South Asia Research

Southhttp://sar.sagepub.com/ Asia Research

Population Movements in West Bengal: A Case Study of Nadia District, 1947 −1951 Subhasri Ghosh South Asia Research 2014 34: 113 DOI: 10.1177/0262728014533850

The online version of this article can be found at: http://sar.sagepub.com/content/34/2/113

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for South Asia Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sar.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sar.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sar.sagepub.com/content/34/2/113.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 17, 2014 What is This?

Downloaded from sar.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on July 28, 2014

SOUTH ASIA R E S E A RC H

www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/0262728014533850 Vol. 34(2): 113–132

Copyright © 2014 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC

POPULATION MOVEMENTS IN WEST BENGAL: A CASE STUDY OF NADIA DISTRICT, 1947–51 Subhasri Ghosh The 1947 Partition Archive, Berkeley, California, USA abstract This article scrutinises the ramifications of population movements between India and Pakistan in and after 1947 in one particular border district in West Bengal. Information from census reports of pre-independent and independent India and Pakistan allows detailed examination of micro-level cross-border migrations, showing how the relocation of populations completely recast the religious and demographic contours of this border district. Within just four years, the Muslim-majority district of Nadia turned into an overwhelmingly Hindu-majority district through this two-way population movement. Contrary to popular perceptions, which stress the unidirectional pattern of migration on the eastern side of India, this article brings to the fore a hitherto unknown facet of partition migration. keywords: Bangladesh, demography, East Bengal, India, migration, partition, population movements, West Bengal

Introduction This article studies specifically the demographic nuances of migration along the Nadia–Kushtia border of West Bengal during the momentous time-span between 1947 and 1951. The aftermath of the creation of two new nations in 1947 saw largescale cross-border population movements along the borders of Bengal and Punjab, so that ‘a demographically significant population shift affecting the regional population distribution took place as a result of the Partition of India in 1947’ (Elahi and Sultana, 1991: 21). Carved up along religious lines, the vivisection of British India led to mass displacement of minority communities on both sides of the border.1 Using statistical information, mainly from the census reports of pre-independent and independent India, the present article examines, from a micro-level perspective, how such crossborder migrations and subsequent relocation of populations cast the religious and demographic contours of one particular border district of West Bengal into a new


114

South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132

mould. It shows how, within a space of just four years, the Muslim-majority district of Nadia was converted into an overwhelmingly Hindu-majority district due to this two-way population movement. Contrary to popular perception, which for eastern India has stressed unidirectional patterns of migration, this article tries to unravel and bring to the fore a hitherto unknown facet of partition migration. Specifically, this population movement had significant bearing on the religious contours of the concerned areas. As noted generally by Davis (1949: 261), ‘the minority problem has diminished in both countries (India and Pakistan) as a result of the migrations’. The present study, limited to migration in the eastern sector in India, examines specifically the impact on the population composition of Nadia, a district that went under the scalpel following the Radcliffe Award. Zamindar (2007: 2) has highlighted the ‘bureaucratic violence of drawing political boundaries and nationalizing identities’ that clearly also had major impacts in this part of South Asia. The need for the present study arises because prevalent historiography (Chakrabarti, 1999; Rao, 1967) portrays population movement along the West Bengal/East Bengal border following the Partition of India in 1947 as essentially unidirectional, as opposed to the Punjab sector where settlement and rehabilitation of the refugees progressed through an exchange of population. Immigration of 4.9 million people from West Punjab and the adjoining areas in Pakistan was matched by an outflow of 5.5 million from East Punjab and the adjoining areas in India.2 The common refrain in the existing literature is that ‘there has been no large-scale emigration of Muslims from West Bengal’ and that migration ‘was a one-way traffic’ (Rao, 1967: 148). Consequently, how influx and efflux affected the population composition of the border districts of West Bengal has somehow been glossed over in the existing writing on displaced persons. The present article presents evidence that such perceptions are misplaced. The overall population growth of India and Pakistan between 1801 and 1961 was studied by Mahalonobis and Bhattacharya (1976) who selected a few areas like Kanchanpur in Burdwan district of West Bengal and Broach district in Gujarat to analyse population growth rates. Hill et al. (2005) take into account the data over the census decades of 1931, 1941 and 1951, both for West Bengal and East Pakistan, to examine the local changes in population growth rates. Their conclusion is that Bengal, between 1941 and 1951, witnessed a less dramatic homogenisation of population in religious terms as compared to Punjab and a lesser growth rate as compared to the previous decade of 1931–41. The latter phenomenon, according to them, was essentially due to the debilitating effects of the famine of 1943 and not because of out-migration. Had the same growth rate continued, the state would have had 9 million more people than it had in 1951. Samaddar (1999) highlights demographic changes of the border states of West Bengal, but his focus is essentially on the post1971 scenario, though he sometimes refers to the period under study here. The main players for Samaddar (1999) are those whom the Government of India branded as ‘illegal immigrants’, those who overstayed in India after the repatriation deadline of March 1972, or entered after that period without valid documents.


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 115 The aim of the present research is thus to show that what Hill et al. (2005) have concluded may hold true for the whole of Bengal, while on a micro-level, if one telescopes down to an individual border district like Nadia, one can identify significant exceptions. Moreover, with regard to religious composition, too, Nadia has some startling facts to reveal, as a direct outcome of the interplay of immigration and emigration. Hence, a fresh study of the district over the momentous period between 1941 and 1951 helps to unearth new facts. The questions to probe are, first, whether population movement along this sector was limited to the prevalently presumed pattern of unidirectional migration. Second, to what extent did this movement alter the overall demographic contours of the recipient area, the district of Nadia, over the census decade? Third, did the population movement(s) have any impact on the overall religious composition, given the fact that even in 1947, Nadia was a Muslim majority district and that the bulk of the immigrants were Hindus?

