After seven decades, how many of the problems Jinnah defined at Pakistan’s birth have as yet been resolved?
A life well spent on all counts
By Stanley Wolpert
Cigar in hand, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah looking on quizzically as he was being photographed at the Cecil Hotel, Simla, in 1944. | Photo: National Archives Islamabad
ON August 11, 1947, when Mohammad Ali Jinnah addressed the first democratically elected Constituent Assembly of his newly independent nation, he told Pakistan’s political leaders that “the first duty of government” was to maintain “law and order … so that the life, property, and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.” Their “second duty,” he continued, was to prevent and punish “bribery and corruption. That really is a poison. We must put that down … as soon as possible.” Another “curse,” he added, “was black-marketing … a colossal crime against society, in our distressed condition, when we constantly face shortage of food.”
“If we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor … If you will work … together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make. You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state … We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.”
Mohammad Ali Jinnah devoted the last two decades of his life to the relentless struggle to realise his brilliant and beautiful dream of an independent state of Pakistan, born just 70 years ago out of the Muslim majority regions of partitioned British India.
Sent to London by his father to study business management, young Jinnah’s fascination with politics was ignited by the Congress Party’s president Dadabhai Naoroji, a Parsi whose campaign in the British parliament, demanding liberty, equality and justice for all Indians, lured Jinnah to work hard for him, helping Congress’s ‘Grand Old Man’ win his seat by only three votes, after which he was called ‘Mr. Narrow-Majority’.
Jinnah joined the Congress as Dadabhai’s secretary, and enrolled in the City of London’s Lincoln’s Inn, deciding to study law instead of business. His portrait still hangs in that Inn’s hall, its only Asian-born barrister to become governor general of a Commonwealth nation. After he returned to India, Jinnah also joined the Muslim League, brilliantly drafting the Lucknow Pact in l9l6, which was adopted by both the Congress and the Muslim League, as their post-World War I demand for Dominion status in Britain’s Commonwealth.
He launched his singularly successful career as a barrister in Bombay, rather than in his smaller birthplace, Karachi, which was destined to become Pakistan’s first capital. Before the end of the War, Jinnah‘s negotiating skills and wise moderation earned him the sobriquet, ‘Best Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’. Throughout World War I, both Jinnah and Gandhi had supported the British cause, as did the Indian princes. Brave Muslims of Punjab were recruited to help hold the Maginot Line in France, and to fight and die in Mesopotamia. Congress and the League had hoped that such loyal service would be rewarded with freedom at the end of the War, or at least the promise of Dominion status. Instead, India was forced to accept martial ‘law’ regulations, extended indefinitely, and a brutal massacre of unarmed Sikh peasants in Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bagh, leaving 400 innocents dead and over 1,200 wounded.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah enjoying a boat ride, possibly in Dhaka, in the early 1940s. Standing on the left [wearing sherwani] is Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was at the time the Premier of Bengal. | Photo: The Press Information Department, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad (PID)
Jinnah immediately resigned from the prestigious ‘Muslim seat’ from Bombay he’d been elected to on the Governor General’s Council, arguing that the “fundamental principles of justice have been uprooted and the constitutional rights of the people have been violated at a time when there is no real danger to the state, by an over-fretful and incompetent bureaucracy which is neither responsible to the people nor in touch with real public opinion”.
Gandhi launched his first nationwide Satyagraha in response to Britain’s post-War ‘black acts’ and the Punjab murders. Jinnah, on his part, tried unsuccessfully to caution him against inciting Congress’s masses, who cheered the Mahatma’s revolutionary calls to boycott everything British, including all imported cotton goods from Britain’s midlands, and every British school as well as all commercial and legal institutions.
Jinnah cautioned Gandhi that his movement would lead to greater violence and disaster, but Gandhi insisted that non-violence (Ahimsa) was sacred to him, and Jinnah was booed out of Congress’s largest meeting for calling their Great Soul – Mahatma Gandhi – “Mister” Gandhi. Jinnah felt obliged to resign from Congress, and returned to London to live, and practise law, in Hampstead with his sister, Fatima, and teen-aged daughter Dina. But soon Liaquat Ali Khan and other League stalwarts convinced him to return to India to revitalise the Muslim League, over which he would preside for the rest of his life.
“We must stand on our own inherent strength … It is no use blaming others,” Jinnah told the League in Karachi. “It is no use expecting our enemies to behave differently.” To young Muslims who complained to him about the behaviour of inept League leaders, Jinnah replied, as he might admonish today’s youth: “It is your organisation … no use keeping out and finding faults with it. Come in, and … put it right.”
Faced with Congress’s revolutionary movement, from which most Muslim leaders were alienated, the British tried to win back mass support by holding provincial elections in 1937, devolving regional powers to popularly elected cabinets. Nehru campaigned most vigorously nationwide and led Congress to victory in seven of the 11 British Provinces. Jinnah’s Muslim League, however, faced with a number of competing Muslim regional parties, failed to capture even a single Province with a Muslim majority.
Young Nehru’s heady victory increased his arrogance and contempt for Jinnah, to whom he replied when Jinnah suggested joint cabinets for India’s large multi-ethnic provinces. “Line up!” Jawaharlal shouted. “There are only two parties” left in India, “Congress and the British”. Jinnah insisted, however, that there was a “Third Party; the Muslims!”
“Unless the parties learn to respect and fear each other,” Jinnah told the League, “there is no solid ground for any settlement. We have to organise our people, to build up the Muslim masses for a better world and for their immediate uplift, social and economic, and we have to formulate plans of a constructive and ameliorative character, to give immediate relief from the poverty and wretchedness from which they are suffering.”
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Khawaja Nazimuddin during the former’s visit to Dhaka in April, 1948. | Photo: The Press Information Department, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad (PID)
Jinnah never again attempted to convince Nehru to agree to Congress-League cabinets, no longer wishing to link the League to Congress’s lumbering bullock-cart of a Party, insisting that the Congress “has now killed every hope of Hindu-Muslim settlement in the right royal fashion of Fascism … We Muslims want no gifts … no concessions. We Muslims of India have made up our mind to secure full rights, but we shall have them as rights … The Congress is nothing but a Hindu body.”
In Lucknow, in December 1937, wearing his black astrakhan Jinnah cap and long dark sherwani, instead of a British barrister’s suit, Quaid-i-Azam (Great Leader) Jinnah presided over his League, assembled in the Raja of Mahmudabad’s garden. “Your foremost duty is to formulate a constructive programme of work for the people’s welfare … Equip yourselves as trained and disciplined soldiers. Create the feeling … of comradeship amongst yourselves. Work loyally, honestly and for the cause of your people and your country. No individual or people can achieve anything without industry, suffering and sacrifice. There are forces which may bully you, tyrannize over you … But it is by going through this crucible of the fire of persecution which may be levelled against you … that a nation will emerge, worthy of its past glory and history, and will live to make the future history greater and more glorious. Eighty millions of Musalmans in India have nothing to fear. They have their destiny in their hands, and as a well-knit, solid, organised, united force can face any danger to its united front and wishes.”
Throughout 1938 and 1939 Jinnah devoted himself to building the strength of the League, advancing it from a few thousand members at Lucknow to half-a-million by March, l940, when the League held its greatest meeting, demanding the creation of Pakistan, in the beautiful imperial Mughal Gardens of Punjab’s mighty capital.
“The Musalmans are a nation,” Jinnah announced. “The problem of India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such.” To “secure the peace and happiness of the people of this subcontinent,” Jinnah added, the British must divide India into “autonomous national states.” Pakistan was not mentioned in his speech, however, and every member of the press asked him the next day if he meant one or two new states, since Bengal’s Muslim leader, Fazlul Huq, had chaired the resolutions’ committee that proposed partition the day before Jinnah spoke.
Jinnah knew by then that his lungs were fatally afflicted with cigarette smoke, coughing up blood. He couldn’t wait for Congress and the British to agree to the birth of what later became Bangladesh. So he insisted that his League meant one Pakistan, though divided by a thousand miles of North India.
When the last British Viceroy, ‘Dickie’ Mountbatten, urged Jinnah to accept him as joint governor general of Pakistan as well as of independent India, the job Nehru offered Mountbatten, Jinnah refused, never charmed by the Royal Mountbattens, as was Nehru, insisting on serving himself as Pakistan’s governor general.
After seven decades, how many of the problems Jinnah defined at Pakistan’s birth have as yet been resolved? And of late senseless terrorist murders have been added to Pakistan’s list of dreadful crimes against its innocent, impoverished people, helpless women and children, as well as devout Muslims bent in their prayers even inside the most beautiful mosques of Karachi, Quetta, Lahore and elsewhere.
Jinnah worked tirelessly for Pakistan to become a great nation basking in the sunshine and joy of freedom, enriched by citizens of every faith – Parsis and Hindus, Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims of every sect – all working together, harmoniously helping each other to build this Land of the Pure into one of the world’s strongest, wisest, richest countries. That was what the Great Leader dreamed his nation could and would become long before Pakistan’s birth.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah smiling as he was welcomed at the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Karachi in 1947. | Photo: The Press Information Department, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad (PID)
It would never be easy, he knew, yet Jinnah tried his best to remind his followers of what they needed to do, shortly before Pakistan’s birth, when he had little more than one year left to breathe, losing more blood every day from his diseased lungs.
Often asked by disciples, “What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at?”, Jinnah replied: “It is not theocracy – not for a theocratic state. Religion is there, and religion is dear to us. All the worldly goods are nothing to us when we talk of religion, but there are other things which are very vital – our social life, our economic life …We Muslims have got everything … brains, intelligence, capacity and courage – virtues that nations must possess … But two things are lacking, and I want you to concentrate your attention on these.
One thing is that foreign domination from without and Hindu domination here, particularly in our economic life, has caused a certain degeneration of these virtues in us. We have lost the fullness of our noble character. And what is character? The highest sense of honour and the highest sense of integrity, conviction, incorruptibility, readiness at any time to efface oneself for the collective good of the nation.”
His legacy of wisdom was worthy of the Quaid-i-Azam, who lived a life honouring justice and fair play. Every Pakistani must remember that Jinnah’s fearless integrity would never sanction any terrorist murder, nor the violent abuse of any man, woman or child in his noble Land of the Pure.
The writer is a historian and a well-known biographer, among others, of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Al Jinnah.
It is estimated that over 15 million people were displaced during the Partition of the Indian subcontinent and two million lost their lives in the ensuing communal violence.
This feature covers 42 years from 1906 to 1948, an astonishingly short period of time, during which the freedom movement emerged and subsequently achieved the creation of a separate Muslim state under the dynamic leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah – the Quaid-i-Azam – the monumental founder of this nation.
As the nation marks its 70th year, Pakistan’s story becomes your story.
TOWARDS THE FUTURE
DECEMBER 25, 1947
MR JINNAH’S LAST BIRTHDAY
In the photograph above, courtesy Dawn/White Star Archives, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah reads Dawn on his 71st birthday.
Mr Jinnah’s first birthday in Pakistan on December 25, 1947, is tragically his last one too. The morning starts when a smal delegation of journalists from Dawn Karachi, led by the editor, Altaf Husain, calls on him to express their best wishes. They find him reading the morning’s edition of Dawn.
As he reminisces about the heady days when Dawn is founded in Delhi, he expresses his satisfaction that the title and the ethos of Dawn are preserved and are prospering in Karachi.
And then something unusual happens. Never in his career has Mr Jinnah ever endorsed what today we would consider to be a ‘product’ or ‘brand’. And yet, at the behest of his colleagues, he picks up the copy of Dawn at his side and agrees to be photographed reading it.
The newspaper item on the front page congratulates Mr Jinnah on his 71st birthday, and there is a trace of a whimsical smile on his lips. He has come a long way from when he founded Dawn Weekly in October 1941. Those were days of hope; six years later, Dawn, published by Pakistan Herald Limited Karachi, is a living reality.
Later, Mr Jinnah attends the official reception at Governor-General House. He leaves early to attend a private birthday party given by his colleague, Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah.
As the Commander of the Sind Women’s National Guard, Pasha Haroon sings a birthday poem written for him by a poet in Lahore; he is visibly embarrassed and keeps knotting the napkin placed before him on the table. The words of the poem are: Millat kay liye aaj ghaneemat hai tera dumm, Aey Quaid-i-Azam/Sheeraza-e-Millat ko kiya tu ne faraham, aey Quaid-i-Azam. (Your breath alone is sufficient for the nation, oh Quaid-i-Azam/ You alone have been the binding force for the nation, oh Quaid-i-Azam.)
Nine months later, on September 11, 1948, Mr Jinnah surrenders to a prolonged bout of tuberculosis, an illness that afflicts him over the last decade of his life, and is kept a secret. The next day, Dawn pronounces “The Quaid-i-Azam is dead. Long live Pakistan!”
On the same day, Indian troops under the guise of police action, march into the Princely State of Hyderabad, and annex the state to India.
THE QUAID-I-AZAM 1947
THE LEGACY ENDURES
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is seated with the Pakistan flag draped behind him in Karachi in December 1947. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
This photo, which appears on the cover of the January 5, 1948 edition of Life magazine, is part of a series taken by Margaret Bourke-White for the magazine.
Today, as Pakistanis celebrate the 70th year of their country’s existence, it is worthwhile to ponder on the legacy of Mr Jinnah, the man who founded what in 1947 is the world’s largest Muslim state.
An uncompromising adherence to the rule of law, freedom of speech and conscience, social justice and equality for all citizens, are the essence of his legacy; a legacy he wants the nation of Pakistan to uphold in the future. Although governance and law-making are the sole prerogative of the people’s elected representatives, as long ago as 1919, he tells the Imperial Legislative Council that “no man should lose his liberty or be deprived of his liberty without a judicial trial in accordance with the accepted rules of evidence and procedure.”
Although Mr Jinnah repeatedly avers that Islam has taught us “equality, justice and fair play”, he makes it clear that Pakistan will not be a theocratic state.
On August 11, 1947, in a historic reiteration of his political creed, he tells the Constituent Assembly: “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
Speaking on the topic of bribery and corruption, Mr Jinnah calls them “a poison” and declares: “We must put that down with an iron hand, and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.”
DELHI AUGUST 1947
A LONG WAIT TO FREEDOM
A young refugee in Delhi in August 1947 squats on the rubble of a ruined Sultanate monument, holding his head in despair. In the background, a vast Muslim refugee camp sprawls out as far as the eye can see. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
As thousands of Muslims seek refuge in this camp praying for a quick escape to Pakistan, thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from the Punjab pour into the city. An atmosphere of fear permeates, as anti-Muslim pogroms rock this historical stronghold of Indo-Islamic culture and politics.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, estimates that there are only 1,000 casualties in the city; other sources claim this figure is 20 times higher. Historian Gyanendra Pandey’s recent account of the Delhi violence puts the figure of Muslim casualties between 20,000 and 25,000.
Regardless of the number of casualties, thousands of Muslims are driven to refugee camps and historic sites in Delhi, such as the Purana Qila, Idgah and Nizamuddin, are transformed into refugee camps.
At the culmination of the tensions, 330,000 Muslims are forced to flee to Pakistan. The 1951 Census registers a drop in the Muslim population in the city from 33.22% in 1941 to 9.8% in 1951.
An estimated 15 million people from all sides will have crossed the borders to their chosen homeland as a result of Partition.
THE PRINCELY STATES
DHAKA MARCH 1948
THE SUPREME COMMANDER VISITS
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah decorates Lieutenant Colonel M. Ahmad with the Military Cross for his services in Burma during World War II on March 20, 1948 at the Dhaka Cantonment. Major General Mohammed Ayub Khan, GOC Dhaka, stands between the two. — Courtesy Gauhar Ayub Family Archive
This is Mr Jinnah’s last trip to Dhaka; had he lived beyond September 1948, he would certainly have made many more visits to the capital of East Pakistan.
Although the historic founding of the All-India Muslim League takes place in Dhaka in 1906, it is Calcutta (which Mr Jinnah frequently visits) that is the centre of politics in Bengal under British rule; it is only after Partition that Dhaka becomes the political hub of the Muslim majority in Bengal.
Khawaja Nazimuddin is the Chief Minister of East Bengal. At this time, political elements are stirring up issues of whether Bengali rather than Urdu should be the state language, thereby inflaming provincial sentiments among people. Mr Jinnah has come to Dhaka to clarify matters.
In a mammoth public meeting held in Dhaka on March 21, 1948, he declares that “having failed to prevent the establishment of Pakistan… the enemies of Pakistan have turned their attention to disrupting the state by creating a split among the Muslims of Pakistan. These attempts have taken the shape principally of encouraging provincialism. If you want to build up yourself into a nation, for God’s sake give up this provincialism.”
A few days later on March 24, speaking at the annual convocation of Dhaka University, Mr Jinnah says that people could choose to adopt the provincial language of their choice, but there could only be one lingua franca for the whole of Pakistan and that language should be Urdu.
General Ayub Khan becomes the second president of Pakistan after a military coup in 1958. He is forced to resign as president in 1969 after a popular uprising in East Pakistan and some other parts of the country.
As a consequence of his military rule, East Pakistan and its capital Dhaka are to be permanently lost to Pakistan a mere thirteen years later.
GILGIT & KASHMIR 1947
A PARTIAL VICTORY
November 1, 1947 is the day when Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan accede to Pakistan.
Astore, Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar are part of territories conquered by the Dogra Maharajas. Their grip is tenuous and in 1889 the British create the Gilgit Agency as a means of turning the region into a buffer against the Russians. Then in 1935, the British lease the Gilgit Agency for a period of sixty years from Maharaja Hari Singh.
