The Question of Minorities - part 3: Partition era migration of Hindus from East Pakistan
Pro-Indian agents, who
never accepted the partition of India, claim that some 5.3 million Hindus had
left East Pakistan between 1947 and 1971. Not only do they fail to share any
credible source for such claims but they are also delinquently silent about the
exodus figures of Muslims from India in the same period to Pakistan.[i] As noted by credible
scholars, Indian statistics on such contentious matters were "not
merely guesses”, 'but frequently demonstrably absurd guesses'.[ii]
My concern in this article is with statistics relating to migration of people
during the partition. As we shall see below unreliable statistics, let alone
politicized claims with ulterior motives on such important issues, gravely
impairs our judgment and only breeds mistrust and animosity between communities.
While the population of Bengal as a whole
for both males and females grew, it grew more than one percent more slowly
between 1941 and 1951 than between 1931 and 1941. This reduction in growth rate
had much to do with the 1943 Famine. Both religious communities experienced
reduced growth rates, but the reductions were larger for Muslims than for
Hindus, and were least for Hindu females. [See http://drhabibsiddiqui.blogspot.com/
for detail analysis, and data.]
A Chi-square test to check for association
between religious communities with census year showed that while the loss in
religious minority numbers in both East Pakistan and West Bengal was
statistically significant in 1951, the situation in Punjab was worse. As can
also been seen the total number of cross-border migration of Muslims and Hindus
to and from East Pakistan (1947-1951) possibly could not have been more than 3
million.
==========
Appendix: Tables on population demography
So, how many people did
migrate between Pakistan and India? As I have noted elsewhere,
in terms of mere size and rapidity, the Partition of British India
to Pakistan and India in August of 1947 constitutes perhaps the largest example
of voluntary and involuntary population movement in modern history. In the
pre-partition Bengal, there were 5 divisions which were subdivided into a total
of 28 districts, and that almost the entire population in Bengal was either Hindu or Muslim, apart from about 3 percent “Tribal”: 55 percent
Muslim and 42 percent Hindu.[iii]
[Note: The Hindu % in Bengal in 1931, 1941 and 1951 was 42.3, 41.2 and 42.4,
while the Muslim % in the same period was 55.8, 55.7 and 56.4, respectively. In
the same period, the tribal % was recorded as 1.8, 3.1 and 1.2, respectively. It
goes without saying that the unusually high growth rate (e.g., more than
doubling from 896,000 to 1,849,000) of the tribal population in a 10-year
period between 1931 and 1941 simply cannot be explained by any natural growth
phenomenon, and points to mis- or cross-categorization, and/or massive
relocation into Bengal from other regions, including parts of Burma. The
average annual growth rates amongst Hindus and Muslims in Bengal in 1931-1941
were 1.6% and 1.85%, respectively.]
Year =>
|
1931
|
1941
|
1951
|
|||
Total in millions =>
|
48.811
|
%
|
58.838
|
%
|
61.653
|
%
|
Hindu
|
20.670
|
42.3%
|
24.244
|
41.2%
|
26.128
|
42.4%
|
Muslim
|
27.245
|
55.8%
|
32.745
|
55.7%
|
34.789
|
56.4%
|
Tribals
|
0.896
|
1.8%
|
1.849
|
3.1%
|
0.736
|
1.2%
|
Estimates of migrants to Pakistan and India between 1947 and
1951 vary between 10 and 17 million, while estimates of deaths associated with
Partition range from 200,000 to over a million.[iv] Of these migrants, only
about 3 million crossed the border in the eastern sector of what was once
British India.
A further barrier to isolating the effects of Partition is the
Bengal famine of 1943 when according to Professor Amartya Sen some 3 million
people might have died. However, as we see from the table below the actual
figure is probably 3 times as large (anywhere from 6.8 million to 9.3 million).
[Note: the lower famine casualty figure omits ‘tribal’ data with abnormally
high annual growth rate.]