Examining the Figures The key determinants behind population changes are fertility, mortality and migration. The present study essentially focuses on the third factor. Examining a particular district intends to offer a more detailed understanding of the migratory flows that characterised this period and the outcome it had on the recipient area. The findings of demographic impact are principally based on data supplied by the Census Reports of Bengal 1941 (Dutch, 1942) and the Census Reports of India and Pakistan (see Government of India, 1958; Government of Pakistan, 1951; Mitra, 1953). These statistics are supplemented by information from reports of the state governments, namely various reports of the State Statistical Bureau and Intelligence Bureau.3 Although the article aims to focus on population movements and subsequent changes brought about by the Partition in 1947, one has to take recourse to the 1941 Census (Dutch, 1942), since detailed area-wise statistics for 1947 are absent. One main problem to negotiate is the disparity of data supplied by the various census reports. While in 1941 the Hindu population has been classified as Scheduled Castes, Other Hindus and Caste not returned, the 1951 Census of India resorts to an urban–rural classification of religion. Efforts have been made to coordinate the varying data sets as far as possible. Moreover, the authenticity of some data is questionable. The entry point of the 1941 Census was allegedly based on manipulated data. Since from the 1940s religious cleavage between the Hindus and the Muslims sharpened and there was an increasing demand for a separate homeland for Muslims, individual communities were believed to have exaggerated their numbers in order to gain political mileage. An Intelligence Bureau report notes: ‘In Bengal, both Hindus and Muslims are determined to do all they can to insist on the proper recording (and, if possible, inflation) of their population figures’ (National Archives of India, 1941). On 1 March 1941, soon after the enumeration was over, Fazlul Huq, then Chief Minister of Bengal, wrote to the Census South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132


116


Superintendent of Bengal, R.A. Dutch, that it had not been possible to stop corrupt practices in the recording of the census and that he was certain that there would be an inflation of the numbers of Hindus and a decrease in the numbers of Muslims. On the other hand, the All-Bengal Hindu Mahasabha Census Board publicly thanked and lauded the enumeration agencies for carrying out their work diligently and honestly in the face of adversities, which was interpreted by the Muslim League as concrete proof of pro-Hindu bias of the enumerators. The Census Commissioner, M.W.M. Yeatts, however, remained unmoved by such allegations and counter-allegations and felt there was nothing untoward and unusual with the Bengal figures. The two principal variables considered in this study are immigration to and emigration from the district, details of which could be obtained from the census reports of 1951. The method used has been to calculate the growth rate of various segments of the population, religious as also urban–rural, over the census decade and to correlate this with the settlement of displaced population and also of the emigrating population, and then to observe if one can draw parallels between these phenomena. The percentage change from one period to another has been calculated through a particular formula that takes 1951 as the present value and 1941/1947 respectively as the past value.

The Partition Context and Local Boundary Changes The policy of divide and rule, which the colonial rulers had been relentlessly pursuing from the end of the nineteenth century gained momentum in the twentieth century with the Morley–Minto Act of 1909. It ensured for the Muslims the right of a separate electorate and finally culminated in the creation of two separate sovereign nations, India and Pakistan, on religious lines. The Mountbatten Plan, passed by the British Parliament on 18 June 1947, formally laid down the framework for Partition. Accordingly, two separate commissions were formed, one for Bengal and the other for Punjab, with Sir Cyril Radcliffe as the common chairman, to finalise the scheme of boundary demarcation. In the east, the main task of the commission was ‘to demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of Bengal on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will also take into account other factors’ (Government of India, 1958: 1). After listening to the depositions of the concerned parties, Sir Radcliffe prepared a report on the basis of which the boundary demarcation between India and Pakistan was effected on religious lines. The event triggered off largescale cross-border migration on the Bengal and Punjab sector in India, with the surging tide of uprooted masses lashing the newly demarcated borders of these two states. Pre-Partition Bengal comprised five divisions and 28 districts with an area of 72,435 square miles and a total population of 60,059,472. Out of this 32,998,164 (54.94 per cent) were Muslims and 27,061,308 (45.05 per cent) non-Muslims, including mainly Hindus (Dutch, 1942). On partition, five districts underwent formal alterations in their compositions in the sense that their police stations, according to religious denomination, were divided between East and West Bengal on the Pakistan and Indian side respectively.


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 117 Present-day Nadia lies at the heart of the Presidency division of West Bengal. On the eve of Partition, Nadia was bounded in the west by the Bhagirathi river, in the south by Twenty-Four Parganas, in the north by the Jalangi river, which separated it from Murshidabad and the Padma, which separated it from Rajshahi and Pabna, and in the east by Faridpur and Jessore districts. Figure 1 below provides a map of present-day Nadia district. Undivided Nadia comprised five subdivisions and 25 police stations Figure 1 Map of Present-day Nadia

