Cyril Radcliffe's Bengal boundary commission report.

[Homo Sapiens]

REPORT OF THE BENGAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION

To
His Excellency the Governor General.

1. I have the honour to present the decision and award of the Bengal Boundary
Commission, which, by virtue of section 3 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, is
represented by my decision as Chairman of that Commission. This award relates to the
division of the Province of Bengal, and the Commission's award in respect of the District
of Sylhet and areas adjoining thereto will be recorded in a separate report.

2. The Bengal Boundary Commission was constituted by the announcement of the
Governor General, dated the 30th of June, 1947, Reference No. D50/7/47R. The members
of the Commission thereby appointed were

Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Justice C. C. Biswas,
Mr. Justice Abu Saleh Mohamed Akram, and
Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman.

I was subsequently appointed Chairman of this Commission.

3. The terms of reference of the Commission, as set out in the announcement were
as follows: —

"The Boundary Commission is instructed 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."
We were desired to arrive at a decision as soon as possible before the 15th of August.

4. After preliminary meetings, the Commission invited the submission of memoranda
and representations by interested parties. A very large number of memoranda and
representations was received.

5. The public sittings of the Commission took place at Calcutta, and extended from
Wednesday the 16th of July 1947, to Thursday the 24th of July 1947, inclusive, with the
exception of Sunday the 20th of July. Arguments were presented to the Commission by
numerous parties on both sides, but the main cases were presented by counsel on behalf
of the Indian National Congress, the Bengal Provincial Hindu Mahasabha and the New
Bengal Association on the one hand, and on behalf of the Muslim League on the other. In
view of the fact that I was acting also as Chairman of the Punjab Boundary Commission,
whose proceedings were taking place simultaneously with the proceedings of the Bengal
Boundary Commission. I did not attend the public sittings in person, but made arrangements
to study daily the record of the proceedings and all material submitted for our
consideration.

6. After the close of the public sittings, the remainder of the time of the Commission
was devoted to clarification and discussion of the issues involved. Our discussions took
place at Calcutta.

7. The question of drawing a satisfactory boundary line under our terms of reference
between East and West Bengal was one to which the parties concerned propounded
CASE CONCERNING BOUNDARY DISPUTES

the most diverse solutions. The province offers few, if any, satisfactory natural boundaries,
and its development has been on lines that do not well accord with a division by
contiguous majority areas of Muslim and non-Muslim majorities.

8. In my view, the demarcation of a boundary line between East and West Bengal
depended on the answers to be given to certain basic questions which may be stated as
follows: —

(1) To which State was the City of Calcutta to be assigned, or was it possible to
adopt any method of dividing the City between the two States?

(2) If the City of Calcutta must be assigned as a whole to one or other of the States,
what were its indispensable claims to the control of territory, such as all or part
of the Nadia River system or the Kulti rivers, upon which the life of Calcutta as a
city and port depended?

(3) Could the attractions of the Ganges-Padma-Madhumati river line displace the
strong claims of the heavy concentration of Muslim majorities in the districts of
Jessore and Nadia without doing too great a violence to the principle of our terms
of reference?

(4) Could the district of Khulna usefully be held by a State different from that which
held the district of Jessore?

(5) Was it right to assign to Eastern Bengal the considerable block of non-Muslim
majorities in the districts of M aida and Dinajpur?

(6) Which State's claim ought to prevail in respect of the Districts of Darjeeling and
Jalpaiguri, in which the Muslim population amounted to 2.42 per cent, of the
whole in the case of Darjeeling, and to 23.08 per cent, of the whole in the case of
Jalpaiguri, but which constituted an area not in any natural sense contiguous to
another non-Muslim area of Bengal?

(7) To which State should the Chittagong Hill Tracts be assigned, an area in which
the Muslim population was only 3 per cent, of the whole, but which it was
difficult to assign to a State different from that which controlled the district of
Chittagong itself?

