Law is grounded in time and is constantly shaped by historical circumstances. Treaties, produced by voluntary acts at a given point in time, remain generally in force without a formal endpoint, while customary law arises from practice and lacks specific points of departure and conclusion. Through the practice of their application, both treaties and customary law may change their content and meaning to a far greater extent than domestic rules. Generally, international law resists retroactive application. However the recognition of sovereign equality to all States in the process of decolonization represents an example of profound change. While the problems deriving from armed conflict and former colonial domination must be assessed by the standards of their epoch and not by having recourse to the rules and principles of our time, at the same time it must be borne in mind that many of the acts considered perfectly lawful when they occurred were marred by deep injustices, producing effects which need to be addressed by the law of our time.

Up to the present day Suhrawardy remains a controversial figure in both parts of Bengal, with Hindus often seeing him as their fierce persecutor and Bangladeshi Muslims hailing him as their country’s forefather and preacher of communal unity. This article analyses his actions during the period of his Prime Ministership (1946–1947) looking for the sources of the above dichotomy. It argues that although Suhrawardy displayed a mild communal bias at times, circumstances made him inconsistent, being as he was trapped between right wing of Muslim League, the Hindu masses unwilling to trust him and (until the end of 1946) Congress ambitions to inherit the whole Raj. The need to act quickly due to Viceroy Mountbatten’s haste, as well as the PM’s lack of social skills were other factors contributing to failure of his last initiative – United Bengal Scheme – despite his genuine efforts towards Hindu-Muslim settlement and agrarian reforms.