Talk:East Bengal

Merger with East Pakistan

I disagree with the merger with East Pakistan as these were separate political entities. East Bengal was a province in British India, that existed between 1905-1912. It was merged with Bengal in 1912, and later after the partition of India in 1947, it became the eastern part of Pakistan. It gained the name East Bengal and was later renamed to East Pakistan in the mid 1950s.

My point is that even though the area is same, the histroical perspective justifies different articles for them. Pakistan didn't have a province named East Pakistan after mid 1950s, if East Bengal is merged with East Pakistan, the current content of East Bengal (province) would become completely irrelevant. So, I object to the proposed merger. Thanks. --Ragib 21:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The thought was to have a single article that traced the modern history of the region (until it became Bangladesh), with East Begla (province) being a redirect to East Pakistan. There's precedent, of course, with many articles dealing with areas through different political identities, but I take it that you're still opposed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section on history between 1905-12 can and should be removed from East Pakistan, as the region had nothing to do with Pakistan at that time. I disagree with the proposal that "East Pakistan" needs to be merged with content from East Bengal (province), as the status quo is correctly reflecting history now. Thanks. --Ragib 21:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here I explain more the justification behind two different articles: Bengal was a province in British India, it was divided by the colonial rulers in 1905 into two parts, East Bengal and Bengal. The division was protested by portions of the population, and was later cancelled in 1912. So, the article East Bengal (province) refers to the administrative entity existing between 1905-1912. On the other hand, East Pakistan is a political/administrative entity between Mid 1950s-1971. It's history is closely related to events in Pakistan period leading to Bangladesh Liberation War. A single article would not be able to merge two different contexts from two historical periods. So the status quo serves the purpose well. I do want to mention that I plan to expand the article History of Bangladesh to contain the whole story. You may argue that it would have overlapping information, but the history article would be one single point that would put events in a continuous and consistent perspective. Thanks. --Ragib 02:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense — putting the whole thing into History of Bangladesh would certainly be the best option. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Putting all in History of Bangladesh could be an option, but East Pakistan must also have its history: about the partition (How the territory is created during the British Raj, already divided in religious lines), the history of the name (since the province's name was only change several years after independence) and its role in the State of Pakistan before the partition. I believe that the most important information of this article should be merged with East Pakistan, a much more detailed research should be merged with the History of Bangladesh. Messhermit 15:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should not be merged. I was looking at the original 1905 partition for information. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 28, 2005 11:40 (UTC)

I also disagree to merge these two totally different article.Infact in India the term "Partion of Bengal" is normally used in the context of first division of 1905.The second division is covered under "Partition of India".The first partition of bengal and the protests against it by nationlists was a major political event in history of India, that cannot be separated from it. Idea of keeping "History of Bengal" is also confusing when even in Bangladesh they don't use this term.Britisher actually just clubbed different regions after occupation and later divided that, but even when it was a "United Bengal" under britishers, the region of Bihar, Orrisa etc were there with there distinct culture, language and history. Same is the case with Punjab, after partition of India, Punjab was again divided and re-organised to form states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh and Union Capital Territory of Chandigarh. So Finally I would say, weather a separate section of "History of Bengal" is created or not,The separate section for " the Partition of Bengal " in the sense of first partition should be there covering its other aspects, becuase it was major event.Eventually it will be enriched with more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.41.0.122 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2005 1644 UTC.

---

How about this:

The "East Bengal(Province)" article could be used to identify the name's usage in the past. i.e. it once referred to an Indian province (1905-1912) and once to a Pakistani province (1947-1955). The two corresponded to roughly the same territory, but the exact boundaries differed. Pakistan's East Bengal later became East Pakistan and then independent Bangladesh -- all three with the same boundaries. For history of East Bengal or East Pakistan see the article "History of Bangladesh".

The "East Pakistan" article should not include any information about Indian East Bengal (confusing and unrelated). The rest of its content should be minimized because it overlaps too much with "Bangladesh" and "Bangladesh Liberation War". Get rid of the country table and just put the map and maybe a link or quotation to a newspaper story or picture describing the name change.

Perhaps a third article called "Partition of Bengal" could eventually be written which details the historiography for both partition events (i.e. in each case, how the boundary was decided and the immediate ramifications of its adoption).

