The 1947 Partition in The East

Trends and Trajectories

Edited by Subhasri Ghosh

First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2022 selection and editorial matter, Subhasri Ghosh; individual
chapters, the contributors
The right of Subhasri Ghosh to be identifed as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters,
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks and are used only for identifcation and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-138-06237-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-11456-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-22000-8 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003220008

Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

Acknowledgements vii

1 Introducing the text 1

SUBHASRI GHOSH

2 Setting the context 11

JASON CONS

3 The false premise of partition 15

REECE JONES

4 The protracted process of boundary formation: the making

of the Nadia-Kushtia border, 1947–1971 36
SUBHASRI GHOSH

5 ‘Surgery’ in rush and afected lives in borderland: east

Bengal experiences of partition 69
SAYEED FERDOUS

6 Displacement, integration and identity in the postcolonial world 85

VICTORIA REDCLIFT

7 Redeeming the partitioned ‘Refugee’: Citizenship

Amendment Act, 2019, and the citizenship imbroglio in
post-colonial Assam 104
BINAYAK DUTTA

8 Friends turned Foreigner-Foes: The Fissured East/West

Ethos in Partition Stories from Bengal 133
DEBASRI BASU
vi Contents
9 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press
discourse: Perspective from Calcutta-based newspapers 153
ADITI MUKHERJEE

10 The buzz and the bazaar: Refugee markets in post-partition

Bengal 172
TISTA DAS

11 The ‘New Home’ as a symbolic register in Ritwik Ghatak’s

Subarnarekha 186
AVISHEK RAY

12 Nation, religion and duration in India 196

GAUTAM GHOSH

13 Memoirs and memories: Tribal and refugee concerns in

Tripura (1947–1971) 227
ANINDITA GHOSHAL

14 Questions to ask ourselves and lessons to learn: A

comparative study of short stories on the Bengal partition 242
SABNAM GHOSH

Index 259
9 Displacement, rehabilitation
and vernacular press
discourse
Perspective from Calcutta-based
newspapers
Aditi Mukherjee

Bengal’s partition together with Punjab in the wake of decolonization in

South Asia engendered one of the largest human displacements of the twenti-
eth century. While dislocations in Bengal received little attention globally, or
even in India’s national media which was more preoccupied with the parti-
tion in Punjab in the west, refugee rehabilitation emerged as a major concern
in the contemporary public sphere of the eastern Indian state of West Ben-
gal. My paper explores the role of the dominant pro-establishment Bengali
press2 in refecting opinion, shaping attitude and tenors of debate on issues
of displacement and resettlement in the region. I suggest that West Bengal’s
mainstream vernacular press dominated by bhadralok3 interests refected dif-
ference and created space for the ‘othering’ of minority groups. They fostered
various fault lines between sections of the local inhabitants of West Bengal,
the East Bengali Hindu refugees and Muslim minorities and revealed the
fractured nature of the contemporary Bengali public sphere itself.
The present exploration is confned to the discourses circulating in West
Bengal’s dominant nationalist and pro-establishment vernacular press.
I  utilise two leading Bengali dailies, Anandabazar Patrika and Jugantar,
which were the most infuential vernacular newspapers in West Bengal in
the early years after independence with the widest circulation. They had
an entrenched position in the Bengali public sphere in the initial years after
India’s independence and the territorial partitioning of Bengal in 1947.
Their deep involvement in refugee reporting and their framing of the prob-
lems of the partition and associated dislocation went a long way in shaping
local opinion on the subject. Around this time, refugee narratives also found
considerable space in the opposition and left leaning newspapers of West
Bengal. They are not the direct concern of the present analysis.4 Here, such
oppositional narratives only come up in relation to the mainstream debates
on refugee relief and rehabilitation to provide an understanding of its dis-
contents and erasures. The time frame for the study is the frst decade after
independence from 1947 till 1960 when migration from East Bengal to West
Bengal was still continuing, sometimes in a trickle, sometimes in a food and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003220008-9
154 Aditi Mukherjee
resettlement of the incoming population had not made any considerable
headway. This was the time when the impact of displacement on the nation
was widely debated.

