• US 'regrets' diplomat treatment as India seethes
  • Dhaka sees slack blockade
  • US senate committee expresses grave concern over Bangladesh
  • Three activists, two police injured in Satkhira
  • Tribunal to order on 2 Bagerhat lawyers on Jan 7
  • Khaleda slammed for her âsilenceâ
  • Six covered van torched in Sitakunda
  • AL-BNP talks suspended: Inu
  • Bangladesh journos criticise Pak Parliament resolution
  • Seven held, 10 injured in Ganajagaran Mancha programme
  • Tokyo governor resigns over money scandal
  • Maritime boundary with India: Hearing on merits ends
  • Forex reserve crosses record $18bn
  • Talibans threaten to attack Bangladesh mission in Islamabad, Nation reports
  • 83-hr blockade again from Saturday
  • Buses to ply on three routes from Saturday on trial basis
  • ECâs decision over army deployment Friday: CEC
  • PM hints at JS dissolution for fresh polls in case of compromise
  • Oppn men torch over 50 motorbikes in Lalmonirhat
HOME  OP-ED
  
Print Friendly and PDF

CONCLUDING PART

Bengal under English rule â an analysis

by Dr Habib Siddiqui

The Hindu community also had community leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra who not only approved the British policy in Bengal, but also encouraged its folks to quickly adopt the English education which would benefit them in every aspect, and this their community did almost religiously. In 1816, Ram Mohan Roy collaborated with English educationists to establish the Hindu College. The graduates of this college played a vital role later. In 1824 the Sanskrit College was established to preserve and educate on Hindu culture.
Under British patronage, the history of India started to be rewritten distorting facts, periodising her history along religious lines, showing that the majority Hindus were better off under British rule compared to under Muslim rule. Many of the educated Hindus enthusiastically participated in this divide-and-rule game, seeding the ground for partition of India in 1947. The poisonous role of Bengali Hindu writers like Bankim Chandra was highly problematic who helped to further widen the religious divide. The middle-class Hindus created social clubs, exclusively for Hindus, to propagate Hindutvadi philosophy, towards a future Hindu (Ram) Raj. Even the latter-formed so-called revolutionary, essentially terrorist, cells suffered from distinct anti-Muslim bias and Hindutvadi ideas [Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, Calcutta (1959), pp 4-5]. In 1882, Dayanand Saraswati organised a movement to ban slaughter of cows in India. And then in 1885 when Bal Gangadhar Tilak introduced Shivaji festival probably the death-bell for a united India was rung. As many of the Hindu extremists, Hindutvadis, became important party members within the Indian National Congress, it was not a question of if but when the country would be sliced along religious lines.
In contrast, Muslims were disorganised centrally and their struggles were mostly economic-centric and local, which were directed against oppressive British Raj and their planters, traders and agents — the zamindars and the mahajans. Although the local agents were all Hindus, the revolt movement was never anti-Hindu by any definition. Many Muslim leaders, especially the religious ones, did not call for or dream about the partition of India, and surely not Bengal, along religious lines, and, as a matter of fact, opposed it wholeheartedly almost to the bitter end.
The Muslim community could not compete with and, thus, lagged behind the Hindu community without a modern, savvy intelligentsia, an educated middle class that has learned English and a bourgeoisie, on a substantial scale. What they needed was an intellectual uprising. And this was provided by a very unlikely character — a non-Bengali from Delhi by the name of Sir Syed Ahmed (1817-1898), who in so many ways was what Raja Ram Mohan Roy was for the Hindus of the early 19th century. He, too, like Roy, was a great admirer of the British Raj, and felt that salvation of Muslims lied in English education and cooperation, and not resistance or revolt.
In 1858, Sir Syed Ahmed founded a modern school in Muradabad. In 1864 he established the Translation Society. In 1869 he published a newspaper — Mohamedan Social Reformer. In 1873, he founded the Muslim Anglo-Oriental College in Aligarh, which was to become later Aligarh University and to breed scores of luminous leaders who led the cause of Muslim subjects under the British Raj. 
Not to be overlooked here is also the role of Nawab Bahadur Abdool Luteef Khan (1828-93) of Faridpur who was the first Bengali Muslim to have founded in 1866 the Mohamedan Literary Society in Calcutta, which had dual objectives: discussion around western (European) culture so as to encourage and reform Muslim thinking along that line, and to advise the British Raj through its advisory committees on matters pertaining to Muslims. It was the first of its kind in entire India for the Muslim community. Within four years its membership grew to 500 [Anisuzzaman, op-cit, p 85].
The titles of nawab and later nawab bahadur were bestowed on Abdool Luteef in 1880 and 1887, respectively, by the British Raj. He, too, like Sir Syed felt that English education was a must for Muslims for moving up the social and economic ladder. He vigorously campaigned for higher education of Muslims, and as a result of his work, the famous all-exclusive Hindu College in Calcutta was renamed Presidency College in which for the first time Muslims could enter.
