1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Nezavi [6.7K]
3 years ago
8

Why the partition of Bengal is considered as the pivotal point in the formation of the Pakistan in 1947? 5 marks question plz an

swer fast
History
1 answer:
guajiro [1.7K]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

The answer

Explanation:

The first Partition of Bengal (Bengali: বঙ্গভঙ্গ) was a territorial reorganization of the Bengal Presidency implemented by the authorities of the British Raj in 1905. The partition separated the largely Muslim eastern areas from the largely Hindu western areas on 16 October 1905 after being announced on 20 July 1905 by Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India.

Indians across the country were outraged at what they saw as a "divide and rule" policy[1][2] (gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces), even though Curzon stressed it would produce administrative efficiency.The ultimate motive remains questionable,as in two letters dated 7 February and 6 December 1904, Herbert Risley,Lord Curzon's Home Secretary, wrote,"Bengal united is a force,Bengal divided will go in different ways.That the Partition Plan is opposed by the Congress is its merit for us.Our principal motive is to weaken a united party against the government."[3] The partition encouraged the Muslims to form their own national organization along exclusionist communal lines. To appease Bengali sentiment, Bengal was reunited by Lord Hardinge in 1911, in response to the Swadeshi movement's riots in protest against the policy.

Thank u

You might be interested in
Plzz help
ratelena [41]
I think I wouldn't have been attracted because I probably would already have had my business settled and been making my profits. Whereas if I had gone to the west then I would have had to start over. I think the majority of people who went to the west were people who were money seekers and who were looking to better their lives.
4 0
2 years ago
Plz help m with this i beg you
STALIN [3.7K]
"Mass society<span> is any </span>society<span> of the modern era that possesses a </span>mass<span> culture and large-scale, impersonal, social institutions. A </span>mass society<span> is a </span>society<span> in which prosperity and bureaucracy have weakened traditional social ties" This is the definition of mass society theory. I would thus hypothesize that mass society strengthens the economy greatly but likely abolishes leisure activities for the sake of economic success.</span>
8 0
3 years ago
PLEASE HELP
Virty [35]
1. According to the second paragraph, members of the Royal Society discussed BIOLOGY, PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY. 
From the passage, it was recorded that, the members of the society met in certain days to discuss several subjects which include:physics, anatomy, geometry, navigation, statics, magnetics, chemics, mechanics, natural experiments, stars, etc.
2. According to the fourth paragraph, members did not want to eliminate the works of ARISTOTLE but instead built on it. 
From the passage, it was recorded that the members of the Royal Society had no intention to underrate the works of Aristotle; instead they have great esteem for him and considered him to be a very great man.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did East Francia and England respond to Viking attacks
sertanlavr [38]

\huge\color{red}{\boxed{\tt{A}}}\color{orange}{\boxed{\tt{N}}}\color{lime}{\boxed{\tt{S}}}\color{aqua}{\boxed{\tt{W}}}\color{violet}{\boxed{\tt{E}}}\color{pink}{\boxed{\tt{R}}}\color{magenta}

Just as Christian Europe had settled down after the barbarian invasions, followed by the onslaught of Islamic armies, a new wave of barbarian invaders came from the north in the form of the Vikings.

sorry if its not a short answer

\bold\color{aqua}{hope\:it\:helps}

5 0
2 years ago
How did people who were social Darwinist justify imperialism?
poizon [28]

Answer: By the theory of natural selection.

 

Explanation:

Many proponents of imperialism have invoked Darwin's theses, that is, the natural selection of which Darwin speaks. In this context, he points out that it is natural for there to be a struggle for resources because these elements are recorded in the natural environment. In such circumstances, the stronger are superior and have a natural right to own these resources. Also, Darwin pointed out that the strongest are best adapted to the environment and conditions. In that way, many proponents of imperialism emphasized the mentioned norm to protect imperialist ideals.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why does Jefferson italicize the word Christian at the end of the first paragraph
    5·1 answer
  • Document 4
    12·2 answers
  • George Washington was elected the first President of the United States<br> by<br> vote.
    15·1 answer
  • What was the result of the attack on Fort Sumter in 1861?A. The Civil War started.
    7·2 answers
  • Contrast the Massachusetts Body of Liberties to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut.
    14·1 answer
  • Which one of these was NOT a Confederate state?
    14·2 answers
  • What was the first native tribe found in America/the new world ?
    10·1 answer
  • The Bible attempts to prove God's existence.
    7·2 answers
  • In order for suburbs to grow in post-World War II America, which of the following
    12·1 answer
  • Which statements are true about The Bill of Rights? Select three options.
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!