Rising Hindu nationalist discourse and retreat of

minority voices
Contemporary concerns on issues of migration and refugee rehabilitation in
India’s eastern border state of West Bengal were largely voiced in connec-
tion with rising nationalist sentiments. The partition and ensuing displace-
ment were direct ofshoots of the ‘two nation theory’. In post-colonial West
Bengal discourses on nationalism and displacement fed into one another.
Migration in the eastern region was chiefy from East Pakistan to West Ben-
gal and adjoining areas and continued for a very long time.5 It tended to
increase whenever bilateral relations between India and Pakistan worsened.
While the governments of both countries engaged in bilateral diplomacy
to resolve the problem in the initial years, one section of India’s political
parties argued vociferously that Pakistan, India’s avowed ‘enemy and chief
competitor’ in the subcontinent, was conspiring against the entire Hindu
nation. They found wide coverage in the press.
Initially, there was evident reluctance in the government circles to rec-
ognise that there was a problem of serious magnitude in the eastern region
and West Bengal. The ofcial position was that migration was continu-
ing not from any pressing confict, but more due to ‘fear psychoses’. Nor-
malcy could return to the region once confdence of the minorities had been
restored.6 Government dilatory tactics regarding refugee rehabilitation gave
rise a growing popular perception that the central government of India was
treating West Bengal and its refugee problem in a ‘step motherly’ way. The
Indian National Congress (INC) which was India’s mainstream political
party, formed the government at the federal centre. The INC was also in
power in West Bengal. This opinion found strong exponents in the opposi-
tion parties on the Hindu right and was echoed in the local newspapers as
well. The Hindu Mahasabha and its right-wing allies drew attention to the
plight of the East Bengali Hindus and presented the continuing migration
in the east as a warlike emergency situation. Their propaganda was widely
circulated in West Bengal’s dominant vernacular press. This stand on the
refugee problem had a strong communal overtone. Demands were raised for
stern action against the enemy nation, Pakistan, in context of the so-called
warlike emergency. Such action could take the form of military expedition,
economic blockade or territorial claims from Pakistan.
The treatment meted out to the Hindu minorities living in East Pakistan
became a much discussed issue. Contemporary Calcutta-based newspapers
were full of references to the religious persecution of Hindus in East Bengal.
News ranged from murder of Hindu men, abduction and rape of women,
forcible occupation of Hindu houses by Muslims, taking away of cattle,
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 155
cow sacrifce, deflation of temples, economic boycott of Hindus, strong
arm methods used in elections to suppress Hindu voices, Muslim League
activities inciting Hindu hatred among the general Muslim population and
so on. The plight of the minorities on the other side of the border served
as a convenient ground for the preaching of a particular brand of militant
nationalism strongly propounded in the opinion pieces of Anandabazar and
Jugantar. Generally, the argument went that Pakistan has broken the con-
sensual arrangement of protecting the minorities within its borders after
partition. Eventually Pakistan has also violated the safeguards guaranteed
to the minorities in the two Inter Dominion Agreements of 1948 signed
between India and Pakistan. A  well-planned conspiracy was going on in
East Bengal to oust the Hindus. This has resulted in a huge refugee infux to
the eastern Indian states of West Bengal and Assam. Hence, it would not be
unreasonable to demand some land from East Bengal for rehabilitating the
millions of Hindu refugees. The government was advised from time to time
to seek more territory from Pakistan. Such demands came from the Mem-
bers of Parliament (MP) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the
Hindu Mahasabha, Congress and Independent candidates and frequently
hit news headlines. Territorial claims variously included the Pakistani parts
of Khulna, Jassore and Nadia districts or, more broadly, one-third of the
entire East Bengal.7 Nationalist aspirations are usually grounded on territo-
rial imagination. In Bengal, it remained in a fux and came to be expressed
in at least three diferent ways. This is taken up in more detail later in the
discussion.
An editorial in Swadhinata, the Bengali mouthpiece of the Communist
Party of India (CPI), criticised the war mongering attitude of India and Paki-
stan. It was pointed out that this war cry was very much necessary for the
government to suppress various socio-economic problems such as railway
strikes, growing mass discontent against cut in rations, refugee movement,
etc. (Swadhinata 1951). But such criticism were few and far between, and
fervent nationalistic posturing against Pakistan proved dominant in the
mainstream press.
Public discussions on the displaced Muslims and the larger Muslim minor-
ity inside West Bengal refected a communal mentality.8 The ofcial position
of encouraging migrants to return to their respective territories, as embod-
ied in the Inter Dominion Agreement of 1948, and the Nehru–Liaquat Pact
of 1950 was seen to be working against the interest of West Bengal. The
dominant opinion was that Pakistan was taking one-sided advantage of the
pacts. As a result, the migration of Hindu continued as before, but the Mus-
lims were also returning to West Bengal in large numbers. The most recur-
ring theme regarding Muslim minorities was that the government was going
out of its way to help in the resettlement of the returning Muslims. This
was hindering (Hindu) refugee rehabilitation. Such opinion would eventu-
ally give rise to the enduring discourses of ‘Muslim appeasement’ and ‘vote
bank politics’ in West Bengal.
156 Aditi Mukherjee
The avowed ofcial position on the treatment of the minorities stressed
the inclusive and secular character of the Indian constitution, as opposed to
the avowedly Islamist regime in Pakistan. This position of the government
comes out clearly in a statement made by the West Bengal state rehabilita-
tion minister Renuka Roy at the West Bengal state legislature

There is no question of discrimination between the Hindus and the

Muslims in this country  .  .  . But if the refugees come and squat eve-
rywhere, whether in a Muslim house or in a Hindu house, we have to
allow them to stay. But the frst priority for alternative accommodation
is given to those Hindus who are in Muslim houses, because of the hard-
ship that the displaced Muslims might feel. . . . [W]e are not imitators
of Pakistan, we are not a religious state, we are a secular state and the
Hindus and the Muslims have to be treated equally here.
(Das 2011: 46)

But the government faced staunch criticism on the Nehru-Laiquat Pact

and the alleged one-sided migration it generated. There were repeated
appeals for re-distribution of left behind Muslim evacuee property among
the incoming Hindu refugees. An article in Anandabazar Patrika9 refected
the opinion not merely of the Hindu right but of a large section of West
Bengal’s post-partition society

Muslims are also migrating from East Pakistan to West Bengal. The
Hindus are pouring in due to severe minority persecution in East Ben-
gal. But the Muslims are coming in order to beneft from the promises
of the Nehru Liaquat pact, and to reclaim their deserted property. This
is creating an unwanted situation in certain parts of West Bengal. The
Muslims are making unjust and exaggerated claims on property and
the state government is going out of its way to meet such demands.
The rehabilitation minister Renuka Roy has promised to vacate Muslim
property by shifting their present Hindu refugee occupants elsewhere,
and this is making rehabilitation more difcult. By moving the Hin-
dus from there, the government is making them refugees all over again.
Muslims are also coming back from West Pakistan. There may be secret
reasons for the return of Muslims, to which the Indian government
appears oblivious. The authorities are more concerned with helping
them. The government is spending more and more on rehabilitation,
but still failing to achieve much, because the government is constantly
expanding the scope of rehabilitation.
(Anandabazar Patrika 1954b)

This was an appeal for excluding the Muslims from the scope of govern-
ment rehabilitation benefts in West Bengal. This also included a hint that
welcoming returning Muslims from Pakistan may create a security threat
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 157
for the nation. Such propaganda went a long way in turning local Hindu
Bengali mentality against the Muslims.
Propaganda against Muslim infow was expressed through the narrative
of ‘economic migration’. From very early on the government had recoursed
to two narratives of migration, due to ‘psychological factor’ and ‘economic
factor’, in an attempt to reduce the number eligible for state help.10 Over
time, the narrative of ‘economic migration’ came to be more widely cir-
culated and ceased to be a mere government instrument for denying reha-
bilitation. This extract from the Anandabazar Patrika drew attention to the
economics of migration

Migration is continuing unabated, and increasing. The new migrants

have informed that there are still many Hindus in East Bengal who are
all prepared to migrate. With time they will also arrive. Political insecu-
rity has been a constant factor in East Bengal. And now the economic
condition has also deteriorated. There is scarcity of rice. Daily neces-
sities like oil, salt, clothe and spices are also scarce and have become
expensive. Unemployment is on the rise . . . there is no incentive for the
minorities to stay on.
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956d)