Population
in
1000’s
|
1931
|
%
avg. annual growth rate (‘31-‘41)
|
1941
|
%
avg. annual growth rate (’41-’51)
|
1951
|
Expected
population in 1951
|
Potential
1943 famine casualty
|
|
Bengal
Male
|
Total
|
25338
|
2
|
30954
|
0.52
|
32583
|
37815
|
5232
|
Hindu
|
10813
|
1.82
|
12970
|
0.72
|
13941
|
15557
|
1616
|
|
Muslim
|
14060
|
1.92
|
17039
|
0.69
|
18263
|
20649
|
2386
|
|
Tribals
|
465
|
7.35
|
945
|
-0.0875
|
379
|
1609
|
1230
|
|
Bengal
Female
|
Total
|
23473
|
1.72
|
27884
|
0.43
|
29070
|
33124
|
4054
|
Hindu
|
9857
|
1.34
|
11274
|
0.78
|
12187
|
12894
|
707
|
|
Muslim
|
13185
|
1.75
|
15706
|
0.51
|
16526
|
18709
|
2183
|
|
Tribals
|
431
|
7.70
|
904
|
-0.089
|
357
|
1521
|
1164
|
Then there is also the question about the
reliability of the census data further complicating the issue. In 1941 Britain
was at war against Japan that had captured Burma, and the Burmese Buddhist
population collaborated with the Fascist Japanese Imperial forces and carried
out an extermination and eviction campaign against non-Buddhist population that
were racially Indian and considered an ally of the British. Many Indians
working in Burma were killed and many others fled as a result of the war, which
lasted for six years (1939-45). Could the above average growth rate in 1931-41 amongst
Muslims in districts like Chittagong (e.g., 2.4% among males) and Noakhali
(e.g., 3% overall), the two districts that are closer to Arakan in Burma, be a
direct result of the World War II?
East Bengal Demography in thousands
|
|||||
District
|
Sex
|
Religion
|
Population (1931)
|
% Annual Growth Rate (1931-41)
|
Population (1941)
|
Noakhali
|
Male
|
Muslim
|
671
|
3.3
|
931
|
Noakhali
|
Male
|
Hindu
|
187
|
1.2
|
212
|
Noakhali
|
Female
|
Muslim
|
668
|
2.7
|
873
|
Noakhali
|
Female
|
Hindu
|
179
|
1.1
|
201
|
Chittagong
|
Male
|
Muslim
|
641
|
2.4
|
817
|
Chittagong
|
Male
|
Hindu
|
195
|
1.8
|
234
|
Chittagong
|
Female
|
Muslim
|
686
|
1.4
|
788
|
Chittagong
|
Female
|
Hindu
|
197
|
1.3
|
224
|
West Bengal Demography in thousands
|
|||||
District
|
Sex
|
Religion
|
Population (1931)
|
% Annual Growth Rate (1931-41)
|
Population (1941)
|
Howrah
|
Male
|
Muslim
|
137
|
1.6
|
162
|
Howrah
|
Male
|
Hindu
|
469
|
3
|
632
|
Howrah
|
Female
|
Muslim
|
107
|
1.5
|
134
|
Howrah
|
Female
|
Hindu
|
391
|
2.8
|
520
|
Could the highly unusual 3% growth rate amongst Hindus in Howrah
in 1931-41 be similarly attributed to the same reason, i.e., World War II? Or,
was it due to undercounting in 1931? Nor should we ignore the importance of
major cities to attract people for jobs. However, for Howrah, the Muslim
population between 1931 and 1941 grew by only 1.5%, which is half the growth
rate amongst Hindus. As such, this unusual growth rate amongst Hindus could not
have been due to jobs but for some other factor(s). Dhaka’s (Dacca) population,
on the other hand, grew in the same period for both Hindus and Muslims by 1.9%
and 2.2%, respectively, which seems quite reasonable for a major city in East
Bengal towards attracting all for jobs there.
District
|
Sex
|
Religion
|
(1931) Population (thousands)
|
Growth Rate
|
(1941) Population
(thousands)
|
Dacca
|
Male
|
Muslim
|
1168
|
2.2
|
1453
|
Dacca
|
Male
|
Hindu
|
569
|
2.1
|
699
|
Dacca
|
Female
|
Muslim
|
1125
|
2.1
|
1388
|
Dacca
|
Female
|
Hindu
|
556
|
1.7
|
661
|
An
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Harvard University-funded study (hereinafter referred
to as the Mellon Report), entitled “The Demographic Impact of Partition:
Bengal in 1947” that was jointly
collaborated between MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Fordham Universities in
2003 has shown that in Punjab, where the bulk of Partition related
migration was over by the end of 1947, migration of Bengali Hindus to India and
of Bengali and Urdu speaking Muslims to East Pakistan continued through 1951
and beyond further complicating the problem around reliable figures.[v] It says, “Bengal as a whole was little affected by Partition-related
moves: the movement from East Pakistan into Assam was probably largely from the
district of Sylhet, that had not been part of Bengal prior to Partition. West
(Indian) Bengal gained about 1.4 million migrants, whereas East Pakistan lost a
similar number.”
