Namasudra

Namasudra is an Indian community originating from certain regions of Bengal, India.

Etymology

There is a dearth of discussion as to the etymology of the word namasudra in pre-nineteenth-century Bengali literature and its period of origin is also undetermined. Several theories have been suggested but there is no broad consensus supporting any of them.[1]

Sekhar Banerjee agrees with a Namasudra commentator that namasudra probably means "best among the Sudras, who were paid obeisance to".[1]

Origins

The community was earlier known as Chandala or Chandal,[2][3] a term that was atypically used by the Bhadralok community (Brahmins, Baidyas and Kayasthas) and Muslims.[4]

They were considered as untouchables among the Hindu community[5] and were traditionally engaged in fishing and as boatmen,[6] in the marshy swamps of their native lands. Over the years, as marshes and swamps were reclaimed for agricultural purposes, they embraced peasant agriculture as a major occupation.[7]

The economic condition was quite poor and rates of indebtedness was quite high.[8]

Colonial ethnography

Colonial ethnographers Herbert Hope Risley and James Wise considered these Chandals to have descended from an ancient tribe of the same name, who supposedly embraced Hinduism over the course of time and formed a distinct caste.[9]

That there has been a general consensus among historians that in the post-Vedic-age, (when the caste system consolidated itself), the historical tribe of Chandals (who till then were not a part of the Aryan society) was pushed to the bottom of the social pyramid and suffered immense deterioration in social conditions including being subject to severe un-touch-ability restrictions successfully corelated certain social similarities with the current Namasudra-Chandals.[10]

But parts of their detailed observations were dubious, esp. in light of the now-discredited theory of martial races and that enough dissimilarities between the two have been noted.[11]

The main habitat of the Namasudra-Chandals in Eastern Bengal were largely outside the core region of Brahmanical civilization. Also, neither did the most conservative of regional texts refer to them as untouchables nor was untouchability any rigidly practiced in Bengal outside societal norms, in day-to-day life. [12]Furthermore, they did not occupy the extreme lowest tier of the society unlike the historical-tribe and their social status varied widely from region to region, esp. in respect of their material-wealth.[13]

Overall, it was an impossible task to successfully establish any links between these Chandal(s) and that of the historical Chandal tribe.[14]

There were actually about twelve endogamous sub-castes of the Namasudra-Chandal community, most of whom were derived from the occupational traits of the members and was entitled to differential social-status.[15]But the colonial ethnographers choose to coalesce several such low-ranking occupational sub-castes into one caste, without taking the regional variations into account and assigned a fixed social rank to of all Namasudra-Chandals, (something which Bernard Cohn later described as the 'objectification' of colonial culture) and falsely stereotyped the entire community as a universally despised lot.[16]

Overall, the term Chandal was a generic term that was initially used to refer to broad swaths of people belonging to diverse endogamous groups of similarly-despised social position[17] but which later transformed into a caste name and was soon synomously used with the Namsudras.[18]

Other views

Niharranjan Ray, a historian, believed that they have a closer relation with north Indian Brahmins, saying "they are of the same line as the Brahmans of north India; indeed there is a closer relation between the north Indian Brahmans and the Bengali Namahsudras than between the north Indian Brahmans and the Bengali Brahmans, Kayasthas and Vaidyas."[19]

Identity movement

Transition to Namasudras

The creation of a single '' caste-cluster '' led to the beginning of the Namasudra Movement. It emphasised the commonality of low social status and that of being subject to oppression, among all the sub-castes and impressed upon them to stand up to the social  authority of the high caste bhadraloks, a perceived common enemy, who were largely responsible for their poor conditions.[20]

In the very-initial stages, the elimination of differences across various sub-castes and the creation of lateral solidarity was one of the primary goals of the movement.[20] Gradually, by the late nineteenth century, they came to constitute an organised middle peasantry community, with definite leaders and goals.