9. After much discussion, my colleagues found that they were unable to arrive at an
agreed view on any of these major issues. There were of course considerable areas of the
Province in the south-west and north-east and east, which provoked no controversy on
either side; but, in the absence of any reconciliation on all main questions affecting the
drawing of the boundary itself, my colleagues assented to the view at the close of our
discussions that I had no alternative but to proceed to give my own decision.

10. This I now proceed to do: but I should like at the same time to express my
gratitude to my colleagues for their indispensable assistance in clarifying and discussing
the difficult questions involved. The demarcation of the boundary line is described in
detail in the schedule which forms Annexure A to this award, and in the map attached
thereto, Annexure B. The map is annexed for purposes of illustration, and if there should
be any divergence between the boundary as described in Annexure A and as delineated on
the map in Annexure B, the description in Annexure A is to prevail.

11. I have done what I can in drawing the line to eliminate any avoidable cutting of
railway communications and of river systems, which are of importance to the life of the
province: but it is quite impossible to draw a boundary under our terms of reference
without causing some interruption of this sort, and I can only express the hope that
arrangements can be made and maintained between the two States that will minimize the
consequences of this interruption as far as possible.

NEW DELHI;
The 12th August, 1947.
Cyril RADCLIFFE




The schedule
{See Annexures A and B)
ANNEXURE A

1. A line shall be drawn along the boundary between the Thana of Phansidewa in
the District of Darjeeling and the Thana Tetulia in the District of Jalpaiguri from the point
where that boundary meets the Province of Bihar and then along the boundary between
the Thanas of Tetulia and Rajganj; the Thanas of Pachagar and Rajganj, and the Thanas of
Pachagar and Jalpaiguri, and shall then continue along the northern corner of the Thana
Debiganj to the boundary of the State of Cooch-Behar. The District of Daijeeling and so
much of the District of Jalpaiguri as lies north of this line shall belong to West Bengal, but
the Thana of Patgram and any other portion of Jalpaiguri District which lies to the east or
south shall belong to East Bengal.

2. A line shall then be drawn from the point where the boundary between the
Thanas of Haripur and Raiganj in the District of Dinajpur meets the border of the Province
of Bihar to the point where the boundary between the Districts of 24 Parganas and
Khulna meets the Bay of Bengal. This line shall follow the course indicated in the
following paragraphs. So much of the Province of Bengal as lies to the west of it shall
belong to West Bengal. Subject to what has been provided in paragraph 1 above with
regard to the Districts of Daijeeling and Jalpaiguri, the remainder of the Province of
Bengal shall belong to East Bengal.

3. The line shall run along the boundary between the following Thanas:

Haripur and Raiganj; Haripur and Hemtabad; Ranisankail and Hemtabad; Pirganj
and Hemtabad; Pirganj and Kaliganj; Bochaganj and Kaliganj; Biral and Kaliganj; Biral
and Kushmundi; Biral and Gangarampur; Dinajpur and Gangarampur; Dinajpur and
Kumarganj; Chirirbandar and Kumarganj; Phulbari and Kumarganj; Phulbari and Balurghat.
It shall terminate at the point where the boundary between Phulbari and Balurghat
meets the north-south line of the Bengal-Assam Railway in the eastern comer of the
Thana of Balurghat. The line shall turn down the western edge of the railway lands
belonging to that railway and follow that edge until it meets the boundary between the
Thanas of Balurghat and Panchbibi.

4. From that point the line shall run along the boundary between the following
Thanas:

Balurghat and Panchbibi; Balurghat and Joypurhat; Balurghat and Dhamairhat; Tapan
and Dhamairhat; Tapan and Pathnitala; Tapan and Porsha; Bamangola and Porsha;
Habibpur and Porsha; Habibpur and Gomastapur; Habibpur and Bholahat; Malda and
Bholahat; English Bazar and Bholahat; English Bazar and Shibganj; Kaliachak and Shibganj;
to the point where the boundary between the two last mentioned thanas meets the
boundary between the districts of Malda and Murshidabad on the river Ganges.
5. The line shall then turn south-east down the River Ganges along the boundary
between the Districts of Malda and Murshidabad; Rajshahi and Murshidabad; Rajshahi
and Nadia; to the point in the north-western corner of the District of Nadia where the
channel of the River Mathabhanga takes off from the River Ganges. The District boundaries,
and not the actual course of the River Ganges, shall constitute the boundary between
East and West Bengal.