Most
of the cross-border migration in 1947 happened in the western front. In 1941, in only four Punjab districts was the population more
than two-thirds Hindu; in 12 districts the population was more than two-thirds
Muslim; no district was majority Sikh; in only three districts was the population
less than 28 per cent Muslim. By 1951, eight districts were more than
two-thirds Hindu; all 15 of the districts that became part of Pakistan were
more than 90 per cent Muslim; three districts were majority Sikh; and only one
district that remained in India had more than 2.5 per cent Muslim population.
As to the case of Bengal, the Mellon Report
continues, “Nothing remotely similar happened in Bengal, where the biggest
change at the district level was the outflow of Hindus from Dacca district,
reducing the proportion Hindu from 32 percent in 1941 to 21 percent in 1951.”
This observation is understandable given the fact that Dhaka became the capital
of East Pakistan in 1947, and many Muslims, including the Mohajirs (refugees)
from India, gravitated to the capital city for a plethora of reasons including
working in government sectors. On the other hand, the entire Hindu community was opposed
to the partition of India, and felt that it would lose the privileged status
that it had hitherto enjoyed in British India by continuing to live in what
became East Pakistan.
It
is worth noting here the strong opposition that came from famous Bengali Hindu
luminaries like Rabindranath Tagore who some 40 years before Pakistan became a
reality had strongly opposed the division of Bengal (1905), let alone the
establishment of Dacca University (once known as the “Oxford of the East”) in
East Bengal in 1921. Unlike the Hindus, who all supported undivided India,
Muslims in British India were split on the Pakistan issue, and many Muslims,
especially the prosperous ones, living in mainland India decided against
migration and stayed in India. Even then, there was a net decrease in the
number of Muslims living in 1951 (compared to 1941) in some of the districts of
West Bengal, esp. in Howrah; the trend was just the opposite in most of East Pakistan,
esp. in Dhaka, where there was a net decrease in Hindu population.
The
overall Muslim proportion in West Bengal declined in 1951 compared to 1941. For
instance, in West Bengal’s Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura, Midnapore, Hooghly,
Howrah and Murshidabad districts which had Muslim:Hindu proportion of 19:81,
29:71, 5:95, 8:92, 16:84, 20:80 and 58:42 in 1941 became 16:84, 27:73,
4.6:95.4, 7:93, 13:87, 16:84 and 55:45, respectively, in 1951. Correspondingly,
in East Bengal’s (later East Pakistan’s) Rangpur, Bogra, Pabna, Dacca (Dhaka),
Mymensingh, Bakerganj, Tippera (Comilla), Noakhali and Chittagong districts
which had Muslim:Hindu proportion of 53:47, 85:15, 77:23, 68:32, 78:22, 73:27,
77:23, 81:19. 78:22 in 1941 became 63:37, 87:13, 84:16, 79:21, 84:16, 80:20,
81:19, 84:16, and 80:20 in 1951.
So,
it is not difficult to see the impact of the partition – the proportion of
Hindus in East Pakistan shrank considerably.
The Mellon Report says, “In the period 1941 to 1951, the Hindu
populations of East Bengal districts all contract, though by very variable amounts, whereas the Hindu populations of West Bengal tend to grow somewhat faster than 1931 to 1941, as would be expected
given the migration of over 2 million
people, presumably predominantly Hindu,
from East Bengal into West Bengal. The Moslem
[sic] populations of East Bengal tend to grow more slowly between
1941 and 1951 than in the earlier period, as did the
Moslem[sic] populations of West Bengal...
These patterns of growth
suggest a more substantial relocation of the Hindu population about the time of Partition than of the Moslem [sic] population.” (p. 18)
The
Mellon Report analyzed the demographic data for the aforementioned 7 districts
of West Bengal and 9 districts of East Bengal. In those districts, the total
number of Hindus and Muslims are tabulated below, showing that the net Hindu
and Muslim gains were, respectively, 191,000 and 1,443,000 in 1941-1951 in what
was once used to be known as joint Bengal. Noting that the pre-partition Bengal
had a Muslim majority (55%, compared to 42% Hindus and 3% tribals), this disproportionate
net gain among the Muslims could not have happened without a massive migration
of non-Bengali Muslims to East Pakistan.
