Some preliminaries
Among a significant section of West Bengal’s Bhadraloka (consisting of Brahmin, Baidya and Kayastha castes) intellectuals, one often comes across the claim that caste as an instrument of socio-political mobilisation does not exist in Bengal. In the face of the absence of any caste-based political party in post-1947 West Bengal, one would be easily tempted to agree with this line of argument. This apparent invisibility of caste as a tool of socio-political mobilisation in post-1947 West Bengal was the end result of a long-drawn out contest, not an indication of ‘casteless’ nature of Bengal’s society.
Pre-1947 Bengal did witness the sustained presence of caste-based mobilisation of lower castes of the degree and magnitude that was probably unmatched in any other part of British India. How can we, then, explain the apparent marginalisation of caste as a political category in the political discourse of West Bengal after 1947 despite the long-standing domination of the Bhadraloka in the state? Is the victory of the BJP in 2026 Assembly elections in West Bengal going to herald any paradigm shift in this long-established pattern?
In the present opinion piece, we would like to look into some of the nuances of these questions by contextualising them in the pre-Partition history of Bengal. Here, our focus will be on the debate between Colonel Upendro Nath Mukerji and Kishori Lal Sarkar that took place between 1909-1911.
Colonial Census and demographic anxieties among a section of Hindus
In the 1872 Census, Hindus enjoyed a numerical superiority of around four lakhs over Muslims in Bengal. However, in the subsequent censuses taken in the years 1881, 1891 and 1901, it became quite apparent that Muslims of Bengal achieved a substantial demographic superiority over Hindus, and this superiority was increasing with each passing decade. This created imparted an intense anxiety among a section of Bhadraloka intellectual that Hindus of Bengal were a ‘dying race’ and they were destined to meet the fate of near-extinct races of North America, South America, and and the natives of Australia. A great deal of introspection regarding the root cause of the demographic decline of Hindus took place among the Bhadraloka intellectuals. Differing diagnoses and prescriptions were offered.
A Doctor’s diagnosis of the ‘systemic malady’: undertake social reform or perish
After 1905, Lieutenant Colonel Upendro Nath Mukerji, a Physician by training and Brahmin by caste, and employed in the Indian Medical Service, published a series of essays in an influential newspaper of Calcutta on the issue of changing religious demography of Bengal and its possible repercussions. Later, a collection of these essays was published as a book with the title ‘Hindus—A Dying Race’ in the year 1909. Dr Mukerji’s core arguments were: Hindus of Bengal were on the verge of extinction in the face of the rising numbers and increasing political and economic muscle power of Muslims; and the ‘Muslim takeover’ of Bengal was not only imminent, it had already started posing grave threats to the life, liberty, livelihood and honour of Hindus.
Dr Mukerji’s anxieties were rooted in contemporary realities: the demographic majority of Muslims had already resulted in the partition of Bengal along communal lines in 1905. Subsequently, the Muslim League was also founded in Dhaka in 1906. Dr Mukerji’s had some reasons to be deeply apprehensive for the future of Hindus in Bengal. However, as per the assessment of Dr Mukerji, these were the outer symptoms of the inner malady. The root cause was the systemic weakness of Hindu society due to its caste system; what he called upper caste arrogance and the denial of any social, economic and spiritual uplift of lower caste Hindus by the upper castes.
Read similar stories from Junputh
As a trained Physician, he preferred to concentrate more on remedying the root cause: unless the upper caste Hindus develop empathy for the lower caste Hindus and ensure their social integration by sharing social, economic and political power, Hindu culture in Bengal was bound to die sooner than expected because this fragmented, demoralised Hindu society did not stand any chance vis-à-vis industrious, enterprising and cohesive Muslims of Bengal, who also had the confidence of being part of the global Islamic fraternity. Dr Mukerji did not preach hate or bigotry but displayed a kind of honest admission of some social traits he observed across Bengal.
A lawyer’s rebuttal
Dr. Upendro Nath Mukerji’s analysis of the possible long-term repercussions of prevailing forms of caste system and the perceived imminent Muslim takeover of Bengal stirred public opinion significantly. In 1911, a Kayastha lawyer named Kishori Lal Sarkar, practicing in the Calcutta High Court, published a book titled ‘A Dying Race—How Dying’ as a rebuttal to Dr Mukerji’s thesis.
Sarkar’s core arguments were: Muslims formed part of ‘Bengali race’, they posed no existential threat even with their increasing majority; Hindu Bengalis were dying of Malaria and poverty; Malaria and poverty were the root cause of Hindu demographic decline, not caste system. AS per his assessment, caste system has, rather, played a great role in the preservation of Hindu culture; and any sharing of power with the lower caste Hindus by the upper caste Hindus would further endanger the survival of the Hindu culture.
He argued that Dr Mukerji was actually propelling the Hindus towards terminal decline by breaking the confidence of its natural [upper caste] leaders. In his considered opinion, upper castes formed the brain of the Hindu society, and it should have been apparent to Dr Mukerji that a body would survive if arms or legs were cut off, but would die immediately if the brain be cut off’: ‘so in dealing with the question of the “Dying race”, any sensible man is expected to make a difference between the leading i.e. the brain portion of the community and the mass’.
