India -- Description and travel; India -- Politics and government -- 1765-1947
Not only so, but priestly mullahs went through the country preaching
the revival of Islam, and proclaiming to the villagers that the
British Government was on the Mohammedan side, that the Law Courts
had been specially suspended for three months, and no penalty
would be exacted for violence done to Hindus, or for the loot of
Hindu shops, or the abduction of Hindu widows. A Red Pamphlet was
everywhere circulated, maintaining the same wild doctrines. It was
seen that a large proportion of Government posts were set aside
for Mohammedans, and some were even kept vacant because there was
no Mohammedan qualified to fill them. Sir Bampfylde Fuller said in
jest that of his two wives (meaning the Moslem and Hindu sections of
his province) the Mohammedan was the favourite. The jest was taken
in earnest, and the Mussulmans genuinely believed that the British
authorities were ready to forgive them all excesses.
Some two years after his departure from India Lord Curzon wrote to
the _Times_ that it was “a wicked falsehood” to say that by the
Partition he intended to carve out a Mohammedan State, to drive
a wedge between Mohammedan and Hindu, or to arouse racial feuds.
Certainly no one would willingly accuse another of such desperate
wickedness, but a statesman of better judgment might have foreseen
that, not a racial, but a religious feud would probably be the
result of the measure. What might have been expected followed. In
Comilla, Jamalpur, and a few other places, rather serious riots
occurred. A few lives were lost, temples were desecrated, images
broken, shops plundered, and many Hindu widows carried off. Some of
the towns were deserted, the Hindu population took refuge in any
“pukka” house (_i.e._ house with brick or stone walls), women spent
nights hidden in tanks, the crime known as “group-rape” increased,
and throughout the country districts there reigned a general terror,
which still prevailed at the time of my visit. Thus a new religious
feud was established in Eastern Bengal, and when Mr. Morley said in
the Commons that the disturbance was due to the refusal of Hindus to
sell British goods to Mohammedans, it was a grotesque instance of the
power that officials have of misleading their Chief.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account