Population in thousands
|
1931
|
1941
|
1951
|
Net Gain (1941-1951)
|
|
West Bengal
|
Hindu
|
7753
|
8727
|
10349
|
1622
|
Muslim
|
1995
|
2358
|
2343
|
-15
|
|
East Bengal (East Pakistan)
|
Hindu
|
6124
|
7024
|
5593
|
-1431
|
Muslim
|
16462
|
20058
|
21516
|
1458
|
The Report concludes “Bengal remained quite
heterogeneous in terms of religion in 1951. The second feature is the very low
growth of the population of Bengal in the 1940s relative to its growth in the 1930s:
had 1931-41 growth rates continued between 1941 and 1951, the population of Bengal
as a whole would have been nearly 9 million larger than it actually was in
1951. This excess loss cannot be explained by net out-migration, since our
analysis suggests that Bengal as a whole was little affected by net migration
in 1947 and thereafter. Given the relatively small scale of migration, it is
unlikely that this population loss resulted from violence at the time of
Partition; it is a grim reminder of the magnitude of the disastrous Bengal
famine of 1943.”
My statistical analysis of the census data
agrees with the findings of the Andrew Mellon Foundation and Harvard University-funded
study and shows that there is no truth to the exaggerated claims made by
certain quarters about millions of Hindus migrating out of the then East
Pakistan as a result of partition of British India.
1, West Bengal Demography in '000s | |||||||
District | Sex | Religion | Population 1931 | %Growth Rate | Population 1941 | %Growth Rate | Population 1951 |
Burdwan | Male | Muslim | 152 | 1.5 | 177 | 0.4 | 183 |
Burdwan | Male | Hindu | 639 | 1.4 | 737 | 2.7 | 969 |
Burdwan | Female | Muslim | 140 | 1.3 | 160 | -0.1 | 159 |
Burdwan | Female | Hindu | 600 | 0.9 | 657 | 2.8 | 866 |
Birbhum | Male | Muslim | 126 | 1.3 | 143 | 0 | 144 |
Birbhum | Male | Hindu | 317 | 0.8 | 344 | 1.4 | 394 |
Birbhum | Female | Muslim | 127 | 1.3 | 144 | -0.1 | 143 |
Birbhum | Female | Hindu | 319 | 0.7 | 342 | 1.1 | 381 |
Bankura | Male | Muslim | 26 | 0.9 | 29 | 0.8 | 31 |
Bankura | Male | Hindu | 506 | 0.8 | 546 | 1 | 605 |
Bankura | Female | Muslim | 25 | 0.9 | 27 | 0 | 27 |
Bankura | Female | Hindu | 505 | 0.5 | 533 | 1.1 | 597 |
Midnapore | Male | Muslim | 108 | 1.4 | 125 | 0.1 | 126 |
Midnapore | Male | Hindu | 1263 | 0.9 | 1376 | 1.4 | 1575 |
Midnapore | Female | Muslim | 105 | 1.5 | 122 | -0.6 | 114 |
Midnapore | Female | Hindu | 1230 | 0.6 | 1306 | 1.4 | 1508 |
Hooghly | Male | Muslim | 97 | 1.5 | 113 | -0.7 | 106 |
Hooghly | Male | Hindu | 489 | 1.8 | 587 | 2 | 716 |
Hooghly | Female | Muslim | 83 | 1.2 | 94 | 0.7 | 101 |
Hooghly | Female | Hindu | 435 | 0.6 | 462 | 3.1 | 628 |
Howrah | Male | Muslim | 137 | 1.6 | 162 | -1.3 | 143 |
Howrah | Male | Hindu | 469 | 3 | 632 | 1.6 | 744 |
Howrah | Female | Muslim | 107 | 1.5 | 134 | -1.3 | 118 |
Howrah | Female | Hindu | 391 | 2.8 | 520 | 1.5 | 601 |
Murshidabad | Male | Muslim | 379 | 1.2 | 465 | 0.3 | 477 |
Murshidabad | Male | Hindu | 295 | 1.6 | 346 | 2 | 391 |
Murshidabad | Female | Muslim | 383 | 1 | 463 | 0.2 | 471 |
Murshidabad | Female | Hindu | 295 | 1.4 | 339 | 1.9 | 374 |
2. East Bengal Demography in '000s | |||||||
District | Sex | Religion | Population 1931 | %Growth Rate | Population 1941 | %Growth Rate | Population 1951 |
Rangpur | Male | Muslim | 955 | 1.1 | 1068 | 1.4 | 1224 |
Rangpur | Male | Hindu | 395 | 0.9 | 430 | -3.3 | 308 |
Rangpur | Female | Muslim | 140 | 1.1 | 160 | 1.1 | 159 |