Source: http://www.mapsofindia.com/maps/westbengal/districts/nadia.htm



118


with a total population of 1,759,846, out of which 657,950 (37.38 per cent) were non-Muslims (mainly Hindus) and 1,078,007 (61.25 per cent) were Muslims (Dutch, 1942: 2). The Radcliffe Award tore the district into two, creating Nadia (West Bengal) and Kushtia (East Bengal). The former comprised two subdivisions, Krishnagar and Ranaghat, and 13 police stations, while the remaining three subdivisions along with 12 police stations were clubbed together to form Kushtia. However, the map appended to the Radcliffe Award, which was officially announced on 17 August 1947, told a different story. It showed that barring Nabadwip, the entire district had gone over to East Bengal. Muslim League leaders thus hoisted Pakistan flags near the Krishnagar Rajbari and the Krishnagar Public Library ground. Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, on receiving such news, immediately instructed Radcliffe to look into the matter. After careful scrutiny, he identified the problem, a minuscule but dramatic error. A line had been drawn wrongly, due to which a large part of Nadia had erroneously gone to East Pakistan. The map was rectified and the final announcement regarding the actual division took place on 18 August 1947, a full day after the formal declaration, keeping the local residents on tenterhooks.4 New-born Nadia’s boundaries on the north, south and west, after Partition, remained unchanged. In the east the district came to be bounded by its breakaway segment, Kushtia and the district of Jessore of Bangladesh. Following the 1947 partition, Nadia on the West Bengal side was flooded with migrants not only from Kushtia, its severed Siamese twin, but also from Khulna, Barisal, Dacca, Mymensingh, Pabna, Rajshahi, Noakhali and Tipperah. Overall, in terms of being a migrant-receiver, Nadia ranked third in West Bengal, behind Calcutta and Twenty-Four Parganas. Taking the post-Partition jurisdiction of 1947, Nadia in 1941 had been a Muslim majority district with 51.25 per cent Muslims and 46.68 per cent Hindus, out of a total population of 840,303 (see Table 1). Muslims mainly dominated the rural areas (54.17 per cent) and Hindus the urban zones (80.98 per cent). Barring the rural areas of Kaliganj (55.48 per cent), Chakdah (51.32 per cent), Santipur (61.07 per cent) and Nabadwip (50.96 per cent), where Hindus held the edge, Muslims dominated the rest of the district. While Muslims, as noted earlier, accounted for 54.17 per cent of the total rural population in 1941, they were 55.57 per cent in the Sadar subdivision and 50.80 per cent in the Ranaghat subdivision. The Karimpur–Tehatta bloc accounted for the highest concentration of Muslim population at 68.34 per cent. In the urban areas, the picture was reversed. Hindus ruled the roost in all urban areas, namely Krishnagar, Nabadwip, Ranaghat and Santipur. Although the principal motto of the Radcliffe Award was division along religion, post-Partition, in 1947, Nadia still remained a Muslim-majority district. Out of a total population of 901,272, Muslims formed 52.65 per cent and Hindus 45.07 per cent. However, what was striking was that four years down the line, in 1951, when the findings of the first full-fledged census of independent India were published, there was a significant change. The respective Hindu and Muslim share in the population of 1,144,924 now stood at 77.03 per cent and 22.36 per cent respectively (see Table 2).


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 119 Table 1 Hindu–Muslim Break-up of Population 1941 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Pop. 1941

Total Hindu Pop. 1941

% of Hindus to Total Pop.

Total Muslim Pop. 1941

% of Muslims to Total Pop.

Nadia

840,303

392,307

46.68

430,704

51.25

Sadar Subdivision

574,263

253,784

44.19

310,748

54.11

Krishnagar

91,603

49,696

54.25

38,616

42.15

Nabadwip

54,208

41,948

77.38

12,086

22.29

Chapra

70,321

17,701

25.17

50,021

71.13

Krishnaganj

34,102

18,858

55.29

15,075

44.20

Nakasipara

66,827

30,907

46.24

34,786

52.05

Kaliganj

63,391

35,171

55.48

27,695

43.68

Tehatta

92,539

38,376

41.47

52,637

56.88

Karimpur

101,272

21,127

20.86

79,832

78.82

Ranaghat Subdivision

266,040

138,523

52.06

119,956

45.08

Ranaghat

82,073

46,173

56.25

34,427

41.94

Chakdah

63,862

34,599

54.17

25,734

40.29

Haringhata

27,498

12,235

44.49

14,545

52.89

Hanskhali

37,521

9345

24.90

27,806

74.10

Santipur

55,086

36,171

65.66

17,454

31.68

Source: Dutch (1942). Table 2 Hindu–Muslim Break-up of Population 1951 District/Subdivision/ Police Station Nadia

Pop. 1951

Total Hindu Pop. 1951

% of Hindus to Total Pop.

Total Muslim Pop. 1951

% of Muslims to Total Pop.

1,144,924

881,955

77.03

256,017

22.36

Sadar Subdivision

702,871

502,486

71.49

194,956

27.73

Krishnagar and Nabadwip

249,361

214,966

86.20

29,388

11.78

Chapra and Krishnaganj

116,371

78,712

67.63

35,772

30.73

Nakasipara and Kaliganj

159,052

91,202

57.34

67,662

42.54

Tehatta and Karimpur

178,087

117,606

66.03

58,894

33.07


442,053

379,469

85.84

61,061

13.81

Ranaghat, Hanskhali and Santipur

286,631

188,937

65.91

22,113

7.71

Chakdah and Haringhata

155,422

96,697

62.21

31,246

20.10

Source: Mitra (1953).