In 1947, Major William Brown, the Assistant Political Agent in Chilas, is informed that Lord Mountbatten has ordered that the 1935 lease of the Gilgit Agency (it still has 49 years to run) be terminated. Gilgit Agency, despite its 99% Muslim population, is to be allotted to the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh.
Meanwhile, stories of communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab reach Gilgit, inflaming passions there. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja signs the Instrument of Accession and joins India. (The signed document has never been seen.)
Sensing the discontent, Major Brown mutinies on November 1, 1947. He overthrows the governor, establishes a provisional government in Gilgit and telegraphs the chief minister of the NWFP asking Pakistan to take over. According to the leading historian Ahmed Hasan Dani, despite the lack of public participation in the rebellion, pro-Pakistan sentiments are strong amongst civilians.
Armed Pakhtoon tribesmen wait on a road between Peshawar and Rawalpindi for their leader Bacha Gul of the Mohmand tribe. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Upon hearing of Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India, these tribesmen wait for Bacha Gul to lead them into battle in Kashmir. They reach the outskirts of Srinagar before they are pushed back to the upper reaches of what constitutes today’s Azad Kashmir.
Resistance in Poonch starts over issues related to taxation, but soon turns into an armed uprising when a public meeting is fired upon by Kashmir state forces. Two days later, the chief minister of the NWFP organises a guerrilla force to attack the Maharaja’s forces in the Dheer Kot camp. According to Australian historian Christopher Snedden, it is the Muslims in the Poonch region of Kashmir who instigate the uprising and not Pakhtoon tribesmen invading from Pakistan, as India consistently maintains.
India’s case on Kashmir is built upon a version of events that asserts that India’s military intervention is in response to a tribal invasion supported by Pakistan. On January 1, 1948, India takes the issue to the UN Security Council. The Security Council pass a resolution calling for Pakistan to withdraw from Jammu and Kashmir and for India to reduce its forces to a minimum level, following which a plebiscite is to be held to ascertain the people’s wishes.
Dispute erupts over the implementation mechanism because of which the Kashmir problem remains unresolved to this day.
SWAT, NOVEMBER 24, 1947
THE WALI ASSENTS
The Wali of the Princely State of Swat, Miangul Abdul Wadud, with members of his state police. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Swat owes its status as a ‘state’ to the decline of the Sikh and Afghan empires. When the British take over Peshawar in 1849, Swat is mainly inhabited by Yusufzai Pathans. The same year, the tribal jirga elects Syed Akbar Shah as king of Swat – although real power in Swat lies with the Akhund, a religious leader known as Saidu Baba.
Saidu Baba dies in 1887 and Swat lapses into factional fighting between his sons and his grandsons.
Finally, in 1917 the jirga appoints Miangul Abdul Wadud, one of the Akhund’s grandsons as king. Although Miangul Abdul Wadud controls most of Swat by 1923, the Government of India does not formally recognise him as the ruler. Instead, in 1926 the British grant him the title of Wali, an honorific religious title – because only the King Emperor in England has the right to the title of king.
Irrespective of the British position, the Wali of Swat is the only elected ruler of a Princely State, by virtue of the jirga.
Miangul Abdul Wadud signs the Instrument of Accession enabling Swat to join Pakistan in 1947. On the right are his son Miangul Abdul Haq Jahanzeb, his grandson Miangul Aurangzeb and the Chief Secretary of Swat, Mr Attaullah. — Courtesy Miangul Aurangzeb Archives, Swat
In 1931, Swat has an area of 18,000 square miles and a population of 216,000. The state is predominantly Muslim, but with a small Hindu presence. Swat’s accession to Pakistan is complicated by its occupation of Kalam shortly before 1947, which was also claimed by Chitral and Dir.
Although Pakistan refuses to recognise the occupation and tries to persuade Swat to revert to the status quo, the Wali, hoping to garner Pakistan’s support of Swat’s claim to Kalam, is eager to accede to Pakistan. Miangul Jahanzeb, the last Wali notes that “with the creation of Pakistan, we immediately joined the new state. We were very patriotic… I talked to the political agent Nawab Shaikh Mehboob Ali over the telephone and told him we were going to sign the Instrument of Accession.”
The Wali executes the Instrument of Accession on November 24, 1947.
BAHAWALPUR, OCTOBER 3, 1947
THE AMIR ACQUIESCES
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah enjoy high tea with the Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V, possibly at his retreat in Malir, on the outskirts of Karachi. Standing in a white suit, between the Amir and Mr Jinnah, is his son, the future Nawab. On the extreme left, behind Miss Jinnah, is Colonel Hashmi, ADC to the Amir. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London
The Nawabs of Bahawalpur claim descent from the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad – and in this way distinguish themselves from the other ruling princes of India. They receive their first grant of land from Emperor Nadir Shah and subsequently come under the suzerainty of Ahmed Shah Durrani. When the Durrani Empire crumbles, they assume independence. However, the rise of Sikh power prompts them to sign a treaty with the East India Company in 1833, accepting the paramountcy of the Company.
Nawab Sadiq Abbasi becomes ruler of Bahawalpur at the age of 18 months, and until 1924, the state is ruled under the regency of his eldest sister.
In 1941, Bahawalpur has an area of 17,494 square miles and a population of over 1.3 million subjects. In 1947, the Nawab is in poor health; he is in England and is advised by his doctors to remain there. This is a crucial moment for Bahawalpur; the state has contiguous borders with India and Pakistan and can choose to accede to either country. Yet, no decision can be taken in the Nawab’s absence. Sir Penderel Moon, the historian and also Public Works Minister in the Bahawalpur Government, notes: “Jinnah, unlike the Congress leaders, was not hostile to the ruling princes and had no plans for sweeping them away or curtailing their powers.”
In April 1947, Mushtaq Ahmed Gurmani, a Unionist minister from the Punjab is appointed prime minister of the state. As the date for the Transfer of Power approaches, rumours circulate that Bahawalpur may accede to India.
On August 15, 1947, Nawab Sadiq Abbasi declares himself Amir (independent ruler), announcing his willingness to enable Pakistan and Bahawalpur “to arrive at a satisfactory constitutional arrangement.” The Government of Pakistan, alarmed by Bahawalpur’s intentions, moves to ensure the state’s accession to Pakistan. Negotiations are stymied when the Nawab decides to return to England.
Despite rumours that Mr Gurmani is planning Bahawalpur’s accession to India, he does not oppose the accession; the only complication is the signature of the Amir, which he gives on October 3, 1947.
The Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V in full state regalia. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London
Nawab Sadiq Abbasi is the last reigning ruler before Bahawalpur’s accession to Pakistan. He follows in the tradition of the Abbasid caliphs by travelling through his state in disguise in order to better understand what is required for effective governance.
He builds schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and an agricultural canal system to create more arable land in the desert. He possesses one of the finest stamp collections in the world and owns one of the largest collections of custom-made Rolls-Royces and Bentleys. He is known for his love of fine art objects and of fine food.
KHAIRPUR, OCTOBER 3, 1947
WELCOMING THE BOY PRINCE
Mir George Ali Murad Khan Talpur II – “the boy prince of Khairpur” – at Faiz Mahal, Khairpur, in December 1947. He is seated on his throne holding a sword, while his Regent, Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur, looks on.— Courtesy Mir of Khairpur Family Archive
The Talpur rule in Sindh begins in 1783, when Mir Fateh Ali Khan Talpur of Hyderabad declares himself Rais of Sindh, having obtained a farman to this effect from the king, Shah Zaman Durrani. Mir Fateh Ali Khan Talpur’s nephew, Mir Suhrab Khan, settles in Rohri and establishes the foundations of the state of Khairpur.
Recognising the rising power of the East India Company, the Mir offers Khairpur’s assistance to the British during the First Afghan War. This is an astute move, as the continued existence of Khairpur is largely a consequence of this policy.
On July 24, 1947, the British depose the reigning Mir Faiz Muhammad Khan II due to his poor health and appoint his son, Mir George Ali Murad Khan Talpur II, as the ruling Mir. Because he is a minor, a Board of Regency is created with a rotating chairmanship made up of close male relatives of the Mir – Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur is one such regent.
In the early 1940s, Khairpur covers an area of 6,050 square miles, and its population is estimated to be in the region of 300,000, sixteen percent of whom are non-Muslims.
A large portion of the Lahore-Karachi railway track is within the State and this explains why the Government of Pakistan considers its integration important.
On August 4, 1947, the Khairpur government issues a notification that August 15, 1947 will be celebrated as Khairpur’s Independence Day. However, repeated efforts by the Government of Pakistan finally persuade Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur to sign the Instrument of Accession on behalf of the boy prince on October 3, 1947 – the same day as Bahawalpur accedes.
Hence, on the same day, Pakistan gains two valuable Princely States, not only significant in terms of land mass, but in terms of agricultural land, nascent industries and strategic value.
BUILDING THE NATION
LAHORE 1946-47
AN ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PIONEERS
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in animated conversation with a group of students on the lawns of the University of Punjab, Lahore, on January 7, 1946. The photograph is taken by the prominent photographer of the Pakistan Movement, Faustin Elmer Chaudhry. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Students, particularly from the Punjab, play a pivotal role in the 1945 general elections.
The elections are vital for the Muslim League because failure to win the Muslim seats will mean that further discussion on the demand for Pakistan will be dismissed by the Congress and the British Government. Consequently, the Muslim League moves to mobilise Muslim students.
Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan exhorts the students of the Aligarh Muslim University to give up their studies for a period of time and campaign for the Muslim League. A training camp is set up on campus and students are given training courses before they are sent to various parts of the province. An election office opens in Islamia College in Lahore and the Punjab Muslim Students’ Federation establish an election board to spread the Muslim League’s message.
Two hundred students are deputed to tour 20 constituencies covering 400 villages. By the end of the campaign, the Muslim League says 60,000 villages are visited by their student campaigners.
As a result of this massive student mobilisation, a remarkable victory is achieved by the Muslim League, obliterating the failure of the 1936-37 elections.
Women leaders of the Muslim League are released from Punjab Jail in March 1947. First row, from left to right: Begum Nasira Kiani, Begum Jahanara Shah Nawaz; second row (behind Begum Shah Nawaz, left to right): Miss Mumtaz Shah Nawaz, Fatima Begum, Dr Hassan Ara Begum and Begum Kamal-ud-din. Begum Salma Tasadduque Hussain stands behind Miss Shah Nawaz. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan dies in 1942. Determined to prevent any attempt by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to intervene in the politics of the Punjab, his successor, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana, disregards the Jinnah-Sikandar pact of 1937.
When negotiations fail, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana is expelled from the Muslim League. The 1945 elections confirm the Muslim League as the single largest party in the Punjab Legislature. Yet, the British Government does not call upon them to form the government; they ask Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana to cobble together a majority government through a coalition with the Hindu and Sikh members of the assembly.
This leads to a civil disobedience campaign in the Punjab and then mass agitation, when Muslim League leaders are arrested in January 1947. Undaunted, the women of the Muslim League defy the ban on demonstrations and court arrest. Eventually, the coalition government is paralysed, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana resigns and governor rule is imposed.
The women, like the students, play a pivotal role in enabling the creation of Pakistan.
THE NATIONAL GUARD 1948
EMPOWERING WOMEN
Zeenat Rashid, a captain of the Sind Women’s National Guard, practises how to use a lathi in Karachi on November 1, 1947. — Courtesy Seafield Archive
The Sind Women’s National Guard is a small group of about 25 to 30 teenagers who wear white uniforms, learn first aid and self defence, and encourage citizens to vote.
This photograph is taken in 1947 and Zeenat Rashid is 18 years old. Her father, Haji Abdullah Haroon, passes away five years earlier. Her mother, Lady Nusrat Abdullah Haroon, continues to be a dominant figure in the Pakistan Movement. As a captain in the Sind Women’s National Guard, Zeenat Rashid gathers 35 school friends to form the caucus of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s young women’s contingent.
She explains: “The Quaid-i-Azam said to us: ‘The women are standing shoulder to shoulder with the men. What are you young people doing?’” Zeenat Rashid’s answer to her hero was: “We are ready; what do you want us to do?”
Later, in an interview with Life magazine, she recounts that: “We were a symbol. Mr Jinnah wanted to show people that in Pakistan, women would do things. We didn’t cover our heads! What nonsense. We were a symbol of progress.”
Her grandest moment? It is 1947 and she is practising with the Sind Women’s National Guard, brandishing a lathi – it is then that Margaret Bourke-White captures these magical moments. The one above is part of a series of images in Life magazine’s cover story on Pakistan in January 1948.
A DEMOCRATIC PUNJAB 1937-47
FRIENDLY PERSUASION
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, probably at the time when the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is signed in 1937. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
After winning the general elections in the Punjab in 1937, Sir Sikandar, the leader of the Unionist Party in the Punjab, is faced with pressure from many of his Muslim parliamentary colleagues. Mindful of the need to maintain an equitable stance in a divided Punjabi political milieu, Sir Sikandar enters into negotiations with Mr Jinnah. As a consequence, the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is signed.
The pact is essentially an arrangement whereby the Muslim League will represent the Muslims at the national level, while the Unionists will maintain a measure of independence at the provincial level.
Mr Jinnah’s ability to deal with various hues in the tapestry of the Punjab through democratic persuasion is reflected in the Muslim League’s ascension to power after 1947.
Mian Iftikharuddin is a scion of the Arain Mian family, custodians of Lahore’s Shalimar Gardens. He begins his political career in the Congress and rises to the presidency in the Punjab. In 1945, he joins the Muslim League. After Partition, he is elected as the first President of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League and Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah appoints him Minister for the Rehabilitation of Refugees.
In 1947, Mian Iftikharuddin founds the Pakistan Times; Faiz Ahmed Faiz is appointed Editor-In-Chief.
In 1949, Mian Iftikharuddin’s proposal for land reforms in the Punjab leads to a backlash from the feudal leadership within the Muslim League. In frustration, he resigns from his ministry and is expelled from the Muslim League in 1951.
After his death in 1962, Faiz Ahmed Faiz pays tribute to him with this couplet: Jo rukey tu koh-e-garan thay hum/ Jo chalay tu jaan say guzar gaye/ Raah-e-yaar hum ne qadam qadam/ Tujhay yaadgaar banaa diya (For when we stayed, we rose like mountains/ And when we strayed, we left life far behind/ Fellow traveller, every step that we ever took/ Became a memorial to your life).
It is a tribute to Mr Jinnah’s political sagacity that he can mobilise talents like Mian Iftikharuddin’s to work within his government in the Punjab.
KARACHI & DELHI 1947
A TRIUMPH AND A TRAGEDY
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Altaf Husain, Editor Dawn Delhi, outside Mr Jinnah’s residence in Delhi, on June 3, 1947. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives
Dawn Delhi and Dawn Karachi are founded by Mr Jinnah. Mr Husain is first appointed editor of Dawn Delhi in 1945; his predecessor was Pothan Joseph. In August 1947, Jan Sangh demonstrators accuse Dawn Delhi journalists of firing at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s procession. This is when Mr Jinnah asks for Mr Husain to be transferred to Karachi and assume the editorship of Dawn Karachi, which is published by the family of Mr Jinnah’s late friend Haji Abdullah Haroon. It is plain to him that Dawn Delhi will not survive the threats of the Jan Sangh. Dawn Delhi is burnt down on September 14, 1947. Despite this, Dawn Karachi continues to carry the inscription: ‘Published simultaneously from Delhi and Karachi’ on the masthead until October 21, 1947, when it is removed and Mr Jinnah accepts the reality that Dawn Delhi is no more.
The loss of Dawn Delhi is a tragedy for Mr Jinnah, for this was the paper he founded and nurtured in 1941 to carry forward the Muslim League’s message across undivided India. His triumph is the survival of Dawn Karachi.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan with the staff of Dawn Delhi. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives
To the right of Mr Jinnah is Pothan Joseph, the editor of Dawn Delhi. Behind Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is Hamid Zuberi, who subsequently joins Dawn Karachi; to the left of Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is Mahmud Husain, GM, Dawn Delhi.
Mr Jinnah founds Dawn Delhi on October 19, 1941, to represent the views of Indian Muslims. The offices are housed in an old building in the Daryaganj area of Delhi. The furniture is modest, the staff minimal and the pay low. Yet, everyone is full of zeal. Mr Jinnah and his editors – Pothan Joseph and then Altaf Husain – inspire them with a strong spirit of nationalism as the newspaper fights for justice and fair play for the Muslims.
PIECING TOGETHER PAKISTAN
KARACHI 1948
THE ARCHITECT OF THE NATION
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah turns his attention to an early musical score of Pakistan’s national anthem after inspecting an anti-aircraft regiment in Malir on February 21, 1948. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Mr Jinnah’s personal interest in selecting the national anthem is indicative of his painstaking attention to detail about everything that touches upon Pakistan’s future. (His earlier care in designing the national flag, with its broad white band representing the minorities, is further evidence of the importance he attributes to these matters.)
It is not known whether this is the musical score composed by Ahmed Ghulamali Chagla and selected in 1949. The lyrics are written as late as 1952 by Hafeez Jullundhri. In 1954, the anthem is officially adopted as Pakistan’s qaumi tarana.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan consult on national policy in the early days of Pakistan. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
As Governor-General, Mr Jinnah steers the nation’s policy, achieving significant results. He nominates Pakistan’s Federal Cabinet and in the absence of a constitution, amends and enforces the Government of India Act 1935. He reorganises the civil service and develops cordial relations with Pakistan’s neighbours and the West. On September 30, 1947, Pakistan becomes a member of the UN. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan has an important role in these matters.