6. From the point on the River Ganges where the channel of the river Mathabhanga
takes off the line shall run along that channel to the northernmost point where it meets the
boundary between the Thanas of Daulatpur and Karimpur. The middle line of the main
channel shall constitute the actual boundary.

7. From this point the boundary between East and West Bengal shall run along the
boundaries between the Thanas of Daulatpur and Karimpur; Gangani and Karimpur;
Meherpur and Karimpur; Meherpur and Tehatta; Meherpur and Chapra; Damurhuda and
CASE CONCERNING BOUNDARY DISPUTES

Chapra; Damurhuda and Krishnaganj; Chuadanga and Krishnaganj; Jibannagar and
Krishnaganj; Jibannagar and Hanskhali; Meheshpur and Hanskhali; Meheshpur and
Ranaghat; Meheshpur and Bongaon; Jhikargacha and Bongaon; Sarsa and Bongaon;
Sarsa and Gaighata; Gaighata and Kalarao; to the point where the boundary between
those thanas meets the boundary between the districts of Khulna and 24 Parganas.
8. The line shall then run southwards along the boundary between the Districts of
Khulna and 24 Parganas, to the point where that boundary meets the Bay of Bengal.



REPORT OF THE BENGAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
(SYLHET DISTRICT)

To
His Excellency the Governor General.

1. I have the honour to present the report of the Bengal Boundary Commission
relating to Sylhet District and the adjoining districts of Assam. By virtue of Section 3 of
the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the decisions contained in this report become the
decision and award of the Commission.

2. The Bengal Boundary Commission was constituted as stated in my report dated
the 12th of August, 1947, with regard to the division of the Province of Bengal into East
and West Bengal. Our terms of reference were as follows: —

"The Boundary Commission is instructed to demarcate the boundaries of the
two parts of Bengal on the basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of
Muslims and non-Muslims. In doing so, it will also take into account other factors.
"In the event of the referendum in the District of Sylhet resulting in favour of
amalgamation with Eastern Bengal, the Boundary Commission will also demarcate
the Muslim majority areas of Sylhet District and the contiguous Muslim majority
areas of the adjoining districts of Assam."

3. After the conclusion of the proceedings relating to Bengal, the Commission
invited the submission of memoranda and representations by parties interested in the
Sylhet question. A number of such memoranda and representations was received.

4. The Commission held open sittings at Calcutta on the 4th, 5th and 6th days of
August 1947, for the purpose of the hearing arguments. The main arguments were conducted
on the one side by counsel on behalf of the Government of East Bengal and the
Provincial and District Muslim Leagues; and on the other side, by counsel on behalf of the
Government of the Province of Assam and the Assam Provincial Congress Committee
and the Assam Provincial Hindu Mahasabha. I was not present in person at the open
sittings as I was at the time engaged in the proceedings of the Punjab Boundary Commission
which were taking place simultaneously, but I was supplied with the daily record of
the Sylhet proceedings and with all material submitted for the commission's consideration.
At the close of the open sittings, the members of the Commission entered into
discussions with me as to the issues involved and the decisions to be come to. These
discussions took place at New Delhi.