120


To unearth the causes behind such a reversal one needs to delve into the post-1947 situation and realise that migration took place not only immediately in 1947 (see also Zamindar, 2007). Between 1947 and 1951, Nadia witnessed a mammoth influx from East Bengal of about 426,907 Hindus. Fearing for their lives and property, these people, mostly agriculturists, fled to India in search of a safe haven amongst their co-religionists. The bulk of these migrants, approximately 85.4 per cent, came from Kushtia, with the maximum inflow of 93,582 recorded in 1950 following the devastating riots there in February of that year. The corresponding 1951 Pakistan Census corroborates this Hindu exodus. The Hindu population of Kushtia during the census decade of 1941–51 consequently shows a negative growth rate of –73.33 per cent. The two border subdivisions of Meherpur and Chuadanga took a severe beating, with negative Hindu growth rates at –89.74 per cent and –80.27 per cent respectively. The four police stations of Kushtia sharing a border with Nadia, namely, Jibannagar, Daulatpur, Gangni and Meherpur, recorded a negative growth rate of Hindu population to the tune of –82.39 per cent, –93.22 per cent, –91.00 per cent and –89.21 per cent respectively (Government of Pakistan, 1951). Thus, evidently, as was also the case in Punjab along the Western borders of India, the decline of the Hindu population was greatest in the areas immediately adjacent to the new borders. This testifies to the fear psychosis that stalked the minority population also after independence and propelled their flight across the border. Coming back to the 1951 scenario in Nadia, the district recorded an overall growth rate of +36.25 per cent. The impact of immigration becomes clear when one compares the growth rates without displaced population at –14.6 per cent as against the growth rate with displaced population at +36.25 per cent. Amongst the two sub-divisions of the new-born Nadia, Sadar and Ranaghat, though Sadar’s population growth (+22.39 per cent) was well within the district limit (+36.25 per cent), two of its police stations, Krishnagar and Nabadwip, show an unusual rise in the growth rate at +72.46 per cent and +68.57 per cent respectively. This points to even more dramatic changes at local levels. On the Ranaghat side, the overall growth rate at +66.16 per cent towered well above the district growth rate, with the two police stations of Ranaghat and Chakdah showing an alarming increase in the growth rate during the decade at +85.92 per cent and +83.98 per cent respectively (see Table 3). If one takes into account the settlement of the displaced population in these areas, the correlation between migration and population growth becomes clear. About 30.68 per cent of the total population of Sadar subdivision comprised of people migrating from East Bengal between 1947 and 1951, while in case of the Ranaghat subdivision, it was 47.78 per cent. In the Krishnagar–Nabadwip area, where the overall growth rate was more than thrice the growth rate of the subdivision, 43.36 per cent of the total population returned themselves as displaced. Thus, unusual increase in population growth rate was directly proportional to the share of displaced population (see Table 4). As pointed out earlier, the majority of these migrants were engaged in agriculture and thus settled in the district’s rural areas. Hence, analysing the rural growth rate of


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 121 Table 3 Population Growth Rate 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Population 1941

Population 1951

Rate of Growth of Population 1941–51

Nadia

840,303

114,4924

+36.25

Sadar Subdivision

574,263

702,871

+22.39

Krishnagar

91,603

157,981

+72.46

Nabadwip

54,208

91,380

+68.57

Chapra

70,321

77,675

+10.45

Krishnaganj

34,102

38,696

+13.47

Nakasipara

66,827

81,747

+22.32

Kaliganj

63,391

77,305

+21.94

Tehatta

92,539

90,402

–2.30

Karimpur

101,272

876,85

–13.41


266,040

442,053

+66.16

Ranaghat

82,073

151,852

+85.02

Chakdah

63,862

117,495

+83.98

Haringhata

27,498

37,927

+37.92

Hanskhali

37,521

55,115

+46.89

Santipur

55,086

79,664

+44.61

Source: Dutch (1942) and Mitra (1953). Table 4 Displaced Population and Population Growth Rate, 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Displaced Pop. 1951

% of Displaced Pop. to Total Pop. 1951

Rate of Growth of Total Pop. 1941–51

Nadia

42,6907

37.28

+36.25

Sadar Subdivision

215,670

30.68

+22.39


108,125

43.36

+71.01


39,894

34.28

+11.44


17,114

10.76

+22.14


50,537

28.37

–8.11


211,237

47.78

+66.16

Source: Dutch (1942) and Mitra (1953).

these areas, along with their share of displaced population, will help to further illustrate the linkages between migration and population growth (see Tables 5 and 6). The top migrant-recipient rural blocs of Krishnagar and Nabadwip recorded the highest growth rate in rural population. About 48.23 per cent of the rural population of South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132


122


Table 5 Urban–Rural Population Growth Rate 1941–51 Rural Pop. 1941

Rural Pop. 1951

Rate of Growth 1941–51

Urban Pop. 1941

Urban Pop. 1951


Nadia

724,017

936,823

+29.39

116,286

208,101

+78.95

Sadar Subdivision

511,664

596,531

+16.58

62,599

106,340

+69.87

83,212

143,021

+71.87

62,599

106,340

+69.87


104,423

116,371

+11.44

—

—

—


130,218

159,052

+22.14

—

—

—


193,811

178,087

–8.11

—

—

—


212,353

340,292

+60.24

53,687

101,761

+89.54


126,487

212,261

+67.81

48,193

74,370

+54.31


85,866

128,031

+49.10

5494

27,391

+398.56

District/Subdivision/ Police Station


Source: Dutch (1942) and Mitra (1953). Table 6 Correlation between Displaced Rural Population and Growth Rate of Rural Population 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Rural Displaced Pop.

% of Rural Displaced Pop. to Rural Pop.

Nadia

344,592

36.78

+29.39

Sadar Subdivision

176,354

29.59

+16.58


Rate of Growth of Rural Pop. 1941–51

68,989

48.23

+71.87


168,058

49.38

+60.24


122,591

57.75

+67.81


45,467

35.51

+49.10


this belt came from East Bengal, resulting in an overall rural growth rate of +71.87 per cent as against an overall rural growth rate of +29.39 per cent for the entire district and +16.58 per cent for the subdivision. In the Ranaghat subdivision, the respective shares of displaced population and local population in the rural scenario were almost equal. The former constituted 49.38 per cent of the total rural population of the subdivision, causing a 60.24 per cent growth in the subdivision’s rural population in this census decade. In the triumvirate of Ranaghat, Santipur and Hanskhali, 57.75 per cent of the total rural population came from across the border, as a result of which the rural growth rate shot up to +67.81 per cent. The duo of Chakdah and Haringhata recorded


