is thus forced to think of God, the Giver of Life.".
Akbar The Great suffered the fate that his son,
Jahangir, took power from him and ruled from 1605 to 1627 and he is famous for
opening up relations with the British East India Company. He was very keen on
art and brought about a golden age for his Empire. Look at that jade terrapin,a
native of the Ganges, in the Exhibition. Janghir encouraged single point
perspective instead of flattened multi layers as seen in miniatures. He
encouraged paintings of his own life and of flowers,birds and animals. This
Emperor patronised Abu 'l Hasan and made him a great artist. It is possible
that this artist painted 'Squirrels in a Plane Tree'. By the way, there were no
squirrels in India , but they could have been seen in Jahangir's zoo.
There is a work, ' The Jahangirnama' which is a
biography of the |Emperor with illustrations of saints and tigers in sexual
situations.Well?! There are also illustrations of spider fights. Now, that is
unususal !
Jahanghir was succeeded by his fifth son,Prince
Khurram, who ruled 1627 to 1658. He commissioned the Red Fort at Agra and the
Shalimar Gardens, the Jama Masjid of Delhi, the Lahore Fort. His name, 'Shah
Jehan', means ' King of the World' A great honour never held before by an
uncrowned Mughal Emperor. He commissioned the Taj Mahal, a mausoleum for his
wife, Mumtaz. This was the immortalisation of the splendour of an era and of
love. The name Mumtaz means ' The Chosen one of the palace ' The art of this
period was a little rigid. There were love scenes and ascetics around fires.
Jahanghir was succeeded by his son, Auranzeb,
who imprisoned his father at the Red Fort in Agra whence he could see the Taj
Mahal. However, he concentrated on expanding the Empire Southwards. From his
reign there are letters from the English King William 111 and the Emperor's
reply.There was a decline of art in his reign. Schools of Indian painting
developed.
Empires do not survive forever and the Mughal,
nor the British nor the Roman,nor the Persian were any acception.
I wish to end with two quotations from
Rabinadranath Tagore,firstly on the Taj Mahal and secondly on Pleasure.
Q.2 Under what objectives was Indian national
Congress established? Also write down the attitude of Muslims towards this
organization.
Ans
The Indian National Congress was established in
1885 with the following objectives: To bring together the
people of India on a common platform. To create a feeling of unity among them,
irrespective of religion, race, language, geographical territories. To provide
opportunities to understand one another’s problems and views.
The Indian National Congress (often
called the Congress Party or simply Congress, abbr. INC)
is a political party in India with
widespread roots.[23] Founded
in 1885, it was the first modern nationalist
movement to emerge in the British
Empire in Asia and Africa.[a][24] From
the late 19th century, and especially after 1920, under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi, Congress became the principal leader of the Indian independence movement.[25] Congress
led India to independence from the United
Kingdom,[d] and
powerfully influenced other anti-colonial
nationalist movements in the British Empire.[e][24]
The Congress today is one of the two
major political parties in India,
along with its main rival the Bharatiya Janata Party.[28] It
is a "big
tent" party whose platform is generally considered to lie in the centre to centre-left of Indian
politics.[29][11][16] On
social issues, it advocates secular policies that encourage equal
opportunity, right to health, civil
liberty and welfare of weaker sections and minorities, with support
for a mixed economy.[30] As
of 2021, in the 17 general elections since independence, it
has won an outright majority on seven occasions and has led the ruling
coalition a further three times, heading the central government for more than
54 years. There have been six Congress Prime Ministers, the first
being Jawaharlal Nehru (1947–1964), and the most
recent Manmohan Singh (2004–2014).
After Indian independence, the Congress
emerged as a catch-all party under Nehru, dominating Indian
politics for the next 20 years. During this time, the Congress generally
advocated socialist policies, and established a secular
state. After Nehru's death and the short tenure of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira
Gandhi became the leader of the party. During her tenure, the Congress
shifted to the left.
In 1969, the party suffered a major
split, with a faction led by Indira Gandhi leaving to form the Congress (R), leaving the remainder as
the Congress (O). The Congress
(R) became the dominant faction, winning a strong victory in the 1971 Indian general election. However,
backlash against the Emergency and
the uniting of several opposition parties into the Janata
Party led to the Congress being defeated in the 1977 Indian general election. Another
split occurred in 1979, leading to the creation of the Congress (I), which was
recognised as the Congress by the Electoral Commission in 1981.