In the 1870s, '' Chandals of Bakarganj and Faridpur boycotted caste Hindus, as a form of social-protest, '' when they refused to accept an invitation to dine from a Chandal headman.[21][22] Joya Chatterjee mentions that henceforth they "battled continuously to improve their ritual position" in the society and later claimed the "more respectable title of 'Namasudra' and Brahmin status".[22]

And, it was within this context, that they underwent a transition from the Chandala to Namasudra identity. In 1891, the term Namasudras was mentioned in the official census as a synonym for the Chandala(s) and by 1900, it had assumed immense social recognition, as people of the community clung to the new identity and tried to distance themselves from the imagery of the Chandal(s).[23]

Sanskritisation

These movements that sought for the assertion of Dalit identities, originated in the 1870s[24] and helped them seek upward mobility by infusing a sense of self-respect amidst the community.[25] They demanded elevated social status including a right of entry to kayastha-organised pujas and two-third share of the crop-produce.[26] Gradually, they started refusing to work for lower-caste Hindu and Muslim landlords and even boycotted the upper caste Hindus.[3]

Overall, Sekhar Banerjee noted a distinct theme of sanskritisation in the dynamics of the caste.[26]

In between, the Matua sect, which was established by Harichand Thakur in the late nineteenth century among the community in the eastern India (and later organised by his son),[24] challenged the very idea of hierarchy in the local society along with other Hindu religio-cultural aspects and choose to entirely subvert it but failed.[27] Whilst the sect did play an important role in organizing and proliferating the social-protests,[24] the broader community soon returned to the theme of sanskritisation, whilst still ascribing to the other ideals of the sect.[27]

Freedom Movement

In colonial Bengal, the Namasudras constituted the second largest Hindu caste.[28]

Beginning the Swadeshi period (1905–11), the alienation of the Namasudras from nationalist politics was near-evident as they failed to identify themselves with the fight against the British Raj on issues that hardly bothered them.[29] That the Swadeshi movement was heralded by the politicians from the high-caste bhadralok community, who hardly cared for the lower classes, further broadened the gaps.[30]

In July,1905, the British government validated a proposal of partitioning Bengal, along religious lines.Whilst the Congress launched active protests against the proposal and asked for a total boycott of foreign goods, the Namasudras failed to be impressed.[31]A serious of resolutions by an assemblage of community-leaders and multiple submissions to British authorities, through the course of 1906, affirmed complete support for the partition-scheme hoping to beget equal rights in the to-be-formed eastern state where they along with the Muslims dominated the populace.[32]

It was here that the bhadralok politicians of Bengal faced the first resistance[32] from a community that was so-far insignificant as to the broader polity of the nation.[31]

Soon enough, Swadeshi leaders toured extensively across the community-belts and persuaded the Namasudras to join the agitation, failing which they were made subject to varied forms of bribery, intimidation and coercion which ranged from constructing schools in lieu of their participation to physical violence.But, the community-leaders including Guruchand were steadfast against supporting a political movement that supposedly catered to the interests of the upper class and had no plan of social-reform.

The colonial government often provided extensive economic patronage and took steps in reforming their social condition by constructing educational hostels, exclusive-schools et al. which penetrated deep down the community.This was in contrary to the nationalists who were too apathetic to these causes and seldom helped them, in their times of distress.[33][34]

The Namasudras thus rejected the nationalist politics and instead, along with other untouchable castes continued their independent social movement that increasingly self-asserted their independence from the upper castes and threatened to distort the Hindu-societal-structure.Subsequently, the nationalists sought to align themselves, at-least orally, with the cause of depressed classes.[35]

Post-arrival of Gandhiji in the political landscape, as nationalist politics choose to encompass the entire populace of the nation and gradually transcended into mass-movements, parties started extensive lobbying for the causes of the Namasudra.[36]

This was first visible in 1913, as to the setting up a hostel for the students from Namasudra community in Kolkata, who faced immense hardship in securing lodging facilities.[37]Ironically, whilst it was the extensive nationalist lobbying throughout the years that persuaded the colonial government to implement the proposal in 1918, the colonial government took advantage of the ignorance of the general masses as to the proceedings that happened behind the door and usurped an image of benevolence.This further drifted the community away from nationalist causes.[38]

The same events happened in another case, when the Depressed Classes Mission, (which worked for nationalist causes) and ran about 60 schools in different parts of Bengal, for the Namasudra community and other backward classes was gradually inculcated as an agency of the colonial government, after it applied for a government grant to overcome fund shortage. The Namasudra community was unaware of these institutional developments and all the good work that was done by the Mission, was attributed to the colonial government.[39]

