Rise of the Bengali Bhadralok and Their Response to Communal Politics in Bengal
-Prachurya Ghosh
The emergence of the bhadralok—a Western-educated, upper-caste Hindu elite—in colonial Bengal represented a profound transformation in the region’s social, cultural, and political landscape. Originating primarily from Brahmin, Kayastha, and Baidya castes, this group rose to prominence under British colonial rule through access to English education, professional employment, and administrative authority. Initially associated with liberal reformism and nationalist ideals, the bhadralok’s political orientation gradually shifted in response to changing colonial policies, expanding mass politics, and the rise of Muslim political mobilization. By the 1930s and 1940s, this shift culminated in a largely communal response to Bengal’s political crises and eventual support for partition.
Suranjan Das argues that the bhadralok were instrumental in constructing a Hindu political identity in colonial Bengal, often framing communal issues through notions of cultural superiority and moral legitimacy. Although articulated in modern and nationalist language, this cultural nationalism frequently excluded Muslims from the imagined Bengali political community. Joya Chatterji further contends that by the 1930s many bhadralok leaders had moved away from inclusive nationalism towards Hindu protectionism, largely in response to the growing influence of the Muslim League and the perceived erosion of Hindu socio-political dominance. This ideological transformation was a key factor behind bhadralok support for the partition of Bengal, reflecting deepening communal polarization.
Changing Dynamics of Nationalism and Mass Politics
From the 1920s onward, the character of the Indian national movement underwent a significant transformation. Until this point, it had largely been led by a relatively privileged class of Congress leaders. The entry of peasants, workers, and other marginalized groups into organized nationalist politics altered the nature of political mobilization. These groups appropriated nationalist symbols and slogans while also articulating their own socio-economic demands more forcefully than before. As a result, nationalist politics increasingly reflected class tensions and social inequalities, unsettling elite groups such as the bhadralok who had previously dominated political discourse.
Communalization in Bengal cannot be understood without reference to its underlying social structure. Although Muslims constituted a numerical majority in the province, Hindus dominated the economic, social, and political spheres. This imbalance fostered a sense of exploitation and marginalization among Muslims, who increasingly viewed Hindu elites as beneficiaries of colonial patronage and structural privilege. These tensions formed the social context within which communal politics developed.
The Rise of the Bhadralok in Bengal
The bhadralok (literally “gentlefolk”) emerged in nineteenth-century Bengal as a distinct socio-cultural elite shaped by colonial rule. Concentrated largely in Calcutta, they played a central role in shaping modern Bengali society through their involvement in education, administration, literature, and reform movements. The Permanent Settlement of 1793 laid the foundation for this class by creating a dual system of land rights: proprietorship for zamindars—predominantly Hindu—and tenancy for peasants, many of whom were Muslim, especially in eastern and northern Bengal.
While this landlord–peasant divide is often presented as a Hindu–Muslim binary, it oversimplifies the complexities of rural Bengal. In several Muslim-majority districts, class relations were shaped not only by religion but also by economic status, legal rights, and regional variations. The peasantry itself was far from homogeneous. In districts such as Khulna and Noakhali, some Muslim cultivators, including abadkari praja, acquired customary rights and rose to become intermediaries or minor zamindars while continuing cultivation. In contrast, districts like Dacca and Faridpur saw fewer such opportunities for social mobility.
In regions such as Rajshahi and Chittagong, jotedars emerged from within the peasantry and remained socially embedded in local communities. Nevertheless, upper-caste Hindu zamindars and tenure-holders remained socially distinct and were often the targets of peasant violence, sometimes expressed through religious symbolism. As Partha Chatterjee notes, religion functioned as a medium of protest, providing ethical and political frameworks through which oppression could be articulated.
The bhadralok class benefited disproportionately from the land-based hierarchies established by the Permanent Settlement. Typically functioning as rentiers, they lived off land revenue without engaging in manual labour. Although internally diverse due to variations in landholding size and complex layers of sub-infeudation—particularly in districts like Bakarganj—the bhadralok shared structural privileges rooted in land ownership. Joya Chatterji emphasizes that despite this diversity, the bhadralok systematically excluded most Bengali Muslims and lower-caste Hindus from land ownership and its associated political and social advantages, reinforcing entrenched inequalities in rural Bengal.