In 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and was succeeded
as president by her son, Rajiv Gandhi.
Under his leadership, the party won a massive victory in 1984, but lost
power in 1989 to the National Front under V. P.
Singh. The Congress then returned to power under P. V. Narasimha Rao, who moved the party
towards an economically liberal agenda, a sharp break from previous leaders.
However, it lost the 1996 general
election, and was replaced in government by the National Front and then
the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Foundation
Hume organised the first meeting in Bombay with the approval
of the Viceroy Lord Dufferin. Umesh Chandra Banerjee was the first
president of Congress; the first session was attended by 72 delegates,
representing each province of India.[36][37] Notable representatives included Scottish ICS
officer William Wedderburn, Dadabhai
Naoroji, Pherozeshah
Mehta of the Bombay Presidency Association, Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi of the Poona Sarvajanik
Sabha, social
reformer and newspaper editor Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, Justice K. T. Telang, N. G. Chandavarkar, Dinshaw Wacha, Behramji
Malabari, journalist and activist Gooty Kesava Pillai, and P. Rangaiah Naidu of the Madras Mahajana
Sabha.[38][39] This small elite group, unrepresentative of the Indian
masses at the time,[40] functioned more as a stage for elite Indian ambitions
than a political party for the first decade of its existence.
Purpose India is a
home to the second largest Muslim population in the world. It is equally
crucial to understand the attitude of non-Muslim population towards the
interest-free banking in India. The firms desirous of entering into this
nascent field in India are required to know the aspirations and motivations of
both Muslims and non-Muslims with respect to interest-free banking. For a large
number of Muslims interest-free banking may be a matter of adhering to their
faith, but for the non-Muslim customers it has to address real issues like
security, risk minimisation, profitability, etc. Design/Methodology/Approach
The present study is an attempt to understand the perceptions of Indian
customers towards Islamic banking. For this purpose, a representative sample of
259 respondents is surveyed with the help of a structured questionnaire
developed for this purpose. Findings It has been found that there are
differences in the attitude of Muslims and non-Muslims towards Islamic banking.
Surprisingly both groups have a similar perception about the institutions of
Islamic banking. Findings of the study reveal that the attitude of Indian
customers can be classified into factors like awareness, ideology,
implementation, features and institutions. Therefore, such factors should be
considered seriously by the Islamic banks in designing their marketing
strategies. Research Limitations/Implication This is a survey-based study.
Hence a representative sample is mandatory. Due care has been taken to arrive
at a sample size which is representative of the population; however, a large
sample size shall lead to better results. Practical Implications This study can
help decision makers to identify the major factors that may shape the attitude
of Indian customers towards Islamic banks. This should also be of some help to
the management of commercial banks in devising appropriate marketing strategies
for reaching and attracting young customers. Originality/Value The originality
of this study lies in the fact that it is a pioneering study in the Indian
context which brings out the attitudinal differences between Muslims and
non-Muslims with respect to Islamic banking. Further, the classification of
attitude of Indian customers into factors like awareness, ideology,
implementation, features and institutions adds to the originality of the study.
Both these aspects of this study add value to the existing literature in the
field of Islamic banking.
Q.3 What do you know about the Urdu-Hindi
controversy in Indo-Pak subcontinent? How did this movement take a serious turn
in the beginning of the 20th century? Illustrate the answer by explaining the
impacts of this movement on Muslim Nation.
Ans
Maulvi Abdul Haq who
known as Baba-e- Urdu (father of Urdu) has mentioned
Urdu-Hindi controversy in these words (Ahmad, 2010), The greatest tragedy after
the establishment of British rule in the Indo-Pak subcontinent was the British
thought that Hindi was solely the only language of the occupied nation.
The Hindi–Urdu controversy arose
in 19th century colonial India out of the debate over whether
the Hindi or Urdu language should be chosen as a national language.
Hindi and Urdu are mutually
intelligible as spoken languages, to the extent that they are sometimes
considered to be dialects or registers of a single spoken
language referred to as Hindi-Urdu or sometimes Hindustani. The respective writing systems used
to write the languages, however, are different:
Hindi is written using Devanagari, whereas Urdu is written using a
modified version of the Arabic
script, each of which is completely illegible to readers literate only in
the other.