The Namsudras maintained a more aggressive anti-nationalist stance during the Home-rule Movement.They saw the movement as a plan, hatched among the upper-caste leaders, to snatch the minimal levels of power that has been assigned to them by the colonial government and claimed the Congress leaders to be a small band of vociferous people from organised castes, without any touch to reality.[40]

At a meeting of chosen Namasudra delegates, (who were supposedly elected, in a democratic manner, from different regions of Bengal and thus represented the entire Namasudra community), a resolution was passed which decided that the community will be loyal to the crown and that it supported Montague-Chelmsford reforms, in the very sense of the fact that, further distribution of powers will re-concentrate power in a few hands and will not lead to any progress of the backward castes.[41]

The nationalist folks promised the establishment of equality, democracy and reforms in the new home-ruled-state but they failed to instill any confidence amidst the community.[42]

In the 1917 session of Congress, which was held at Calcutta, a resolution was passed that emphasized  '' the necessity, justice and righteousness of removing all disabilities imposed by custom on the Depressed Classes '' and they managed to convince one Namasudra delegate to support the demand of Home-Rule. from their stages. But, that hardly bore any result, as the community was thoroughly unconvinced of mere symbolic actions and the Namasudra delegate was subsequently criticized as a Congress-stooge.[43]

Even, in the 1920s when mass-nationalism affected the entire country and Gandhi extensively campaigned for the removal of untouchability etc. to include the lower strata of the society in the fold of the Congress,[44] Namasudra-dominated districts were majorly unaffected, as the social leaders of the movement steadfastly rejected whiffs of nationalism and believed the movement to be another tool, in the interests of wealthy upper caste Bhadraloks.[45] Resolutions were again passed that supported the British confederacy[46] and in some places the Namasudras actively helped the colonial government to foil the struggle.[47]

The colonial government further satisfied the community, as it introduced reservation(s) for the lower-classes in provincial services, thus providing employment opportunities and vouched for a proper representation of them.[48]The  GOI Act of 1919 provided for the inclusion of a depressed classes representative among the nominated non-official members of the Bengal Legislative Council.[49]In the meanwhile, Congress did hardly invest any ground efforts, other than at verbal lobbying and behind-the-scenes work[50] and much of their work were horribly ill-timed.In the Khulna famine of 1920, whilst the colonial government sought to mobilize relief, the Congress went on to continue the Non-cooperation at full zeal and was blamed for increasing the fatalities.

The Bengal Namasudra Conference in 1922 and 1923 further heightened the anti-nationalist stance and planned a definite agenda that encompassed both social and political upliftment of the community.Whilst, Gandhi attracted some admirers due to his social stances, his views offered no political aspirations for the leaders, which were an easy way to status and wealth.There was a considerable majority in the first conference that supported the nationalist causes including widow-remarriage and boycott of foreign goods, managing to bring the proceedings to a halt but had trickled down to a negligible minority, in the second.[51]

But, as the elections took place in 1923, the Namasudra leadership was found to be much less efficient as to mobilizing the average voters to partake in modern-day-politics. Subsequently, they lost all the seats, even in the electorates where the Namasudras heavily dominated the numbers.This was also attributed to the developments of fissures in the movement, that was extremely united thus far, when two famed Namasudra leaders switched loyalties to the Swaraj Party and a division began to form along nationalist lines.[52]

The steadfast attitude towards nationalism, throughout the years, that owed more to the need of a voice of protest against the oppressive higher castes than to the benefits provided by the British government, was crumbling down gradually and fissures were beginning to develop.[53]

The Hindu solidarity soon followed in realizing that the alienation of lower-castes might hamper its plans of offering a united opposition against the British and the Muslims, as conversions became abundant and threatened to dwindle the numbers of Hindus.[54] Subsequently, the All India Hindu Mahasabha, Bharat Sevasram Sangha et al. actively started to mobilize the lower-caste-people.[55]

In the late 1930s, especially after the Poona Pact, the Namasudras of Bengal Presidency, British India, increasingly adhered to a loyalist stance to the British Government, which was supposedly its best chance to upgrade their socio-economic condition and all throughout[56] and they consistently remained alienated from the nationalist politics.[57]