Critics state that the Jinnah-Liaquat relationship deteriorates during Mr Jinnah’s last days. Such conjecture fails to recognise the fact that Mr Jinnah never revoked his decision to nominate Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan as one of the three executors of his will – by no means a small matter for a person as particular as Mr Jinnah when it comes to his private matters.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah inaugurates the State Bank of Pakistan in Karachi on July 1, 1948. He is accompanied by Zahid Hussain, the first Governor of the State Bank. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
For Mr Jinnah “the opening of the State Bank of Pakistan symbolises the sovereignty of our state in the financial sphere.”
As per the Pakistan Monetary System and Reserve Bank Order 1947, the Reserve Bank of India is to continue to be the currency and banking authority of Pakistan until September 30, 1948. Mindful of this date, Mr Jinnah performs the inauguration in advance of this deadline on July 1, 1948.
PESHAWAR 1945-48
CROSSING THE LAST FRONTIER
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is presented with a traditional loaf of bread in Peshawar by Afridi chiefs in November 1945. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
In this second visit to the NWFP, Mr Jinnah addresses rallies in Peshawar, Mardan and in the tribal areas. Since 1937, a Congress-Redshirt government is in power in the NWFP. The Muslim League’s popularity is surging amidst Muslim dissatisfaction that although Hindus and Sikhs account for only seven percent of the representation in the Assembly, the British Government has accorded them a disproportionate 24% of the seats.
However, the problems in the NWFP are not communal; they arise from a clash between the Hindu-financed Congress-Redshirt government and the Muslim League, and are further complicated by the tribes who, broadly speaking, are in sympathy with the Muslim League.
In February 1947, the Muslim League launches a civil disobedience movement against the Congress-Redshirt government, which rapidly gains momentum. As Partition approaches, the Congress agree to the British proposal to hold a referendum on the future of the NWFP. In June, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan announces the boycott of the referendum and calls for the establishment of an independent state for Pakhtoons called ‘Pathanistan’. The stock of the Congress-Redshirt government in the NWFP plummets and the momentum swings to the Muslim League.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Landi Kotal on April 11, 1948. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
This is Mr Jinnah’s third visit to the NWFP; he spends 10 days touring the province from Khyber to Gomal. This special equation between Mr Jinnah and the tribesmen is a major factor in the Muslim League’s landslide victory in the 1947 referendum on the decision to join Pakistan.
Mr Jinnah has secured the Frontier for Pakistan.
LAHORE 1947
RECLAIMING THE HEARTLAND
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah addresses a mammoth rally at Lahore’s University Stadium on October 30, 1947. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The violence that mars Partition is a period of great personal anguish for Mr Jinnah. Yet, his clarity of thought is unimpaired. He states: “Some people might think that the acceptance of the June 3, 1947 Plan was a mistake on the part of the Muslim League. I would like to tell them that the consequences of any other alternative would have been too disastrous to imagine…”
A man who has never compromised on his essential beliefs, he continues with conviction: “The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the minorities regardless of caste and creed. Despite the treatment which is being meted out to the Muslim minorities in India, we must make it a matter of our prestige and honour to safeguard the lives of the minority communities…”
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah campaigns at the Badshahi Mosque during the 1936-37 provincial elections. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Despite Mr Jinnah’s campaign efforts, the Muslim League lose these elections.
In Punjab, the Unionists, led by Sir Sikandar Hayat, win 67 of the 175 seats; the Congress 18 seats and the Akali Dal 10 seats. Although many Muslim Unionists are ardent supporters of the Muslim League, the Unionist party in Punjab formally constitutes a distinct entity and the Muslim vote is divided.
The election loss galvanises the Muslim League to redouble their efforts in Punjab and turn themselves into a credible alternative to the Unionists and reclaim Punjab. They achieve this in the 1945 elections.
BALOCHISTAN 1943-48
WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Qazi Isa are cheered by the Muslim Student Federation in Quetta. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Mr Isa, a prominent leader of the Pakistan Movement, plays a pivotal role in facilitating Mr Jinnah’s visit to Balochistan and his meetings with Baloch leaders. This is one of several visits Mr Jinnah makes to Balochistan.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is welcomed by Nawab Akbar Bugti and prominent Baloch tribal leaders at the Royal Durbar in Sibi, on February 11, 1948. — Courtesy Sherbaz Mazari Archives
During Mr Jinnah’s stay in Sibi, he schedules three meetings with the Khan of Kalat to discuss matters related to the accession of Kalat.
The last meeting is scheduled for February 14 in Harboi, the Khan of Kalat’s mountain estate. The meeting is cancelled due to the sudden ‘illness’ of the Khan.
Balochistan consists of British Balochistan, the state of Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran; the latter three are placed under Kalat’s rule as fiduciary states by the British. Three months before Partition, Mr Jinnah is in negotiations with the British on the future status of Kalat and of British Balochistan. After several meetings between Lord Mountbatten, Mr Jinnah and the Khan, a Standstill Agreement between Pakistan and Kalat is announced on August 11, 1947, with a proviso that there will be further discussions with respect to an agreement on defence, external affairs and communications.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, the Khan of Kalat, on October 15, 1945. — Courtesy Khan of Kalat Family Archives
Mr Jinnah then undergoes a change of thinking. His view is that Kalat should sign the Instrument of Accession, just as the other Princely States have done, but the Khan and the Dar-ul-Awam Assembly resist.
By March 18, 1948, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran accede to Pakistan and on March 26, 1948, Pakistan’s Army moves into Jiwani, Pasni and Turbat.
On March 28, 1948, the Khan agrees to merge his now landlocked state with Pakistan. The agreement is backdated to August 15, 1947.
Despite the many disagreements along the way, Mr Jinnah’s efforts succeed in winning the hearts and minds that matter.
HOLOCAUST
1947
EXODUS
Muslim refugees from East Punjab and the United Provinces climb atop trains at Amritsar Railway Station to head towards Lahore. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Immediately after Partition, massive population exchanges occur between India and Pakistan. Six-and-a-half million Muslims move from India to West Pakistan and 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs from West Pakistan to India.
Only thirty-two miles separate Amritsar from Lahore. Hindus and Sikhs constitute about a third of Lahore’s population and in Amritsar, Muslims account for half of the city’s population. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs have links in both cities; some have their homes in one and their businesses in the other. Then Partition intervenes and from August to November 1947 huge caravans of refugees from both cities join the mass exodus; Muslims are fleeing from East Punjab and Hindus and Sikhs from West Punjab.
This exodus is accompanied by unprecedented violence on both sides and is most tragically witnessed in the attacks on trains crammed with refugees, and the arrival of trainloads of corpses at both ends of the railway line. The violence destroys 4,000 houses in Lahore and most of the 6,000 houses in the Walled City are badly damaged. Amritsar is the worst affected city in Punjab, with almost 10,000 buildings burnt down.
Hindu refugees wait to board ship at Karachi Harbour and embark for Bombay. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Although in the second half of 1947 Sindh is still relatively free of communal violence, Hindus and Sikhs begin migrating to India. According to noted Sindh historian, Dr Hamida Khuhro, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah “fully expected to retain the minority communities in Pakistan” and Ayub Khuhro, his Chief Minister in Sindh, declares the “Hindus to be an essential part of the society and economy of the province.”
Yet, events spin out of control as violence breaks out in Ajmer on December 6, 1947, and then in the Thar Desert, where Muslim casualties are high. On January 6, 1948, anti-Hindu riots break out in Karachi and the situation is aggravated when new arrivals from India forcefully take possession of houses in Karachi and Hyderabad that are still occupied by their Hindu owners.
In September 1947, according to estimates published by the Times of India, 12,000 non-Muslims leave Sindh for Mewar and other Princely States via Hyderabad (Sindh) and approximately 60,000 non-Muslims leave Karachi by rail, sea and air. In Bombay alone, 290,000 non-Muslims arrive on January 7, 1948 after leaving Karachi on August 15, 1947.
AUGUST 1947
A PUNJAB TORN ASUNDER
Too weak to walk on her own, a woman sits on her husband’s shoulders as Sikhs and Hindus brave the unforgiving October heat during their migration to eastern Punjab from Lahore.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Sir Cyril Radcliffe arrives in India on July 8, 1947. His instructions are to draw up a boundary line between India and Pakistan by August 15, 1947. His objections to the short time frame are ignored. The problem is that Punjab’s population distribution is such that no boundary can divide Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims without massive disruption.
The Commission has four representatives; two from the Congress and two from the Muslim League. But the bitterness between the two sides means that the final decision is Sir Cyril’s alone.
As soon as the Commission announces the demarcation line on August 17, 1947, mass migration movements erupt, as Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab move east, and Muslims in East Punjab move west.
Over the following days, the migrations assume staggering proportions and the violence on all sides of the communal spectrum is catastrophic, and estimates of the death toll vary between 200,000 and two million.
Mr Radcliffe leaves India immediately after completing the demarcation, destroying all his papers before departing.
In 1966, W.H. Auden, the celebrated English poet writes a poem on Mr Radcliffe’s Partition, evoking the difficulties of his task:
“Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day/ Patrolling the gardens to keep assassins away,/ He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate/ Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date/ And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect/ …But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,/ A continent for better or worse divided.”
Punjab was indeed torn asunder.
THE SOLE SPOKESMAN
KARACHI AUGUST 15 1947
ENTER THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is sworn in as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
“I, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, do solemnly affirm true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Pakistan as by law established, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George VI, in the office of Governor-General of Pakistan.”
It is Friday, August 15, 1947 and as Mr Jinnah speaks these words, as enunciated in the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the culminating moment of his long struggle for Pakistan is at hand. The oath of office is administered by Mian Abdul Rashid, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court (Mian Abdul Rashid later becomes the first Chief Justice of Pakistan). A thirty-one gun salute follows immediately.
Next, the first Cabinet of Pakistan is sworn in. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is appointed as the first Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers include I.I. Chundrigar (Trade & Commerce); Malik Ghulam Muhammad (Finance); Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar (Communications); Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Food, Agriculture & Health); Jogendra Nath Mandal (Law & Labour); and Mir Fazlur Rahman (Interior, Information & Education).
Following these ceremonies, Mr Jinnah, resplendent in a white sharkskin sherwani, walks towards the naval guard and acknowledges their salute. Although it is the month of August, the day’s heat dissipates under slightly overcast skies and the light incoming winds from the Arabian Sea.
Mr Jinnah walks down the steps of the cascading patio and on to the lawns of Government House, where dignitaries, diplomats, government functionaries and political veterans wait to congratulate him. On the outside perimeter, cheering crowds gather, intent on catching a glimpse of their Governor-General.
The last image of Mr Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah on this historic day is of them waving from one of the balconies of Government House as the Pakistan flag flutters in the wind.
KARACHI AUGUST 1947
PAKISTAN ZINDABAD
Saeed Haroon – a salar (commander) of the Muslim League National Guard and former National Guard ADC to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leads a procession towards Boulton Market in Karachi.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
The All-India Muslim League National Guard, founded in the United Provinces in 1931, is a quasi-military organisation associated with the Muslim League. The goal of the National Guard is to mobilise and inspire young Muslims with the values of tolerance, sacrifice and discipline. In 1934, the National Guard is given a further boost by Mr Jinnah and the organisation spreads across all the states of united India to activate participation in the Pakistan Movement.
The rally pictured here is met by a mammoth crowd raising the twin slogans of “Leke Rahenge Pakistan” and “Leke Rahenge Kashmir.” This rally in Karachi is part of an overall effort to mobilise all sections of the country in favour of Pakistan in the wake of Independence.
This photograph of Saeed Haroon was taken by Margaret Bourke-White and appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1947 and subsequently as part of a series of images in Life magazine’s cover story on Pakistan in January 1948.
BOMBAY AUGUST 1947
THE SOLE SPOKESMAN
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah stands in the study of his South Court residence on Mount Pleasant Road in Malabar Hills, Bombay’s most exclusive residential neighbourhood. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
We are a few weeks before Mr Jinnah’s final departure for Karachi, where he will be sworn in as Pakistan’s first Governor General.
For the moment he is still able to enjoy the pleasures of his well-appointed home in Bombay.
A long journey has taken him from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to becoming the sole spokesman for the Muslims of undivided India. This remarkable transition in his political career is analysed in The Sole Spokesman, a groundbreaking work by Pakistani historian, Dr Ayesha Jalal.
Single-handedly Dr Jalal transforms the whole prism through which Mr Jinnah’s career is viewed after his return from a self-imposed exile in London, and her work is a source of inspiration for many subsequent historians in South Asia and abroad, including the former Indian foreign minister, Jaswant Singh.
Here, Dr Jalal explains the dynamics of the concept of the sole spokesman.
Mr Jinnah was representing a divided Muslim community that needed to speak with one voice in order to be effective in the negotiations to determine independent India’s constitutional future. So when Mr Jinnah spoke to the British and the Congress, he claimed to represent all Muslims – be it in Muslim majority provinces or in Muslim minority ones.
Earlier in his career, Mr Jinnah had been styled the “ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity” by his political mentor in the Congress, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Here, by contrast, Mr Jinnah himself claimed to be the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims, a tactic that was intended to counter the Congress’s claim to speak on behalf of all Indians and paper over the cracks within the Indian Muslims. The remarkable corollary to this was that throughout his political career,
Mr Jinnah consistently championed minority rights. He demonstrated this aspect in his first address to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in August 1947 and in subsequent statements in the post-independence period. There was a paradoxical side effect to Mr Jinnah’s claim to be the sole spokesman of the Muslims in India. The Congress used Mr Jinnah’s demand for Muslim self-determination to insist on similar rights for non-Muslims in the two main Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab.
Pressed by the Hindu Mahasabha, the Congress high command called for the partition of these two provinces in March 1947, turning Mr Jinnah’s idea of an undivided Punjab and undivided Bengal for the Muslim state of Pakistan on its head.
This is why, concludes Dr Jalal, “it is a mistake to confuse the demand for Pakistan with the truncated Pakistan that emerged after the partition of Bengal and Punjab.”
KARACHI AUGUST 14, 1947
THE QUAID ASSUMES POWER
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah delivers his reply to the Viceroy’s address at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to mark the transfer of power between the British Government and Pakistan and India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Seated behind him on the podium is Lord Louis Mountbatten. Lady Edwina Mountbatten is seated beneath the podium on the left.
Three days earlier, on August 11, 1947, at the inaugural session of the Constituent Assembly in Karachi, Mr Jinnah delivers a landmark address, setting out some of the key components of his vision for Pakistan. On the subject of the freedom of religious expression he says: “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state… We are all equal citizens of one state.”
Now, Mr Jinnah prepares for the Dominion of Pakistan to assume power… Lord Mountbatten has returned to his seat after delivering his address to mark the transfer of power. In his speech Lord Mountbatten says: “I would like to express my tribute to Mr Jinnah. Our close personal contact and the mutual trust and understanding that have grown out of it are, I feel, the best omens for future good relations…”
Mr Jinnah, dressed in a white sharkskin sherwani, in measured extempore and with a few notes in his hand, replies: “Your Excellency, I thank His Majesty the King on behalf of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly and myself for his gracious message… Great responsibilities lie ahead… It will be our continuous effort to work for the welfare and well-being of all the communities in Pakistan…”
The next day, Mr Jinnah will be sworn in as Pakistan’s first Governor General by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Mian Abdul Rashid.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Miss Fatima Jinnah, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Lady Edwina Mountbatten face jubilant crowds as they leave the Constituent Assembly. — Courtesy Directorate of Electronic Media and Publications [DEMP], Ministry of Information Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad
Mr Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten drive together to Government House in a gleaming Rolls-Royce. Later in the afternoon, Lord and Lady Mountbatten leave for Delhi to attend the independence celebrations in India.
DELHI JUNE 3, 1947
ONWARDS TO PARTITION
Lord Mountbatten announces the British Government’s plan for the Partition of India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Earl Louis Mountbatten of Burma, the last viceroy of India is seated in his study at Viceroy House. To the right are Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar (for the Muslim League). To the left are Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Acharya Kripalani (for the Congress) and Baldev Singh (representing the Sikhs). Seated behind Lord Mountbatten are General Lord Ismay (right), his chief of staff, and Sir Eric Miéville (left), his private secretary.
It is June 3, 1947, and failed viceregal initiatives, such as the Simla Conference, the London Conference and the Cabinet Mission Plan – even the killings of Direct Action Day – are matters to be left behind. All hopes for a united India are dead. The sole question is how to proceed with the division of India.
Lord Mountbatten announces the British Government’s plan for the Partition of India, to be implemented under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. British India will be divided into two new and fully sovereign dominions with effect from August 15, 1947. Bengal and Punjab will be partitioned between the two new dominions. Legislative authority is conferred upon the Constituent Assemblies of the two dominions and British suzerainty over the Princely States ends on August 15, 1947.
The meeting is followed by separate broadcasts on All India Radio by Lord Mountbatten, Mr Nehru, Mr Jinnah and Mr Singh.
This is the parting of ways. A few weeks later, Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru assume their responsibilities respectively in Karachi and Delhi.
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan at the former’s residence at 10, Aurangzeb Road. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
A lawyer by training, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan enters politics in 1923. Throughout the struggle for Pakistan, he is a close associate and friend of Mr Jinnah. After Mr Jinnah’s death, his name appears as one of three executors of his will.