Dejo 23:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Dejo

If this debate is still going on about merging articles, the East Bengal article should contain information on the British Indian province, and at the same time the East Pakistan and West Pakistan articles should be merged into a new Historic Subdivisions of Pakistan article with redirects at the East Pakistan and West Pakistan articles. Green Giant 19:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. East Pakistan has enough history in the 24 years of its existence. Rather, the article you propose can summarize East Pakistan in a section. East Bengal as a region (not the province) has long been there, with distinct cultural aspects separate from West Bengal. Also, it WAS the name of East Pakistan for several years until the name change in mid 1950s. Thanks. --Ragib 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ragib, that's much better suggestion. The East Bengal article should cover the region as a whole because as you say the region has existed for some time. However, the information on East Pakistan and West Pakistan should be combined on a Historic Subdivisions page, which could also mention the former states such as Kalat and Bahawalpur and go into some detail of the One Unit policy. Green Giant 00:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but my proposal is something in the middle ... to have an article covering East Pakistan (and west) in detail, and also have the Historic Subdivisions of Pakistan page ... where East and West Pakistan will both have a section devoted to them. These sections can summarize the contents of each of the detailed pages. This way, we can have both a summarized discussion (the big picture) and also detailed specifics. Thanks. --Ragib 00:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

This page should be the disambiguation page and not East Bengal (disambiguation), because logically, readers are going to type East Bengal without the word disambiguation. [[User:Green_Giant 23:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed East Bengal page to become the East Bengal province article, with a link at the top of the page linking to the East Bengal Club page. As such, a disambiguation page won't be necessary anymore. User:Jagged_85 06:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved talk page here too. Green Giant 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the First Partition be in this article?

This talk page seems to have been cold for a long time, that too without resolving the main issue with this article. East Bengal was a province of the Dominion of Pakistan created when British India was being partitioned in 1947. The Dominion of Pakistan chose to rename this province as East Pakistan in 1955. Pakistan became a sovereign republic in 1956. In 1971 the country of Bangladesh emerged within the borders of East Pakistan. Thus East Bengal, East Pakistan and Bangladesh refer to the same geographical region. These three regions must have three separate articles since they represent three distinct political stages in the history of the same geographical region.

Contrastingly, the province which was created when Bengal was partitioned in 1905 was called 'East Bengal and Assam' and existed only till 1912. It's geographical boundaries were significantly different from that of 'East Bengal'. It is also arguable that the reasons for the creation of 'East Bengal and Assam' and the creation of 'East Bengal' were considerably divergent. Hence the 'First Partition' should not have any focal role within this article, though it must be adequately mentioned as a part of the history of the region known in different points in history as East Bengal, East Pakistan & Bangladesh.--Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reorganized the article and added some material. But I'm finding it a bit difficult to create a good narrative on the pre-1947 history of 'East Bengal'. Maybe this article should be organized somewhat like the East Pakistan article.--Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Content added here infringes on the copyright of at least one Banglapedia article. Consider the following, for instance:

On 15 October 1937, at Lucknow, Huq formally subscribed to the Muslim League creed, and urged all the Muslim members of the Bengal Coalition to join the League, and made a strong plea for Muslim unity under the banner of the League. Although Huq did not openly sever his link with the Krishak Praja Party, but without Huq's leadership, for all practical purposes, the party lost its stature as also Fazlul Huq's popularity among the masses began to decline.

Banglapedia says:

On 15 October 1937, at Lucknow, Huq formally subscribed to the Muslim League creed, and urged all the Muslim members of the Bengal Coalition to join the League, and made a strong plea for Muslim unity under the banner of the League. Although Huq did not openly sever his link with the Praja Party, but without Huq's leadership, for all practical purposes, the party lost its stature as also Fazlul Huq's popularity among the masses began to decline.

More material has certainly been copied from that article (published under full copyright reservation).

Also consider the following:

Further, the Boundary Commission headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe decided on the territorial demarcation between the two newly created provinces. The power was finally officially transferred to Pakistan and India on 14 and 15 August, respectively, under the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

Banglapedia says:

Consequent upon this, the Boundary Commission headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe made up the matter of territorial demarcation between the two newly created states. The power was finally officially transferred to Pakistan and India on 14 and 15 August, respectively, under the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

While some of this is minimally changed, I'm afraid that too much is copied directly and those changes that are made constitute a close paraphrase.

This content either needs to be rewritten or rolled back to the last clean version, [1]. The template currently in place offers a link to a temporary page, in case contributors would like a shot at rewriting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Splitting East Bengal (Colonial) and East Bengal (Pakistan)?

My objection is that most people have forgotten that East Bengal had existed even during Colonial times before becoming part of Pakistan in 1947, such as that between 1905 till 1912, I believe it would be an unfair injustice if history is sunk down on the path of narrative-bias. East Bengal's history extends beyond its association with Pakistan. East Bengal existed even during colonial times, specifically between 1905 and 1912 when it was part of British India. This period has its own distinct political history, separate from its later association with Pakistan. Splitting the articles would allow for a more comprehensive exploration of East Bengal's history, acknowledging its pre-Pakistan existence.
Thanks ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 07:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)