Overall, numerous measures were taken over the course of years[58] to alleviate the concerns of the community and to ensure that they were gradually inculcated into the nationalist political-fabric of the nation.[54] Un-touch-ability was propounded as a vice and there were campaigns for providing them with better social rights.The Congress also contributed to these causes via their political programs, largely for the same goals.[59]

The Dalit of Bengal, thus became intrinsically involved in the Partition movement, and the Namsudras along with Rajbanshis became the two groups that majorly dominated Dalit politics in the province.[2]

According to Banerjee, the aim of the Hindu campaign, throughout the years, was to merely induce the lower castes record themselves as Hindus, which would inflate their numbers and thus, assist them in the redistribution of provinces during partition of the nation rather than to harvest a social reform.[60] The main aim was to agglomerate the lower castes in the fold of Hindus and unitedly fight against the Muslim and the British.

It propagandized the local peasant-rebellions between Namasudras and Muslim community across Dacca et al. with religious colors thereby increasing communal tensions and prospects of partition.[61][62][3][63] In some places, the Namasudras even sided with Muslims against the socio-economic oppression of Hindu zamindars but it was again branded as a communal riot.[62] The Bengal Congress also contributed to the cause.[62][64] Nonetheless, the organised efforts to articulate the Hindu identity somewhat worked and some of the riots did have a religious flavor.[65]

Gradually, whilst many leaders of the caste-movement increasingly associated with the Hindu narrative,[66] and many Namasudras associated with the views of the Hindu solidarity,[67] there was still a lack of consensus among the masses.In fact, there was a strong discontent among Namasudras that they have been supposedly cheated by the enumerators of the 1941 census where they were recorded as Hindus instead of mere Namasudras.[60]

But, by 1947, a majority of Namasudras actively associated them with the Hindus and that the partition was inevitable, their primary aim was to keep their habitat- the districts of Bakarganj, Faridpur, Jessore and Khulna within the Hindu majority province of West Bengal.[24] But, they managed to maintain a separate caste identity, all-throughout.[68]

Ultimately, the efforts of the campaign failed to achieve much of its desired goal as districts that were mostly inhabited by Namasudras, did go to East Bengal[69] despite vehement protestations by the Namasudras.[24]

Overall, whilst these attempts at altering the social scape improved situations to some extent, discrimination was still markedly abundant and the domination by upper castes continued even post-independence.[70]

Post-independence

Migration to India

Whilst an assemblage of relatively well-off Namasudras immediately migrated to India, using their resources of property, the poor peasants et al. chose to stay. Sekhar Chaterjee notes that despite Jinnah's promise of equality for all, they were soon subjected to '' a process of ‘Othering’ '' as the state sought for '' greater Islamization of the polity ''[24] and that the upper-caste-Hindus had nearly departed from East Bengal in its entirety, the communal agitation was now solely directed against the lower-caste and untouchable Hindus.[71] An acute economic crisis in certain districts of east Bengal and that in a labor-surplus market, the Muslim landlords preferred to employ coreligionists, was another mitigating factor. All these coupled with numerous provocations ranging from unlawful occupation of land to public humiliation of women and direct instruction to leave the country led to a buildup of insecurity among the Namasudra populace.[24]

Finally, beginning January–February, 1950, the Namasudra peasants decided to migrate to India[2][72] in large numbers and this continued till 1956, with about ten thousand refugees entering every month. Retaliatory communal violence across both sides of the border also contributed to the cause. There was again a mass-migration post the Hazratbal riot in 1964. A police intelligence report in June 1952 reported that '' About 95 per cent of the refugees are Namasudras ''.[24]

Condition in India

Whilst most of the Namasudra refugees who arrived after 1950, were automatically designated as cultivators without any means for survival and were thus dispatched to official refugee camps, some did independently settle across villages in Nadia, Basirhat et al. The latter were often involved in violent fracases with the local Muslims and cross-border communal rivalries, in search of land and livestock, were reported too. That they had to also contend with the local Hindu upper castes, made the situation worse.[24]

Those who were dispatched to the refugee camps spend months in imposed idleness whilst being rewarded with a meager cash dole and weekly ration. They were restricted from going out of the camps, look for jobs or interact with the local population, who were often deeply suspicious of the refugees. Thereafter, they started mobilizing themselves under the umbrage of Bastuhara Samitis (refugee associations) and other leaders like Ramendra Kishor Mullick, who claimed to be close to P. R. Thakur and Manohar Roy, who claimed himself to be a right-hand man of Jogen Mandal to protest against the camp administration in a variety of forms.[24]

