Section 2 (1900-1947):

Partition of Bengal-
Reasons:
 Largest province, about 85 million population; 54m in the western part,
42m in the eastern part.
 Too huge to govern; difficult to administer by one governor.
 Hindu majority in west & Muslim majority in east Bengal; growing
economic & political disparity b/w Hindus & Muslims. British thought the
partition would benefit Muslims.
 1870 onwards more & more Hindus demanded freedom from the British;
INC leader, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, delivered impassioned speeches for
freedom; British had to restrict such activities by distracting attention of
INC from its mission.
 Viceroy Lord Curzon proposed partition of Bengal & implemented it, Oct.
1905; [Link] to include: Assam, Dhaka, Chittagong & Mymensingh.

Reactions:
Muslim Reaction
 Felt delighted, expressed thanks to British.
 Socio-economic & political position improved their govt & majority in a
province began to develop Chittagong port to compete with the Calcutta
port.
 Since 1857, for the first time, improved relations with the British.
 ML, 1906, promised loyalty to the British, condemned INC opposition to the
partition.

INC / Hindu reaction

 Violence, protests, mourning, strikes, boycott of British goods & institutes.
 Swadeshi movement; British cloth thrown onto bonfire & wearing local
cloth, a matter of honour; dramatic drop of sale of British goods.
  Violence more intensified; assassination attempt on British officials e.g. the
future Viceroy, Minto.
 Threat of boycott of the coronation ceremony of King George, 1911.
 British used forces to suppress protest e.g. arrest of leaders, restrictions on
newspapers, public meetings, the 1908 Press Act, but no use.
 Difficulties grew for the British, they began to review the partition & finally
King George, announced reversal, Dec 1911.

Reasons for INC opposition to the partition

 INC considered it as an exercise of the British policy of "divide and rule".
 A step to weaken the Hindu position by creating a Muslim majority
province; INC unhappy over loss of monopoly on economy & politics of
Bengal.
 For INC, it was aimed at damaging Indian nationalism along religious lines; a
Hindu Bengal & a Muslim Bengal.
Q: Why was Bengal partitioned in1905? /7
1. Most populated
2. Growing economic disparity
3. Political activities of Congress

Q: Bengal was partitioned because of Geographical factors. Do you agree?

Give reasons for your answer? /14
1. Geographical factors
2. Administrative issues
3. Economic disparity
4. Growing nationalism
Reversal of P.O.B
1. Anti-British protests-economic disruptance
2. Political disturbance due to Swadeshi movement
 3. British measures failed
Q: why was POB reversed/annulled/cancelled? /7

[Protests and Violence] The partition of Bengal created a Muslim-majority

province, the East Bengal. The elite Hindus of West Bengal, who were collecting
taxes from Muslim peasants in east Bengal, would now lose their influence in the
new province. They, therefore, rejected the decision and launched a series of
violent protests and demonstrations against the partition. The tide of anger rapidly
spread to other parts of India. The reaction was so strong that it gave birth to the
development of extremism. A number of small extremist groups came into
existence that launched attacks on the British officials. They succeeded in killing a
few ones. Lord Minto, the future viceroy, escaped an assassination attempt. Many
extremists were imprisoned for long time, but the situation was alarming to the
British. Finally, they had to bow down before the Hindu agitation and thus revoked
the Bengal partition.

[Economic Reasons] The British reversed the partition of Bengal due to economic
reasons also. The Hindus of West Bengal started Swadeshi Movement, which also
spread to other parts of India. It was a massive campaign for boycotting the British
goods and using home-made products. The Hindus responded to the movement
enthusiastically. The use of local products became a matter of pride. Foreign
clothes were thrown on bonfires. By 1908, imports from Britain had fallen off
significantly and sales of British goods in Indian markets dropped drastically. So the
British had to reverse the decision.

[British Measures Failed] The British took several measures to bring the situation
under control but political unrest kept on growing. Restrictions were imposed on
newspapers and public gatherings. Editors were imprisoned. The prisons were filled
with revolutionary activists. Tilak was also arrested in June 1908 and put behind
the bars for 6 years. Apart from repressive measures, the British turned to
reconciliation also by introducing Morley-Minto reforms in 1909 to win support of
the Hindus, but the reforms also could not pacify them. The situation was becoming
difficult for peaceful administration and ultimately the British had to move towards
annulment of the partition.
Why was Muslim League founded in 1906?