Socio-Economic Background and Colonial Patronage
The bhadralok primarily emerged from upper-caste Hindu communities—Brahmins, Kayasthas, and Baidyas—who traditionally enjoyed social prestige. With the introduction of Western education and new administrative structures under British rule, these groups adapted rapidly. They produced a generation of English-educated professionals, including lawyers, clerks, teachers, and journalists. The British colonial state relied on them as intermediaries, and the bhadralok benefited economically and socially from this arrangement.
English education expanded rapidly following Macaulay’s Minute of 1835, which emphasized Western learning. Institutions such as Hindu College (established in 1817) became key sites for bhadralok formation, nurturing individuals who would later dominate cultural and political life in Bengal. This class internalized Western liberal ideas while simultaneously asserting cultural leadership within Indian society.
Role in the Bengal Renaissance
The bhadralok spearheaded the Bengal Renaissance, a broad intellectual and cultural movement spanning the nineteenth century. Figures such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay—drawn from the bhadralok—led reforms in education, women’s rights, and social practices such as sati. Their engagement with Western rationalism coexisted with a revival of Hindu traditions, producing a complex identity that combined modernity with cultural conservatism.
Despite its reformist rhetoric, bhadralok culture remained deeply exclusionary. Muslims, lower-caste Hindus, and tribal communities were largely excluded from its vision of progress. Respectability was defined in casteist and gendered terms, privileging English education, urban lifestyles, patriarchal norms, and upper-caste Hindu values.
Political Engagement and Early Communal Responses (1905–1930)
By the late nineteenth century, the bhadralok became active participants in politics, particularly through the Indian National Congress. Their dominance in educational institutions and provincial councils reflected their close integration into colonial governance. However, this dominance came under challenge with the expansion of electoral politics and the mobilization of Muslim and peasant groups.
The first major confrontation with communal politics occurred during the Partition of Bengal in 1905. While justified by the British as an administrative measure, bhadralok leaders interpreted it as an attempt to empower Muslims by creating a Muslim-majority province in East Bengal. The bhadralok-led Swadeshi movement protested the partition in nationalist terms, but its rhetoric often carried communal undertones, emphasizing Hindu unity and depicting Muslims as beneficiaries of colonial favoritism.
Although early nationalist efforts included limited Hindu–Muslim collaboration, this cooperation weakened following the rise of the Muslim League and the introduction of separate electorates under the Morley–Minto Reforms of 1909. These developments were perceived by the bhadralok as direct threats to their political supremacy.
Growing Anxiety and the Communal Award
The institutionalization of communal representation under the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms (1919) and later the Communal Award of 1932 deepened bhadralok anxieties. The Award allocated legislative seats in a manner that reflected demographic realities but reduced Hindu representation relative to Muslim seats. The bhadralok opposed the Award not primarily on nationalist grounds but out of concern for political control, directing their resentment largely towards Bengali Muslims.
Public protests, petitions, and critical editorials marked bhadralok opposition, contributing to communal polarization. Muslims defended the Award as a safeguard against Hindu dominance, while bhadralok leaders increasingly framed politics in communal terms.
Rise of Hindu Communalism and the Road to Partition (1937–1947)
The provincial elections of 1937 marked a decisive turning point. The failure of the Congress to secure a majority and the formation of a Muslim-led government under Fazlul Huq alarmed the bhadralok. Leaders such as Syama Prasad Mookerjee accused the ministry of anti-Hindu bias and promoted Hindu consolidation through organizations like the Hindu Mahasabha.
Communal polarization intensified during the 1940s. The violence following Direct Action Day in August 1946 convinced many bhadralok leaders that Hindu–Muslim coexistence within a single political unit was untenable. Support for the partition of Bengal gained momentum, with the aim of creating a Hindu-majority West Bengal.
Conclusion
The bhadralok response to communal politics in Bengal evolved from early liberal nationalism to defensive and increasingly aggressive Hindu communalism. This transformation was shaped by structural privilege, demographic change, and the erosion of elite dominance in a rapidly politicizing society. Ultimately, bhadralok support for the partition of Bengal reflected decades of anxiety over Muslim political assertion and the desire to preserve cultural and political authority in a changing colonial order.