5. There was an initial difference of opinion as to the scope of the reference entrusted
to the Commission. Two of my colleagues took the view that the Commission had
been given authority to detach from Assam and to attach to East Bengal any Muslim
majority areas of any part of Assam that could be described as contiguous to East Bengal,
since they construed the words "the adjoining districts of Assam" as meaning any districts
of Assam that adjoined East Bengal. The other two of my colleagues took the view that
the Commission's power of detaching areas from Assam and transferring them to East
Bengal was limited to the District of Sylhet and contiguous Muslim majority areas (if any)
of other districts of Assam that adjoined Sylhet. The difference of opinion was referred to
me for my casting vote, and I took the view that the more limited construction of our
terms of reference was the correct one and that the "adjoining districts of Assam" did not
extend to other districts of Assam than those that adjoined Sylhet. The Commission
accordingly proceeded with its work on this basis.

6. It was argued before the Commission on behalf of the Government of East
Bengal that on the true construction of our terms of reference and section 3 of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, the whole of the District of Sylhet at least must be transferred to
East Bengal and the Commission had no option but to act upon this assumption. All my
colleagues agreed in rejecting this argument, and I concur in their view.

7. We found some difficulty in making up our minds whether, under our terms of
reference, we were to approach the Sylhet question in the same way as the question of
partitioning Bengal, since there were some differences in the language employed. But
all my colleagues came to the conclusion that we were intended to divide the Sylhet and
adjoining districts of Assam between East Bengal and the Province of Assam on the basis
of contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims, but taking into account other
factors, I am glad to adopt this view.

8. The members of the Commission were however unable to arrive at an agreed
view as to how the boundary lines should be drawn, and after discussion of their differences,
they invited me to give my decision. This I now proceed to do.

9. In my view, the question is limited to the districts of Sylhet and Cachar, since of
the other districts of Assam that can be said to adjoin Sylhet neither the Garo Hills nor the
Khasi and Jaintia Hills nor the Lushai Hills have anything approaching a Muslim majority
of population in respect of which a claim could be made.

10. Out of 35 thanas in Sylhet, 8 have non-Muslim majorities; but on these eight,
two—Sulla and Ajmiriganj (which is in any event divided almost evenly between Muslims
and non-Muslims), are entirely surrounded by preponderatingly Muslim areas, and must
therefore go with them to East Bengal. The other six thanas comprising a population of
over 5,30,000 people stretch in a continuous line along part of the southern border of
Sylhet District. They are divided between two sub-divisions, of which, one, South Sylhet,
comprising a population of over 5,15,000 people, has in fact a non-Muslim majority of
some 40,000; while the other, Karimganj, with a population of over 5,68,000 people, has a
Muslim majority that is a little larger.

11. With regard to the District of Cachar, one thana, Hailakandi, has a Muslim
majority and is contiguous to the Muslim thanas of Badarpur and Karimganj in the
District of Sylhet. This thana forms, with the thana of Katlichara immediately to its south,
the sub-division of Hailakandi; and in the sub-division as a whole Muslims enjoy a very
small majority being 51 per cent, of the total population. I think that the dependence of
Katlichara on Hailakandi for normal communications makes it important that the area
should be under one jurisdiction, and that the Muslims would have at any rate a strong
presumptive claim for the transfer of the Sub-division of Hailakandi, comprising a population
of 1,66,536, from the Province of Assam to the Province of East Bengal.

12. But a study of the map shows, in my judgment, that a division on these lines
would present problems of administration that might gravely affect the future welfare and
happiness of the whole District, not only would the six non-Muslim thanas of Sylhet be
completely divorced from the rest of Assam if the Muslim claim to Hailakandi were
recognised; but they form a strip running east and west whereas the natural division of the
land is north and south and they effect an awkward severance of the railway line through
Sylhet, so that, for instance, the junction for the town of Sylhet itself, the capital of the
district, would lie in Assam, not in East Bengal.