Finally, the government, in early 1956 announced the Dandakaranya Scheme of rehabilitating them in a region consisting of 78,000 square miles of inhospitable unirrigated land in the tribal areas of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The scheme was compulsory, pending which the refugee camps were to be closed down. Some were also rehabilitated to neighboring provinces of Assam, Bihar, Orissa and the Andaman Islands.[24]

The schemes were heavily protested and in March–April 1958, umbrella-refugee-organisations (United Central Refugee Council (UCRC) and the Sara Bangla Bastuhara Samiti (SBBS)) organised satyagraha campaigns, with political patronage, that lasted for about a month and resulted in the arrests of 30,000 refugees. Most were camp-refugees and 70 percent of them were Namasudras.[24]

Gradually, the campaign, as to an acceptable solution of the refugee issues began to lose momentum as the organisations were more interested in exploiting the refugee-base, as an exercise in electoral constituency building for the political parties.[24]

By 1965, 7,500 refugee families were forcibly settled over there and because of their dispersal, the Namasudras, who were till-then a closely knit community, as to local-geography, lost their capacity to organize powerful protest movements.[24][71]

The conditions across Dandakaranya camps were extremely poor and that the refugees not only failed to integrate with the native Adivasis but also had to deal with a corrupt government mechanism made survival more difficult.[71]

Banerjee has noted that throughout the times, the Namasudras whilst existing in the refugee camps, did not articulate their caste identity; they along with all others shared the common tag of refugees. And that this led a large section of the Dalit-community to lose their distinctive and autonomous political voice.[24] But, nevertheless some means (following different rituals et al.) were adopted by them to distinguish from other castes and maintain a conscious identity of their original identity.[73]

Thakurnagar

A prominent Namasudra leader Pramatha Ranjan Thakur, who was once elected to the Constituent Assembly with Congress support and opposed reservation for the Scheduled Castes whilst advocating for drastic social reforms, emerged as a new political as well as spiritual figure-head across the entire span of the refugee crisis.[24]

In December 1947, Thakur purchased a piece of land in North 24-Parganas, about 63 kilometres away from Calcutta, between Chandpara and Gobordanga and started a venture named Thakur Land Industries Ltd for purposes of refugee-rehabilitation. This led to the establishment of Thakurnagar which has the distinction of being the first Dalit-refugee colony in India which was started by an independent Dalit initiative. The locality gradually grew in size and within the next ten years, more than 50 thousand Dalit refugees, mostly Namasudras, had settled down over there.[24]

That, he was the Guru of the Matua Mahasangha (MM), which was established by his great grandfather H. Thakur and had a huge following among the Namasudras, propelled Thakurnagar into a major cultural center for them.[24]

Marichjhapi

The Congress government that held power in west Bengal during the span of refugee-crisis was widely perceived as anti-refugee, courtesy it's rehabilitation stances. The CPI(M), as the chief-opposition party opposed the dispersal-policy of the Congress and many of their leaders actively demanded[71] for the rehabilitation of refugees in the uninhabited islands of Sunderban, thus gaining a mass following among-st the Namasudra refugees.[74]

In 1977, as CPI(M) came to power, almost 1,50,000 refugees re-fluxed back to West Bengal from Dandakaranya. The communist government, now that it has came to power and has to deal with a poor economy, was hardly sympathetic to their causes and deported many of them back to Dandakaranya. However, a group of about 30,000 refugees managed to infiltrate the Sunderbans and establish a settlement at Marichjhapi consisting of schools, health centers, fishing industries et al.[75]

The government declared the establishment to be illegal, in direct contraventions of the express prohibitions on permanent settlement per the Forest Acts and asked them to abandon the settlement in a supposed bid to protect the ecological diversity of the region.[75]

As the persuasion failed to convince them, beginning 26 January 1979, the local police, on the behest of the government undertook drastic measures which included razing the dwellings of the islanders, destroying fisheries, tube-wells et al. and complete-blockading of the island. despite considerable criticism from the press and a restraining order from the High Court. Boats of escaping refugees were sank and mass-firing were also reported, which led to numerous casualties over the course of next few days.[76]