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 123 a rural growth rate of +49.10 per cent, with the displaced population accounting for 35.51 per cent of the total rural population of the area (Table 6). These data prove beyond doubt the close correlation of greater share in displaced population and higher population growth rate. One gets a fair idea of the impact of this influx on these two sub-divisions when the district administration noted (Intelligence Bureau, 1948): About two lacs of refugees are locally estimated to have so far taken shelter in the Nadia district. Of this number more than half of the same have taken up abodes in urban areas of Nabadwip, Krishnagar, Ranaghat and Santipur while the rest are scattered all over the rural areas of the district…Of the refugees’ concentrations, Nabadwip appears to be the most congested area in Nadia…

Faced with this influx, the government opened several transit camps in the district. The biggest amongst them was the Ranaghat Transit Centre or Cooper’s Camp, close to Ranaghat Railway station, around which grew a number of smaller camps. The second largest camp was housed at Dhubulia aerodrome on the Ranaghat–Bhagwangola line. In December 1950, the population of this Camp was estimated to be 25,000. There was another group of camps called the Chandmari Camps. In December 1950, the population of these camps was pegged at 14,500 (Mitra, 1953: ix). Together with these were the Permanent Liability Camps at Chamta for housing women and children with no male guardian (Bagchi et al., 2009). The census notes that in the tract of land bounded by Santipur, Ranaghat, Duttaphulia, Aranghata and Birnagar, the concentration of displaced population was particularly heavy. The government also took the initiative in setting up a colony of middle-class migrants in a village called Taherpur, plus a brand new township called Fulia in Ranaghat. Abandoned lands on either side of the Chakdah rail station in the Ranaghat subdivision were requisitioned by the government for the resettlement of the camp-inmates. With so many happenings in the Ranaghat sub-division, its population growth rate soared at a rate of nearly double that of the district.

Hindu Growth Rates The fall-out of immigration on the population growth rate is amply demonstrated in the foregoing paragraphs. The displaced population being Hindus meant that the Hindu growth rate would shoot up at an alarming rate, a foregone conclusion. Between 1941 and 1951, the Hindu growth rate of the district escalated to a whopping +124.81 per cent, with Ranaghat subdivision returning a growth rate of +173.93 per cent. Krishnagar and Nabadwip, understandably with a heavy concentration of refugee population, registered a Hindu growth of +134.56 per cent (see Table 7). If an urban–rural break-up of growth rate is resorted to, the picture emerges of a rural growth rate of Hindus in the district calculated at +130.32 per cent. With more than half of the total rural population of the Ranaghat, Santipur and Hanskhali belt coming from across the border, the area listed a Hindu growth rate of +243.11 per cent. Close South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132


124


Table 7 Growth Rate of Hindu Population 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Hindu Population 1941

Hindu Population 1951


Nadia

392,307

881,955

+124.81

Sadar Subdivision

253,784

502,486

+97.99


91,644

214,966

+134.56


36,559

78,712

+115.3


66,078

91,202

+38.02


59,503

117,606

+97.64


138,523

379,469

+173.93


on its heels came the rural areas of Krishnagar–Nabadwip with a Hindu growth rate of +193.06 per cent, and Chakdah–Haringhata at +129.17 per cent (see Table 9). Thus, the top three migrant-receiving areas of the district, Ranaghat–Santipur–Hanskhali, Krishnagar–Nabadwip and Chakdah–Haringhata where 57.75 per cent, 48.23 per cent and 35.51 per cent of the total rural population were composed of cross-border migrants, recorded not only the highest growth rates in rural population, but also in Hindu population, too. Aided by such high growth rates, rural Hindus constituted around 73.29 per cent of the total rural population in 1951 as against 41.17 per cent in 1941. In the urban scenario, as noted earlier, the Hindus held the sway in pre-Independence times also. Their position was shown to be further consolidated in 1951 with an overall growth rate of +107.37 per cent. The urban areas of Krishnagar–Nabadwip recorded a growth rate of +91.74 per cent, while the Ranaghat subdivision showed an urban growth rate of +127.40 per cent (see Table 10). The new addition to the already existing towns of the subdivision was Chakdah. A nondescript sleepy hollow, the area witnessed rapid expansion after 1947, with the settlement of industrious displaced people. The growth of urban population in the Ranaghat subdivision can be explained in terms of new colonies cropping up, namely, Gokulpur, Gayeshpur and Kataganj, and new townships like Kalyani, Taherpur and Fulia. The displaced population played a seminal role in overhauling the percentage of Hindus of the district and the settlement of migrants became synonymous with an overall high growth rate of the population as also Hindu growth rate.

The Muslim Picture in Comparison However, examining Hindu growth rates provides only one side of this complex story. To account for the district’s change in religious complexion within a span of four years, one needs to examine also the migration of Muslims.


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 125 In 1951, the Muslim share in the population composition of Nadia stood at 22.36 per cent as against 52.65 per cent in 1947. Overall between 1941 and 1951, Muslims thus suffered a reversal in the growth rate to the tune of –37.89 per cent (see Table 8). A subdivision-wise analysis reveals that Sadar’s overall population growth rate, in spite of displaced population accounting for nearly 30.68 per cent of its total population, remained well below the overall district growth rate (+36.25 per cent) at +22.39 per cent. Again, if one rivets attention to the rural set-up of this subdivision, Krishnagar and Nabadwip with their high percentage of displaced population did account for high rural growth rate in their individual capacity, but the overall rural growth rate of the Table 8 Growth Rate of Muslim Population 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Muslim Pop. 1941


Muslim Pop. 1951

Nadia

41,2254

256,017

–37.89

Sadar Subdivision

292,298

194,956

–33.30


32,702

32,628

–0.22


65,096

35,772

–45.04


132,469

58,894

–55.54


119,956

61,061

–49.09

Source: Dutch (1942) and Mitra (1953). Table 9 Rural Growth Rate of Hindu and Muslim Population 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Rural Rural Hindu Hindu Pop. 1941 Pop. 1951