Such discourses served twofold purpose. On the one hand, it worked to

deny those displaced due economic instability the status of ‘genuine refu-
gees’ and entitlement to state help; on the other hand, the Pakistani state
was portrayed as incapable of providing for its own citizens, and its very
rationale was challenged. This discourse was more strongly invoked in case
of returning Muslims. Their return was highlighted as an evidence that Paki-
stan as a state was not functioning.11 The Muslims returnees, it was declared,
could have no reason for coming back other than economic well-being.
Eventually, the narrative of economic migration would also experience a
shift. While the government construct of ‘economic migration’ had included
both the Hindus and Muslims from East Bengal, this was to change from
around the late 1970s. The Udbastu/Sharanarthi (Hindu refugees) would be
separated out from the Muslim migrants, who would now be dubbed as the
Anuprabeshkari or infltrator (meaning the poor Muslim immigrants). The
narrative of Anuprabesh or ‘illegal infltration’ from Bangladesh would over
time come to be used as a political tool by right wing opposition in West
Bengal.12 This discourse would prove much more enduring in an intercon-
nected and globalising world with increasing population fows from less
developed to better developed areas and the reappearance of the statist bor-
der with a new vengeance.
West Bengal’s Muslim voices were much less reported and usually came
up indirectly in absence, in news of East Bengali Hindus occupying Mus-
lim houses whose inhabitants have fed, Hindu refugees taking possession
of Muslim lands whose proprietors have left, or as convicts in communal
158 Aditi Mukherjee
clashes, as Muslim returnees making ‘unfair’ claims to their left behind
properties and so on. In a report in Swadhinata, we fnd a rare articula-
tion of Muslim grievances. Referring to a conference held on January 1955,
under the Presidentship of the Central Rehabilitation Minister Meherchand
Khanna, they squarely blamed the authorities for utter neglect and pointed
out that the displaced Muslims were completely deprived of government
assistance

Following past trend in similar conferences, the chief purpose of the

Central Rehabilitation Minister was to discuss the problems of East
Bengali Hindu refugees, and avert the question the resettlement of
seven lakh displaced Muslims of West Bengal. The Communist Party
presented a ten-point memorandum which [unexpectedly] brought up
the uncomfortable question of Muslim rehabilitation. This created evi-
dent discomfort for the rehabilitation minister. Neither did we expect
the Communist Party to raise the issue. The rehabilitation minister had
to come up with a response. We think that rather than making a half-
hearted reply, he could have avoided the issue altogether, which any-
way, has been the trend set by his predecessors so far. Because what
he has said is utterly void and the common people of the state can see
through it.
The minister has stated that ‘arrangements have been made to reha-
bilitate those Muslims who have been displaced from their homes in
India, and also the ones who are returning from East Bengal.’ This
remark of the minster is so baseless that there is no point in trying
to criticise it. Will the minister kindly inform, who has arranged for
the rehabilitation of these Muslims and on what location? So far as
we know, no arrangements have been made for the displaced Muslims.
They are getting accustomed to surviving like animals.
(Swadhinata 1955)

Punarbasan or Nirbasan? Linguistic Nationalism, Territorial Claims and

Rehabilitation While one strand of the contemporary debates on refugee
rehabilitation fed into religious nationalism pitted against Pakistan, there
was another side to it. This echoed aspirations of linguistic and cultural
nationalism that came to be expressed against neighbouring states inside the
Indian union. Bengali nationalistic and territorial ambitions were spurred in
context of the ongoing countrywide state reorganisation since the late 1940s
in India13 and later on around the controversial Bengal Bihar merger pro-
posal. The related debates on these issues advanced by various groups drew
on the need of refugee rehabilitation for making their claims and implicated
discourses on rehabilitation as well.
From the late 1940s, the demand for a larger Bengali speaking state
had been at the forefront of provincial political agenda in West Bengal.14
This demand had the support of all major political players in West Bengal
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 159
including the Bengal Congress, the CPI and others. Since independence, this
territorial ambition was frequently voiced in terms of the urgent need for
refugee resettlement. Thus, the Bengal Provincial Congress President Atulya
Ghosh observed at a party meet in 1951 that ‘West Bengal is small in size
and cannot accommodate the entire incoming population . . . areas that are
not part of West Bengal but which are contiguous and adjacent to its border
need to be made part of the state. Santhal Parganas and a part of Purnia
should be included in West Bengal’s territory. We request the central govern-
ment to consider this’ (Basu 2013: 174).
The award of the State Reorganisation Commission (1955), however, dis-
appointed the provincial aspirations of the Bengalis and created a surge of
anti-government feeling. In this context, the authorities launched a scheme
for the unifcation of Bengal and Bihar, which again proved controversial.
It was feared that Bengalis would turn into a minority in the new state and
fall victim to Bihari domination. The vernacular press participated in a rag-
ing debate on the merger scheme, with Anandabazar Patrika and Jugantar
regularly publishing opinions for and against it. A look at the discussions
also reveals how the issue of refugee rehabilitation was intricately connected
to and came to be used for articulating Bengali nationalist claims often in
narrow and chauvinistic terms.
The government stand on unifcation as declared by the West Bengal
Chief Minister, Dr. Bidhan Roy, was that this could bring economic and
administrative stability to both the states, ameliorate the problem of unem-
ployment, release population pressure on West Bengal and resolve the prob-
lem of refugee rehabilitation (Anandabazar Patrika 1956e). To some, the
unifcation made economic sense. They pointed to the need of refugee reha-
bilitation, among others, while voicing their support for the government
proposal. It was hoped that the unifcation of the two states would make
available more land and resources at the hands of the state authorities with
which to facilitate rehabilitation. In a letter to the editor of the Anandabazar
Patrika, Kumarkrishna Bhattacharya from Santhal Pargana (who was edi-
tor of Bharati Sahitya Sangshad) thus opined

West Bengal does not have enough land where all the refugees could be
rehabilitated. It does not have sufcient work, where the refugees could
be employed. Some refugee families fnd it necessary to look for places
in areas outside Bengal and also in Bihar. But they receive cold treat-
ment from the local people in Bihar. This proposal to unite Bengal and
Bihar will make them content.
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956a)

Many others expressed their support of the Bengal–Bihar merger by invok-

ing the discourse of Bengali cultural superiority and aspirations of dissemi-
nating this culture far and wide. And, it were the refugees who could work
as the active agents of such Bengali cultural colonisation. As early as 1950,
160 Aditi Mukherjee
some among the INC were advocating the sending of refugees outside Ben-
gal with the overt purpose of spread of Bengali civilization. A well-known
Congress leader and one-time Cabinet Minister KC Niyogi observed

[R]efugees often refuse to go to places outside West Bengal on the pre-

text that it is physically distant from Bengal. This attitude is shameful.
We are proud of the fact that our forefathers have gone to distant places
all over south Asia and created colonies there. Today, at this moment
of crisis for the Bengali nation, I  hope the refugees will not show an
opposite tendency.
(Basu 2013: 120)