Finally, as the efforts by the local-police-machinery failed to address the issue in its entirety, the Government ordered a forcible evacuation of the refugees in a 48-hour span from 14 May 1979 to 16 May 1979, in what came to be regarded as the Marichjhapi Massacre by the scholarly community. Several hundred refugees died in numerous police-firings whilst many more perished as a result of starvation, exhaustion et al.[76] Usage of mercenaries and mass-rapes were reported too.[71]

No criminal charges were laid against anyone and the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Commission, in its annual report denied the happening of any atrocity on the Untouchables in Bengal.[71]

Modern day politics and status

MM has transformed itself into a major socio-religious organisation and has one of its major aims as to mobilization of the dispersed Namasudra community and to convert Thakurnagar into a new cultural and spiritual hub for a Namasudra renaissance. In 2010, it claimed to have nearly 50 million members, belonging to 100 to 120 thousand families.[24]

On the occasion of baruni mela – the major festival of the sect – lakhs of devotees from all over India were reported to visit Thakurnagar, in the sort of an annual pilgrimage.[24]

The members of the community have been reported to have fared quite well, post 1980 but despite their educational and social progress, the class remained politically marginal for a long span of time but have often actively negotiated with mainstream political parties for political empowerment.[24]

Beginning the utilization of the network of the MMS, by All India Trinamool Congress, (which included nominating family members of PR Thakur as MLAs), the group managed to establish an independent identity in politics. AITMC did succeed in consolidating Matua votes in its favor in the 2011 state-elections and the consolidation has been attributed to be a cause behind its decisive victory in the South Bengal seats.[77]

