Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:02:48.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bengalis in Pakistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Richard L. Park
Richard L. Park
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access

Extract

Eyes turned toward India can see a new pattern emerging. Whatever other political readjustments may result from future negotiations, it appears certain that at least two main political units are to replace the area formerly known as British India. Hindustan will cover those areas predominantly Hindu; Pakistan will include those areas with Muslim majority. The differences of opinion concerning the desirability of effecting this division are now part of history, since both of the major political parties have agreed to the principle of division. Only the boundaries of the split remain to be worked out.

Type
Research Notes and Abstracts
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , February 1975 , pp. 455 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* [it was commonly assumed and widely stated in the press and in discussion that “Hindustan” and “Pakistan” would be the names of the two new states after Partition. When “India” was substituted for “Hindustan,” the Muslim League was outraged. For one reference, see Ian, Stephens, Pakistan (3rd cd.), New York: Frederick, A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967, especially p. 115 and footnote 3 on p. 115.]Google Scholar

1 Cf. map in New York Times, June 12, 1947, p. 14.

2Discussed in Vincent Smith, A., The Oxford History of India (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 1941, p. 774 ff.Google Scholar

3Jawaharlal, Nehru, The Discovery of India, New York: The John Day Company, 1946, p. 356.Google Scholar

4 New York, Times, April 28, 1947, p. 11.

5 Ibid

** [The decision to turn over Calcutta to India at the time of Partition was included in the Sir Cyril Radcliffe awards, but may have been decided in London at an earlier date. The Radcliffre awards on the Bengal and Punjab divisions are dated August 12, 1947. The Viceroy, Lord Louis Mount-batten, turned over the awards to Congress Party and Muslim League leaders on the afternoon of Saturday, August 16, 1947; the Reports were published in the Gazetteer of India Extraordinary on August 17, 1947. The delay in announcing the exact divisions of Punjab and Bengal had been purposeful to avoid violence and to follow ceremonies of Independence in Pakistan and India. See Alan, Campbell-Johnson, Mission With Mountbatten, London: Robert Hale Limited, 1952, pp. 167–168.Google Scholar For controversies over the Calcutta decision, see ibid, pp. 124, 151–153, 308–309. See also Ian Stephens, op. cit., p. 180, concerning rumors of earlier “leaks” and speculations concerning Calcutta. The Radcliffe awards have continued to be contentious, especially in Pakistan; not only for Calcutta, but more so for the allocating of Gurdaspur District in Punjab to India, a decision that gave India access to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. For a discussion of these issues by a well-informed author, see Hodson, H. V., The Great Divide, London: Hutchinson, 1969, pp. 346–355.]Google Scholar

*** [This discussion took place between me and my informant on a river steamer from Goalundo 3hat to Narayanganj enroute to Dacca from Calcutta.]

6 New York Times, February 21, 1947. p. 1.