The Muslims wanted a political party of their own. The INC claimed to represent all
communities of India but it mainly worked for the interests of Hindus. Its reaction on the
partition of Bengal in 1905 was a shocking experience for the Muslims as they realized the
hidden INC aims of denying Muslims to make any progress. The way the INC launched the
Swadeshi Movement and a country wide campaign of protest and strikes proved to be an eye
opening experience for the Muslims. They increasingly felt the need of their own political party
that could counter any anti-Muslim activities and campaigns.

In February 1906, the Liberal Party won elections in England. It was generally more sympathetic
towards the Indians and specially at times towards Indian Muslims. It announced that it would
expand the legislative councils by including more Indians. Muslims realized it was time to think
of making a Muslim political party because the INC had not been sincere towards them. In
order to join the legislative councils they needed a political party to contest elections.

Another reason for the formation of ML was the success of the Simla Delegation. In October
1906 about 36 Muslim delegates led by Sir Aga Khan called on the Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla
(the summer capital of the British India). It demanded a greater share of Muslims in the councils
and separate Muslim electorates. Lord Minto’s encouraging response convinced the delegates
that the organized efforts were more likely to be successful. For this a political party was
needed.
Q :“The Muslim League was established in 1906 because the Hindus had their own political
party.” Do you agree?
Give reasons for your answer.

Ans: The Muslim League was founded on 30th December, 1906. The pro-Hindu INC (Indian
National Congress) policies were a major reason for the formation of Muslim League (ML). The
INC had been demanding enforcement of Hindi as the official language replacing Urdu in
various provinces. It also opposed the partition of Bengal in 1905. This was shocking for the
Muslims as they realized the hidden INC aims of denying Muslims to make any progress. The
way the INC launched the Swadeshi Movement with country‑wide protests and strikes, proved
to be an eye‑opening experience for the Muslims. They increasingly felt the need of their own
political party that could counter any Muslim activities and campaigns.

Another reason for the formation of ML was the success of the Simla Delegation. In October
1906 about 36 Muslim delegates led by Sir Aga Khan called on the Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla.
This delegation demanded a greater share of Muslims in councils and the government jobs. It
also demanded separate electorates for Muslims in view of their political importance and
numerical weakness against the Hindu majority. Lord Minto’s encouraging response convinced
the delegates that the organized efforts were more likely to be successful. For this a political
party was needed.
By the start of the twentieth century the activities of the Hindu extremist party, Arya Samaj
(Hindu Society), had become more intense. The purpose of this party was to purify India from
non‑Hindu elements, especially Muslims. With the passage of time it began to use force against
the weak Muslims and there were reports of forcible conversion of Muslims into Hindus.
Muslims felt insecure about their cultural and religious identity and realized that a political
party could protect and promote their cultural and political rights.

In February 1906, the Liberal Party won elections in England. It was generally more sympathetic
towards the Indians and especially, at times, towards Indian Muslims. It announced that it
would expand the legislative councils by including more Indians. Muslims realized it was time to
think of making their own political party because the INC had not been sincere towards them.
In order to join the legislative councils elections had to be contested through the platform of a
political party. Therefore, prominent Muslim leaders gathered at the residence of Nawab
Salimullah Khan in Dhaka to attend the 20th session of the MEC (Muhammadan Educational
Conference)..an announcement of AIML was made. Its main objective was to protect political
and socioeconomic interests of the Indian Muslims while keeping them loyal to the British.

It may be concluded that ML was founded mainly because the Hindus had their own political
party. In view of the prevailing circumstances it was vital for Muslims to constitute a party that
could voice their concerns and safeguard their political and cultural identity and rights.
Eventually the ML became the founding party of the Pakistan Movement that led to the
creation of Pakistan.
The M.M (Morley-Minto) Reforms/Indian Councils Act, 1909

Jointly drafted by Lord Minto (Viceroy) & John Morley (Secretary of State), approved by the
govt.
More Indian share in all the councils:

1. The Imperial Council → 60 seats, with more non-official

2. 60 more members in the Central Executive Council → members could discuss general
matters & advise the govt on some matters e.g. budget.
3. Expansion of the Provincial Councils → 50 members in the larger, 30 members in the smaller
provinces.
4. the right of separate electorate was accepted.