13. In those circumstances I think that some exchange of territories must be
effected if a workable division is to result. Some of the non-Muslim thanas must go to
East Bengal and some Muslim territory and Hailakandi must be retained by Assam.
Accordingly I decide and award as follows: —

A line shall be drawn from the point where the boundary between the Thanas of
Patharkandi and Kulaura meets the frontier of Tripura State and shall run north along the
boundary between those Thanas, then along the boundary between the Thanas of
Patharkandi and Barlekha, then along the boundary between the Thanas of Karimganj and
Barlekha, and then along the boundary between the Thanas of Karimganj and Beani
Bazar to the point where that boundary meets the River Kusiyara. The line shall then turn
to the east taking the River Kusiyara as the boundary and run to the point where that river
meets the boundary between the Districts of Sylhet and Cachar. The centre line of the
main stream or channel shall constitute the boundary. So much of the District of Sylhet as
lies to the west and north of this line shall be detached from the Province of Assam and
transferred to the Province of East Bengal. No other part of the Province of Assam shall
be transferred.

14. For purposes of illustration a map* marked A is attached on which the line is
delineated. In the event of any divergence between the line as delineated on the map and
as described in paragraph 13, the written description is to prevail.

NEW DELHI;
The 13th August, 1947.
Cyril RADCLIFFE

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Although Cyril Radcliffe did not disclose anything subsequently and steadfastly refused to talk about his awards or why he drawn border as such, this report give some hints about his thought process and consideration during his making of the boundary in Bengal.

 

[TopCat]

I think Redcliff commission was fair to both the parties. Thats why there were no major disagreement on the way it was awarded.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I think Redcliff commission was fair to both the parties. Thats why there were no major disagreement on the way it was awarded.

It wasn't fair but ML was having no other choice either.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

I think Redcliff commission was fair to both the parties. Thats why there were no major disagreement on the way it was awarded.

The more I read about the Radcliffe award in Bengal the more I come into conclusion that he actually did a remarkably good job at drawing the border despite such a short time period given to him. He did not gave Bangladesh some Muslim majority areas for sure but have given compensation in other areas. For example he gave India Muslim majority Murshidabad district, but for this, compensated East Bengal by giving Hindu majority Khulna district. If Khulna had gone to India then it's contiguous Hindu majority Thanas in Faridpur and Barisal district also could have ended up in India. In that case, in addition of Khulna, we would also had lost the Gopalganj Sub division in Faridpur district and Jhalkathi sub division of Barisal district. If partition were done by strictly muslim majority criteria, then we would had gained Murshidabad but lost entire Khulna district plus Gopalganj and Jhalkathi sub division. It would have screwed the map of Bangladesh in the south west very badly. He made such division to give India the whole Hugli river basin for the well being of Calcutta city and port. But it turned out well for both countries, India and Bangladesh.

Similarly he gave some Muslim majority thanas of Muslim majority Nadia and Malda district to India, but compensated us by giving Chittagong Hill Tract(CHT) to East Bengal. Murshidabad district and those muslim majority thanas of Nadia and Malda district were vital for the well being of Calcutta port and West Bengal. But so is CHT, which is also very vital for Chittagong port and Chittagong district. We can not imagine Bangladesh without CHT. It would have been a disaster if non Muslim majority CHT were not part of East Bengal or current Bangladesh.

His award in Sylhet also very logical. He gave India, half of Muslim majority Karimganj thana, Badarpur thana and contiguous Hailakandi thana of Cachar district despite these territory being contiguous to other muslim majority part of Sylhet. But he compensated East Bengal by giving 4 non-Muslim majority thana in Moulovibazar sub division(Barlekha, Kulaura,Kamalganj and Srimangal) . If he strictly followed muslim majority criteria, then we would have received that two and half muslim majority Thanas in Karimgan and Hailakandi but would have lost the major chunk of our current Moulovibazar district. Those 4 thanas in Moulovibazar contain a lot of tea garden. Most importantly if he followed contiguous Muslim majority formula, then India's communication with Tripura and Mizoram state would have been cut-off while our Dhaka-Sylhet railway's portion which goes through Srimangal, Kulaura, Kamalganj would had fallen on the Indian side. Such a division would had screwed both India and Bangladesh. So he gave 2 and 1/2 muslim majority thana to India and 4 non-muslim majority thana to East Bengal which served the interest of both country very well. Note here that by such territorial swap, Bangladesh got more territory in square mile. We lost 978 sq. km in Sylhet sector but gained 1953 sq. km with many tea gardens. While India got the link with Tripura and Mizoram.

