Chapter 6: 14 Mark Questions
Q: 'Partition or reversal?' Were the reasons why Bengal was partitioned in
1905 more important than those regarding its reversal in 1911? Explain your
answer.
(14)
Ans. Reasons for the partition of Bengal were very important. Bengal was a
province with a huge population spread over a small area. There was Hindu
majority in the western and Muslim majority in the eastern part. The British
thought it wise to divide Bengal along communal lines in such a way that East
Bengal would become a new province with a Muslim majority and West Bengal
with a Hindu majority.
Bengal was also divided due to administrative reasons as it was difficult to govern
by a single governor. With two governors ruling two provinces, it became easier to
collect revenue and to maintain law and order in a highly populated province. As a
result of partition, Muslims felt greatly relieved as they became a majority in the
newly created province of East Bengal and Assam where they could prosper by
making their own government. The partition also affected the Hindu monopoly on
trade, economy and politics of Bengal as Muslim began to develop the Chittagong
port to compete with the Calcutta port in west Bengal. Hindus, therefore,
considered the partition as another example of the British policy of "divide and
rule", because it helped British establish their rule over India more firmly. Hindus
also believed that partition was aimed at striking at the roots of Indian nationalism
and unity. Partition had divided the province into two units with a distinct religious
majority in each unit. The INC considered all people living in Bengal only as
Bengalis regardless of their religious identity. So, the Hindus reacted violently.
As for the reversal of partition, it mainly came about as a result of the ever growing
Hindu pressure on the British. The Hindu-dominated INC organized a country
wide anti-partition campaign. Regular protests and strikes were held, and boycott
of British goods, titles and institutes was organized on a large scale. They rejected
the partition by linking it with the British strategy of dividing Indians into subgroups and creating communal differences.
The Hindu anger was further reflected in the Swadeshi movement. In this a boycott
of British goods was observed. At many places, the British factory made cotton
cloth was thrown in the bonfire and this caused a significant drop in the sale of
British goods. Gradually, the movement adopted terrorist activities when an
attempt was made to assassinate Lord Minto. British goods and institutes were
boycotted as a token of protest over the partition. The INC, threatened to boycott
the Coronation ceremony of the King that was a royal tradition and a hallmark of
British authority over its colonies. This threat of the INC was a serious blow to the
pride and prestige of the British. These circumstances forced the British to
reconsider this administrative decision. Pressure grew with time as all these
activities were paralyzing the state machinery and there was a visible threat to the
British prestige and power in India. The British, therefore, annulled the partition in
December 1911 in the Delhi Durbar and the announcement was made by King
George V himself.
When analyzed objectively, it can be concluded that the reasons for partition of
Bengal were more important because the Muslim community began to develop a
sense of "distinct identity" of their own, and also because they were alerted of the
possible consequences of a Hindu-dominated India. The partition gave a hint to the
Muslims about partition of India along communal lines.
Q: “The Morley-Minto reforms were more important than any other political
developments between 1909 and 1919.’ Do you agree or disagree? Give
reasons for your answer.
(14)
Ans:
The British had introduced the Indian Councils Act 1909, also known as the
Morley-Minto reforms (M.M. Reforms). Under this act, size of the provincial and
central legislative councils was increased: for larger provinces 50 and for smaller
provinces 30 members. The Imperial Council was increased to 60 members by
adding more non official members. Also, the Central Executive Council was
expanded by adding 60 new members, including many Indians. Muslims were
given the right of separate electorates. The councils, however, had little powers.
The members could ask questions and express their opinion and advise the
government on some issues. INC was not satisfied with these provisions and it
sharply criticized the provision of separate electorates for Muslims. For INC, it
was an undemocratic concession, but for Muslim League, it was recognition of
their political importance.
However, some other political developments also took place during the same time
period. The Montague-Chelmsford reforms (Mont-ford reforms) were jointly
drafted by John Montague, Secretary of State of India, and Lord Chelmsford, the
Viceroy. They became operative in 1919. They enlarged the size of the legislative
councils, increased the number of voters to 5.5 million and granted the right of
separate electorate to Sikhs, too. In the Centre, a bicameral set up was introduced
with an upper house, the Council of State and a lower house the legislative
assembly. The Council of State had 60 seats, 33 of whom were elected. The
Legislative Assembly had 145 members, with 103 being elected for a period of 3
years. These 103 included 32 Muslims. A Council of Princes was setup with 108
members where Princes could debate important topics. At provincial level,
Diarchy was introduced. In this, subjects were divided between the Governor
(reserved subjects) and ministers (transferred subjects). Enlargement of the
councils, increased number of voters and protection of minorities were welcomed.
The real powers were, however, still with the British, as the Viceroy could pass
any law he liked in the Centre. Governors of the provinces, likewise, could veto
any law they disliked. The Council of Princes, too, didn’t have powers and
eventually it became a kind of a ‘talking shop’.
To make things worse, the Rowlatt Act was enforced. It gave powers to the police
to arrest anyone without warrant and detain him without the right of bail. The Act
led to the tragic Amritsar massacre.
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 was an agreement between INC and Muslim League.
Due to the efforts of Jinnah, ML and INC held their joint session at Lucknow. INC
was led by Ambeka Charan Mahajan and ML was represented by Mr. Jinnah.
Both parties agreed on a charter of common demands, called the Lucknow Pact.
The Pact asked the British for provincial autonomy, enlargement of the councils by
including more Indians. A very important clause was the acceptance of separate
Muslim electorates by the INC. It also agreed to give Muslims one-third seats in
the Centre. The Lucknow Pack marked a great occasion of Hindu-Muslim unity. It
also showed the desire of self-rule among Indians, as there were two more Home
Rule Leagues during the same period one by Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak and the other
by Mrs. Annie Besant It, however, also reflected that Hindus would be ready to
accept any degree of partition of India along communal lines in future.
With objective analysis, it seems that the Mont-ford reforms were the most
important political development, because the introduction of Diarchy and
bicameral set up showed the British willingness to grant Indians more rights,
though rather slowly.
Alternative judgements:
• The Morly- Minto reforms /The 1909 Act may be considered to be the most
important development because by granting separate electorates for the Muslims,
the British strengthened the idea of nationalism among Muslims which would
evolve into their demand for a separate homeland.
• The Lucknow Pact looks to be the most important development because it
showed the possibility of joint struggle for independence by the two largest
communities of India, Hindus and Muslims. If the spirit of the Pact had been
retained, British might have been pressurized more than their expectations.