Rural Rural Muslim Muslim Pop. 1941 Pop. 1951


Nadia

298,128

686,656

+130.32

392,244

245,075

–37.51

Sadar Subdivision

200,869

401,022

+99.64

284,359

191,716

–32.57


38,729

113,502

+193.06

24,763

29,388

+18.67


36,559

78,712

+115.30

65,096

35,772

–45.04


66,078

91,202

+38.02

62,031

67,662

+9.07


59,503

117,606

+97.64

132,469

58,894

–55.54


97,259

285,634

+193.68

107,885

53,359

–50.54


55,065

188,937

+243.11

68,388

22,113

–67.66


42,194

96,697

+129.17

39,497

31,246

–20.89




126


Table 10 Urban Growth Rate of Hindu and Muslim Population 1941–51 District/Subdivision/ Police Station

Urban Urban Rate of Urban Urban Rate of Hindu Hindu Growth Muslim Muslim Growth Pop. 1941 Pop. 1951 1941–51 Pop. 1941 Pop. 1951 1941–51

Nadia

94,179

195,299

+107.37

20,010

10,942

–45.31

Sadar Subdivision

52,915

101,464

+91.74

7939

3240

–59.18


52,915

101,464

+91.74

7939

3240

–59.18


—

—

—

—

—

—


—

—

—

—

—

—


—

—

—

—

—

—


41,264

93,835

+127.40

12,071

7702

–36.19


subdivision stood at +16.58 per cent, much lower than the district’s growth rate of rural population of +29.39 per cent. To look for an answer to this phenomenon, one needs to focus on the two police stations of the Sadar subdivision, Tehatta and Karimpur, registering a negative growth rate of population at –2.3 per cent and –13.41 per cent respectively (see Table 3). In this decade of high growth rates, these two police stations were the glorious exceptions, despite the fact that taken together these two police stations recorded a Hindu growth rate of +97.64 per cent (see Table 7). It would be relevant to recall at this juncture that these areas had accounted for the maximum concentration of Muslim population in 1941. In the overall picture of high growth rates, the rural growth rate of population of these two areas plunged to –8.11 per cent (see Table 2). Mitra (1953: 2) notes that this is mainly because these two police stations were chopped off from the Kushtia sub-division of undivided Nadia and added to the present district and hence witnessed large-scale emigration of Muslims to East Bengal. According to government estimates, nearly 223,250 Muslims left Nadia between 1947 and 1951, the highest emigration recorded in any district of West Bengal (Mitra, 1953: xi).5 Rural growth rate of the Muslims in the district, thus, nosedived to –37.51 per cent (see Table 9). Muslims overall registered a negative growth rate of –37.89 per cent with Sadar at –33.30 per cent and Ranaghat at –49.09 per cent (see Table 8). The Karimpur–Tehatta bloc accounted for the heaviest casualty in Muslim population, as the Muslim growth rate in this area dipped to –55.54 per cent. This proves beyond doubt that the fear factor that drove hordes of Hindus across the border to India was applicable for the Muslim minorities on the Indian side also. The other bloc that recorded a significant casualty in Muslim growth rate is Nakashipara–Kaliganj


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 127 of the Sadar subdivision, at –45.04 per cent (see Table 8). Significantly, the latter is not a border police station bounded by East Bengal. However, the fact that it recorded a drastic fall in the Muslim growth rate attests to the sense of insecurity that pervaded the Muslim psyche across the district. Intelligence Bureau reports are replete with incidents of minority persecution, where the people concerned were often threatened with dire consequences if they did not abandon their land and migrate to East Bengal. It was like a domino effect, with the victims of minority persecution in East Bengal that was driving out the Hindus to West Bengal now turning into persecutors, venting their ire on the remaining Muslims of West Bengal. For example, refugees of Dhubulia Camp pounced upon the field of a neighbouring Muslim to catch sheep. The owner resisted this. Thereupon a Hindu crowd, mostly composed of refugees, raided the Muslim locality of Tatla village near Dhubulia Camp and set fire to the houses, burning 60 homes. The Muslims ran away from the village because of fear (Intelligence Bureau, 1950). On the same day in Maherganj village (Nabadwip P.S.), the Hindus offered pujas in a mosque in order to desecrate it (Intelligence Bureau, 1950). In another incident a gang of 100 refugees of Sahibnagar village in Sadar subdivision attacked 14 Muslim families of the same village. The village was earlier a predominantly Muslim village of 200 families, all but 14 of which had migrated to East Pakistan. These remaining Muslims were assaulted and their properties looted. Eight of the 14 families fled across the border the very next evening. Refugees of Dhubulia Camp and Bethuadahari Camp then barged into Dipchandrapur, a Muslim village in Sadar subdivision, and demanded rice and goats from the villagers. They further threatened the residents stating that the entire village would be burnt and looted and the villagers killed if their demands were not met. Such incidents struck fear in the hearts of the remaining Muslims, leaving them with no option but to abandon home and hearth. More intriguing was the lack of any concrete police action to combat such violence. The Intelligence Bureau reports, in most cases, are inconclusive as to whether any special efforts were made to stop the recurrence of such incidents. It is evident that the normal course of actions, a few routine arrests and registration of cases under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, failed to curb the menace of minoritybashing. The local police station reported the matter to the district administration, which in turn informed the state, but whether any concrete follow-up actions were taken is not clear. The absence of mention of any such action casts aspersions on the intentions of the Government. Muslim emigration would have solved the crisis of land and other resources necessary for resettling the incoming migrants, especially in districts like Nadia, flooded with immigrants. The government, in fact, encouraged the refugees to occupy the vacant lands and houses abandoned by Muslims. The then Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, Hiranmoy Bandyopadhyay (1970: 73) notes in the context of Nadia: ‘If the refugees had not occupied these abandoned plots and houses, I shudder to think how the Government South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132


128


would have shouldered the burden of accommodating thousands of refugees in the relief camps’. Thus, while local politicians were demonising the East Bengal Government for tyrannising the minority Hindus, a parallel scenario of maltreatment was being witnessed in Nadia.