He serves as Pakistan’s first prime minister until his assassination on the grounds of Company Bagh, Rawalpindi, in 1951.
A PLAN TO NOWHERE
CALCUTTA AUGUST 16, 1946
THE AFTERMATH
Vultures feed on corpses strewn across an alleyway in Calcutta. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
As dusk descends, the results of the riots that erupt on Direct Action Day are all too clear. It is a day of untrammelled rioting and slaughter between Hindus and Muslims.
Trouble starts in the morning, even before the Muslim League rally, scheduled for noon at the Ochterlony Monument, begins. The Premier of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and his predecessor, Khawaja Nazimuddin are the main speakers. Tensions rise and Khawaja Nazimuddin pleads for restraint.
The moment the rally is over, the crowd, incensed by unconfirmed reports that all the injured are Muslims, start attacking Hindu-owned shops. Hindus and Sikhs lie in wait; as soon as they catch a Muslim, they hack him into pieces. By six o’clock a curfew is imposed; at eight o’clock troops secure the main routes and conduct patrols.
Although the worst affected areas are brought under control by late afternoon and the army presence is extended overnight, the killing escalates the next day. In the slums and areas outside military control, the violence gains in intensity. On August 18, buses and taxis loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms appear. The communal slaughter continues unabated until August 21, when Bengal is placed under Viceroy Rule.
The violence claims an estimated 3,000 dead and 17,000 injured.
CALCUTTA AUGUST 1946
FACING THE UNKNOWABLE
It is the eve of Direct Action Day. Bengal Premier, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (right), is engrossed in a telephone conversation at his residence in Calcutta. Khawaja Nazimuddin, his predecessor, is seated next to him. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Mr Suhrawardy is the last premier of Bengal under the Raj. He is a prominent leader of the Muslim League and serves as mayor of Calcutta in the 1930s. In ten years’ time, he will be Pakistan’s fifth prime minister. Two years later, Khawaja Nazimuddin will be Pakistan’s second governor general and subsequently Pakistan’s second prime minister.
One month earlier, the Muslim League and Congress, for different reasons, reject the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Congress are intransigent in their opposition to any kind of equal Muslim representation at the centre. It is clear that agreement cannot be reached and Mr Jinnah announces a countrywide Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946 to demonstrate the Muslim League’s determination that any arrangement following a British withdrawal must include parity at the centre.
As Direct Action Day breaks, no one can predict that the events that unfold will come to be known as the Great Calcutta Killings. Meetings and processions take place all across India, and all with minimal disturbance – with one exception – Calcutta. Perhaps because the situation in Bengal is particularly complex.
Although Muslims represent the majority of the population (56%), they are concentrated in eastern Bengal. In Calcutta, the ratio is reversed and Hindus constitute 64% of the population. As a result, Calcutta’s population is divided into two antagonistic entities.
Adding fuel to fire, tensions are running high. Hindu and Muslim communal newspapers are whipping up public sentiment with inflammatory reporting. And on the day itself, political leaders fail to anticipate the emotional response the word ‘nation’ evokes; it is no longer a political slogan – it has become a reality, politically and in the popular imagination.
Against this backdrop, Direct Action Day becomes symbolic of the carnage Hindu-Muslim antagonism will trigger in the days leading up, and subsequent, to Partition.
It is a day neither the Muslim League, the Congress nor the British administration could foresee.
DELHI JULY 1946
RENOUNCING THE PLAN
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, is announcing the Muslim League’s rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan at a press conference and calls for a Direct Action Day on Friday, August 16, 1946. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is seated on the right. —Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Earlier the same year, the Cabinet Mission, appointed by the British Government, is in India to find a solution that will grant independence to India, while attempting to preserve some semblance of the country’s unity.
They draw up a plan that calls for the setting up of a Constituent Assembly composed of members of the Congress and the Muslim League. The plan includes two options.
Option one is an all-India Federation based on the grouping of a) the Hindu majority provinces b) the Muslim majority provinces in the northwest (to include Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab and the NWFP) and the Muslim majority provinces in the northeast (to include Bengal and Assam). The powers of the federal centre under option one are to be limited to defence, foreign affairs and communications. Although acceptable to the Muslim League, this option is rejected by the Congress, which is firmly opposed to the grouping of provinces and the restrictions placed on central powers.
Option two proposes a sovereign Pakistan based on the partition of Punjab and Bengal, with all the Muslim majority areas going to Pakistan. Option two is rejected by both the Muslim League and the Congress, the latter reiterating that they will never forego their national character, accept parity with the Muslim League or agree to a veto by any communal group.
Once it becomes clear that the Congress wants to break the grouping and enhance central powers, Mr Jinnah withdraws the Muslim League’s approval of option one, reiterates the demand for a sovereign Pakistan based on undivided Punjab and Bengal, and calls for a Direct Action Day to force the British to grant them equal representation at the centre.
The die is now cast.
THE VICEREGAL CHESS GAME
SIMLA & LONDON 1945-46
IN THE VICEREGAL SHADOW
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, dons a solar topi as his rickshaw makes its way to Viceregal Lodge. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Mr Jinnah is on his way to attend the Simla Conference called at the behest of the Viceroy, Lord Wavell on June 25, 1945. The purpose is to discuss the Wavell Plan with the Muslim League and the Congress.
The Wavell Plan is the outcome of discussions in May 1945 between Lord Wavell and the British Government about the future of India. The crux of the plan is the reconstitution of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, with members selected by the Viceroy from a list of nominees proposed by the political parties. Differences immediately arise between the Muslim League and the Congress on the issue of Muslim representation. The Muslim League’s position is that as the only representative party of Muslims in India, all Muslim representatives on the Council must be nominated by them.
The Congress maintain that as they represent all communities in India they, therefore, should nominate Muslim representatives. The result is a deadlock and failure.
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru caught smiling at each other at a reception at the India Office Library in London in December 1946. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru are attending the London Conference, chaired by British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. This is a further attempt by the British to secure acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Although Mr Jinnah is willing to consider maintaining links with Hindustan (as the future Hindu majority state is referred to) on subjects such as a joint military and communications, he is adamant in his refusal to any agreement with respect to the composition of the Constituent Assembly without the constitutional stipulations required for the protection of future Muslim rights.
Subsequent to the failure of the London Conference, Mr Jinnah insists on a fully sovereign Pakistan with dominion status. The encounter of smiles at the India Office did not work.
DELHI 1946
A REDSHIRT POET DISSENTS
Khan Abdul Ghani Khan (right) converses with Benegal Shiva Rao, a leading journalist and politician, in front of Council House in Delhi. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Ghani Khan is the eldest son of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Educated at Rabindranath Tagore’s Shantiniketan School in western Bengal, which Indira Gandhi also attends, he is a poet, a sculptor, a painter – and a man of strong political views.
In April 1947, as Partition approaches, he forms a militant group, Pakhtoon Zalmay (Pakhtoon Youth), aimed at protecting the Redshirts and members of Congress from ‘violence’ at the hands of Muslim League sympathisers. However, the relationship between Congress and the Redshirt Movement is on a downward spiral. Despite Redshirt opposition to Pakistan, Congress negotiations with the British over the Partition of India stipulate for a referendum to be held on whether the NWFP will join Pakistan or India. Bitterly disappointed by this turn of events, his father’s last words to Mahatma Gandhi and his Congress allies are: “You have thrown us to the wolves.”
The referendum is overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan; the Redshirts severe their connection with Congress and move a resolution, whereby the Redshirts “regard Pakistan as their own country and pledge to do their utmost to strengthen and safeguard its interests and make every sacrifice for the cause.”
From then on, although no longer active in politics, Ghani Khan is still seen as a symbol of dissent and spends much of the early 1950s in prison. After his release, he withdraws into philosophy and art and authors several volumes of poems, including De Panjray Chaghar, a literary defence of the Pakhtoonwali code of honour. In 1980, General Zia-ul-Haq confers the Sitara-e-Imtiaz upon him.
He dies in 1996; his legacy is best expressed in his words: “Pakhtoon is not merely a race but a state of mind; there is a Pakhtoon inside every man, who at times wakes up, and it overpowers him.”
PESHAWAR TO BOMBAY 1944
GANDHI MANOEUVERS
Mahatma Gandhi visits the NWFP in the mid-1930s in order to consolidate the alliance between the Indian National Congress and Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Redshirt Movement. It is the proximity between Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi that earns the former the sobriquet of the ‘Frontier Gandhi’.
The Redshirt Movement begins as a non-violent struggle against British rule by Pakhtoons under the leadership of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. The movement starts facing pressure from the British authorities and Abdul Ghaffar Khan seeks political allies with the national parties.
Rebuffed by the Muslim League in 1931, he finds a sympathetic ear with the Congress. His brother, Dr Khan Sahib, plays an instrumental role in the success of the Congress-Redshirt Alliance in the 1937 and 1946 elections. As Partition approaches, the Redshirt Movement opposes joining Pakistan and when the Congress agrees to the British proposal for a referendum in the NWFP, Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s relationship with the Congress finds itself seriously frayed.
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi smile during the Jinnah-Gandhi talks. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Initiated by Mahatma Gandhi in July 1944, the talks are held at Mr Jinnah’s residence in Bombay in September. Mahatma Gandhi’s objective is to convince Mr Jinnah that the idea of Pakistan is untenable. In his opinion, power should be transferred to the Congress, after which Muslim majority areas that vote for separation will be made part of an Indian federation.
This view, says Mahatma Gandhi, reflects the substance of the Lahore Resolution. For Mr Jinnah, the absence of any guarantee that would protect Muslim rights under such an arrangement makes the proposal completely unacceptable. The talks end in failure.
ENTER THE QUAID-I-AZAM
KARACHI 1943
A PROCESSION IN TRIUMPH
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and G.M. Syed make their way in a triumphal procession to the Annual Session of the Muslim League in Karachi in December 1943. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Behind them and standing are Mr Jinnah’s National Guard ADCs; Mumtaz Hidayatullah, the son of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah, the veteran politician from Sindh, and Saeed Haroon, the son of Haji Abdullah Haroon.
On March 3, 1943, G.M. Syed brings before the Sindh Legislative Assembly, a resolution demanding the creation of Pakistan. The resolution is adopted, making it the first one in favour of the creation of Pakistan passed by a legislature in undivided India. It states that the Muslims of India “are justly entitled to the right as a single separate nation to have independent national states of their own, carved in the zones in which they are in majority in the subcontinent of India…”
It is this triumph for the Muslim League that frames Mr Jinnah’s arrival later in December to attend the Annual Session of the Muslim League for which Karachi is chosen as the venue.
As the President of the Sindh Muslim League, G.M. Syed is tasked with the responsibility of organising the arrangements for the Annual Session. He writes: “For nearly three months we worked to make a grand job of the honour that had been done to us. We did not spare men or material in lending all the grandeur and splendour to this historic session and only those who attended it can bear testimony to the scrupulous care with which every detail had been attended to and the lavish hospitality that Sindh had to offer.”
In his memoir, Struggle For New Sindh, G.M. Syed also writes about his admiration for Mr Jinnah: “In Jinnah I found a man of extraordinary intellectual capacity. His domineering personality and dynamic genius left a deep impression on my mind.”
G.M. Syed is subsequently asked by Mr Jinnah to resign from the presidency of the Sindh Muslim League, after which a group largely drawn from the Sindh Muslim League and styled as the Progressive Muslim League contest the 1945-46 elections in Sindh and establish a path of their own.
LAHORE MARCH 23, 1940
THE MOMENT OF TRUTH
The Quaid-i-Azam with Nawab Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot at Lahore’s Minto Park. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah addresses a mammoth crowd in Lahore’s Minto Park on March 22, 1940, subsequent to the passing of the Lahore Resolution at the three-day Annual Session of the Muslim League.
In the photograph above, Nawab Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot, the Chairman of the Punjab Reception Committee for the session, stands behind him, adjacent to the flagpole.
Sir Zafarullah Khan, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi, Haji Abdullah Haroon and Qazi Isa. — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives
Sir Zafarullah Khan (first from left) is credited with the original drafting of the Resolution; the critical points were then submitted in a memorandum to the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, in Delhi. The draft was subsequently further amended in Lahore by the Working Committee. The main supporters of the Resolution, one each from the north-western Muslim majority states in India, are (from second left) Maulana Zafar Ali Khan (Punjab), Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi (NWFP), Haji Abdullah Haroon (Sindh) and Qazi Isa (Balochistan).
Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan peruse the Lahore Resolution. — Courtesy Lahore Museum
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan peruse the Lahore Resolution as Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the seconder of the Resolution and the leader of the Muslim League in the UP legislature, delivers a fiery oration.
Unanimously accepted, the Resolution declares: “No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions, which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary.”
In the long journey to Pakistan, a critical point has been reached. Nothing will be the same again. It is the moment of truth.
SINDH 1938
A REMARKABLE HOMECOMING
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mian Mumtaz Daultana and Haji Abdullah Haroon in Seafield House — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives
Haji Abdullah Haroon, President of the Sindh Muslim League relaxes at home in Seafield House between sessions of the Karachi Conference. The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mian Mumtaz Daultana are in an animated discussion about the revitalisation of the first All India Muslim League government in Sindh headed by Haji Abdullah Haroon.
Mr Jinnah, once looked upon as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, returns to India in 1934 to assume the presidency of the Muslim League after four years in self-imposed exile in London. His return is marked by three vigorous years during which he consolidates the foundations of what will eventually constitute the future territories of Pakistan (although Pakistan is still not yet an inevitability in his mind).
Specifically, he succeeds in pushing back the Unionist style coalitions in Sindh, which by their composition are dependent upon the intervention of the British Governor. This pushback culminates in the resolution moved by Shaikh Abdul Majeed and adopted at the Karachi Conference recommending that the Muslim League develop a plan for Muslims to attain full independence.
This is an important first step in Mr Jinnah’s journey towards Muslim independence and a remarkable homecoming.
Four years later, in 1942, Haji Abdullah Haroon passes away. Mr Jinnah in his tribute says: “Muslim India, especially Sindh, has lost a leader who served and guided the people loyally and faithfully. I have lost a friend and colleague and deeply mourn his death.”
Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan describes him as “a pillar of strength to the Muslim League and one of its most sincere leaders. He was a staunch Pakistanist. His death is an irreparable loss to Muslim India in general and to Sindh in particular.”
The Quaid-i-Azam, in celebratory progression through Karachi in December 1938. At the front, next to the driver’s seat is his ADC, a young Mahmoud Haroon. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
THE DAYS IN THE WILDERNESS
ALLAHABAD 1930
AN ADDRESS TO REMEMBER
Sir Muhammad Iqbal arriving at the 25th Session of the All India Muslim League in Allahabad. — Dawn/White Star Archives
Sir Muhammad Iqbal arrives at the landmark session of the Muslim League in Allahabad on December 30, 1930, to deliver the now famous Allahabad Address.
Seated in the Lanchester on the right is Haji Abdullah Haroon. Standing next to the car is a young Yusuf Haroon; standing at the extreme left is poet Hafeez Jullundhri who will pen Pakistan’s national anthem eighteen years later.
In his address, Sir Muhammad Iqbal sets out his vision of an independent state for the Muslim majority provinces of undivided India. He defines the Muslims of India as a nation and suggests there is no possibility of peace in India until they are recognised as a nation under a federal system whereby Muslim majority units are accorded the same privileges given to Hindu majority units.
The young barrister Muhammad Iqbal in his library (left). At the historic Mezquita (mosque) of Cordoba, in Andalusia, Spain in 1933 (right). — Courtesy Iqbal Academy
In outlining a vision of an independent state for Muslim majority provinces for north-western India, Iqbal is the first politician to articulate the two-nation theory; that Muslims are a distinct nation deserving political independence from the other regions and communities of India.
Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s eight stanza masterpiece, Masjid-e-Qurtuba, is inspired by his prayers at the mosque and includes the following lines: “The stars gaze upon your precincts as a piece of heaven/But alas! For centuries your porticoes have not resonated with the call of the azaan”; an allusion to the turning point when Cordoba returned to Christian rule in 1236 and the mosque became a Roman Catholic cathedral.
LONDON 1931
A SELF-IMPOSED EXILE
Mr Jinnah with his sister Fatima and his remarkable daughter Dina. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Round Table Conferences in London have ended in failure. Mr Jinnah decides to stay on in London where he has a thriving practice as a Privy Council lawyer, with chambers located on King’s Bench Walk.
He spends long periods brooding over the collapse of the Hindu-Muslim unity platform in the Indian National Congress.
Mr Jinnah and Dina share a private moment in the grounds of their home on West Heath Road in Hampstead, London. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Finally, in 1934, he is persuaded to return to India to assume the presidency of the All India Muslim League. Thereafter, as the Quaid-i-Azam, he launches a series of initiatives that within a record time span of thirteen years, lead to the establishment of Pakistan.
Ruttie Jinnah is the daughter of Parsi baronet, Sir Dinshaw Petit. She marries the Quaid at the age of eighteen in 1918, despite virulent family opposition. The couple reside in South Court Mansion in Bombay.
Ruttie and Mr Jinnah are a glamorous couple. Flawless in her silks, Ruttie wears her signature hairstyle adorned with fresh flowers or complemented with headbands, embellished with diamonds, rubies and emeralds.
The couple are happy in the early years of their marriage. However, by 1923, Mr Jinnah’s deepening political involvement, long hours and frequent travel leave Ruttie feeling lonely and increasingly fragile.