Both Modern Standard Hindi and Urdu are
literary forms of the Dehlavi
dialect of Hindustani.[1] A
Persianized variant of Hindustani began to take shape during the Delhi
Sultanate (1206–1526 AD) and Mughal
Empire (1526–1858 AD) in South Asia.[1] Known
as Dakkani in southern India, and by names such as Hindi, Hindavi,
and Hindustani in northern India and elsewhere, it emerged as
a lingua franca across much of India and was
written in several scripts including Perso-Arabic, Devanagari, Kaithi, and
Gurmukhi.[2]
The Perso-Arabic script form of this
language underwent a standardization process and further Persianization in the
late Mughal period (18th century) and came to be known as Urdu, a name derived
from the Turkic word ordu (army)
or orda and is said to have arisen as the "language of the
camp", or "Zaban-i-Ordu", or in the local "Lashkari
Zaban".[3] As
a literary language, Urdu took shape in courtly, elite settings. Along with
English, it became the official language of British
India in 1837.[4][5][6]
Hindi as a standardized literary register of the Delhi
dialect arose in the 19th century; the Braj
dialect was the dominant literary language in the Devanagari script up
until and through the nineteenth century. Efforts by Hindi movements to promote
a Devanagari version of the Delhi dialect under the name of Hindi gained pace
around 1880 as an effort to displace Urdu's official position.[7]
The last few decades of the nineteenth
century witnessed the eruption of the Hindi–Urdu controversy in the United Provinces (present-day Uttar
Pradesh, then known as "the North-Western Provinces and Oudh"). The
controversy comprised "Hindi" and "Urdu" protagonists each
advocating the official use of Hindustani with the Devanagari script
or with the Nastaʿlīq script, respectively. Hindi movements
advocating the growth of and official status for Devanagari were established in
Northern India. Babu Shiva Prasad and Madan Mohan Malaviya were notable early
proponents of this movement. This, consequently, led to the development of Urdu
movements defending Urdu's official status; Sir
Syed Ahmed Khan was one of its noted advocates.[citation needed]
In 1900, the government issued a decree
granting symbolic equal status to both Hindi and Urdu. Hindi and Urdu started
to diverge linguistically, with Hindi drawing on Sanskrit as
the primary source for formal and academic vocabulary, often with a conscious
attempt to purge the language of Persian-derived equivalents. Deploring this
Hindu-Muslim divide, Gandhi proposed re-merging the standards, using either
Devanagari or Urdu script, under the traditional generic term Hindustani.
Bolstered by the support of the Indian National Congress and various
leaders involved in the Indian Independence Movement, Hindi,
in the Devanagari script, along with English, replaced Urdu as one of the
official languages of India during the institution of the Indian constitution in 1950.
The Urdu language was born in
India. India was considered to be a golden sparrow in terms of its fertile land
and man power. That’s why lots of invaders came to occupy it for different
purposes. It so happened that when these different people from different
regions of the world came to India they brought with them, among other things,
their language as well. People like Arabs, Persians and Turks etc. when mingled
with the native people they exchanged many words of their languages and thus
with this mingling, a new language emerged which was termed Urdu, meaning the
“language of the troops.” Since it was formed by the invaders of the Muslim
world and emerged during the rule of the Mughals in India, it was termed as the
language of the Muslims and that is why initially it was called Musalmani.
Q.4 Give a short account of the Minto-Morly
reforms (1909) along with their important effects on the politics of the
sub-continent in general and Muslim politics in Particular.
Ans
The Indian
Councils Act 1909 (9 Edw. 7 Ch. 4), commonly known as the Morley-Minto
or Minto-Morley Reforms, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
that brought about a limited increase in the involvement of Indians in the
governance of British India.
Citation:
Morley-minto reform is one
of the main games played by british to crack the unity of freedom movement.
As in 1905 partition of
bengal was a major event which already divided Hindus and muslims.
##*The morley-minto (morley
was secretary of state & minto was viceroy) INTRODUCE SEPERATE ELECTORATE
FOR HINDUS AND MUSLIMS with different REPRESENTATIVES.
Because of this political
funda Hindu-Muslim unity was affected and freedom movement was stopped which
ultimately delay Independence by 25–30 yrs.
How ever freedom movement
again came to the track after ‘ganghi’s arrival.
*Note- Lord Minto is also
called “father of communal electorate”.
The Indian
Councils Act 1909 (9 Edw. 7 Ch. 4), commonly known as the Morley–Minto or Minto–Morley
Reforms, was an act of the Parliament
of the United Kingdom that brought
about a limited increase in the involvement of
Indians in the governance of British India. The
act introduced elections to legislative councils and admitted Indians to
councils of the Indian Secretary, the
viceroy, and to the executive councils of Bombay and Madras states. Muslims
were granted separate electorates. Indian nationalists considered the reforms
too cautious and Hindus resented the introduction of separate Muslim
electorates.