The Overall Picture How did this emigration/immigration and the resultant increase/decrease in population growth rate affect the religious composition of the truncated district? The comparative population growth rates between 1941–47 and 1947–51 exhibit some startling facts. Between 1941 and 1947, the Hindu population recorded a measly growth of 3.54 per cent, whereas between 1947 and 1951, there was a stupendous rise of 117 per cent. The corresponding rate of growth of Muslim population was +20.08 per cent and –48.28 per cent (see Table 11). Thus, in the span of just four years, the religious composition of the district was completely changed and reversed. The district administration blandly reports: ‘The District on the date of partition had a majority of Muslim population. There has been a reversal of the position by the influx of Hindu population from East Bengal’ (Intelligence Bureau, 1948). The sensitive issue of Muslim emigration had been carefully side-stepped, but if one delves into the census data and makes a comparative analysis, the phenomenon becomes marked. This complete turnaround of religious composition attests to the fact that the interplay of influx and efflux is perhaps nowhere more marked and unique than in the district of Nadia. No other district of West Bengal, which went under the scalpel following the Radcliffe Award, displayed such a distinct phenomenon of religious role reversal within such a short time-span. With the exception of Malda, the other three altered districts, namely, Twenty-Four Parganas, West Dinajpur and Jalpaiguri, display no such radical change. On the day of partition, they remained Hindu-majority districts and retained their distinctions four years later in 1951. Malda did witness a religious reversal, no doubt, but nevertheless, the rise in its Hindu growth rate was not as steep (+55.91 per cent) in the four years Table 11 Comparative Growth Rate of Population (1941–47, 1947–51)

Year

Total Hindu

Total

Total Muslim

% of % of Hindus Muslims to Total to Total

Rate of Growth of Total Pop.

Rate of Growth of Hindu Pop.

Rate of Growth of Muslim Pop.

—

—

1941

840,303

392,307 412,254

37.38

61.25

—

1947

901,272

406,232 495,040

45.07

54.92

+7.25

+3.54

+20.08

1951 1,144,924

881,955 256,017

77.03

22.96

+27.03

+117.10

–48.28



Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 129 Table 12 Four Districts Compared % of Hindus to Total Pop. 1947

% of Muslims to Total Pop. 1947

Twenty-Four Parganas

64.41

33.39

73.99

25.26

West Dinajpur

45.09

38.66

69.29

29.93

Malda

44.81

49.03

62.91

36.97

Jalpaiguri

49.37

16.91

84.18

9.73

District

% of Hindus to Total Pop. 1951

Percentage of Muslims to Total Pop. 1951

Source: Constituent Assembly of India (1947) and Mitra (1953).

from 1947 to 1951 as was the case in Nadia. In 1947 and 1951, Hindu and Muslim share in the population in the four districts were as follows, as Table 12 above shows:

Conclusions: Messy Follow-ups Thus, as the present statistical analysis clearly establishes, contrary to commonplace belief, Muslim emigration from West Bengal in and soon after 1947 was a palpable and highly dramatic reality. In the case of Nadia, population movement was not uni-dimensional, as the immigration of 426,907 people between 1947 and 1951 was complemented by an emigration of 223,250 persons. It is, however, also true that following the 1950 Nehru–Liaquat Pact which called for alleviating the fear of the minorities and facilitated their repatriation guaranteeing security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honour, most emigrants came back to Nadia, as can be calculated from the census data of 1961. In this phase, Nadia witnessed the homecoming of around 55 per cent of the emigrating Muslims, as 121,595 Muslims out of a total of 223,350 returned to Nadia.6 Applying a 27.5 per cent growth rate, the Muslim population in Nadia in 1961 should have been 326,422. But the actual figure stood at 417,706, thus an excess of 91,284. In fact, among the three districts of the Presidency Division, Nadia was the only one to harbour an excess Muslim population. The Karimpur–Tehatta belt, which portrayed a negative growth rate, because of the emigration of Muslims, recorded a phenomenal growth of Muslim population in the decade 1951–61 at +80.29 per cent, implying the partial return and resettlement of the minority population. Thus, it is true that minority emigration, due to religious persecution, was not a long-standing and permanent phenomenon. It was largely a short-lived occurrence with the majority of the minority population returning to their original homeland in India. The theory of ‘replacement effect’, of outflows matching inflows, which Bharadwaj et al. (2006) apply in case of the northern Indian towns and cities, is not entirely relevant in this case, however. In northern Indian cities exchange of minority populations was brought about in one complete swipe under government supervision and was a South Asia Research Vol. 34 (2): 113–132