Rangpur | Female | Hindu | 600 | 0.6 | 657 | -2.9 | 490 |
Bogra | Male | Muslim | 461 | 1.6 | 540 | 0.6 | 575 |
Bogra | Male | Hindu | 95 | 0.6 | 100 | -1.7 | 84 |
Bogra | Female | Muslim | 445 | 1.5 | 518 | 0.4 | 540 |
Bogra | Female | Hindu | 83 | 0.5 | 87 | -1.2 | 78 |
Pabna | Male | Muslim | 570 | 1.7 | 674 | 0.2 | 689 |
Pabna | Male | Hindu | 168 | 1.6 | 197 | -4.1 | 131 |
Pabna | Female | Muslim | 542 | 1.7 | 640 | -0.1 | 636 |
Pabna | Female | Hindu | 164 | 1.3 | 186 | -3.9 | 127 |
Dacca | Male | Muslim | 1168 | 2.2 | 1453 | 1.6 | 1699 |
Dacca | Male | Hindu | 569 | 2.1 | 699 | -4.8 | 435 |
Dacca | Female | Muslim | 1125 | 2.1 | 1388 | 0.9 | 1513 |
Dacca | Female | Hindu | 556 | 1.7 | 661 | -4.9 | 405 |
Mymensingh | Male | Muslim | 2034 | 1.7 | 2410 | 0.4 | 2518 |
Mymensingh | Male | Hindu | 619 | 1.2 | 696 | -3.4 | 496 |
Mymensingh | Female | Muslim | 1894 | 1.7 | 2255 | 0.1 | 2277 |
Mymensingh | Female | Hindu | 555 | 0.8 | 601 | -2.9 | 451 |
Bakerganj | Male | Muslim | 1078 | 2 | 1322 | 1.4 | 1516 |
Bakerganj | Male | Hindu | 416 | 1.8 | 497 | -2.9 | 373 |
Bakerganj | Female | Muslim | 1027 | 1.9 | 1245 | 1 | 1382 |
Bakerganj | Female | Hindu | 396 | 1.5 | 462 | -3 | 344 |
Tippera | Male | Muslim | 1210 | 2.4 | 1541 | 0.4 | 1604 |
Tippera | Male | Hindu | 384 | 1.7 | 457 | -2.4 | 360 |
Tippera | Female | Muslim | 1147 | 2.3 | 1435 | 0.3 | 1482 |
Tippera | Female | Hindu | 366 | 1.5 | 423 | -2.1 | 342 |
Noakhali | Male | Muslim | 671 | 3.3 | 931 | 0.8 | 1006 |
Noakhali | Male | Hindu | 187 | 1.2 | 212 | -1.2 | 188 |
Noakhali | Female | Muslim | 668 | 2.7 | 873 | 0.4 | 909 |
Noakhali | Female | Hindu | 179 | 1.1 | 201 | -1.7 | 170 |
Chittagong | Male | Muslim | 641 | 2.4 | 817 | 1.6 | 957 |
Chittagong | Male | Hindu | 195 | 1.8 | 234 | -0.2 | 230 |
Chittagong | Female | Muslim | 686 | 1.4 | 788 | 0.5 | 830 |
Chittagong | Female | Hindu | 197 | 1.3 | 224 | -0.9 | 205 |
[i] http://www.voiceofdharma.org/books/tfst/appii1.htm
mentions 4.45 million Hindus and not 5.3 million. Even that source is
unreliable. It also quotes an article in the Weekly Holiday (The Missing
Population, Holiday, Weekly, Dhaka, 7 January 1994) by Mohiuddin Ahmed,
which is unreliable, stating that some 2 million Hindus had left Bangladesh
between 1974 and 1991.
[ii] See,
e.g., comments made in the book “Development
Economics on Trial: The Anthropological Case for a Prosecution” by Polly Hill,
Cambridge University Press (1986), p. 44; see also the works of Dewey and
Charlesworth on Indian statistics as referenced in the above book. See also the
article: “The Poor Quality of Official Socio-economic Statistics Relating to
the Rural Tropical World: With Special Reference to South India” by Polly Hill,
Modern Asian Studies, 18, 3 (1984), pp. 491-514, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/312264?uid=3739864&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103548611091
Bengal
in 1947, Hill K1, Seltzer W2, Leaning J 3, Malik SJ3, Russell SS4, 1 Department of Population and Family Health Sciences, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health;
2 Department of Sociology, Fordham University; 3 Program on Humanitarian Crises
and Human Rights, Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center on Health and Human Rights,
Harvard School of Public Health; 4 Center for International Studies,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Comments
Post a Comment