A small educated elite met for the first
time as the Indian National Congress in 1885.
Provincial associations had already emerged. One of the main grievances of the
associations was the difficulties for Indians to enter the civil service. In
1858, Queen Victoria had proclaimed equal treatment
for Indians.[3] But
very few Indians had received an opportunity to join the civil service, even
after reforms in 1878, with a maximum age for admission set at 19 and
competitive examinations only being held in Great Britain.[4] British
officials were hesitant to accept Indians in administration, fearing that
Indians showing their competence would undermine justifications for British
rule in the subcontinent.[4] With
that perspective, it appeared that granting a few concessions of representation
in the provincial and imperial legislatures to the native elite would be a
lesser evil.
The non-monopolising participation of
Indians in the legislatures was to be an enhancement for British rule. Such a
limited reform initiated in 1892 clamour by the Indian National Congress for
more legislative representation. The process was limited to proposing
candidates, whom the government could nominate for the parliaments. Indians
were still outnumbered by British members in the legislatures, and their
abilities were limited to speeches and debates. Nonetheless, the restricted
enterprise attracted the attention of the Indian leadership, and clamour of the
Indian National Congress declined as leaders became busy working in the new
councils.[4]
The British Liberal Party won a landslide victory in
1906. Subsequently, the liberal philosopher John
Morley became the British Secretary of State for
India and wished to gather moderate Indians because of the armed activities by
the young nationalists[4] and
thought that would keep the moderates away from the radical members of the
Congress.[5] The
moderates were enthusiastic and expected more from Morley than he had
countenanced. Additionally, Morley's judgement was guided by Lord Minto, the
viceroy, and Herbert Hope Risley, the Home Secretary. The
latter opposed territorial representation and urged representation on the basis
of the different interests in what he perceived to be the Indian social
structure.[4] Minto
had received in 1906 a delegation from the newly founded Muslim League which sought to prevent
the creation of any parliamentary system which would allow the Hindus to
dominate the Muslim minority permanently.[6] Seeking
to dilute the ability of the Hindu majority to exercise control in the
provincial assemblies, Risley pushed into the reforms a bifurcated electoral
structure.[6]
Morley–Minto Reforms[edit]
The act itself, also called the
Morley–Minto Reforms, conferred some political reforms which encouraged the
constitutionalists in the Indian National Congress. More Indians could be
elected to the legislatures on the basis of the Indian Councils Act.[5] Various
provincial councils had the size of their memberships expanded.[7] The
"official majorities" – where a majority on each provincial council
was appointed from civil service officials – previously imposed on all
provincial councils were lifted; the official majority on the viceroy's
council, however, was retained due to the possible need for the viceroy to
legislate for any province.[8] The
executive remained under strong British control, and the government's
consultative mode remained unchanged, with "a non-parliamentary system
where the legislature acted as a kind of permanent opposition in the face of an
irremovable executive".[9]
The reforms established Indian dominance
in the provincial but not central legislative bodies. Elections, mainly
indirect, were affirmed for all levels of society.[10] Special
seats were also created to represent provincial landowners, tea plantations,
various regional merchants, etc. Electoral rolls were drawn up requiring
substantial property qualifications or otherwise honours or degrees from universities
or public service.[11] The
elected Indians were also enabled to debate budgetary and
complementary matters and table resolutions.[5][10] The
British executive, however, retained an absolute veto over all legislation.[12] Councillors
also were granted very limited interrogatory powers to request information from
the government.[13]
Despite the reforms, the members still
reeled over electoral apportionment. The provinces were delegated electoral
allocations, and administrative changes hindered harmful moves against the
British rule. A major hindrance to coalitions was the separate electorates.[5]
Separate electorates[edit]
A momentous introduction in the reforms
was the separate electorates, with seats reserved for Muslims in which only
Muslims would be polled. The implication that Muslims and their interests could
be protected only by Muslims would influence Indian politics in the ensuing
decades.[10] The Muslim League had been founded in 1906
by an elite aiming to promote Muslim interests,[10] prevent
Hindu dominance over Muslims through a parliamentary system[6] and
advance the Muslim perspective in the deliberations regarding constitutional
reforms after October 1907.[14] Minto
heard in October 1906 a Muslim deputation, which comprised 35 Muslims from all