When the proposal of unifcation was launched, some of its proponents

took up a similar line of reasoning. Congress MLA, Anandilal Poddar’s15
advocacy for unifcation hinted at an identical role for the refugees in
spreading Bengali language and culture. His statement made in the West
Bengal state legislature also revealed how infated linguistic chauvinism
could become

[A]fter the partition the state of West Bengal has faced many problems.
Eforts of refugee rehabilitation outside West Bengal have not proved
successful. But if the unifcation of Bengal and Bihar could be achieved,
it would resolve the complicated problem of refugee rehabilitation and
eighteen lakh Bengalis who are living in Bihar may have the satisfaction
of living in their own Bengali state. He further said, that if unifcation
is achieved, the Hindi speaking people of the state will also learn Ben-
gali, and eventually six crore inhabitants of the new state will speak
in Bengali. If the people of East Bengal are also counted, around ten
crore people will speak Bengali. How can Bengali language and culture
be endangered by the unifcation? He added that provincial sentiments
can prove divisive in the long run. He expressed hope that Orissa and
Assam would also join West Bengal to create a larger Eastern province.
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956f)

But opposition to the merger far outweighed such support and they were
also articulated in terms of a plea for saving Bengali language, culture and
‘nation’. While a larger Bengal had been on demand with proposals for the
addition of some select territories (which retained a clear Bengali majority),
the unifcation with the whole of Bihar was seen to be calamitous. The left
parties who had been agitating for a long time against sending refugees
outside Bengal, now labelled the proposal of Bengal Bihar unifcation as the
other side of the same conspiracy, whereby the government was resolved
to deny aspirations of linguistic states and banish the refugees to faraway
places. Charu Chandra Roy of the East Bengal Relief Committee observed
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 161
at a public meeting in Calcutta ‘the meaning of sending the refugees outside
Bengal is that they will not remain Bengalis any more, lose Bengal’s edu-
cational and cultural heritage. The Congress has been promising linguistic
states since 1912 but has retracted from their pledge after coming to power.
The people should organise in protest once again, as they had done in 1905’
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956b).
For a while protests against sending the refugees outside West Bengal
coalesced with the anti-merger agitation and was widely discussed in news
editorials. It was lamented that Punarbasan (rehabilitation) was amounting
to bahirbasan (banishment)

If it is possible to rehabilitate the refugees within Bengali speaking areas,

why should they be sent outside? Rehabilitation should not amount
to banishment. This will hinder the well being of the entire Bengali
nation  .  .  . If paying heed to the demands of West Bengal, the State
Reorganisation Commission had included places like Goalpara, Purnia,
Manbhum, Dhalbhum etc inside West Bengal, this problem could have
been resolved more easily.
(Jugantar 1955a)

Opinion was expressed that sending the refugees outside the state, in terri-
tories completely disconnected from Bengali speaking areas, will disrupt the
‘unity and cohesion of the Bengalis as a nation’. A news-report in Jugantar
evoked the idea of the Chit Mahal, an anathema to nationalist territorial
imaginations, to express the plight of Bengali refugees whom the govern-
ment was planning to disperse over distant parts of India. Anxiety was
expressed that Bengali refugees settled in small pockets scattered over wide
areas and surrounded by seemingly hostile neighbours would lose their cul-
tural moorings and fall victim to ‘aggressive regionalism’ of other states.
The report went

[T]he idea of spreading the refugees over Hyderabad, Madras, Uttar

Pradesh and places which are far away from West Bengal is creating
doubt in the minds of many. The refugees sent to these areas would
be disconnected from Bengal. The way the central rehabilitation min-
istry is planning their resettlement, would be tantamount to creating
Bengal’s ‘Chit Mahal’ in diferent states. Aggressive Regionalism is on
the rise in many states of India, and it is doubtful how the interests of
these dispersed Bengalis could be maintained . . . the best way to reha-
bilitate the refugees would have been to settle them in West Bengal’s
three neighbouring states in areas that are close to West Bengal’s border.
The present rehabilitation policy may have in them the seeds for future
discontent.
(Jugantar 1955b)
162 Aditi Mukherjee
The anti-merger agitation kept alive public debates on rehabilitation inside/
outside West Bengal. A  perceived threat to Bengali culture strengthened
opinion against the proposed unifcation and also against sending Bengali
refugees to faraway places outside the state. This, however, did not mean
any real support for rehabilitation within West Bengal either. While there
was apprehension that Bengali migrants dispersed over diferent states could
lose their attachment and loyalty to Bengali culture and ‘nation’, most of
the news reports directly or indirectly hinted that refugee rehabilitation
needed more land than what was available in West Bengal in its present
territorial limits. The State Reorganisation Commission was blamed for not
taking Bengal’s post-partition predicament into consideration. What many
were advocating amounted to territorial contiguity and some cultural close-
ness for the sake of a larger Bengali nationalism, and not really rehabilita-
tion inside West Bengal. By the second half of the 1950s, mainstream press
opinion had turned against accommodating any more East Bengali refugees
inside the state. The call for resettlement inside the state, as voiced by refu-
gee organisations like the United Central Refugee Council (UCRC), Sara
Bangla Bastuhara Sammelan (SBBS), or a section of the refugees themselves
had few takers. Support for accommodating more migrants from East Ben-
gal were increasingly confned to the few left newspapers.
Press Erasures and Silences on Contestations over Resources and Land:
Over time, resettlement of the East Bengali refugees inside/outside West
Bengal emerged as the most contentious question. And, underlying this was
the vital question of availability of land in the state. The state authorities
and the refugee representatives took a diametrically opposite position on
the availability of land in the state, and the debate in the mainstream press
exemplifed a gradual shift against accommodation of the ever increasing
number of incoming refugee population within West Bengal.
From the early 1950s, one persistent government position was that the
population of West Bengal had reached saturation point and the resources
were nearing exhaustion. Among all resources, the availability of land
became a moot question. In case of the middle-class refugee squatters, the
organised land grab movement (jabardakhal andolan), the setting up of the
squatters’ colonies, their struggle against an Eviction Bill (1951),16 and sub-
sequent recognition of these ‘illegal’ settlements provided context for much
discussion. The movement brought forward the important question regard-
ing existing land laws. One demand was that the Article 31 of the Indian
constitution needed amendment for acquiring land at a ‘fair price’ and
not the current market price as provided for in the present law. Basumati
brought out a scathing indictment of the government’s inaction regarding
legalisation of the squatters’ colonies

