The history of India’s freedom struggle traditionally deals with the successive movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and his associates, along with some heroic acts of armed revolutionaries. But the contributions of Syama Prasad Mookerjee, one of the most remarkable and charismatic public figures in the penultimate phase of the struggle for Independence, has been almost completely neglected or blacked out.
Being the son of the legendary Ashutosh Mukherjee, Mookerjee was a dynamic personality and his career was multifaceted — he was the youngest vice-chancellor of Calcutta University, a provincial minister of undivided Bengal, the most popular leader of the Hindu Mahasabha in Bengal, a Union minister in the first cabinet of Independent India and above all, a nationalist and patriot to the core.
Surprisingly, Mookerjee’s service to his motherland has not been given its due recognition by so-called progressive and liberal historians, who branded him as a “communal” leader and held him responsible for the Partition of Bengal. They even allege that with his entry into the Hindu Mahasabha, the politics of Bengal became charged with communalism. But this was far from the truth.
The emergence of the All-India Muslim League had already distinctively galvanised Bengal politics with communalism. Mookerjee had the courage and conviction to stand steadfastly by the side of the hapless victims of communal violence and brutality in Bengal, and demand a separate homeland for them, where they could live with dignity and security. The Partition of Bengal was a necessity, a question of survival for the non-Muslim population of Bengal, and not a “choice”.
Chhanda Chatterjee’s book is a refreshingly new treatise, which challenges the hackneyed Mookerjee bashing by so-called secular historians. She has not only dealt with the subject in a professional and impartial way, but also tapped many primary sources not yet used by other writers, such as documents preserved in the India Office, British Library, London, and the Centre for South Asian Studies Archives, Cambridge. After tracing, in a brief outline, the process since the Lucknow Pact (1916) or even earlier, Chatterjee’s story starts with the Macdonald Award (1932), also known as the Communal Award.
The divisive tactics of the government awakened Bengali Hindus for the first time to the necessity of having an organisation of their own. Events followed in quick succession within a decade — the installation of popular ministries in the provinces under the new Government of India Act of 1935; formation of the Krishak Praja Party-Muslim League coalition (1937-41) after prolonged negotiations between the KPP and the Indian National Congress came to naught; the emerging conflict of interest between Hindus and Muslims over issues like the Secondary Education Bill and Calcutta Municipal Amendment Bill, communal ratio in services and different pro-tenant bills; not only the sharpening tension between the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League, but also the emerging cracks within Muslim solidarity; the coming into power of a new progressive coalition ministry headed by Abul Kasem Fazlul Huq and comprising various Muslim and Hindu politicians (1941-43); the outbreak of World War II (1939); the Quit India movement (1942), and the Great Famine of 1943.
The progressive coalition ministry being replaced by a Muslim League-led coalition ministry (1943-45); the transfer-of-power talk starting after the termination of WWII (1945); the coming into power of the Muslim League with an absolute majority in the Bengal Assembly (1946); Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), call of the Muslim League in favour of Pakistan, and the resultant great Calcutta Killing followed by the Noakhali riots, and the rapidly declining communal situation made the division of India inevitable, which in its train precipitated the Partition of Bengal.
Joya Chatterji in her book Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947 categorically blamed Hindu bhadraloks (the middle class, upper caste English-educated section) of having overwhelming allegiance to the INC as seen in the election results of provincial and central legislatures in 1946, but coming curiously under the virtual leadership of Mookerjee — the Hindu Mahasabha president — for the Partition of Bengal. She argued that if the idea of a united, sovereign Bengal, as proposed almost at the last minute by Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardi, Sarat Chandra Bose and Kiran Shankar Roy, would materialise, it would have benefitted the Bengalis.
On the contrary, Chatterjee’s conclusion is “Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee appeared to the people of Bengal as the man of the hour and a new messiah. It was Muslim intransigence rather than bhadralok culpability (a term used by Chatterji) which had cast the die”.
West Bengal was not created out of the blue. At that point of time, Mookerjee did not become the spokesperson of any political party, but almost the entire Bengali Hindu society. Clearly, Chatterjee is on a much logical platform.
Nevertheless, one major, significant lacuna in her book is that it is somewhat of a misnomer. Throughout, she narrates the Hindu reaction to the rising Muslim challenge to their well-entrenched position in the socio-political life of Bengal, but the role of Mookerjee is not specifically emphasised except in the last chapter. Certain questions naturally come to the mind of readers — why did Mookerjee, initially engaged in the development and expansion of education, turn his attention to politics? What were the social, economic and political factors which led to his emergence as a political leader?
In the otherwise superbly composed monograph, a few factual errors have crept in. Of them, the most important is about his initial political identity. Mookerjee, who represented the Calcutta University constituency at the Bengal Legislative Assembly, did not surrender his seat to join the Hindu Mahasabha, when the INC decided to withdraw from all offices in protest against the arbitrary action of the Viceroy in involving the country in WWII, without caring to consult elected representatives of the people. In fact, he had left the INC as early as 1930.
Taken as a whole, the facts and figures provided by Chatterjee are mostly known, but the way she interprets the entire scenario is refreshingly new, impartial and logical. This is no apologia for Mookerjee or the Hindu Mahasabha, but a well-balanced narrative.
The reviewer is former Gandhi chair professor, University of Calcutta