Importance of the M.M Reforms

Greater say of the Indians in the govt affairs by expansion of central & provincial councils.
- British desire to train the Indians in politics, allow them to express opinion, but they could not
afford giving Indians any decisive powers → the council members could raise questions & give
advice to the govt but could not make/ change any law → real powers with the British.
- More non‑official members → gradually, more elected members in the councils in future.
- Separate Muslim electorates → a major breakthrough in British‑Muslim relations & a major
step towards national identity & protection of the Muslim community → INC opposed this
measure.
Reasons for INC opposing the M.M Reforms:
- INC wanted more powers for the councils → not satisfied with the limited concessions granted
under the reforms.
- Declared separate Muslim electorates against the spirit of democracy, although the British
didn't aim at introducing democracy in India → they were granting as few concessions to India
as were necessary at that time.
- For INC, this was another step against the Indian nationalism & unity.
WWI 1914-1918
The Lucknow Pact (LP), 1916 (war year event)

Reasons for the Signing of the LP-

- Failure of the British to grant more rights to the Indians, in the years upto 1915 → major
parties realized the need to press the British for that.
- Oppressive policies of the partition of Bengal & efforts of Jinnah to bring ML closer to INC →
Jinnah party etc of 1913, while remaining a member of the INC, played important role; ML
reversed its “loyalty to the British” 1911 → demand for self‑rule.
- Oct 1916 → the British govt declared its decision for new reforms e.g. majority of the elected
ML & INC supported this & agreed on a number of joint demands.

Details of the LP- 1915 → two sessions of ML & INC in Bombay → joint councils to improve
relations b/w the two parties.
- 1916 → joint session of ML & INC led by Jinnah; INC, led by Ambeka Charan Mahajan.
- ML agreed on → separate Muslim electorates in the Imperial & Provincial Legislative Councils,
even in Punjab & Bengal.
- Approval of 1/3rd Muslim seats in the Councils (Central govt).
- Protection of that 3/4th of members of some particular community to introduce any Act
related to minorities.
- Provincial autonomy.
- More elected members in the councils.
- Resolutions (motions) passed with majority in the Councils to be binding on the govt.
Importance of the LP-
First (& unfortunately, last) occasion of INC & ML making joint demand for political reforms in
India.
- Acceptance of separate electorates by INC meant → some kind / degree of partition of India
would be necessary in case of any self‑rule.
- High water‑mark of Hindu – Muslim unity, mainly due to the efforts of Jinnah → it would be
short‑lived & lead to communalism in India → e.g. results of the K.M. of 1919‑1924.
- LP promoted the belief about some form of self‑rule was possible in India → it was supported
by the Home Rule Leagues of 1917 → one led by Tilak & the other by Mrs Annie Besant.
Q: What was Lucknow Pact?
Ans: It was an agreement signed between the Muslim League and the Congress in December
1916 at Lucknow. Jinnah led the ML while Mahajan led the INC. Both agreed to the separate
Muslim electorates and one third Muslim seats in the Councils, provincial Government. Both
demanded more seats in the Councils, provincial minorities.
Q: Why was the Lucknow Pact signed in 1916?
Ans: The INC and the ML decided to work together. Jinnah had joined ML in 1913 retaining his
membership of the INC. He persuaded the ML leaders to change policy of “loyalty to the
British” and make a demand for self-rule. This brought the two parties closer to INC that
already was demanding “Swaraj” (self-rule). Gradually both realized it would be better to ask
for constitutional reforms jointly.
The British were planning to introduce fresh reforms and this was leaked to the major parties.
The British had failed to grant more rights to the Indians in the period up to 1914. Instead, the
British policy of repression during the WW1 also brought the two parties closer to each other.
Therefore, both parties set up joint councils to improve common understanding on key issues.
So, both decided to cooperate with ML and INC also wanted to reduce mutual friction and to
accommodate each other.
The main figure in this regard was Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah who believed in a unity between
the INC and the ML. He was, therefore, given the title of the ‘ambassador of Hindu-Muslim
unity’ by Mr. Gokhle. Thus, the INC and the ML held a joint session in Lucknow. In this INC for
the first time accepted the separate electorates for Muslims and one third Muslim seats in the
central government, in addition to preparing a draft of common demands for Indians.
The Mont-Ford Reforms (Govt of India Act, 1919)

Why were they introduced?

- Mounting pressure on the British govt by Indians → growing demand for self-rule
- The LP b/w INC & ML could not be ignored → demand for greater rights for Indians.
- the US President & the wartime ally of Britain, insisted on granting the right of “self-
determination” to various nations after the war.