Ruttie Jinnah. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
He is in Delhi when a call comes through on February 20, 1929 with the news that Ruttie is critically ill.
According to a close friend, Mr Jinnah says:
“Do you know who that was? It was my father-in-law. This is the first time we have spoken since my marriage.”
What Mr Jinnah does not know is that Ruttie is already dead.
The funeral is held at Bombay’s Muslim cemetery on February 22, 1929. According to Ruttie’s friend, Kanji Dwarkadas, “the funeral was a painfully slow ritual. Jinnah sat silent through all five hours.”
Then as Ruttie’s body is lowered into the grave, Mr Jinnah is the first to throw a handful of earth on the body. Suddenly, he breaks down and weeps like a child.
Another friend, M.C. Chagla, said years later that “there were tears in his eyes. That was the only time I found Jinnah betraying some shadow of human weakness.”
A FIRE EXTINGUISHED 1919-1931
THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT
Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (left) standing next to Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari. — Courtesy Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar’s family & Dawn/White Star Archives
Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (left) dons Turkish attire on his visit to Turkey on the eve of the First World War. Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, leader of the Indian Muslim Medical Mission to Turkey and future president of the Muslim League, stands on the right.
The firebrand Ali Brothers from Rampur State, achieve legendary status within the Khilafat Movement (1919 -1922), as the crucible in which a separate South Asian Muslim identity takes shape.
Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar makes his mark at the end of the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire is occupied by the Allied Powers under the Treaty of Sèvres. The Turkish Nationalists reject the Treaty, and the Grand National Assembly under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk denounces the rule of the reigning sultan, Mehmed VI.
As these events unfold, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, launch an agitation in India aimed at building up political unity among Muslims and pressure the British to preserve the Ottoman caliphate.
The agitation leads to the formation of the Khilafat Movement. However, despite an alliance with the Indian National Congress and a nationwide campaign of peaceful civil disobedience, the Khilafat Movement itself weakens, because Indian Muslims are divided between working for the Congress, the Khilafat Movement and the Muslim League.
The end comes in 1924 when Atatürk abolishes the caliphate. The brothers join the Muslim League and play a major role in the Pakistan Movement.
The Khilafat Movement is a major step towards the establishment of a separate Muslim state in South Asia.
Maulana Shaukat Ali sitting next to the coffin of his brother, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Maulana Shaukat Ali (extreme right) in January 1931 sits next to the coffin of his brother, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, on board the ship SS Narkunda on the way to Port Said. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar is buried within the precincts of the Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem.
His frequent jail sentences and acute diabetes have an adverse impact on his health. He dies in London in January 1931, while attending the First Round Table Conference.
His final words to the British Government are: “I would prefer to die in a foreign country as long as it is free. If you do not grant us freedom in India, you will have to find me a grave here.”
GENESIS DHAKA 1906
THE ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE
Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, Nawab Salimullah and Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III. — Dawn/White Star Archives
Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk (first from left), a prominent political personality from Hyderabad State, inaugurates the founding session of the All India Muslim League in Dhaka in 1906.
Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka (second from left), a venerated educationist, legislator and a powerful advocate for the Partition of Bengal, hosts the session of the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in Dhaka; a session that leads to the foundation of the All India Muslim League.
Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III (third from left), the spiritual head of the Ismaili community worldwide, plays a formative role in the founding of the All India Muslim League and serves as President from 1907 to 1913. He later becomes president of the League of Nations.
Founding members of the All India Muslim League. — Dawn/White Star Archives
The founding members of the All India Muslim League (above and below) at the baradariof Shah Bagh in Dhaka on December 30, 1906.
The image below shows Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar seated on the front row, second from left, and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali, sixth from left, same row.
The All India Muslim League which grows from the vision of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan at Aligarh will spearhead the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
Founding members of the All India Muslim League. — Dawn/White Star Archives
TOWARDS 1947
CARAVAN TO FREEDOM
The road to partition. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
As Partition approaches in 1947, large convoys of Sikh and Hindu refugees head towards East Punjab, and Muslims flee to the two wings of Pakistan. This photo captures the tail end of this momentous period.
This content has been independently produced by Dawn Media Group. UBL has paid for association with the content.
UBL, one of the largest banks in the private sector, was declared Pakistan’s Best Bank in 2016. With a proud legacy of 58 years, UBL is part of the socio-economic fabric of the country and has always served Pakistan with passion and pride. To mark Pakistan’s 70th independence year, this campaign celebrates everything that makes us proud of our past and positive for our future.
A banker by profession, Salim Ansar has a passion for history and historic books. His personal library already boasts a treasure trove of over 7,000 rare and unique books.
Every week, we shall take a leaf from one such book and treat you to a little taste of history.
BOOK NAME: The Founder of Pakistan (Through Trial to Triumph)
PUBLISHER: The Pakistan National Movement, Cambridge, England
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 1942
The following excerpt has been taken from Page: 9 – 13
“In the recent history of South Asia, the vision of a single individual has seldom transformed the fate of a nation so completely as has been done by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, the Founder of Pakistan.
Crisis Predicted
“The author here outlines four alternative British policies for the North-West Frontier, summing up in favour of, what he calls, the ‘Progressive Policy,’ which aims at a gradual penetration of the Tribal Territories, lying between India and the Afghan frontier.”
“This ideal policy can never be achieved until we move to the Durand Line.”
“30 YEARS HENCE”
(Statesman, Delhi, August 3, 1933)
“If we do not now begin some sort of progressive policy, what will be the result in, say, thirty years’ time? My outlook is pessimistic because of the cursory reading of Indian History, a petty knowledge of Indian politics and my own prophetic conceit. I visualize a Central Government with an inevitable Hindu majority; a Moslem minority continually in opposition on religious and imaginary grounds; an army cut to the bone so as to make Federation safe for democracy; and, finally, a forward policy such as we have now, only less so.
“Then the Mahsud loots the rich cantonment of Razmak or the Afridi occupies the Hindu bungalows of Peshawar, or the Achakzai raids the Staff College in Quetta. A crisis will develop. The Commander-in-Chief will demand strong action and 50 crores, and will be supported by the Central Government. And then, ladies and gentlemen, the sinister figure of Pakistan will rear its arrogant head.
“It is idle and extremely foolish for anybody in India to shut his eyes to the Islamic movement which dreams of an Indian Moslem Confederation composed of the Punjab, the tribal territory (called Afghania), Kashmir and Sind. On … a pretext of war against the Mohammedans of the border, an agitation, spreading through Provinces and States, will arise which will make Civil Disobedience look like a dhobi-ghat scuffle. Pakistan will have tremendous backing; it already possesses great resources in fighting men; and it still dreams of the old Mughal glories in Hindustan. It would split Federation from top to bottom.
“Then, the Duchess of Atholl, M.P., writing on the Indian Problem, thus showed her apprehensions of the Pakistan Scheme:
“The determination of some Muslims not to submit under any conditions to a Hindu yoke at the Centre is shown by the proposal to set up an independent Federation of the five mainly Muslim areas, i.e., the Punjab, Sind, North-West Frontier, Kashmir, Baluchistan. In view of the fact that such a Federation would include the bulk of the fighting races of India, that it would control her most vulnerable frontier, and that beyond that frontier lies a continuous belt of Muslim states stretching to the Mediterranean, a greater political and military danger to India could hardly be imagined. It might well mean civil war in India and an Afghan invasion with Soviet support.
“Muslim witnesses described this to the Joint Committee as only a student’s scheme, but the anxiety shown by a leading Muslim delegate to cut short questions on this matter suggests that the proposal has aroused interest in more responsible quarters. A later witness, an ex-district magistrate, told the Joint Committee that the idea of a great Islamic State, to include not only the area in question, but also Afghanistan, was being discussed in Muslim circles in the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province. It is also being spoken of in Chinese Turkestan, which is rapidly being penetrated by Islamic ideas, though Soviet representatives, since the conclusion of a commercial treaty in 1931 with the Chinese authorities, are said to have become the actual rulers of this huge province a fact which incidentally brings Britain and Soviet Russia in direct contact with each other for four hundred miles along the northern border of Kashmir.
“‘It should not be forgotten that in the middle of the eighteenth century, Kashmir and the four provinces in question, referred to to-day by supporters of the scheme as ‘Pakistan’ actually formed part of an Afghan kingdom. The recovery of this great territory, given favourable political conditions, might well be the aim of future Afghan policy, as it was in the war of 1919.’ (The Duchess of Atholl, The Main Facts of the Indian Problem, London, 1933)
“Again, speaking in the House of Commons on 8th May, 1935, on the Government of India Bill, 1935 (All-India Federation Bill), Mr. Vyvyan Adams, M.P., voiced his disapproval of the Pakistan Scheme in the following words:
“‘We need the fidelity of the Hindu community no less than we need the fidelity of the Moslems. Some strange evidence was submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee suggesting that at some date there would be a federation of Moslems comprising Baluchistan, Sind, the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province and Kashmir, and it was proposed that with them was to be federated Afghanistan. Such an arrangement is not in accordance with our traditional ideas of Moslem loyalty, and would be quite inconsistent with what, during our history, we have grown to expect from the Moslem community.’” (Parliamentary Debates, 1935)
“Yet again, discoursing on the effects of Muslim renaissance on the international situation, Professor John Coatman, formerly Professor of Inter-Imperial Relations, London University, expressed himself thus on the Pakistan Scheme:
“‘The Islamic renascence now in progress across the whole Middle East and North of Africa can be a powerfully disruptive factor in international relations and the world order of the future. Although, as we have seen, there is no substance in the talk of Pan-Islamism, there is very material substance in some of the plans, or at any rate possibilities, of the growth of greater Muhammadan States by the union of neighbouring Muhammadan peoples; and further, there is the certainty that such growth will be partly at the expense of non-Muhammadan peoples. One example of the international disorganisation which would be produced by any such development as this would be provided by the amalgamation of Afghanistan and the Muhammadans of North-western India into one state. Such a project as this may be a chimera, but it is discussed seriously enough by some Muhammadans of standing in both the countries concerned. There are enthusiasts who foresee the rise of a great Muhammadan kingdom, stretching from the eastern borders of Persia to Calcutta, and including Kashmir and some of the khanates, or little kingdoms, of Turkestan and Central Asia. It is easy enough to point out the tremendous dislocation which would ensue from the realisation of such dreams as this and the permanent insecurity and the certainty of ultimate disaster from the inclusion in such a new State of millions of Hindus, who would form the Hindustan irredents.’ (John Coatman, Magna Britannia, London, 1936)
Sir Alfred Watson, Editorial Director of Great Britain and the East, made a personal attack on Rahmat Ali and opposed the Pakistan National Movement in the following words:
“‘Let there be no mistake; this new movement is formidable and threatens to hold up all constitutional advance in India and might well lead to chaos in the country. The idea is not that of Mr. Jinnah. He has adopted it, but its principal advocate is C. Rahmat Ali, who uses the language of fanaticism in urging it upon the Muslims of India. To him Indian territorial unity is “a mischievous myth.” For the Muslims to remain in India is “for ever to rot in subjection to Indianism.” The Muslim people will be “coerced and crushed into complete captivity.”’
“‘To argue with this kind of opponent is futility. One can only point out the absurdity of the proposals. Pakistan is to establish itself in the Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan, which would form a fairly homogeneous group of states in the north; to extend to Bengal, where there is a Muslim majority of the population, and to take in Hyderabad. A glance at the map is sufficient to dispel the idea that these scattered areas could be combined in one nation.’ (Great Britain and the East, London, September 4, 1941)
“Ch Rehmat Ali proposed in his Millat of Islam and the Menace of Indianism, that:
“‘If we really wish to rid ourselves of “Indianism” to reestablish our nationhood as distinct from “India,” and to link our national domains to one another as South Asiatic countries, we must scrap the All-Indian Muslim League as such and create instead an alliance of the nations of Pakistan, Bengal, and Usmanistan.’
“It is clear from the above quotation that Rahmat Ali plans to create three Muslim nations in the Islamic strongholds of Pakistan, Bengal and Usmanistan and then to bring them together by an alliance of mutual solidarity and defence. This is a very different thing from combining scattered areas into one nation.
“We need hardly add that this opposition of British politicians, prompted as it is by imperial expediency, rather than by any fundamental flaw in the Pakistan Scheme, is foredoomed to failure. For history shows that if an ideal is basically just, as that of Pakistan certainly is, and if it has won the allegiance of the people, as the Pakistani ideal has of the Muslims, no power on earth can prevent its fulfillment.”
LAHORE: Karam Singh Sobti, an automobile engineer of Lahore, was sentenced by the District Magistrate, Lahore, to an aggregate term of nine years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,02,500 on charges of contravening the provisions of the Motor Spirits Rationing Order, forgery and cheating. According to the prosecution, the accused had entered into a contract with the military authorities for the supply of civilian vehicles to an M.T. training team at Jhelum. He was supplied with special receipts to withdraw petrol for taking the vehicles engaged from the places of engagement to Jhelum. The accused is alleged to have withdrawn petrol and misappropriated it. The accused in another case was alleged to have committed forgery of certain [kinds] and cheated the military authorities at Jhelum in respect of his claim for payment for vehicles supplied by him to the military authorities.
[Meanwhile,] the recent ban imposed by the Government of India on entry into British India of “Civil War in France” by Karl Marx is characterized as ‘quaint’ by Daily Times columnist who asks: “Do they think that Marx and Lenin write about the France of today? Or is it just an old-fashioned idea of not giving people ideas?” (Dawn, Delhi)
BOMBAY: The resumed Gandhi-Jinnah meeting today [Sept 14] lasted about a hundred minutes. At the end of today’s meeting a joint statement by Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah announced that from tomorrow onwards they would continue holding the meeting only between 5.30 and 7 in the evening. Mr. Jinnah explained that they had other work to attend to in the mornings in connection with the discussions. In this sentence by Mr. Jinnah was discerned a cheering note by the waiting Pressmen at the Mount Pleasant Road Bungalow.
Does this mean that the stage of discussion of the fundamentals is past and now the two Leaders are discussing details? This conclusion is suggested by another sentence in the evening’s announcement, namely, “we need the mornings to attend to important things in connection with this very work”.
Exactly at 5.30 p.m. Mr. Gandhi’s car drove in and Mr. Gandhi briskly walked into the house, without waiting for Mr. Jinnah to come out to receive him. At 6.15 p.m. as on previous days, Mr. Gandhi’s dinner consisting of a lota of goat’s milk and a plate containing dates arrived.
This evening the two Leaders have completed exactly eleven hours of conversations. (Dawn, Delhi)
Published in Dawn, Economic & Business, Sep 15th, 2014
There’s a war on in Pakistan and it’s largely existentialist in nature. It’s a war for the mind, body and soul of the idea that drove the ‘Pakistan Movement’ and succeeded in creating a separate and sovereign Muslim-majority enclave in South Asia.
It’s not a recent war. It’s been raging between various political, intellectual and religious sections of the enclave’s polity and society for over six decades now.
On numerous occasions, the governments of Pakistan claimed to have reached a synthesis from this tussle through various constitutional resolutions and conclusions, none of which have stuck.
On the contrary, they have only managed to open numerous Pandora’s Boxes that have been almost impossible to close.
Nevertheless, the evolution of the idea which all the fight is about, has seen a gradual retardation. Today, this idea may not mean what it meant when Mohammad Ali Jinnah led the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
To some, the idea was not allowed to freely evolve and deliver its promise of a prosperous and progressive Muslim homeland (in South Asia).
To others, however, it is not retardation at all but an ideological process bearing the kind of fruit that the idea was always destined to sprout.
The idea behind the momentum that gave birth to Pakistan was Muslim Nationalism.
One section of Pakistanis considers it as an idea that was to evolve and shape Pakistan into a modern and progressive Muslim-majority society and state.
The other section sees it as an idea that was to grow and lay the foundation of a unique Islamic state; or a strong theocratic island in a sea of western ideas and of the ‘pseudo-secularism’ of Hindu-dominated India.
Though the state and governments of Pakistan have for long attempted to find a middle-ground in this context, such a ground has increasingly shifted towards the rightist sides of the existentialist divide.
This shift is lamented by those who explain it as the gradual retardation of the idea of Muslim Nationalism. Their opponents on the other hand have welcomed this swing to the right, explaining it as the natural direction Muslim Nationalism was destined to take.
So what was this idea destined to achieve?
The idea of nationalism as an ideology with which a man identifies with his nation (on the basis of shared political and cultural commonalities and borders) is largely an 18th century construct that emerged in Europe.
Its development was accelerated by the eventual expansion of the politics and economics associated with the rise of European colonialism and the assertion of the mercantile and trader classes.
Nationalism was first introduced in South Asia by British colonialists after they strengthened their economic and political grip in the region in the aftermath of the collapse of the 500-year-old Muslim rule in India.
Though 20th Century Islamic scholars such as Abul Ala Maududi almost completely rejected any linkage between nationalism and Islam, Pakistani author and researcher, Dr Nasim Ahmed Jawed, in his 1999 book, ‘Islam’s Political Culture’, suggests that ‘Islam in itself is a sort of nationalism in which the Muslim community (ummah) occupies the place of a nation.’
In this context, Jawed is actually echoing the basis of a Muslim Nationalism that was first set up and built upon by 19th century Indian Muslim scholars, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali.
According to eminent Pakistani historian, Dr Mubarek Ali, when Muslim rule began to collapse in India, many prominent Muslim thinkers became alarmingly conscious of the minority status of the Muslims in the region.
Dr Ali adds that it was at this point that Muslim thinkers and reformers began to overtly talk about the ummah, suggesting that they were a part of the global Muslim community.