Indian provinces except the Northwest Frontier.[15] The
principal organisers of the delegation and main supporters of the movement for
separate electorates were Muslims from the UP.[16] The
delegation asked that the Muslims be given a fair share in representation. The
fair share was to be determined by the numerical position of Muslims, their
political significance and the Muslim contribution in defending the British
Empire.[17]
The delegation stated that the existing
Muslim representation was inadequate and that the election of Muslims was
dependent on the Hindu majority and so the elected Muslims could not truly
represent Muslims. Minto welcomed their representative character[18] and
acknowledged and promoted the separate Muslim politics.[19] The
official British sympathy for the delegation aroused suspicion that the viceroy
had invited them, instead of only meeting them. However, the British officials
shared the Muslim League's fear of legislative outnumbering and accepted any
assistance against Morley's democratic inclinations.[6] The
sympathy expressed by British administrators for Muslim concerns "gave
rise to the suspicion that the deputation of 1906 was somehow invited, rather
than simply received, by the viceroy".[6] But
contrary to the "command performance" hypothesis, the evidence
demonstrates that the initiative for this meeting was taken by Mohsin-ul-Mulk.[19]
British officials persuaded Minto of the
deputation's representative character and the danger that Muslim discontent
could pose to the British rule. The number of members in the central
Legislative Council was raised from 16 to 60.[20] The
British believed that by entreating separate Muslim representation, they would
simply be acknowledging Indian realities.[21] Separate
representation for Muslims was a subsidiary of the government's policy of
identifying people by their religion and caste. Muslims were seen as a helpful
and possibly-loyal counterbalance to Hindus but they were also feared as
extreme because of their role in the Indian Rebellion of 1857[22] and
in the 1872 assassination Lord Mayo, the viceroy
of India.[23]
Morley wished a reconciliation between
territorial representation and Muslim demands, but Risley backed the separate
electorates was able to push his proposals into the final plan.[6] The
Muslim League's insistence on separate electorates and reserved seats in the
Imperial Council was granted in the Indian Councils Act after the League held
protests in India and lobbied London.[14] The
party's leadership was successful in converting Minto's unclear support of its
1906 delegation into a political fact.[
Q.5 Describe how did the Muslims react to the
partition of Bengal.
Ans
Muslims were a
positive response in the partition of Bengal because it was the favor of
Muslims, partition world becomes more favorable and beneficial for the Muslim
community. Because it was more problematic for Muslims to live under the rule
of Hindus, the majority while the Muslims were in minority.
The partition of Bengal is one of the most
important events of Indian history. Which caught the serious attention of the
Hindus and the Muslims. Due to its colossal size, the Bengal Presidency was
patchy to be governed by a single governor. Thus, unfortunately being a
province of sheer size, it was regulated as one province. Its area was about
189000 square miles. The province had also one of the largest populations
residing, more than 80 million inhabitants deluged the province. Thus, there
were many unsuccessful attempts in which it was tried to remedy this problem.
But it was not accomplished till 1905.
During the reign of Sir Charles first attempt
was made in this direction in 1853. Subsequently, lord Dalhousie also clamored
for the division of the province. The feminine of 1866 in Orissa gave birth to
serious questions regarding the malfunctioning of the administration. In 1874
another attempt was laid down with separation of Assam and three
districts. In 1905, the province was split into two big portions: East
Bengal and West Bengal. The partition fetched whopping benefits to the Muslims
as they then became in the majority in West Bengal. However, the Hindus reacted
stringently against the partition and thus they wanted the revocation of the
partition. The Hindus started protests against partition and boycotted the
British products and commenced the swadeshi movement. Thus, in the end, the partition
was annulled in 1911.
Factors of the Partition of Bengal
1.
Administrative causes
Reasons included that the administration was
a big factor, it was not a possible situation to live to gather. Hindus were
the majority in the region they controlled the different sectors of the
administrative system in Bengal. However, the Muslims were in the minority so
that. they were considered inferior while the Hindus were dominant. Muslims do
not have their political right because of the minority. They do not have equal
membership in politics as well as did not address their issues. It was the big
factor of the partition of Bengal in which Muslims were the favor of the
partition.
2.
Differences of Muslim-Hindu culture
There was a cultural difference between
Muslims and Hindus there were various changes in the culture. Both of them were
considered superior himself.
3.