But there are two areas where he shown partiality towards India.-

One, he did not compensated East Bengal for the loss of Calcutta. Calcutta was the capital and the center of all activities in Bengal. East Bengal had majority contribution for it's growth and prosperity. Such capital city of the province should never be given to one or another community just by looking it's majority religion. It needed a special consideration. But Radcliffe gave this biggest prize unilaterally to India without giving East Bengal anything in return. He could have given entire Dinajpur district to East Bengal rather than dividing it between East and West Bengal based on religious majority. It would have been a good compensation.

Two, He did not accept the 3rd June plan's direction regarding the referendum in Sylhet which order transfer to East Bengal of any Muslim majority areas of districts of Assam contiguous to East Bengal in case Sylhet decide to join East Bengal. He accepted the Hindu argument which twisted the meaning of the text of 3rd June plan and argued that it only involves the adjoining district of Sylhet, not any district of Assam that border East Bengal. If he accepted the original meaning than muslim majority Thanas of Goalpara district of Assam could have been part of East Bengal. Goalpara was contiguous with Rangpur district.

 

[TopCat]

The more I read about the Radcliffe award in Bengal the more I come into conclusion that he actually did a remarkably good job at drawing the border despite such a short time period given to him. He did not gave Bangladesh some Muslim majority areas for sure but have given compensation in other areas. For example he gave India Muslim majority Murshidabad district, but for this, compensated East Bengal by giving Hindu majority Khulna district. If Khulna had gone to India then it's contiguous Hindu majority Thanas in Faridpur and Barisal district also could have ended up in India. In that case, in addition of Khulna, we would also had lost the Gopalganj Sub division in Faridpur district and Jhalkathi sub division of Barisal district. If partition were done by strictly muslim majority criteria, then we would had gained Murshidabad but lost entire Khulna district plus Gopalganj and Jhalkathi sub division. It would have screwed the map of Bangladesh in the south west very badly. He made such division to give India the whole Hugli river basin for the well being of Calcutta city and port. But it turned out well for both countries, India and Bangladesh.

Similarly he gave some Muslim majority thanas in Muslim majority Nadia and Malda district to India, but compensated by giving Chittagong Hill Tract to East Bengal. Murshidabad district and those thanas of Nadia and Malda was vital for the well being of Calcutta port and West Bengal. But so CHT also vital for Chittagong port and Chittagong district. We can not imagine Bangladesh without CHT. It would have been a disaster if non Muslim CHT were not part of East Bengal or current Bangladesh.

His award in Sylhet also very logical. He gave India, half of Muslim majority Karimganj thana, Badarpur thana and contiguous Hailakandi thana of Cachar district despite these territory being contiguous to other muslim majority part of Sylhet. But he compensated East Bengal by giving 4 non-Muslim majority thana in Moulovibazar sub division(Barlekha, Kulaura,Kamalganj and Srimangal) . If he strictly followed muslim majority criteria, then we would have received that two and half muslim majority Thana but would have lost the major chunk of our current Moulovibazar district. Those 4 thanas in Moulovibazar contain a lot of tea garden. Most importantly if he followed contiguous Muslim majority formula, then India's communication with Tripura and Mizoram state would had cut-off while our Dhaka-Sylhet railway's portion which goes through Srimangal, Kulaura, Kamalganj would had fallen on the Indian side. Such a division would had screwed both India and Bangladesh. So he gave 2 and 1/2 muslim majority thana to India and 4 non-muslim majority thana to East Bengal which served the interest of both country very well. Note here that by such territorial swap, Bangladesh got more territory in square mile. We lost 378 sq. miles in Sylhet sector but gained 754 sq. miles with many tea gardens.