References

Citations

  1. 1 2 Bandyopādhyāẏa (1997), p. 11
  2. 1 2 3 Bandyopādhyāẏa (2004), p. 192
  3. 1 2 3 Bandyopādhyāẏa (1990)
  4. ↑ Viswanath, Rupa (2014). The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India. Columbia University Press. p. 268. ISBN 978-0-23116-306-4.
  5. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1998). Changing Borders, Shifting Loyalties: Religion, Caste and the Partition of Bengal in 1947. Asian Studies Institute. p. 1. ISBN 9780475110473.
  6. ↑ Bose, N.K. (1994). The Structure Of Hindu Society (Revised ed.). Orient Longman Limited. pp. 161–162. ISBN 81-250-0855-1.
  7. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa (1997), pp. 20-21
  8. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa (1997), pp. 21-22, 24-25
  9. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 12. ISBN 9780700706266.
  10. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 13. ISBN 9780700706266.
  11. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 15, 16. ISBN 9780700706266.
  12. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 15. ISBN 9780700706266.
  13. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 16. ISBN 9780700706266.
  14. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 14. ISBN 9780700706266.
  15. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 19. ISBN 9780700706266.
  16. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 16. ISBN 9780700706266.
  17. ↑ Sarkar, Sumit (2004). Beyond Nationalist Frames: Relocating Postmodernism, Hindutva, History. Permanent Black. ISBN 9788178240862.
  18. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 14. ISBN 9780700706266.
  19. ↑ Ray, Niharranjan (1994). History of the Bengali People: Ancient Period. Wood, John W. (trans.). Orient Longman. p. 28. ISBN 0-86311-378-8.
  20. 1 2 Bandyopādhyāẏa (1997), p. 20
  21. ↑ Sarkar, Sumit (2004). Beyond Nationalist Frames: Relocating Postmodernism, Hindutva, History. Permanent Black. ISBN 9788178240862.
  22. 1 2 Chatterji, Joya (2002). Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947. Cambridge University Press. pp. 191–194. ISBN 978-0-52152-328-8.
  23. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 29. ISBN 9780700706266.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. "In Search of Space;The Scheduled Caste Movement in West Bengal after Partition" (PDF). Policies and Practices. 59: 2.
  25. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  26. 1 2 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  27. 1 2 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  28. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. p. 33. ISBN 9780761998495.
  29. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 99. ISBN 9780700706266.
  30. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. ISBN 9780700706266.
  31. 1 2 Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 64. ISBN 9780700706266.
  32. 1 2 Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 65. ISBN 9780700706266.
  33. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 99, 100, 104, 105. ISBN 9780700706266.
  34. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 126. ISBN 9780700706266.
  35. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  36. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 100. ISBN 9780700706266.
  37. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 101. ISBN 9780700706266.
  38. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 104. ISBN 9780700706266.
  39. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 107. ISBN 9780700706266.
  40. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 109. ISBN 9780700706266.
  41. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 110, 111. ISBN 9780700706266.
  42. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 112. ISBN 9780700706266.
  43. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 113. ISBN 9780700706266.
  44. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 117. ISBN 9780700706266.
  45. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 118. ISBN 9780700706266.
  46. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 119. ISBN 9780700706266.
  47. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 120. ISBN 9780700706266.
  48. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 106, 107. ISBN 9780700706266.
  49. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 116. ISBN 9780700706266.
  50. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 108. ISBN 9780700706266.
  51. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 121, 122, 123. ISBN 9780700706266.
  52. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. pp. 126, 127, 128. ISBN 9780700706266.
  53. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997). Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947. Curzon. p. 128. ISBN 9780700706266.
  54. 1 2 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. pp. 70–71. ISBN 9780761998495.
  55. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 9780198075967.
  56. ↑ Chatterji, Joya (2002-06-06). Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521523288.
  57. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. p. 34. ISBN 9780761998495.
  58. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  59. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  60. 1 2 Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  61. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  62. 1 2 3 Chatterji, Joya (2002-06-06). Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932-1947. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521523288.
  63. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. pp. 217, 221, 224. ISBN 9780198075967.
  64. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780761998495.
  65. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. pp. 216, 218. ISBN 9780198075967.
  66. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. p. 225. ISBN 9780198075967.
  67. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. p. 227. ISBN 9780198075967.
  68. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. p. 236. ISBN 9780198075967.
  69. ↑ Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara; Sekhar (2011). Caste, Protest And Identity In Colonial India. Oxford University Press. p. 228. ISBN 9780198075967.
  70. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. p. 75. ISBN 9780761998495.
  71. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mallick, Ross (1999). "Refugee Resettlement in Forest Reserves: West Bengal Policy Reversal and the Marichjhapi Massacre". The Journal of Asian Studies. 58 (1): 104–125. doi:10.2307/2658391.
  72. ↑ Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2004-08-19). Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal. SAGE Publications. p. 234. ISBN 9780761998495.
  73. ↑ Dasgupta, Abhijit; Togawa, Masahiko; Barkat, Abul (2011-06-07). Minorities and the State: Changing Social and Political Landscape of Bengal. SAGE Publications India. ISBN 9788132107668.
  74. ↑ Mallick, Ross (2007-11-26). Development Policy of a Communist Government: West Bengal Since 1977. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521047852.
  75. 1 2 Mallick, Ross (2007). Development Policy of a Communist Government: West Bengal Since 1977. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521047852.
  76. 1 2 Mallick, Ross (2007). Development Policy of a Communist Government: West Bengal Since 1977. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521047852.
  77. ↑ Bagchi, Suvojit (2016-04-26). "In West Bengal, the die is cast here". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2018-09-19.

Bibliography

  • Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1990), "Community Formation and Communal Conflict: Namasudra-Muslim Riot in Jessore-Khulna", Economic and Political Weekly, 25 (46): 2563–2568, (Subscription required (help))
  • Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1997), Caste, Protest and Identity in Colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal, 1872-1947, Curzon, ISBN 978-0-70070-626-6
  • Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (2004), Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in Colonial Bengal, Sage Publications, ISBN 978-0-76199-849-5

Further reading

  • Ray, Niharranjan (1994). History of the Bengali People: Ancient Period. Orient Longman. ISBN 978-0-86311-378-9.
  • "Research Response: India". Refugee Review Tribunal, Australia. 30 August 2007. Archived from the original on |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help).
  • The stranglehold after 1947: By Vohra: , By M. Klass, pp. 43: : by Ross Mullick,JAS vol. 58. no. 1 (Feb 1999) pp. 104–125.: Marichjhapi:ABR : & :
  • Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar (2014). "In Search of Space;The Scheduled Caste Movement in West Bengal after Partition" (PDF). Policies and Practices. Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group and Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. 59. ISSN 2348-0297.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.