The intellectual successors of Dr. Upendro Nath Mukerji and the socio-political turmoil in Bengal, 1912-1947
Dr Mukerji and Advocate Sarkar represented two divergent strains of opinion within the Bhadraloka and both made a deep impact on this community. Dr Mukerji’s ideas found greater acceptance among the Hindu Mahasabha leadership of Bengal. This leadership too was generally Bhadraloka in origin. They not only accepted Dr Mukerji’s diagnosis and suggested remedy but also actually undertook sustained groundwork among the lower castes. One such Hindu Mahasabha leader was Digindra Narayan Bhattacharya, a Brahmin, who authored books such as Jatibheda and Nipirita Sudrer Nidrabhanga (‘The Awakening of the Suppressed Sudras’).
His acerbic criticism of Brahmanical orthodoxy angered some conservative sections so intensely that he was equated with Kalapahar, the legendary destroyer of Hindu social order, culture and civilisation in medieval Bengal. On the other hand, his ideas and ground-level activities made such a deep impact among some castes that suffered untouchability that they considered him to be a divine figure. In fact, it was a Dalit leader—Manindranath Mandal, the author of a short biography of Bhattacharya in 1926—who demanded that Digindra Narayan Bhattacharya should be accepted as a social reformer of the stature of Ishwarachndra Vidyasagar and Swami Vivekananda.
Later, through the sustained groundwork of Hindu Mahasabha leaders like Shyama Prasad Mukherji, a significant section of such castes was attracted to the Hindu Mahasabha. That none of the untouchable castes in colonial Bengal displayed any trend towards De-Hinduisation and they generally sought to achieve their social mobility through Sanskritisation is also a testament to the success of the great efforts made by such Hindu Mahasabha leaders and their followers.
The politics in Bengal between 1920 and 1947 was marked by an intense power struggle between the Bhadraloka, Dalits and Muslims. Increasing communalisation of society ensured the partition of Bengal in 1947 with untold human misery. Dr. Upendro Nath Mukerji’s prophecy proved tragically true for the Hindus of the territory that is now Bangladesh within just thirty-eight years: no amount of rhetorical rebuttal by Kishori Lal Sarkar could neutralise the inevitable consequences of the altered religious demography of Bengal. Demography was destiny.
Bhadraloka hegemony in West Bengal, 1947—2025
The worst victims of the partition of Bengal in 1947 were the Dalits of East Bengal: having lost their main territorial base in East Bengal and moving to West Bengal in slow waves as refugees, they were in no position to reclaim their pre-1947 bargaining power. Bhadraloka’s hegemony in the state was further accentuated and endured for many decades. This was most visible during the Left Front rule (1977—2011) in West Bengal.
The Bhadraloka formed the core of the Communist Party leadership in West Bengal. When the Communist Party came to power for the first time in 1977, it did not feel any need to induct even a single minister from the Dalit community. Later, by ensuring the transformation of West Bengal into a ‘Party Society’ (a society in which the ruling political party intervenes and almost takes control of every sphere of society), delegitimizing caste and prioritising class as the element of political mobilisation, and also using force in quelling any resistance within the Dalits—a thing quite visible in the notorious Marichjhapi massacre of 1979— to keep them ‘within limits’, the Left Front rendered it impossible for the Dalits and Backward Castes to have any autonomous, self-sustained political space of the kind one could witness in other parts of India.
When the Mandal Commission was implemented in other parts of India in the early 1990s that ensured 27% reservation in jobs for the OBCs, Chief Minister Jyoti Basu contemptuously took the position that West Bengal had only two castes, rich and poor, hence OBC reservation was not required and would not be implemented in West Bengal. When it was implemented, the OBC quota in jobs was kept at 5%. Later, in 2011, it was increased to 17%: 7% for Hindu OBCs and 10% for Muslim OBCs. The TMC government led by Mrs. Mamata Bannerjee retained this formula. The end result was that, while the rest of India witnessed a broad transfer of political power from upper castes to OBCs and Dalits after 1990, West Bengal largely escaped this process.
The victory of the BJP in 2026 Assembly elections and its possible repercussions
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s maiden and decisive victory in 2026 assembly elections heralds some fundamental transitions. A decisive section of West Bengal’s Hindu population seems to have finally accepted Dr. Upendro Nath Mukerji’s diagnosis that Bengali Hindus risk losing their last refuge due to changing religious demography.
His suggested remedy—greater social solidarity between different castes and prudent power-sharing across castes—also appears to resonate with the ‘Hindu Hindu bhai bhai’ sentiment among a significant section of Hindu voters. A long-standing stasis seems to have been broken; but the actual prognosis of the repercussions of the breaking of this stasis remains difficult to predict at this stage.
In pre-1947 Bengal, lower caste political and social aspirations generally received favourable response from the Hindu Nationalists. After 1990 too, the expansion of the BJP in the Hindi-heartland and beyond was the result of a successful combination of Mandir and Mandal. Will this history be repeated in West Bengal also? Time will tell.
Dr Birendra Nath Prasad teaches at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU, New Delhi. His publications on Bengal include Archaeology of Religion in South Asia: Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jaina Religious Centres in Bihar and Bengal, c. AD 600-1200; and Rethinking Bihar and Bengal: History, Culture and Religion; both published jointly by Routledge, London, and Manohar Publishers, Delhi, in the year 2021.