The condition of the refugee colonies is . . . pitiable. In the face of public
outrage, the government had agreed to recognise 133 refugee colonies
in 1951.  .  . But nothing has been done so far .  .  . Renuka Roy has
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 163
declared that so long as the Article 31 on compensation is present in the
constitution, the state or the central government cannot do much . . .
After so long the government has started thinking about applying the
Land Planning and Development Act to acquire the necessary land. But
this act has a slow process of implementation . . . After four years of
dilly dallying, what a situation this is! Why did the government not
issue an Ordinance, if there was no suitable law for the legalisation of
the refugee colonies? Who will answer for this? The same government
has issued Ordinance to take away Citizen’s fundamental rights within
24 hours without hesitation . . . Why is it feigning helplessness regard-
ing this? Why did not the West Bengal government request the Union
government to issue the necessary Ordinance?  .  .  . from the way the
government is going about ‘solving’ the refugee problem, it could not
be resolved in all eternity.
(Dainik Basumati 1954)

While the land grabbing movement of the squatters brought on the wrath
of the powerful landowners, the middle-class refugees of the squatters’
colonies were resourceful. They managed to steer the bhadralok press
opinion in their favour. The anti-eviction bill agitation was widely covered
in the press and demands of the refugee squatters were largely supported
in news pieces.
It was another group of refugees from the lower classes and castes,
sheltered in the government camps who were more disadvantaged. They
had hardly any connection with or support from the bhadralok press.
By the mid-1950s, the state authorities assumed the position that no
more land was available in West Bengal and the camp refugees had to
be sent outside West Bengal for rehabilitation. The rehabilitation minis-
ter Renuka Roy declared in the West Bengal State Legislature that West
Bengal had fve lakh acres of cultivable waste land, out of which two
lakh acres had been redistributed among the refugees for rehabilitation.
The excess land that could be availed through the West Bengal Estate
Acquisition Act (1953) and the West Bengal Land Reform Act (1955)
would not be sufcient even for the peasants of the state. Hence, more
land could not be made available for the rehabilitation of the refugees
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956h).
The government position on scarcity of land was challenged repeatedly,
mostly from the left opposition and also the refugees themselves. The ear-
liest among such rebuttal came from Dr. Meghnad Saha, the renowned
scientist and President of the East Bengal Relief Committee. He gave a well-
formulated press statement, which condemned the policy of sending the ref-
ugees outside Bengal, and maintained that there were enough land available
in West Bengal, Tripura and Assam for refugee rehabilitation. He referred
to the land enumeration conducted in 1944–1945 (of cultivable and uncul-
tivable waste land, published under the Ishaque Report) which pointed to
164 Aditi Mukherjee
the availability of a considerable amount of cultivable waste land in Bengal.
Dr. Saha’s statement went

We do not know how much of these lands have since 1950 been brought
under cultivation either by the refugees or others. The West Bengal gov-
ernment owes it to the public to make this information available. Our
information is that most of the land mentioned in the Ishaque Report is
still available. . .
After the abolition of zamindari, zamindars have been compelled to
surrender land in excess of 100 bighas. The government has never pub-
licly declared how much land has been made available thereby and how
they will be redistributed.
 . . . We do consider it very undesirable to send any refugee to Bihar
and Orissa for the very simple reason that these two provinces are eco-
nomically rather backward . . . We are aware of the legal difculties in
the way of land acquisition. We therefore suggested to the late Sardar
Patel, in an interview in 1950 that available land should be acquired for
refugee rehabilitation on a defence basis. This was not accepted. The
government has now sufcient experience that under the existing laws
land acquisition for public purpose is an extremely slow afair and has
therefore taken steps to amend Section 31 of the Constitution . . . But
the amendment has so far remained a dead letter . . . from our analysis
it would be very obvious to everybody that the state ministers of refugee
rehabilitation in West Bengal and Assam are . . . trying the impossible
task of keeping their surplus land in iron chests
(Amrita Bazar Patrika 1955).

Dr. Saha’s statement, given in 1955, of course was reported in all the state
newspapers. Two important points on the land question raised by him were
(i) the necessity of reclamation and redistribution of cultivable waste land
and (ii) redistribution of ceiling surplus land. It was alleged that the govern-
ment was keeping back vital information regarding how much land had
been recovered either by reclamation processes or through zamindari aboli-
tion and was available for redistribution. More important was its stand on
the existing land laws, and the opinion that in face of a land crisis, they
required amendment. This line of thought increasingly found less favour
and less space in the mainstream vernacular press.
Refugee organisations came up with their own estimates on the availabil-
ity of land in West Bengal and foated their own schemes as counterpoints
to the government plan of sending the East Bengali Hindus outside West
Bengal. An alternate rehabilitation plan brought by the UCRC was a case
in point.17 The ofcialdom, however, did not take up the proposals for any
serious appraisal. And the alternate schemes also failed to muster support
from the press. Bengal’s bhadralok press did not question the government
statistics on available land in the state. It did not dwell much either on the
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 165
possibilities of waste land reclamation or on redistribution of ceiling surplus
land. It toed the government line regarding unavailability of land in West
Bengal and stoked anti Pakistan sentiments and religious nationalism

[I]t is clear that West Bengal does not even have sufcient land for the
people of the state, leave alone those who are migrating. The size of the
state has been reduced due to partition. It has become a narrow strip
of land. It can only aford to shoulder a part of this mammoth respon-
sibility . . . Keeping this in mind the central government has called on
some neighbouring states to share the responsibility of rehabilitation.
It is false hope that migration will stop. It won’t, till the last Hindu has
migrated. And it seems that even if the other states of India share the
responsibility of rehabilitation  .  .  . how heartily they will be open to
doubt . . . the problem will still not be solved. The Pakistan government
has clearly violated the terms of the Nehru Liaquat Pact and in this situ-
ation, it does not make sense for the Indian government to abide by the
treaty . . . the Indian government needs to think diferently. The issue
of rehabilitation has now assumed dimensions of a national problem.
Sardar Patel had claimed that lands from East Bengal be given to India
for rehabilitation. In the present situation, such demand to the Pakistan
government seems all the more reasonable.
(Anandabazar Patrika 1956i)