But there are two areas where he shown partiality towards India.-

One, he did not compensated East Bengal for the loss of Calcutta. Calcutta was the capital and the center of all activities in Bengal. East Bengal had majority contribution for it's growth and prosperity. Such capital of the province should never be given to one or another community just by looking it's majority religion. It needed a special consideration. But Radcliffe gave this biggest prize unilaterally to India without giving East Bengal anything in return. He could have given entire Dinajpur district to East Bengal rather than dividing it between East and West Bengal based on religious majority. It would have been a good compensation.

Two, He did not accept the 3rd June plan's direction regarding the referendum in Sylhet which order transfer to East Bengal of any Muslim majority areas of districts of Assam contiguous to East Bengal in case Sylhet decide to join East Bengal. He accepted the Hindu argument which twisted the meaning of the text of 3rd June plan and argued that it only involves the adjoining district of Sylhet, not any adjoining district of Assam that border East Bengal. If he accepted the original meaning than muslim majority Thanas of Goalpara district of Assam could have been part of East Bengal. Goalpara was contiguous with Rangpur district.

Bengal partition was never been a practical one. Both sides specially eastern part have to work for nearly half a century to get back its feet economically. We tried to make a Pakistan a scapegoat for our misery but nobody really looked closely of the effect of Bengal division on the economy of East Pakistan.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Bengal partition was never been a practical one. Both sides specially eastern part have to work for nearly half a century to get back its feet economically. We tried to make a Pakistan a scapegoat for our misery but nobody really looked closely of the effect of Bengal division on the economy of East Pakistan.

True, East Bengal was the only province of Pakistan which came without it's capital city. Loss of Calcutta was a big blow to the economy of East Bengal. Realizing this, Suhrawardy even tried to form Independent Bengal state rather than joining either India or Pakistan so that East Bengal can remain with Calcutta.

 

[Bilal9]

True, East Bengal was the only province of Pakistan which came without it's capital city. Loss of Calcutta was a big blow to the economy of East Bengal. Realizing this, Suhrawardy even tried to form Independent Bengal state rather than joining either India or Pakistan so that East Bengal can remain with Calcutta.

Calcutta was the British-built industrial center of the Eastern India (I'd guess almost whole of Indian heavy industry based on coal-use and steel processing was located in or adjacent to West Bengal in the late 1940's because of coal and iron ore mines).

This huge gift fell on India's lap and they further started Nehruvian closed economy License Raj a la the Soviets, so they survived on those two lazy factors for a long, long time until the Indian economy opened up in the early nineties.

While there was plenty of investment in East Pakistan, post partition, the majority of the revenue proceeds and profits went to build the West thanks to the central administration, which inequity eventually bubbled over the top and created Bangladesh in 1971, when we again lost most of the industrial establishment and transport/utilities infrastructure due to war losses and post-war-booty-looting by Indian Army. In both instances (especially in 1971) we literally started from scratch (zero).

So - point of it is, that India and Pakistan's economic 'miracles' that started in 1947 both sort of fizzled out, and in India's case somewhat survived. Seventy plus years of precedent, but relatively little to show for it (compared to the rise of tiger economies in SE Asia), except getting uselessly armed to the teeth to fight each other (and their leaders pocketing the loot and stashing it in Swiss/Dubai/Singapore banks).

I believe our forty five plus years has been mixed, but got significantly better in the last two decades. Not concentrating on war-footing has been a boon, to say the least. Let's keep it that way and improve our living standards, we cannot distract ourselves fighting with pesky neighbors like the Myanmarese.

I am not saying Bangladesh did far better than these larger nations - but we have to be careful in repeating the mistakes both these countries made, such as spending a far larger sum on defence than necessary. Planning for the future (as regards to vocational education planning, industrial skills upgradation) is essential for industrial growth and better value addition as low-cost-of-labor fades as an advantage.

I'd say our record relatively hasn't been too bad (at least HDI-wise, and more recently, in regards to our economy) so far.