Limited Developments
Infrastructure or developmental problems
because Bengal was a large province so that they cannot initiate the progress
of projects.
4.
Education
The factors behind that the education was
important and main factors among all reasons. The illiteracy ratio was growing
because of the lack of educational institution sectors and the area of Bengal
province was so large the administrative cannot manage this problem.
5.
Large Size of the Area
The area was 189000, SqM with a population
of 80 million, Muslims, Hindus, and various communities created unify. Because
of the large scale of population, it created the causes in the region. A single
ruler cannot govern, it was too difficult to solve the total problems of the Provence.
Moreover, the governor cannot walk the entire province, to listen to the
problems of people. Because of different towns, it was not possible to handle
these hurdles of the province.
·
India
Pakistan Relations | History, Issues and Solutions
·
Supreme
Court of Pakistan & India
·
Foreign
Policy Definition (Analysis of Pakistan)
·
Constitution(Define)
| Salient Features of Constitution
6.
Hindus Feudal System
The united Bengal Hindus were in the
majority then Muslims, they have the authority to govern they were monitoring
the agricultural and industrial sectors. Therefore, the Muslims were not
facilitated, despite having a second majority they were underestimated for
their rights and everything was under the Hindus.
7.
Language Factor & Partition of Bengal
It was a big issue between the Muslims and
Hindus, Hindus want to the Hindi language to become the national language in
Bengal, on the other hand, Muslims wanted to Urdu become a national language in
the province. And east Bengal has unique different culture it was totally
different from West Bengal. The race of superiority creates the factor between
both nations so that it was become included in the factors of the partition of
Bengal.
Therefore, because all these factors
included the agriculture backwardness and issues of language, trade war and
above mention further factors which all become accountable for the partition of
Bengal.
Hindu- Muslim reactions to the Partition of
Bengal
1.
Muslims’ Positive Response towards Partition
Muslims were a positive response in the
partition of Bengal because it was the favor of Muslims, partition world
becomes more favorable and beneficial for the Muslim community. Because it was
more problematic for Muslims to live under the rule of Hindus, the majority
while the Muslims were in minority. Therefore, the partition of Bengal created
equality between the Hindus and Muslims the Hindu’s dominance or superiority
abolished, and each and every aspect of Muslims were free from the monopoly of
Hindus. There were several ways the partition created beneficial for the
Muslims in different public services and business and agriculture as well as
industrial sectors which provide betterment for Muslims. after the partition
this was the precious time of Muslims to grow or rise towards wealth.
Still in the West Bengal Muslims majority
but Muslims majority also approved in the eastern portion of Bengal. Become
Dacca was made the capital. Dacca was a well cultural and educational center
for Muslims. Therefore, the partition is given a lot of prospects for the
Muslims to improve their cultural and educational interests to the best level.
The Muslims endorsed the partition of Bengal because it was the betterment of
Muslim politics. It was the support of the Muslims because Muslims become aware
politically carry on their struggle for representation to improve the political
system to make representation fully in the province.
However, the Hindus have educated than
Muslims after the partition Muslims become more aware of it with the passage of
time to strengthen to compete, after that Muslims were become in a new form to
strengthen politically culturally as well as socially in the region. It was a
blessing for Muslims after the partition they opened new educational
institutions, and also initiate the construction of different developmental
schemes more steps towards the progressor stability in the region.
2.
Hindus Negative Response towards the Partition of Bengal
Hindus’ response was negative concerning the
partition of Bengal, they become against the purpose of partition. Because it
was not in favor of the Hindus, it abolished the supremacy or dominancy of
Hindus. Moreover, it was beneficial of the Muslims rise and threat for the
Hindus monopoly so that they react it as a negative their status quo becomes
decreased. They were dominant in the region including trade business
agriculture and industrial sectors which were their loss. Their representation
decreased as well as the judicial system and courts system become separate,
therefore this resultant more affected to the Hindus supremacy and rise of
Muslims formulate. In addition, they thought that the partition of Bengal will
be the favor of Muslims economically and politically and more loss for us that
is why their narrative as opposed to the partition of Bengal.
Conclusion
To conclude, in the partition of Bengal
Muslims were the favor of partition. Moreover, it was the betterment and rise
of the Muslims to grow culturally politically they were the support of Bengal
partition they developed in various sectors. on the other hand, Hindus were
negative views about the partition of Bengal. Because it was the loss of their
supremacy, they were controlled economic and political sectors then Muslims so
that the Hindus response was negative in the partition.