The Dandakaranya proposal launched around 195718 and the satyagraha of

the camp refugees (1958) against the attempt to send them outside Bengal
for rehabilitation19 again highlighted the importance of the land question.
The government attempt to close down the camps and stop doles created
intense agitation of the camp refugees on the streets of Calcutta. But the
press response hardly refected their mood. A dominant section of the Ben-
gali press viewed the Dandakaranya proposal in a favourable light. This
is not to suggest that the scheme went without criticism. There were fre-
quent news reports advising the authorities to take adequate preparations
(in terms of infrastructures and basic amenities) before sending the refugees
to the sites of rehabilitation. There was also an appeal to quicken the pace
of the project so that meaningful rehabilitation could be achieved within a
reasonable time. But the ofcial stand that no more land was available in the
state was not disputed in the press. Government failure on land reclamation
which could facilitate rehabilitation and help in the overall development of
the state were not pursued or criticized in any meaningful way. For exam-
ple, the government experiment with arid land reclamation at Salanpur in
Bardhaman, hardly made any news.20 Alternate proposals from the refugees
like the UCRC proposal for resettlement within the state were not taken up
for any serious discussions in news editorials. It is revealing that while the
Dandakaranya proposal received all the limelight, the UCRC alternate pro-
posal prepared with considerable research, failed to generate any interest,
166 Aditi Mukherjee
either positive or negative in either Anandabazar Patrika or Jugantar. The
UCRC and the SBBS led camp satyagraha of March–April 195821 was criti-
cised by the mainstream press for being politically motivated and not con-
ducive to any solution (Jugantar 1958a, 1958b). Refugee militancy came to
be presented as a law and order problem and condemned.
Land policies of the state government including acquisition, reclama-
tion and re-distribution fell short of the promise and adversely impacted
refugee resettlement. There was a total failure to integrate rehabilitation
within the overall development of the entire state. It was declared time and
again in the ofcial circles that whatever land was available was required
for distribution among the local peasants and could not be made available
for the refugees. The authorities failed to envisage an integrated scheme
which could provide for the refugees and the local landless together. While
the refugee organisations and their left leaders criticised this abysmal fail-
ure, it had no support in the mainstream press. Demand for rehabilitation
inside West Bengal had few takers in the state, and a large majority of the
public opinion was geared in support of the government position to send
the refugees outside the state.
Conclusion: The mainstream of West Bengal’s public sphere was domi-
nated by the local Bengali Hindu bhadralok for whom the province had
been carved out after partition and who were hegemonic in the state’s politi-
cal, economic and social spheres. A  major part of the public discussions
relating to the problem of unprecedented refugee infux and their resettle-
ment came up in the manner as it afected this infuential section of the local
inhabitants. The dominant Bengali press framed and debated the issues of
displacement and rehabilitation within a nationalist and developmentalist
paradigm. East Bengali refugee rehabilitation came to be pitted against two
distinct ‘others’. One was the state’s religious minorities, who became an
easy victim of media ‘othering’. The displaced Muslims’ share in rehabilita-
tion beneft was denied on the ground that they were ‘brothers in faith’ of
the enemy nation Pakistan and posed a security threat. Response by local
Muslims to such exclusion, as we have seen, very rarely made it to the pages
of the infuential Bengali dailies. There also emerged a kind of linguistic and
cultural ‘othering’ of the inhabitants of some neighbouring states, and some-
time this was invoked in connection with sending the camp refugees outside
West Bengal. While the press vented nationalist aspirations, both religious
and linguistic/cultural, against these two groups, from the late 1950s, it
chose to remain silent on the government failure on development and refu-
gee rehabilitation. Over time, the press came in support of the government
position that the state had no more resources, nor land for accommodating
more refugees. The lack of available physical space and resources in West
Bengal was lamented. The problematic question of redistribution of land
and resources repeatedly voiced by diferent refugee groups was not taken
up for any serious discussion and debate by the Bengali pro-establishment
press. West Bengal’s mainstream vernacular press actively participated in
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 167
communal and sectarian discourses and marginalized the voices of the dis-
advantaged groups covering a large section of the society.