This thinking was a way to pad the reality that even though Muslims had ruled India for over 500 years, compared to the Hindus, they were still a minority in the region.
The creeping minority complex was offset by the notion that Indian Muslims were part of the large Muslim community — a universal nation of men and women who shared a common faith.
Muslim Nationalism for revival of Indian Muslims
This was the basis upon which men such as Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali began to construct a Muslim Nationalism which would evolve into becoming the main engine behind the movement that created Pakistan.
The ummah factor was adopted from the Pan-Islamism of 19th Century thinker and activist, Jalaluddin Afghani. But as the state of the Indian Muslims began to degrade after the complete collapse of Muslim rule in India, Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali concentrated more on improving the condition of India’s Muslim minority.
Both emphasised the importance of gaining ‘western education,’ and participating in the economic activity of British colonial rule. To ward off criticism from orthodox Muslim clerics and scholars, they also pleaded to understand Islam’s holy scriptures in a more rational and non-literalist manner, insisting that Islam was a modern, dynamic and enlightened religion.
Syed Ahmed Khan
Though Ahmed and Ameer Ali often reminded the Muslims of India of their royal past as a ruling class, they paralleled this with a plea to look forward and regain this past through modern means ( i.e. mainly through modern education and the rejection of the superstition, obscurantism and anti-intellectual bias that they believed had crept into the thinking of India’s Muslim subjects).
The idea of this Muslim Nationalism was mainly to reinvent the region’s Muslims from being the degraded left-overs of a fallen empire into becoming a resourceful, enlightened, and above all a separate cultural entity of India.
Syed Ameer Ali
It was from this Muslim Nationalism that the All India Muslim League was formed in 1906.
But this nationalism still retained its initial seeds of Pan-Islamism and many Muslim Nationalists took an active part in the ‘Khilafat Movement’ that was launched in 1919 to halt the fall of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey.
Interestingly, though the movement did not succeed in saving the Ottomans, it did trigger one of the first battles among the Muslim Nationalists of the region over the essence of the ideology.
For example, Mohammad Ali Jinnah (who, was yet to become a prominent Muslim Nationalist), criticised the Khilafaf movement of being fuelled by religious fanaticism, whereas Muslim Nationalists such as Mohammad Ali Johaur and Shaukat Ali played a prominent role in it.
Johar and Shaukat saw Muslim Nationalism as an ideology that was to dismantle British rule in India through the formation of an Islamic caliphate. Ironically, the movement was also supported by Mahatma Gandhi’s Indian National Congress.
The collapse of the movement was a blow to the Pan-Islamic elements within the time’s Muslim Nationalism.
But that aspect of the idea of Muslim Nationalism that was first set into motion by Syed Ahmed Khan and Ameer Ali had been largely successful in rehabilitating the economic and social status of some Muslims (also giving birth to a Muslim bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie in India). It was still mostly an idea preoccupied by the social, academic and economic improvement of the region’s Muslims. It didn’t have any political pull as such.
To become this it required a coherent political philosophy and narrative. This eventually came through the mind and pen of a renowned Muslim philosopher and poet, Mohammad Iqbal.
‘Spiritual Democracy’ — Iqbal’s epic undertaking
But when Iqbal began to construct the political dimensions of Muslim Nationalism, the idea had already experienced its first schism.
As mentioned earlier, the start and collapse of the Khilafat Movment (1919-1924) had fragmented the views of Muslim Nationalists, with one section looking at it as a universal Pan-Islamic idea whose epicentre was India, and the other faction holding on to the idea’s India-centricity, concerned only with the economic and social uplift of the region’s Muslims.
Iqbal’s writings in this context attempted to bridge the gap between the two poles. He expanded upon Syed Ahmed Khan’s pleas to liberate the Muslim mind from superstition and the anti-intellectual orthodoxy of the clergy, and on his (Syed’s) insistence that Islam’s scriptures should be read and understood in the light of reason.
But Iqbal also emphasised that Muslims need not be taken in by modern concepts such as secularism because Islam was inherently secular as there was no concept of the Church and/or official clergy (as a mediator between God and man) in Islam.
Iqbal’s Muslim Nationalism rejected the traditional Muslim clergy and hierarchal spiritual leaders (as mediators between God and man), but advocated the somewhat Plutonian enactment of a ‘spiritually enlightened’ and learned assembly of men who would decide the political, economic and legislative fate of the Muslims. Iqbal called this ‘spiritual democracy.’
Muhammad Iqbal
Just as Syed Ahmed Khan had done, Iqbal too saw the Muslims of India as a separate cultural entity. But he added that they should now politically strive to carve out their own sovereign abode.
However, he wasn’t quite clear exactly what would be the geographical shape of such an adobe because like the Pan-Islamists, Iqbal too saw the Muslims of India as being part of a universal Muslim nation.
Iqbal’s was a giant undertaking because he was constructing a politically relevant Muslim Nationalism by incorporating into it all that inspired and impressed him: From his intense interpretation of Islam’s holy texts, to Pan-Islam’s notion of religious and political (Muslim) universalism, to Syed Ahmed Khan’s idea of constructing a robust Muslim class in India, to even Kamal Ataturk’s secular Turkish nationalism and all the way to Nietzsche’s notion of ‘will to power.’
A lesser thinker would have exhausted himself in trying to weave together such distinct ideas into becoming one coherent indication of nationalism. But Iqbal largely succeeded in at least inspiring the growing number of Muslim bourgeoisie to begin seeing the All India Muslim League as a stirring expression of Muslim Nationalism.
But Iqbal’s epic undertaking was such that it also attracted the admiration of the Pan-Islamists who by now had become to be known as ‘Islamic nationalists.’ These were prolific Islamic scholars such as Abul Ala Maududi who, however, rejected Muslim Nationalism’s new separatist tendencies (because it supposedly negated Islam’s essence of universality).
Instead, Islamic nationalists such as Maududi understood Iqbal’s ideas as allusions to the creation of a universal Islamic state that would mushroom from India and then spread.
Abul Ala Maududi
But the Muslim League, especially under Mohammad Ali Jinnah, understood and saw Iqbal in a different and more localised light.
Till even the early 1940s, Jinnah’s Muslim Nationalism was still embedded in the act of safeguarding the economic, cultural and political interests of India’s Muslims. He saw Iqbal as a contemporary extension of the enlightened endeavours of Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali who wanted to mould the Muslims of the region into a robust community at par with India’s Hindu majority.
But as communal tensions between India’s Hindu majority and Muslim minority continued to rise, the League increasingly attempted to become the major political organ of the region’s Muslims.
The ‘idea’ assumes concrete political form
Till even the mid-1940s, India’s Muslims were being represented by a host of political and religious outfits that included the Muslim League, The Unionist Party, The Jamiat Ulema Islam Hind, the Khudai Khidmatgar, the Majlis-e-Ahrar, the Khaksar, and Jamat-i-Islami.
The Unionist Party was largely a pragmatist political group dominated by influential Muslim feudal, spiritual and business elites of the Punjab. It was also close to the Indian National Congress.
The Jamiat Ulema Islam Hind (JUIH) was a well organised party of Deobandi ulema and clerics who were opposed to the League’s notion of Muslim Nationalism, even though some of its leaders broke away and began to support the League’s calls for a separate Muslim homeland.
The Khudai Khidmatgar (also called the Red Shirts) was a left-leaning Pushtun nationalist party that was entirely opposed to Muslim Nationalism, believing it to be a construct of Punjabi and North Indian Muslim elites.
The Majlis-e-Ahrar and the Khaksar were radical right-wing Islamic groups that, along with the Jamat-i-Islami, rejected the idea of Muslim Nationalism, which, to them, was a secular colonial construct and detrimental to the political and spiritual interests of the Muslims of India.
It was during the legislative assembly elections of 1946 in India that the League was finally able to give a more articulate political dimension to its Muslim Nationalism.
Ideas from Syed Ahmed Khan and Iqbal’s notions of Muslim Nationalism were merged with the more contemporary political and ideological declarations largely authored by men such as Choudhry Rehmat Ali and Danial Latifi.
Rehmat, a graduate of the Cambridge University in the UK, authored a passionate pamphlet in 1933 titled ‘Are We to Live or Parish Forever.’ In it he openly called for the creation of a separate Muslim state carved out from the Muslim-majority regions of India (and even beyond).
Rehmat’s Muslim Nationalism was a direct response to what he perceived to be the rise of ‘Hindu Nationalism’ in the guise of the Indian National Congress. He urged the Muslims of India to follow the example of Islam’s Prophet who had united the Arab tribes in the 7th Century. To him, such a unity was the only way India’s Muslims would be able to challenge the onslaught of Hindu majority-ism.
Chaudhry Rehmat Ali
Jinnah gave Rehmat’s Muslim Nationalism a cool-headed spin when he advised a more pragmatic and patient approach. In 1944, Jinnah asked Danial Latifi to transform the Muslim Nationalism of the League into a coherent political, social and economic programme.
The final ‘idea’ — a patchwork of various ideas
Latifi was the leading socialist in the League at the time. In 1944, he authored and published the first complete manifesto of the All India Muslim League.
The manifesto was patronised by Jinnah and floated to attract Muslim votes in the 1945-46 legislative assembly elections, the results of which finally turned the League into the largest Muslim party in India. The very next year it succeeded in creating Pakistan.
Though a committed ‘scientific socialist’, Latifi married ideas of bourgeoisie Muslim economic advancement (through meritocracy) to Iqbal’s idea of ‘spiritual democracy’.
According to Latifi, the League would promote policies that would benefit and encourage the enterprising economic spirit of the Muslim middle-classes, and at the same time protect the Muslim masses from the oppression of the Hindu, Muslim and British Colonial elites.
Latifi also expressed the League’s idea of a separate Muslim state as an organ that would eventually transcend and resolve religious differences in the region, because a Muslim-majority state was inherently more equipped to appreciate religious plurality, harmony and diversity than a state dominated by a large Hindu majority.
This was strongly alluded to by Jinnah during his first major speech as the Governor General of Pakistan in August 1947.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah
Furthermore, Latifi envisaged the League’s idea of the state as something that had a soul. According to him the state (under the League) ‘will be the alter-ego of the national being and in good time the two would merge to form an ordered and conflict-free society …’
During the 1945-46 election campaign, the League wielded Rehmat’s pleas for Muslim unity to gain a separate homeland and Latifi’s notion of the League being ‘the (political, economic and social) manifestation of the (Muslim) national soul.’
Danial Latifi
So the Muslim Nationalism that led to the creation of Pakistan was not quite a monolithic idea as such. Over a period of many decades it evolved as a patchwork of various ideas – from Syed Ahmed Khan and Syed Ameer Ali’s pro-assimilation pleas of Muslim progress (on the basis of adopting modern education and a rational understanding of the faith); to Iqbal’s philosophical mediations on the state of Islam in the 20th century and a nationhood based on an inspirational self-will of the Muslims; all the way to Rehmat Ali’s passionate call for the geographical separatism of the Muslims, and Danial Latifi’s promise of the creation of a progressive ‘state with a soul’ that would provide economic benefits and care across the classes.
Pan-Islamist ideas too informed the creation of this Muslim Nationalism, but once the idea rapidly moved towards the ambition of carving out a separate Muslim state in the region, Pan-Islamists and ‘Islamic nationalists’ decided to oppose it. They derided it as a myopic experiment that would be detrimental to the spiritual and political wellbeing of the Muslims of India and to the Pan-Islamist ambitions of reviving the concept of a universal caliphate.
Nevertheless, the later view was largely co-opted within the Muslim Nationalist tendency after the creation of Pakistan. But the co-option only managed to intensify the battle between the two poles of the ideology, leaving the nation locked in a constant battle between two sides of a single idea.
That is a conflict which is yet to enjoy a widespread consensual resolution.
[[1]] We are meeting today in our session after fifteen months. The last session of the All-India Muslim League took place at Patna in December 1938. Since then many developments have taken place. I shall first shortly tell you what the All-India Muslim League had to face after the Patna session of 1938. You remember that one of the tasks, which was imposed on us and which is far from completed yet, was to organise Muslim Leagues all over India. We have made enormous progress during the last fifteen months in this direction. I am glad to inform you that we have established provincial leagues in every province. The next point is that in every bye-election to the Legislative Assemblies we had to fight with powerful opponents. I congratulate the Mussalmans for having shown enormous grit and spirit throughout our trials. There was not a single bye-election in which our opponents won against Muslim League candidates. In the last election to the U.P. Council, that is the Upper Chamber, the Muslim League’s success was cent per cent. I do not want to weary you with details of what we have been able to do in the way of forging ahead in the direction of organising the Muslim League. But I may tell you that it is going up by leaps and bounds.
[[2]] Next, you may remember that we appointed a committee of ladies at the Patna session. It is of very great importance to us, because I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to give every opportunity to our women to participate in our struggle of life and death. Women can do a great deal within their homes, even under purdah. We appointed this committee with a view to enable them to participate in the work of the League. The objects of this central committee were: (1) to organise provincial and district women’s sub-committees under the provincial and district Muslim Leagues: (2) to enlist a larger number of women to the membership of the Muslim League: (3) to carryon an intensive propaganda amongst Muslim women throughout India in order to create in them a sense of a greater political consciousness — because if political consciousness is awakened amongst our women, remember your children will not have much to worry about: (4) to advise and guide them in all such matters as mainly rest on them for the uplift of Muslim society. This central committee, I am glad to say, started its work seriously and earnestly. It has done a great deal of useful work. I have no doubt that when we come to deal with their report of work done we shall really feel grateful to them for all the services that they have rendered to the Muslm League.
[[3]] We had many diffkulties to face from January 1939 right up to the declaration of war. We had to face the Vidya Mandir in Nagpur. We had to face the Wardha Scheme all over India. We had to face ill-treatment and oppression to Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces. We had to face the treatment meted out to Muslims in some of the Indian States such as Jaipur and Bhavnagar. We had to face a vital issue that arose in that littlc state of Rajkot. Rajkot was the acid test made by the Congress which would have affected one-third of India. Thus the Muslim League had all along to face various issues from January 1939 up to the time of the declaration of war. Before the war was declared the grratcst danger to the Muslims of India was the possible inauguration of the federal scheme in the central Government. We know what machinations were going on. But the Muslim League was stoutly resisting them in every direction. We felt that we could never accept the dangerous scheme of the central federal Government embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935. I am sure that we have made no small contribution towards persuading the British Government to abandon the scheme of central federal government. In creating that [state of] mind in the British Government, the Muslim League, I have no doubt, played no small part. You know that the British people are very obdurate people. They are also very conservative; and although they are very clever, they are slow in understanding. After the war was declared, the Viceroy naturally wanted help from the Muslim League. It was only then that he realised that the Muslim League was a power. For it will be remembered that up to the time of the declaration of war, the Viceroy never thought of me but of Gandhi and Gandhi alone. I have been the leader of an important party in the Legislature for a considerable time, larger than the one I have the honour to lead at present, the present Muslim League Party in the Central Legislature. Yet the Viceroy never thought of me. Therefore, when I got this invitation from the Viceroy along with Mr. Gandhi, I wondered within myself why I was so suddenly promoted, and then I concluded that the answer was the ‘All-India Muslim League’ whose President I happen to be. I believe that was the worst shock that the Congress High Command received, because it challenged their sole authority to speak on behalf of India. And it is quite clear from the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and the High Command that they have not yet recovered from that shock. My point is that I want you to realise the value, the importance, the significance of organising ourselves. I will not say anything more on the subject.
[[4]] But a great deal yet remains to be done. I am sure from what I can see and hear that the Muslim India is now conscious, is now awake, and the Muslim League has by now grown into such a strong institution that it cannot be destroyed by anybody, whoever he may happen to be. Men may come and men may go, but the League will live for ever.
[[5]] Now, coming to the period after the declaration of war, our position was that we were between the devil and the deep sea. But I do not think that the devil or the deep sea is going to get away with it. Anyhow our position is this. We stand unequivocally for the freedom of India. But it must be freedom of all India and not freedom of one section or, worse still, of the Congress caucus — and slavery of Mussalmans and other minorities.
[[6]] Situated in India as we are, we naturally have our past experiences and particularly the experiences of the past 2 1/2 years of provincial constitution in the Congress-governed provinces. We have learnt many lessons. We are now, therefore, very apprehensive and can trust nobody. I think it is a wise rule for every one not to trust anybody too much. Sometimes we are led to trust people, but when we find in actual experience that our trust has been betrayed, surely that ought to be sufficient lesson for any man not to continue his trust in those who have betrayed him. Ladies and gentlemen, we never thought that the Congress High Command would have acted in the manner in which they actually did in the Congress-governed provinces. I never dreamt that they would ever come down so low as that. I never could believe that there would be a gentleman’s agreement between the Congress and the Government to such an extent that although we cried [ourselves] hoarse, week in and week out, the Governors were supine and the Governor-General was helpless. We reminded them of their special responsibilities to us and to other minorities, and the solemn pledges they had given to us. But all that had become a dead letter. Fortunately, Providence came to our help, and that gentleman’s, agreement was broken to pieces~and the Congress, thank Heaven, went out of office. I think they are regretting their resignations very much. Their bluff was called off [=was called]. So far so good. I therefore appeal to you, in all [the] seriousness that I can command, to organise yourselves in such a way that you may depend upon none except your own inherent strength. That is your only safeguard, and the best safeguard. Depend upon yourselves. That does not mean that we should have ill-will or malice towards others. In order to safeguard your rights and interests you must create that strength in yourselves [such] that you may be able to defend yourselves, That is all that I want to urge.