130


permanent affair. In the case of Nadia, since fear was the key factor behind minority eviction which was subsequently allayed by the 1950 Pact, minority confidence was won over, which led many people to return to their homeland.7 But to turn a blind eye to Muslim persecution and their consequent search for safety across the border is to deny a historical truth. As Pandey (2001: 44) acknowledges: ‘There are many different stories to be told about 1947, many different perspectives to be recovered, stories and perspectives that tell of other histories.’ The saga of population movements in Nadia, and the effect they had on the demographic contours of the district in the form of unusually high growth rates of some areas and plunging growth rates in some and the resultant conversion from a Muslim-majority to a Hindu-majority district is one such other history. It is a hitherto untold, uncatalogued, unheard-of story, which unfortunately has not found its place in the pages of partition narratives. Saddled with the influx of the Hindus during the first decade after partition and subsequently with the returning Muslim émigrés in the next, the district literally burst at the seams to accommodate this burgeoning populace. Law and order problems reared their head with the return of Muslims. While the government promised the Muslims restoration of their ancestral properties, the refugees refused to abandon the plots which they had encroached upon after the Muslims’ departure. This resulted in frequent clashes between the two communities, while the government did not make any effort to equally distribute the various displaced populations throughout the state. Instead of allowing the migrants to concentrate in a few districts over the years by opening colonies, most of which were unplanned and lacked basic amenities and then forcing them suddenly to move out of the state, the government could have developed districts like Purulia, Bankura and Birbhum, and moved the migrants out to those areas. Apart from cart-loading displaced people to the unknown, inhospitable terrains of Dandakaranya, far removed from West Bengal (as confirmed by De, 2014), it would have been sagacious to look for suitable alternatives within the state. The migrants might not have been that reluctant and this could have effectively eased the pressure on the few affected districts like Nadia, where population movement no doubt led to development in the form of rapid urbanisation, not without corresponding pitfalls which go beyond the ambit of the present article.

Notes 1. A more recent study with a detailed bibliography, focusing on Western India and West Pakistan, especially Sindh, is Zamindar (2007). 2. Reported in the editorial of Jugantar, on 4 March 1960, at p. 4. 3. See especially Intelligence Bureau (1948 and 1950). 4. Zamindar (2007) reports similar insecurities about the precise location of the borders in other parts of the subcontinent. 5. According to Mitra (1953), emigration of Muslims from other districts, between 1947 and 1951, were as follows: Twenty-Four Parganas 51,950: Jalpaiguri 50,000; Cooch Behar 31,484; Malda 15,000; West Dinajpur 14,000; Murshidabad 5,970; Darjeeling 3,315.


Ghosh: Population Movements in West Bengal 131 6. One of the anonymous peer reviewers pointed out that these may not necessarily always be the same people, though. It seems impossible to ascertain that. 7. The same reviewer also suggested that the return migration of Muslims from East Pakistan may have been due to bad economic conditions rather than the effects of the Nehru–Liaquat Pact.

References Bagchi, Jasodhara, Dasgupta, Subhoranjan & Ghosh, Subhasri (2009) The Trauma and the Triumph: Gender and Partition in Eastern India. Kolkata: Stree. Bandyopadhyay, Hiranmoy (1970) Udvastu. Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad. Bharadwaj, Prashant, Khwaja, Asim Ijaz & Mian, Atif R. (2006) ‘The Big March: The Nature of Migratory Flows during the 1947 Partition of British India’. HKS Working Paper No. RWP08-029. URL (consulted August 2012) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=1124093. Chakrabarti, Prafulla (1999) The Marginal Men: The Refugees and the Left Political Syndrome in West Bengal. Calcutta: Naya Udyog. Constituent Assembly of India (1947) Population of India According to Communities Based on the 1941 Census. Delhi: Government of India. Davis, Kingsley (1949) ‘India and Pakistan: The Demography of Partition’. Pacific Affairs, 22(3): 254–64. De, Debasree (2014) ‘Nehruvian Vision of Sustainable Development for Tribals in India: A Critique’. South Asia Research, 34(1): 1–18. Dutch, R.A. (1942) Census of India, 1941, Volume IV: Bengal. Delhi: Government of India. Elahi, K. Maudood & Sultana, Sabiha (1991) ‘Population Redistribution and Settlement Change in South Asia: A Historical Perspective’. In Leszek A. Kosinski and K. Maudood Elahi (Eds), Population Redistribution and Development in South Asia (pp. 15–35). New Delhi: Rawat. Government of India (1958) Reports of the Bengal Boundary Commission and Punjab Boundary Commission (Radcliffe Awards). New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Government of Pakistan (1951) Population Census of Pakistan 1951. Karachi: Census Organisation. Hill, K., Seltzer, W., Leaning, J., Malik, S.J. & Russell, S.S. (2005) ‘The Demographic Impact of Partition: Bengal in 1947’. URL (consulted June 2006) http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/ download.aspx?submissionId=52236 Intelligence Bureau (1948) File No. 1238-47. Nabadwip, Pakistan Activities. Copy of D.I.B. Nadia to Spl. Supdt. of Police, 28 July 1948. ——— (1950) File No. 1838-48. ‘Weekly Report by the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation on Relief and Rehabilitation of East Bengal Refugees’. Mahalonobis, P.C. & Bhattacharya, D. (1976) ‘Growth of Population of India and Pakistan, 1801–1961’. Artha Vijnana, 18(1): 1–10. Mitra, Asok (1953) Census of India, 1951: District Census Handbook: Nadia. New Delhi: Government of India. National Archives of India (1941) Home-Public Department. F.45/11/41. Pandey, Gyanendra (2001) Remembering Partition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rao, U.B. (1967) The Story of Rehabilitation. Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.



132


Samaddar, Ranabir (1999) The Marginal Nation: Transborder Migration from Bangladesh into West Bengal. New Delhi: SAGE. Zamindar, Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali (2007) The Long Partition and the Making of South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories. New York: Columbia University Press.

Dr Subhasri Ghosh received her PhD in Modern History from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, with a thesis titled The Impact of Immigration on West Bengal, 1947–1971. She was then a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Rabindranath Tagore Centre for Human Development Studies in Kolkata. She published on refugee rehabilitation and migration and is presently working as a Story Scholar in a California-based nonprofit organisation, the 1947 Partition Archive, collecting life-stories of first generation witnesses of the 1947 Partition. Address: 16/2 K, Dover Terrace, Kolkata 700019, West Bengal, India. [e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]]