Notes
1 I would like to thank my research assistant Mr. Chandan Poddar, who has helped
me with collection of relevant newspaper reports referred to in the paper.
2 Media around this time was dominated by print in West Bengal.
3 The Bengali term bhadralok literally means the genteel and educated people. It
does not have any direct class, caste or religious connotation. But since colonial
times the meaning of the term has evolved in a manner so as to overwhelmingly
imply the higher class and caste of the educated Bengali Hindus. They have
created a conscious self-image of being the bearer of values of modernity and
social reform, and claimed to be the legitimate heirs to the traditions of the Ben-
gal renaissance (Chatterji 1994; Feldman 2003; Sanyal 2012). Historically the
Bengali bhadralok had a signifcant role in the development of the vernacular
press in Bengal (and such activity, among others were simultaneously crystal-
lizing their identity as the bhadralok) which grew since the early 19th century.
It’s development was an integral part of the socio-cultural reform movement in
Bengal, known as the Bengal renaissance. This group of educated Bengalis (who
were not homogenous by any account) took an active part in the shaping and
running of the press and also faced the wrath of the British colonial authori-
ties time and again for their critical writings. The vernacular press in Bengal
developed a dynamic and critical tradition from early on, and was eventually
to play an important part in the anti-colonial freedom movement. The main-
stream nationalist Bengali press had a very infuential position in post-colonial
West Bengal. While the composition of the bradralok and their press underwent
signifcant shifts and splits over the historical trajectory of its development, they
still retained an identifable bhadralok character.
4 Columns of newspapers like Swadhinata, (the Bengali mouthpiece of the Com-
munist Party of India), Lok Sevak (the Bengali mouthpiece of the Praja Socialist
Party) etc. were regularly used by the left dominated refugee organisations for
publishing their own propaganda relating to the refugee movement. Of all the
refugee groups, the middle-class refugee squatters who were the most organised
and articulate, again dominated such narrative spaces.
5 The continuing migration in the east was in stark contrast with the partition
experience of Punjab, where communal tensions assumed genocidal proportions
and migration proved a one time afair. The speedy rehabilitation of the Punjabi
refugees was facilitated with full government assistance. In the eastern region the
authorities took a reluctant attitude in providing rehabilitation assistance to the
migrants (Chakrabarti 1999; Chatterji 2001).
6 In the immediate aftermath of the partition of 1947, the authorities were reluc-
tant to recognise the seriousness of the communal confict and ensuing displace-
ment in Bengal. The government attempted to tide over the problem through
bilateral diplomacy which resulted in the Inter Dominion Agreement of 1948
and later the Nehru-Liaquat Pact of 1950. Only piecemeal relief was ofered to
the refugees in the hope that they would return once normalcy was restored. The
government attitude at the time comes out clearly from the remark of the West
Bengal Chief Minister, Dr. Bidhan Roy: “the relief camps should be wrapped
up as soon as possible . . . the refugees who have migrated can be encouraged
to return back to their homes in East Bengal. . . . More than ten million peo-
ple are connected to the situation. If all of them migrate, that will create an
intractable problem.” Quoted from Arpita Basu’s compilation of news reports
168 Aditi Mukherjee
from contemporary Bengali newspapers on refugee rehabilitation in West Bengal
(Basu 2013: 44). This and all the subsequent news items referred to from Basu’s
compilation have been translated from Bengali by me.
7 These demands were variously raised mostly by the members of the Hindu
Mahasabha, who also supported a wholesale exchange of population in the east
following the example of Punjab. Sometimes demands for territory also came
from within the Congress. Thus, in a debate in the Rajya Sabha, Uttar Pradesh
Congress MP, Sri Jashpathray Kapur demanded land from East Pakistan for the
Hindu migrants, while Satyapriya Banerjee (Forward Bloc) responded by saying
that more than four lakh acres of land were available in West Bengal itself where
the refugees could be rehabilitated (Anandabazar Patrika 1956c). In another
instance in a debate in the West Bengal Bidhan sabha, Rakhahari Chatterjee
of the Hindu Mahasabha raised the demand for land from East Pakistan. An
Independent MLA, Haripada Chatterjee argued that according to a government
appointed fact fnding committee’s report, Dr. Bidhan Roy’s scheme of settling
the refugees in Bihar and Orissa could not succeed and it was time to demand
land from East Bengal (Anandabazar Patrika 1956g). Tarapada Banerjee, MP
also raised a similar demand in the Lok Sabha (Anandabazar Patrika 1956h).
8 Bengali society and politics experienced intense communal mobilisation from
the 1930s. Such propaganda was spearheaded by the dominant political players
in the state, namely the Bengal Muslim League, the Bengal Provincial Congress,
the Bengal Provincial Hindu Mahasabha and others. The entrenched Muslim
hatred in post partition West Bengal can be largely explained by this historical
process (Chatterji 1994; Das 1993). The incoming Hindu refugees with fresh
experience of communal persecution in East Pakistan only added to the prevail-
ing anti-Muslim feelings. And the machinery of the vernacular press in the state
also worked to feed into such anti-Muslim polarisation.
9 All translation of Bengali news reports from Anandabazar Patrika, Jugantar,
Swadhinata and other Bengali newspapers, referred to in the present paper
are mine.
10 The government used various strategies like narrow defnition of the term refu-
gee, and of the event of partition itself, imposition of abrupt cutof dates, difer-
entiation between refugees and economic migrants, hindrances to free movement
at the border, all aimed at decreasing the number eligible for state help (Chatterji
2001).
11 The Pakistani government strongly disputed the thesis of economic migration
and came up with its own counter narratives. Initially it had echoed Nehru’s view
that there was no lack of security or economic discrimination against the Hindus
in East Bengal, and it was chiefy ‘psychological factors’ that contributed to the
migration. But the narrative of economic migration was contested. Sometimes
the opinion was given out in East Pakistan’s press that the lure of rehabilitation
benefts was providing incentive for the East Bengali Hindus to migrate. One
story doing the rounds in Dhaka-based newspapers was that the BC Roy gov-
ernment in West Bengal had an eye for some adjacent areas of the neighbouring
state of Bihar. The state needed a larger population to strengthen this claim and
hence the West Bengal government was encouraging migration from East Bengal.
According to the report, organisations like the Pakistan National Congress were
spreading news of rehabilitation benefts among the Hindus in East Pakistan and
working to facilitate this exodus. They were earning money from the Hindu refu-
gees, who were contributing a share of what they hoped to receive as rehabilita-
tion assistance upon reaching West Bengal (Anandabazar Patrika 1955a).
12 From the 1980s the West Bengal unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) adopted
the agenda of fghting Muslim infltration in West Bengal in a political language
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 169
reminiscent of the Hindu Mahasabha. The term ‘infltrator’ gained currency
with all its threatening connotations (Chakrabarty 2003: 83–87).
13 Linguistic autonomy had been a long-standing demand in colonial India. The
post-independence period saw intense agitation in diferent parts of the country
for reorganisation of the Indian states on a linguistic basis. As early as 1917, the
Indian National Congress had committed itself to the creation of linguistic prov-
inces in free India. But by 1947, when the subcontinent had just been divided
on the basis of religion, the idea of reorganising the country on the basis of lin-
guistic provinces appeared divisive to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
He declared in the Constituent Assembly, the ‘country now faced a very critical
situation resulting from partition’. Now ‘disruptive tendencies have come to the
fore’; to check them, one had to underline ‘the security and stability of India’.
Nehru’s reluctance to superimpose divisions of language on the recent division
by religion had the support of both Vallabhbhai Patel and C. Rajagopalachari.
But they had to bow down before the growing agitation in favour of linguistic
states in the country. A States Reorganisation Commission was appointed for the
purpose and the Commission made its award in 1955 (Guha 2007: 180–182).
14 Sarat Bose, an eminent Bengali politician (frst of Congress and later of the For-
ward Bloc), had insisted that some Bengali speaking tracts of Bihar and Orissa,
in particular Manbhum, Dhalbhum, parts of Purnea and the Santhal Parganas
be transferred to Bengal (Chatterji 2007: 304–305).
15 Anandilal Poddar himself was a Marwari and his espousal of Bengali cause was
perhaps an attempt to whet existing Bengali chauvinistic sentiments.
16 The bill was called the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons and Eviction of Per-
sons in Unauthorised Occupation of Land Act 1951. It was meant to evict refu-
gees in unauthorized occupation land. Refugee organisations like the UCRC and
the RCRC launched an intense agitation frst against the passage of the act and
later on for stalling its implementation, and in 1954, the decision was fnally
taken to regularize some of the squatters’ colonies which was a signifcant vic-
tory for the squatters’ movement.
17 The most thorough among the proposals for settling the refugees inside West
Bengal came from the UCRC in August 1958. Their ‘Alternate Proposal for the
Rehabilitation of Refugees’ was the result of serious research by some renowned
statisticians and academicians. This was a comprehensive plan for the rehabili-
tation of refugees through the economic regeneration of the whole state. The
surplus land recovered through the scheme were to be used for the settlement not
only of the refugees, but also a large section of the landless in the state (Chakra-
barti 1999: 193).
18 The Dandakaranya project was the largest government initiated rehabilitation
scheme outside West Bengal. The project area included an arid low lying plateau
region which was curved out of parts of Orissa, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
It was primarily meant to rehabilitate namasudra agriculturist camp refugees.
Dandakaranya was presented as a virgin territory to be brought under civiliza-
tion by the East Bengali cultivators. It was seen unfavourably by the refugees
from the beginning. And the scheme failed abysmally due to manifold reasons
including adverse climactic conditions, low soil quality, hostility of the local trib-
als and utmost ofcial mismanagement. There were large scale desertions from
the sites of rehabilitation.
19 The camp refugees throughout West Bengal numbered around 2.6 lakhs or about
35000 families (Chakrabarti 1999: 194).
20 The government attempted one such land reclamation project at Salanpur in
Bardhaman zila of West Bengal, where the camp refugees were engaged in rec-
lamation work. The contemporary commissioner and secretary of the Refugee
170 Aditi Mukherjee
Relief and Rehabilitation department of West Bengal, Hiranmoy Bandyopadhyay
recalled in his memoir, that success of this scheme was crucial for progress of
rehabilitation work in West Bengal and a lot of hope had been placed on it (Ban-
dyopadhyay 1970: 205–210). The project however, failed and there was hardly
any discussion in the press on the reasons of failure, or alternate possibilities.
21 The UCRC and the SBBS led intense agitation against forceful sending away of
the camp refugees to Dandakaranya and closing down of the government camps,
and stoppage of doles. Between December  1957 and March  1958 the UCRC
held as many as 174 demonstrations (Chakrabarti 1999: 182). The protests cul-
minated in what came to be called the camp satyagraha of March-April 1958.
The UCRC and the SBBS led their own separate satyagrahas on the same issue.
This was in a sense the most important refugee movement after the anti-Eviction
Bill agitations (Ibid: 178).