[[7]] Now, what is our position with regard to [a] future constitution? It is that as soon as circumstances permit, or immediately after the war at the latest, the whole problem of India’s future constitution must be examined de novo and the Act of 1935 must go once for all. We do not believe in asking the British Government to make declarations. These declarations are really of no use. You cannot possibly succeed in getting the British Government out of this country by asking them to make declarations. However, the Congress asked the Viceroy to make a declaration. The Viceroy said, ‘I have made the declaration’. The Congress said, ‘No, no. We want another kind of declaration. You must declare now and at once that India is free and independent with the right to frame its own constitution by a Constituent Assemhly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise or as low a franchise as possihle. This Assembly will of course satisfy the minorities’ legitimate mterests.” Mr. Gandhi says that if the minorities are not satisfied then he is willing that some tribunal of the highest character and most impartial should decide the dispute. Now, apart from the impracticable character of this proposal and quite apart from the fact that it is historically and constitutionally absurd to ask [a] ruling power to abdicate in favour of a Constituent Assembly. Apart from all that, suppose we do not agree as to the franchise according to which the Central Assembly is to be elected, or suppose the the solid body of Muslim representatives do not agree with the non-Muslim majority in the Constituent Assembly, what will happen? It is said that we have no right to disagree with regard to anything that this Assemhly may do in framing a national constitution of this huge sub-continent except those matters which may be germane to the safeguards for the minorities. So we are given the privilege to disagree only with regard to what may be called strictly safe-guards of the rights and interests of minorities. We are also given the privilege to send our own representatives by separate electorates. Now, this proposal is based on the assumption that as soon as this constitution comes into operation the British hand will disappear. Otherwise there will be no meaning in it. Of course, Mr. Gandhi says that the constitution will decide whether the British will disappear, and if so to what extent. In other words, his proposal comes to this: First, give me the declaration that we are a free and independent nation, then I will decide what I should give you back. Does Mr. Gandhi really want the complete independence of India when he talks like this? But whether the British disappear or not, it follows that extensive powers must be transferred to the people. In the event of there being a disagreement between the majority of the Constituent Assembly and the Mussalmans, in the first instance, who will appoint the tribunal? And suppose an agreed tribunal is possible and the award is made and the decision given, who will, may I know, be there to see that this award is implemented or carried out in accordance with the terms of that award? And who will see that it is honoured in practice, because, we are told, the British will have parted with their power mainly or completely? Then what will be the sanction behind the award which will enforce it? We come back to the same answer, the Hindu majority would do it; and will it be with the help of the British bayonet or the Gandhi’s “Ahinsa”? Can we trust them any more? Besides, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine that a question of this character, of social contract upon which the future constitution of India would be based, affecting 90 million of Mussalmans, can be decided by means of a judicial tribunal? Still, that is the proposal of the Congress.
[[8]] Before I deal with what Mr. Gandhi said a few days ago I shall deal with the pronouncements of some of the other Congress leaders — each one speaking with a different voice. Mr. Rajagopalacharya, the ex-Prime Minister of Madras, says that the only panacea for Hindu-Muslim unity is the joint electorates. That is his prescription as one of the great doctors of the Congress organisation. (Laughter.) Babu Rajendra Prasad, on the other hand, only a few days ago said, “Oh, what more do the Mussalmans want?” I will read to you his words. Referring to the minority question, he says: “If Britain would concede our right of self-determination, surely all these differences would disappear.” How will our differences disappear? He does not explain or enlighten us about it.
“But so long as Britain remains and holds power, the differences would continue to exist. The Congress has made it clear that the future constitution would be framed not by the Congress alone but by representatives of all political parties and religious groups. The Congress has gone further and declared that the minorities can have their representatives elected for this purpose by separate electorates, though the Congress regards separate electorates as an evil. It will be representative of all the peoples of this country, irrespective of their religion and political affiliations, who will be deciding the future constitution of India, and not this or that party. What better guarantees can the minorities have?”
So according to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the moment we enter the Assembly we shall shed all our political affiliations, and religions, and everything else. This is what Babu Rajendra Prasad said as late as 18th March, 1940.
[[9]] And this is now what Mr. Gandhi said on the 20th of March, 1940. He says: “To me, Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Harijans, are all alike. I cannot be frivolous” — but I think he is frivolous — “I cannot be frivolous when I talk of Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah. He is my brother.” The only difference is this that brother Gandhi has three votes and I have only one vote. (Laughter.) “I would be happy indeed if he could keep me in his pocket.” I do not know really what to say of this latest offer of his. “There was a time when I could say that there was no Muslim whose confidence I did not enjoy. It is my misfortune that it is not so today.” Why has he lost the confidence of the Muslims today? May I ask, ladies and gentlemen? “I do not read all that appears in the Urdu Press, but perhaps I get a lot of abuse there. I am not sorry for it. I still believe that without HinduMuslim settlement there can be no Swaraj.” Mr. Gandhi has been saying this now for the last 20 years. “You will perhaps ask in that case why do I talk of a fight. I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly.”
[[10] He is fighting the British. But may I point out to Mr. Gandhi and the Congress that you are fighting for a Constituent Assembly which the Muslims say they cannot accept; which, the Muslims say, means three to one; about which the Mussalmans say that they will never be able, in that way by the counting of head, to come to any agreenwnt which will be real agreement from the hearts, which will enable us to work as friends; and therefore this idea of a Constituent Assembly is objectionable, apart from other objections. But he is fighting for the Constituent Assembly, not fighting the Mussalmans at all! He says, “I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly. If Muslims who come to the Constituent Assembly” — mark the words, “who come to the Constituent Assembly through Muslim votes” — he is first forcing us to come to that Assembly, and then says — “declare that there is nothing common between Hindus and Muslims, then alone I would give up all hope, but even then I would agree with them because they read the Quran and I have also studied something of that holy Book.” (Laughter.)
[[11]] So he wants the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Mussalmans; and if they do not agree then he will give up all hopes, but even then he will agree with us. (Laughter.) Well, I ask you. ladies and gentlemen, is this the way to show any real genuine desire, if there existed any, to come to a settlement with the Mussalmans? (Voices of no, no.) Why does not Mr. Gandhi agree, and.I have suggested to him more than once and I repeat it again from this platform, why does not Mr. Gandhi honestly now acknowledge that the Congress is a Hindu Congress, that he does not represent anybody except the solid body of Hindu people? Why should not Mr. Gandhi be proud to say. “I am a Hindu. Congress has solid Hindu backing”? I am not ashamed of saying that I am a Mussalman. (Hear, hear and applause.) I am right and I hope and I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Mussalmans of India (Hear, hear.) Why then all this camouflage? Why all these machinations? Why all these methods to coerce the British to overthrow the Mussalmans? Why this declaration of non-cooperation? Why this threat of civil disobedience? And why fight for a Constituent Assembly for the sake of ascertaining whether the Mussalmans agree or they do not agree? (Hear, hear.) Why not come as a Hindu leader proudly representing your people, and let me meet you proudly representing the Mussalmans? (Hear, hear and applause.) This all that I have to say so far as the Congress is concerned.
[[12]] So far as the British Government is concerned, our negotiations are not concluded yet, as you know. We had asked for assurances on several points. At any rate, we have made some advance with regard to one point and that is this. You remember our demand was that the entire problem of [the] future constitution of India should be examined de novo, apart from the Government of India Act of 1935. To that the Viceroy’s reply, with the authority of His Majesty’s Government, was — I had better quote that — I will not put it in my own words: This is the reply that was sent to us on the 23rd of December. “My answer to your first question is that the declaration I made with the approval of His Majesty’s Government on October the 13th last does not exclude — Mark the words — “does not exclude examination of any part either of the Act of 1935 or of the policy and plans on which it is based.” (Hear, hear.)
[[13]] As regards other matters, we are still negotiating and the most important points are: (1) that no declaration should be made by His Majesty’s Government with regard to the future constitution of India without our approval and consent (Hear, hear, and applause) and that no settlement of any question should be made with any party behind our back (Hear, hear) unless our approval and consent is given to it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, whether the British Government in their wisdom agree to give us that assurance or not, but. I trust that they will still see that it is a fair and just demand when we say that we cannot leave the future fate and the destiny of 90 million of people in the hands of any other judge. –We and we alone wish to be the final arbiter. Surely that is a just demand. We do not want that the British Government should thrust upon the Mussalmans a constitution which they do not approve of and to which they do not agree. Therefore the British Government will be well advised to give that assurance and give the Mussalmans complete peace and confidence in this matter and win their friendship. But whether they do that or not, after all, as I told you before, we must depend on our own inherent strength; and I make it plain from this platform, that if any declaration is made, if any interim settlement is made without our approval and without our consent, the Mussalmans of India will resist it. (Hear, hear and applause.) And no mistake should be made on that score.
[[14]] Then the next point was with regard to Palestine. We are told that endeavours, earnest endeavours, are being made to meet the reasonable, national demands, of the Arabs. Well, we cannot be satisfied by earnest endeavours, sincere endeavours, best endeavours. (Laughter.) We want that the British Government should in fact and actually meet the demands of the Arabs in Palestine. (Hear, hear.)
[[15]] Then the next point was with regard to the sending of the troops. Here there is some misunderstanding. But anyhow we have made our position clear that we never intended, and in fact language does not justify it if there is any misapprehension or apprehension, that the Indian troops should not be used to the fullest in the defence of our own country. What we wanted the British Government to give us assurance of was that Indian troops should not be sent against any Muslim country or any Muslim power. (Hear, hear.) Let us hope that we may yet be able to get the British Government to clarify the position further.
[[16]] This, then, is the position with regard to the British Government. The last meeting of the Working Committee had asked the Viceroy to reconsider his letter of the 23rd of December, having regard to what has been explained to him in pursuance of the resolution of the Working Committee dated the 3rd of February; and we are informed that the matter is receiving his careful consideration. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is where we stand after the War and up to the 3rd of February.
[[17]] As far as our internal position is concerned, we have also been examining it, and you know. there are several schemes which have been sent by various well-informed constitutionalists and others who take interest with [=are interested in the] problem of India’s future Constitution; and we have also appointed a subcommittee to examine the details of the schemes that have come in so far. But one thing is quite clear: it has always been taken for granted mistakenly that the Mussalmans are a minority, and of course we have got used to it for such a long time that these settled notions sometimes are very difficult to remove. The Mussalmans are not a minority. The Mussalmans are a nation by any definition. The British and particularly the Congress proceed on the hasis, “Well, you are a minority after all, what do you want!” “What else do the minorities want?” just as Babu Rajendra Prasad said. But surely the Mussalmans are not a minority. We find that even according to the British map of India we occupy large parts of this country where the Mussalmans are in a majority, such as Bengal, Punjab, N.W.F.P., Sind, and Baluchistan.
[[18]] Now the question is, what is the solution of this prohlem between the Hindus and the Mussalmans? We have been considering, and as I have already said, a committee has been appointed to consider the various proposals. But whatever the final scheme of constitution, I will present to you my views, and I will just read to you in confirmation of what I am going to put before you, a letter from Lala Lajpat Rai to Mr. C. R. Das. It was written, I believe, about 12 or 15 years ago, and that letter has been produced in a book recently published by one Indra Prakash, and that is how this letter has come to light. This is what Lala Lajpat Rai, a very astute politician and a staunch Hindu Mahasabite, said. But before I read his letter it is plain from [it] that you cannot get away from being a Hindu if you are a Hindu. (Laughter.) The word ‘nationalist’ has now become the play of conjurers in politics. This is what he says:
“There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one [about] which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Muhammadan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammadan leaders in the non-cooperation movement I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind.”You remember the conversation I reported to you in Calcutta which I had with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Muhammadan in Hindustan than Hakim Ajmal Khan, but can any Muslim leader over-ride the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic law is incorrect.
I think his reading is quite incorrect.
“And nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this, that although we can unite against the British we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines. We cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines.”
[[19]] Ladies and gentlemen, when Lala Lajpat Rai said that we cannot rule this country on democratic lines it was all right; but when I had the temerity to speak the same truth about eighteen months ago, there was a shower of attacks and criticism. But Lala Lajpat Rai said fifteen years ago that we cannot do so — viz., rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is the remedy? The remedy, according to Congress, is to keep us in the minority and under the majority rule. Lala Lajpat Rai proceeds further:
“What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of the seven crores [=70 million] of Mussalmans. But I think the seven crores in Hindustan plus the armed hordes of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey, will be irresistible.” (Laughter.)”I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot over-ride them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”
[[20]] Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is merely a letter written by one great Hindu leader to another great Hindu leader fifteen years ago. Now, I should like to put before you my views on the subject as it strikes me, taking everything into consideration at the present moment. The British Govemment and Parliament, and more so the British nation, have been for many decades past brought up and nurtured with settled notions about India’s future, based on developments in their own country which has built up the British constitution, functioning now through the Houses of Parliament and the system of [the] cabinet. Their concept of party government functioning on political planes has become the ideal with them as the best form. of government for every country, and the one-sided and powerful propaganda, which naturally appeals to the British, has led them into a serious blunder, in producing a constitution envisaged in the Government of India Act of 1935. We find that the most leading statesmen of Great Britain, saturated with these notions, have in their pronouncements seriously asserted and expressed a hope that the passage of time will harmonise the inconsistent elements in India.
[[21]] A leading journal like the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, wrote that “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of law and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilisations. However, in the course of time the. superstitions will die out and India will be moulded into a single nation.” (So according to the London Times the only difficulties are superstitions). These fundamental and deep-rooted differences, spiritual, economic, cultural, social, and political havc been euphemised as mere “superstitions.” But surely it is a flagrant disregard of the past history of the sub-continent of India, as well as the fundamental Islamic conception of society vis-a-vis that of Hinduism, to characterise them as mere “superstitions.” Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into onc nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly togdher by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failcd to achieve cannot be realiscd by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it.
[[22]] The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure [the] peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into “autonomous national states.” There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry, and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country, will disappear. It will lead more towards natural goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minorities, by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim India and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslim and various other minorities.
[[23]] It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.
[[24]] History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. [The] Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government, when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty’s Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after one hundred fifty years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.
[[25]] Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years, and any repetItion of such a government must lead to civil war and [the] raising of private armies, as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to [the] Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not they must emigrate.
[[26]] Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look round. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of eleven provinces, four provinces where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any defmition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life, in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands [that we find], and [the] vital interest[s] of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find, an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us, to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.
[[27]] Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit. There are many things that I should like to tell you, but I have already published a little pamphlet containing most of thc things that I have said and I have been saying, and I think you can easily get that publication both in English and in Urdu from the League Office. It might give you a clearer idea of our aims. It contains very important resolutions of the Muslim League and various other statements. Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realise that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly, and sincerely for your people, you will never realise your aim. Friends, I therefore want you to make up your mind definitely ,and then think of devices and organise your people, strengthen your organisation, and consolidate the Mussalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam. organise the people economically, socially, educationally, and politically, and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. (Cheers.)
On 8 August 1942 at the All-India Congress Committee session in Bombay, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhilaunched the ‘Quit India’ movement. The next day, Gandhi, Nehru and many other leaders of the Indian National Congress were arrested by the British Government. Disorderly and non-violent demonstrations took place throughout the country in the following days.
By the middle of 1942, Japanese troops were approaching the borders of India. Pressure was mounting from China, the United States and Britain to solve the issue of the future status of India before the end of the war. In March 1942, the Prime Minister dispatched Sir Stafford Cripps, a member of the War Cabinet, to India to discuss the British Government’s Draft Declaration. The draft granted India Dominion status after the war but otherwise conceded few changes to the British Government Act of 1935. The draft was unacceptable to the Congress Working Committee who rejected it. The failure of the Cripps Mission further estranged the Congressand the British Government.
Gandhi seized upon the failure of the Cripps Mission, the advances of the Japanese in South-East Asia and the general frustration with the British in India. He called for a voluntary British withdrawal from India. From 29 April to 1 May 1942, the All India Congress Committee assembled in Allahabad to discuss the resolution of the Working Committee. Although Gandhi was absent from the meeting, many of his points were admitted into the resolution: the most significant of them being the commitment to non-violence. On 14 July 1942, the Congress Working Committee met again at Wardha and resolved that it would authorise Gandhi to take charge of the non-violent mass movement. The Resolution, generally referred to as the ‘Quit India’ resolution, was to be approved by the All India Congress Committee meeting in Bombay in August.
On 7 to 8 August 1942, the All India Congress Committee met in Bombay and ratified the ‘Quit India’ resolution. Gandhi called for ‘Do or Die’. The next day, on 9 August 1942, Gandhi, members of the Congress Working Committee and other Congress leaders were arrested by the British Government under the Defence of India Rules. The Working Committee, the All India Congress Committee and the four Provincial Congress Committees were declared unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. The assembly of public meetings were prohibited under rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules. The arrest of Gandhi and the Congress leaders led to mass demonstrations throughout India. Thousands were killed and injured in the wake of the ‘Quit India’ movement. Strikes were called in many places. The British swiftly suppressed many of these demonstrations by mass detentions; more than 100,000 people were imprisoned.
The ‘Quit India’ movement, more than anything, united the Indian people against British rule. Although most demonstrations had been suppressed by 1944, upon his release in 1944 Gandhi continued his resistance and went on a 21-day fast. By the end of the Second World War, Britain’s place in the world had changed dramatically and the demand for independence could no longer be ignored.