As noted above, Sir Syed’s Translation Society was contemporary to Luteef’s Literary Society, which enjoyed some financial benefits from the government, usually from the office of the Lt Governor of Bengal. Many English men of high rank within the British Raj used to join in its meetings. Many Muslim dignitaries like the sultan of Mysore, nawab of Oudh (Ajodhya), nizams of Hyderabad and Murshidabad were its active members. Many of the Literary Society’s pro-British Raj activities ran opposite to those propagated by more conservative elements within the Muslim society which advocated self-rule and resistance and not subjugation and collaboration. It also opposed views of Justice Syed Ameer Ali who had founded the National Mohamedan Association in 1877 and was highly critical of educational policy of the British Raj on matters pertaining to Muslims.
It is obvious that there were serious divisions and disagreements within the Muslim community — from top to bottom. Many of the pro-British Muslim subjects like Sir Syed did not want to join in the national convention for Indian Muslims in 1882 that was called by the National Mohamedan Association.
Nevertheless, the efforts of pro-British pioneers within the Muslim community paid off to better the dismal economic condition of their lot. The awareness level about the benefit of English education under the Raj was much higher, and there were more educated people within the community. With better economy, especially in the late 18th century, as a result of growing demand of jute and rice, which were mostly produced in Muslim-majority East Bengal, the overall condition of Muslims started taking an upturn. Many of the previously poor Muslim peasants now for the first time could afford to send their children for higher education. Hunter’s report also provided the necessary background for the British Raj to establish madrassahs in Chittagong, Rajshahi and Dhaka where English was taught [Anisuzzaman, op-cit, p 89]. The inclusion of Bengali, Farsi and Arabic subjects as part of the optional curriculum for the bachelor’s degree in Calcutta University and appointment of Muslim teachers for teaching English at the high school level greatly reduced the educational backwardness of Muslims. The scholarship from the Haji Mohammad Mohsin Fund also helped greatly to spread education amongst poor Muslims who previously could not afford paying the tuition and boarding bills.
As a result, in 1871, 14.7 per cent of the Muslim population in Bengal had education at school and college levels. This number rose up to 23.8 per cent by 1881-2. But such advances in literacy rate did not necessarily translate into higher percentage of government jobs since there was no quota system for Muslims in the employment sector, and they had to compete with Hindus for such jobs. 
With competition in jobs came rivalry — social and political — and the short-lived division of Bengal in 1905, which was popular amongst most Muslims but unpopular with Hindus who felt that their monopoly in Calcutta-based trading and commerce was now threatened by raw material producing East Bengal. This rivalry would lead to the foundation of the All India Muslim League in 1906 as a counter weight to the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress, which was formed much earlier, and eventually to the emergence of a truncated Pakistan with two wings — East Pakistan (formed mostly out of East Bengal) and West Pakistan (which comprised parts of the territories of Punjab, Sindh, North-West Frontier and Baluchistan) separated by India in the middle.
Dr Habib Siddiqui, a peace and rights activist, writes from Pennsylvania.




Reader’s Comment

comments powered by Disqus
   

Bengal under English rule â an analysis

The Hindu community also had community leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra who not only approved the British policy in Bengal, but also encouraged its folks to quickly adopt the English education which would benefit... Full story

Kerry returns to Mekong Delta

US secretary of state John Kerry talks with Vietnamese Communist Party secretary general Nguyen Phu Trong (not pictured) at the VCPâs headquarters in Hanoi on December 16. Kerry returned on December 15 to Vietnamâs Mekong Delta, which he navigated as a wartime gunboat skipper, to highlight its vulnerability to climate change in his role as top US diplomat. â AFP photo/Pool/Luong Thai Linh
United States secretary of state John Kerry has been politicking through Southeast Asia the past few days. Kerry visited the Vietnam Mekong Delta, a place he knows well from his wartime adventures. US military interventionism... Full story

Israelis canât imagine peace

CAN a country boycott itself? That may sound like a silly question. It is not. At the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, the âGiant of Historyâ as Barack Obama called him, Israel was not represented by any of its leaders. Full story
  • Online Poll


    Do you think that the government has successfully brought back normalcy in public life after the January 5 elections?

    • Yes
    • No
    • No comment
    Ajax Loader