Details of the Act

- Drafted jointly by the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford & Secretary of State, John Montague.
- Issued, July, 1919.
- Recommended some degree of responsibility to the elected representatives.
- Legislative Council → now called Legislative Assembly, with 145 members → 103 to be elected
for a period of 3 years.
- Out of 103, 32 to be Muslims.
- Legislative Assembly → lower house & the Council of States → upper house, 60 seats, 33 to be
elected → a Bicameral set up.
- A Council of Princes, 108 seats → to allow state princes to discuss important matters → no
real powers → just a “talking shop”.
- Diarchy in the provincial govt → two lists of responsibilities → “reserved subjects” under the
governor & his Executive Council of 2–4 members.
- Provincial ministers got the “transferred subjects” → ministers were responsible to the
Provincial Legislative Councils.
- Greater number of voters → 5.5 millions out of 250 million.
- Real powers still with the British, both in the Center & the Provincial levels → Viceroy could
pass any law → Executive Council had nominated members, though 3–4 were Indians.
- Provincial ministers, chosen by the Viceroy, from the Councils.
1. Reaction of the Indians to the 1919 Act:
- The Act disappointed major political parties because it offered little real power, leaving the
British Viceroy and Executive Council in control.
 - Gandhi and Jinnah opposed the Act; in August 1918, a special INC session declared it
“inadequate, unsatisfactory & disappointing.”
- Jinnah asked for non‑violence and cooperation, while other minorities demanded separate
electorates.

2. The Rowlatt Act:

- The British anticipated violent reactions and set up a committee under Justice Rowlatt
(Dec 1917) to investigate revolutionary activity in India.
- In April 1918, the committee recommended emergency measures in the Defence of India
Act, allowing:
1. Arrest without warrant.
2. Detention without bail.
3. Provincial governments to restrict movement.
- The Act sparked widespread opposition, strikes, and demonstrations.
- Violence escalated to the Amritsar Massacre (1919), where General Dyer ordered troops to
fire on an unarmed crowd in Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar.

Q: "The Montague-Chelmsford 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 Montague-Chelmsford reforms (M.C reforms) were 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, 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 veto
any law he liked in the Centre. Governors of the provinces, likewise, could pass 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.

However, some other political developments also took place during the same time period.
Before the 1919 Act, 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 Muslim League, it was
recognition of their political importance.

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 Qaiser Bagh Baradari, 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 Pact 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.
The possibility of Hindu–Muslim unity and Muslim political developments in seeking a
solution to the problems in the sub-continent between 1909 and 1919?

The Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 were jointly drafted by Viceroy Lord Minto and the
Secretary of State for India, John Morley. Under these the size of the central and provincial
legislative councils was enlarged. The Imperial/Central Council was increased to 60 members.
Provincial Councils and the Central Executive Council were also increased by adding more
members. The Muslims were given the right of separate electorates. This means more Indians
were included in the government affairs and they could express their opinions too. Granting of
separate electorates to Muslims was a major step towards the development of Muslim
nationalism. However, the INC opposed this because it viewed it as an undemocratic step. The
councils could not make, amend or annual any laws. Therefore, the INC opposed the reform as
it wanted more Indians in the councils and more power for the council members.

The Lucknow Pact was signed between the ML and the INC in 1916. Both parties gathered in
Lucknow with Jinnah representing the ML and Ambeka Charan Majumdar leading the INC
delegation. Both parties had shown such a unity. The INC accepted the separate electorates and
even agreed to one third seats in the government. For the first time both major parties of
councils in India agreed to work together. This success was greatly attributed to Jinnah who was
hailed as “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. However, it also showed the depth of
communal divide in India because the separate electorates was linked with distinct Muslim
identity.

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms introduced the Government of India Act 1919. As Indians
expected reward for their contribution in the WW1, the British gave them some concessions. In
the Centre, a bicameral set up was introduced with an upper house, the Council of States, and a
lower house, the Legislative Assembly. At provincial level, Dyarchy was introduced in which
some of the reserved subjects of the provincial government were transferred to the ministers.
This was claimed to be a step towards self-government. Separate electorates was also extended
to the Sikhs. Both the INC and ML opposed these reforms as they had expected more political
rights for the people. The British had anticipated this disappointment. Therefore, they
implemented the infamous Rowlatt Act that empowered the police to arrest anyone without a
warrant and detain the arrested person for an indefinite period. The Indian anger rose. Jinnah
and Gandhi sharply criticized the Act. Hundreds of Indian protesters were killed in the
Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar.
If viewed objectively, it seems that all these political developments were a failure because they
eventually escalated to dissatisfaction among Indians over whatever was offered to them by
the British. The political deadlock persisted despite efforts by both the British and the Indians.
Source Based Question

What does the source tell us about the Amritsar Massacre?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

What does the source tell us about the Hindu reaction on the partition of Bengal?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________