References
Amrita Bazar Patrika. 1955. ‘The Refugees Must Not be Sent Outside West Ben-
gal: Meghnad Saha Criticises Government Rehabilitation Policy,’ Amrita Bazar
Patrika, Calcutta, 8 October.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1954b. ‘What Prevents Rehabilitation,’ Anandabazar Patrika,
Calcutta, 3 March.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1955a. ‘The Reason for Huge Infux from East Bengal: Fan-
tastic Observation by Dhaka’s Morning News,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta,
24 March.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956a. ‘Issue of Bengal-Bihar Unifcation,’ Anandabazar
Patrika, Calcutta, 1 February.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956b. ‘Government Policy on Refugee Rehabilitation: Criti-
cism in Jadavpur Janasabha,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 8 February.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956c. ‘The State of Refugees Migrating from East Pakistan:
Proposal to Create an Investigation Committee,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta,
25 February.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956e. ‘Would Not Bring Any Proposal That Could Be Harm-
ful for West Bengal’: Announces Dr. Bidhan Roy: Unifcation Could Resolve West
Bengal’s Refugee and Unemployment Problems,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta,
29 February.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956f. ‘Budget Discussion in West Bengal State Assembly:
Staunch Criticism of the Refugee Rehabilitation Department,’ Anandabazar
Patrika, Calcutta, 2 March.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956g. ‘Discussion of Rehabilitation Budget in West Bengal
Bidhan Sabha,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 13 March.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956h. ‘Nine Crore Sanctioned for Rehabilitation in West
Bengal,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 14 March.
Anandabazar Patrika. 1956i. ‘National Problems,’ Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta,
15 March.
Bandyopadhyay, H. 1970. Udbastu. Calcutta: Deep Prakashan.
Basu, A. (ed.). 2013. Udvāstu Andolon O Punarbasati: Samasāmaẏik Patra-Patrikāẏ.
Kolkata: Gangchil.
Chakrabarti, P. 1999. The Marginal Men: The Refugees and the Left Political Syn-
drome in West Bengal. Calcutta: Naya Udyog.
 Displacement, rehabilitation and vernacular press discourse 171
Chakrabarty, B. 2003. ‘Living with the Partition: Collective Memory and the Politics
of Illegal Migration in Eastern India’, in B. Chakrabarty (ed.), Exploring Regional
Security, South and Central Asia, pp. 67–95. Kolkata: K.P. Bagchi & Co.
Chatterji, J. 1994. Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chatterji, J. 2001. ‘Right or Charity? The Debate Over Relief and Rehabilitation in
West Bengal, 1947–50’, in S. Kaul (ed.), The Partitions of Memory: The Afterlife
of the Division of India, pp. 74–110. Delhi and Bangalore: Permanent Black.
Chatterji, J. 2007. The Spoils of Partition: Bengal and India, 1947–1967. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dainik Basumati. 1954. ‘Excuse for Inaction,’ Dainik Basumati, Calcutta, 3 July.
Das, S.K. 1993. Communal Riots in Bengal 1905–1947. Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Das, S.K. 2011. “Wrestling with My Shadow’: The State and the Immigrant Mus-
lims in Contemporary West Bengal’, in A. Dasgupta, M. Togawa, and A. Barkat
(eds.), Minorities and the State: Changing Social and Political Landscape of Ben-
gal, pp. 39–65. New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, CA; Tokyo: SAGE.
Feldman, S. 2003. ‘Bengali State and Nation Making: Partition and Displacement
Revisited’, ISJJ, 175: 111–121.
Guha, R. 2007. India after Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy.
London: Macmillan.
Jugantar. 1955a. ‘Refugees in Banishment,’ Jugantar, Calcutta, 23 November.
Jugantar. 1955b. ‘Title Unknow,’ Jugantar, Calcutta, 9 December.
Jugantar. 1958a. ‘The Problem of Rehabilitation,’ Jugantar, Calcutta, 5 April.
Jugantar. 1958b. ‘Nepathyo Darshan,’ Jugantar, Calcutta, 14 April.
Sanyal, R. 2012. ‘Displaced Borders: Shifting Politics of Squatting in Calcutta’, in
R. Desai and R. Sanyal (eds.), Urbanizing Citizenship: Contested Spaces in Indian
Cities, pp. 212–228. New Delhi: Sage.
Swadhinata. 1951. Title Unknown, Swadhinata, Calcutta, 19 July.
Swadhinata. 1955. ‘Government Rehabilitation and the Minorities,’ Swadhinata,
Calcutta, 1 January.