The Quit India Movement(Bharat Chhodo Andolan or the August Movement) was a civil disobedience movement in India launched in August 1942, in response to Mahatma Gandhi‘s call for the immediate independence of India. Its aim was to bring the British government to the negotiating table through determined, but passive resistance. Unilaterally and without consultation, the British had entered India into World War II, arousing the indignation of large numbers of Indian people. On July 14, 1942, the Indian National Congresspassed a resolution demanding complete independence from Britain and massive civil disobedience. On August 8, 1942, the Quit India Resolution was passed at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC). In a speech entitled, “Do or Die,” given on August 8, 1942, Gandhi urged the masses to act as an independent nation and not to follow the orders of the British. His call found support among a large number of Indians, including revolutionaries who were not necessarily party to Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence.
Almost the entire Congress leadership, both at the national and local levels, was put into confinement less than twenty-four hours after Gandhi’s speech, and the greater number of the Congress leaders spent the rest of the war in jail. Despite lack of direct leadership, large-scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. The British responded with mass detentions, making over 100,000 arrests. Within a few months the Movement had died down, and when the British granted independence on August 15, 1947, they cited revolts and growing dissatisfaction among Royal Indian Armed Forces during and after the war as the driving force behind Britain’s decision to leave India. However, the political experience gained by the Indian people through activities such as the Quit India movement laid the foundation for the strongest enduring tradition of democracy and freedom in post-colonial Africa and Asia.
World War II and Indian Involvement
In 1942, the British, unilaterally and without consultation, entered India into World War II. The response in India was divided; some Indians wanted to support the British during the Battle of Britain, hoping for eventual independence through this effort. Others were enraged by the British disregard for Indian intelligence and civil rights, and were unsympathetic to the travails of the British people, which they saw as rightful punishment for their subjugation of Indians.
Public lecture at Basavanagudi, Bangalore with Late C.F.Andrews*
Opinions on the War
At the outbreak of war, during the Wardha meeting of the working-committee in September, 1939, the Congress Party had passed a resolution conditionally supporting the fight against fascism [1], but were rebuffed when they asked for independence in return. Gandhi, a committed believer in non-violent resistance, had not supported this initiative, because he could not support an endorsement of war; he advocated nonviolent resistance even against the tyranny of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo). At the height of the Battle of Britain, however, Gandhi expressed his support for the fight against fascism and the British War effort, stating he did not seek to raise a free India from the ashes of Britain. However, opinions remained divided.
After the onset of the war, only a group led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took any decisive action. Bose organized the Indian National Army with the help of the Japanese, and, solicited help from the Axis Powers. The INA fought hard in the forests of Assam, Bengal and Burma, but ultimately failed owing to disrupted logistic, inadequate arms and supplies from the Japanese, and a lack of support and training. [2] Bose’s audacious actions and radical initiative energized a new generation of Indians. The Quit India Movement tapped into this energy, channeling it into a united, cohesive action.
Cripps’ Mission
In March, 1942, faced with an increasingly dissatisfied Indian sub-continent which participated in the war only with reluctance; with deterioration in the war situation in Europe and South East Asia; and with growing dissatisfaction among Indian troops in Europe, and among the civilian population in India, the British government sent a delegation to India under Stafford Cripps, in what came to be known as the Cripps’ Mission. The purpose of the mission was to negotiate with the Indian National Congress to obtain total co-operation during the war, in return for progressive devolution and distribution of power from the Crown and the Viceroy to an elected Indian legislature. However, the talks failed to address the key demands of a time frame for self-government, and of a clear definition of the powers to be relinquished, essentially portraying an offer of limited dominion-status that was wholly unacceptable to the Indian movement.[3]
Resolution for Immediate Independence
On July 14, 1942, the Indian National Congress passed a resolution demanding complete independence from Britain. The draft proposed that if the British did not accede to the demands, massive civil disobedience would be launched.
However, it proved to be controversial within the party. A prominent Congress national leader, Chakravarti Rajgopalachari, quit the Congress over this decision, and so did some local and regional level organizers. Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were apprehensive and critical of the call, but backed it and followed Gandhi’s leadership until the end. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. Rajendra Prasad were openly and enthusiastically in favor of such a disobedience movement, as were many veteran Gandhians and socialists like Asoka Mehta and Jaya Prakash Narayan.
The Congress had less success in rallying other political forces under a single flag. Smaller parties like the Communist Party of India and the Hindu Mahasabha opposed the call. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s opposition to the call led to large numbers of Muslims cooperating with the British, and the Muslim League obtaining power in the Imperial provincial governments.
On August 8, 1942, the Quit India Resolution was passed at the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC). At the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay, since re-named August Kranti Maidan (August Revolution Ground), Gandhi gave a speech urging Indians to follow non-violent civil disobedience. He told the masses to act as an independent nation and not to follow the orders of the British. His call found support among a large number of Indians. It also found support among Indian revolutionaries who were not necessarily party to Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence.
Suppression of the Movement
Picketing in front of Medical School at Bangalore
The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India/Burmaborder, responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi at the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. All the members of the Congress Party’s Working Committee (national leadership) were arrested and imprisoned at the Ahmednagar Fort. Due to the arrest of major leaders, a young and till then relatively unknown Aruna Asaf Ali presided over the AICC session on August 9, and hoisted the flag. Later, the Congress party was banned. These actions only created sympathy for the cause among the population. Despite lack of direct leadership, large-scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. Not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed.
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions. A total of over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging[4]. Hundreds of resisters and innocent people were killed by police and army fire. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets, and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen, but such a step was ultimately not taken, out of fear of intensifying the revolt[5].
The entire Congress leadership was cut off from the rest of the world for over three years. Gandhi’s wife, Kasturbai Gandhi, and his personal secretary, Mahadev Desai, died in a short space of months, and Gandhi’s own health was failing. Despite this, Gandhi went on a 21-day fast and maintained a superhuman resolve to continue his resistance. Although the British released Gandhi on account of his failing health in 1944, Gandhi kept up the resistance, demanding the complete release of the Congress leadership.
By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists and Hindu extremists, sought to gain political mileage, criticizing Gandhi and the Congress Party.
Contributions Towards Indian Independence
The successes and failures of the Movement are debated. Some historians claim that it failed.[6] By March 1943, the movement had petered out.[7] Even the Congress, at the time saw it as failure.[8] Analysis of the campaign obtained by Military Intelligence in 1943 came to the conclusion that it had failed in its aim of paralyzing the government. It did, however, cause enough trouble and panic among the War administration for General Lockhart to describe India as an “occupied and hostile country.”[9] However much it might have disconcerted the Raj, the movement may be deemed to have ultimately failed in its aim of bringing the Raj to its knees and to the negotiating table for immediate transfer of power.
Within five months of its inception, the Movement had almost come to a close, and was nowhere near achieving its grandiose aim of toppling the Raj. The primary underlying reason, it appears, was the loyalty of the army, even in places where the local and native police came out in sympathy.[10] This certainly was also the view of the British Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, at the time of transfer of power. Atlee deemed the contribution of “Quit India” movement as minimal, ascribing greater importance to the revolts and growing dissatisfaction among Royal Indian Armed Forces during and after the war as the driving force behind Britain’s decision to leave India.[11]
Which phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or the INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India, or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23, 1946, that made the British realize that their time was up in India.
An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30, 1976, reads:
“When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in postwar years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realize that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.”
Some Indian historians, however, argue that, in fact, the movement had succeeded. The rebellion definitely put a strain on the economic and military resources of the British Empire at a time when they were heavily engaged I World War II. Although at the national level, the ability to galvanize rebellion was limited, the movement is notable for regional success especially at Satara, Talcher, and Midnapore.[13]In the Tamluk and Contai subdivisions of Midnapore, the local populace were successful in establishing parallel governments, which continued to function, until Gandhi personally requested the leaders to disband in 1944.[14] At the time, from intelligence reports, the Azad Hind Government under Netaji Subhash Bose in Berlin deemed these an early indication of success of their strategy of fomenting public rebellion.[15]
It may ultimately be a fruitless question whether it was the powerful common call for resistance among Indians that shattered the spirit and will of the British Raj to continue ruling India, or whether it was the foment of rebellion and resentment among the British Indian Armed Forces.[16][17] What is beyond doubt, however, is that a population of millions had been motivated, as it never had been before, to say ultimately that independence was a non-negotiable goal, and every act of defiance only increased this sentiment. In addition, the British people and the British Army showed unwillingness to back a policy of repression in India and other parts of the Empire, even as their own country lay shattered by the war’s ravages.
The INA trials in 1945, the resulting militant movements, and the Bombay mutiny had already shaken the pillar of the Raj in India.[18] By early 1946, all political prisoners had been released. Britain openly adopted a political dialogue with the Indian National Congress to prepare for the eventual transfer of power. On August 15, 1947, India was declared independent.
A young, new generation responded to Gandhi’s call. Indians who lived through Quit India formed the first generation of independent Indians, whose trials and tribulations sowed the seeds of the strongest enduring tradition of democracy and freedom in post-colonial Africa and Asia. When considered in the light of the turbulence and sectarianism which surfaced during the Partition of India, this can be termed one of the greatest examples of prudence of humanity.
The passing of the Resolution on 23rd March by the All India Muslim League at its Lahore session created a serious situation for the Congress leadership. Mohan Das Karam Chand Gandhi wrote in Harijan on 6th April 1940, “I admit that the step taken by the Muslim League at Lahore creates a baffling situation…the Two Nations theory is an untruth. The vast majority of Muslims of India are converts to Islam or are the descendants of converts. They did not become a separate nation, as soon as they converted. C. Rajagapalachari, a liberal congress leader, who had to resign from the Congress because of his views, however, realised the necessity for Hindu-Muslim reconciliation as a pre-requisite for the attainment of independence. On 23rd April 1942, Rajagapalachari addressed a small gathering of his old Congress supporters in the Madras legislature and had a resolution passed for submission to the All India Congress committee, recommending the acceptance of partition in principle.
On 2nd May 1942, he mooted his proposal on Pakistan in the AICC at Allahabad, which stated, “…it has become necessary to choose the lesser evil and acknowledge the Muslim League’s claim for separation.” The proposal was rejected by 120 to 15 votes. Rajaji did not give up hope, but kept on negotiating with Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad All Jinnah during April 1944, when Gandhi and other Congress leaders were in jail. The correspondence was released to the press on 9th July 1944, and contained what came to be known as the “Rajaji Formula”. It was intended to form the basis of the talks between Jinnah and Gandhi for a settlement of the Hindu-Muslim problem. Rajaji declared that he had already obtained Gandhi’s approval for the formula.
Jinnah placed the formula before the Working Committee of the Muslim League on 30th July 1944, but personally considered it unsatisfactory. He told the committee that Mr. Gandhi is offering a “shadow and a husk, a maimed, mutilated and moth-eaten Pakistan.” Though, in his private capacity Jinnah expressed his pleasure at Gandhi’s acceptance at least of “the principle of Pakistan.”
Meanwhile Allama Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi, leader of the Khaksar Movement also addressed letters to Jinnah and Gandhi urging them to meet to discuss the Hindu-Muslim problem. Gandhi took the initiative and wrote to Jinnah, “Let us meet whenever you wish, do not disappoint me.” The Muslim League Council meeting at Lahore invested Jinnah with full powers to negotiate with Gandhi on its behalf Jinnah accepted the offer and suggested a meeting between the two and offering his residence at Bombay as venue for discussion.
It is worthwhile noting that while Jinnah had full powers to negotiate on behalf of the Muslim League, Gandhi was undertaking this enterprise on his own behalf without the official sanction of the Congress. Many members of the Congress expressed disapproval at Gandhi’s move. The Mahasabha young men shouted anti-Pakistan slogans at Gandhi’s prayer meeting at Panchgani. The meeting took place between the two leaders at Bombay from 9th September to 27th September. They met almost daily, and sometimes even twice in a day. On 27th September, Jinnah announced the termination of talks after the failure of the two leaders to reach an agreement saying, “We trust that this is not the final end of our effort.” While Gandhi commented,”the breakdown is only so- called. It is an adjournment sine die.” In the course of the seventeen day discussions, they exchanged 24 letters which were later on made public.
The discussion as well as the correspondence can be divided into three distinct stages. The first stage when Jinnah asked Gandhi for clarification of various points in the Rajaji formula. The second stage started when Gandhi, on account of obvious difficulties, shunted the Rajaji formula, and attempted to apply his mind to the Lahore Resolution. Eventually Gandhi made some new proposals and after this the final breakdown took place.
An analysis of the correspondence dearly shows that the talk failed because Gandhi simply refused to accept the Lahore Resolution as interpreted by Jinnah. He did not believe in the two nation theory which was the fundamental basis of the Muslims’ demand, and totally rejected the Muslims right of self- determination. On 4th October Jinnah in a press conference at Bombay said, “In one breath Gandhi agrees to the principle of division and in the next he makes proposals which go to destroy the very foundation on which the division is claimed by Muslim India.”
On one hand Gandhi wanted a League-Congress agreement, and on the other denied the League’s representative character and authority to speak on behalf of the Mussalmans of India. In his letter of 25th September 1944, Jinnah summed up Gandhi’s attitude to the Lahore Resolution, thus “You have already rejected the basis and fundamental principles of Lahore Resolution: 1) You did not accept that the Muslims of India are a nation. 2) You do not accept that the Muslims have an inherent right of self-determination. 3) You do not accept that they alone are entitled to exercise this right. 4) You do not accept that Pakistan is composed of two zones, north-west and north-east, comprising six provinces, namely, Sindh, Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier provinces, the Punjab, Bengal and Assam subject to territorial adjustments.”
Gandhi wanted that first the people of India should oust the British with their joint action. When India was free then by mutual settlement and agreement two separate states could be created. Jinnah was not prepared to trust the words of Gandhi or the Congress. He said separation must come first and then matters of common interest between the two states would be settled by a treaty.
Lord Wavell expressed his disappointment at the failure of the talks. He stated that “Gandhi-Jinnah talks ended on a note of complete futility. I must say I expected something better. The two great mountains have met and not even a ridiculous mouse has emerged. This surely must blast Gandhi’s reputation as a leader. Jinnah had an easy task, he merely had to keep on telling Gandhi he was talking nonsense, which was true, and he did so rather rudely, without having to disclose any of the weakness of his own position, or define his Pakistan in any way. I suppose it may increase his prestige with his followers.”
The majority of the Hindus, especially the Mahasabhaits received the news of the breakdown of these talks with utmost relief and joy, for they were anxious lest their leader should commit himself to the ‘vivisection of Mother India’. It was the Muslims who were most bitterly disappointed when the talks failed.
Matlubul Hasan Saiyid has stated, ‘Gandhi’s circuitous argumentation, shifting from Rajagopalacharia’s formula to Lahore Resolution of the League and then back again and then over again to League Resolution, punctuating the discussions by his own suggestions and those of others whom he did not claim to represent, had made the breakdown of the these talks inevitable.
Jinnah had called this breakdown unfortunate, ‘Dr. Tara Chand gives the following reason for the break down, ‘A perusal of the letters exchanged shows that the two parties came very near to one another. What prevented them from concluding a settlement was not the apparent differences between their standpoints, but the distrust and fear which, lay behind the spoken and written word.
Gandhi’s apparent purpose in holding these talks seemed to be to discredit the Muslim League and to appear before the Muslims as a friend doing all he could to concede to their demands, while in fact he was merely weaving a deceptive web of words to fool the public and to impose upon the Lahore Resolution a meaning quite different to what was intended by the framers of the resolution.- The failure of these talks, on the other hand, enhanced the prestige of the Quaid and he was able to consolidate his position as the leader of the Indian Muslims.
The Gandhi-Jinnah Talks have eminent significance with regard to the political problems of India and the Pakistan Movement. The talks between the two great leaders of the Sub-continent began in response to the general public’s desire for a settlement of Hindu-Muslim differences.
On July 17, 1944, Gandhi wrote a letter to Quaid-i-Azam in which he expressed his desire to meet him. Quaid-i-Azam asked the Muslim League for permission for this meeting. The League readily acquiesced.
The Gandhi-Jinnah talks began in Bombay on September 19, 1944, and lasted till the 24th of the month. The talks were held directly and via correspondence. Gandhi told Quaid-i-Azam that he had come in his personal capacity and was representing neither the Hindus nor the Congress.
Gandhi’s real purpose behind these talks was to extract from Jinnah an admission that the whole proposition of Pakistan was absurd.
Quaid-i-Azam painstakingly explained the basis of the demand of Pakistan. “We maintain”, he wrote to Gandhi, “that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a 100 million. We have our distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all the cannons of international law, we are a nation”. He added that he was “convinced that the true welfare not only of the Muslims but of the rest of India lies in the division of India as proposed in the Lahore Resolution”.
Gandhi on the other hand maintained that India was one nation and saw in the Pakistan Resolution “Nothing but ruin for the whole of India”. “If, however, Pakistan had to be conceded, the areas in which the Muslims are in an absolute majority should be demarcated by a commission approved by both the Congress and the Muslim League. The wishes of the people of these areas will be obtained through referendum. These areas shall form a separate state as soon as possible after India is free from foreign domination. There shall be a treaty of separation which should also provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration of foreign affairs, defense, internal communication, custom and the like which must necessarily continue to be the matters of common interest between the contracting countries”.
This meant, in effect, that power over the whole of India should first be transferred to Congress, which thereafter would allow Muslim majority areas that voted for separation to be constituted, not as independent sovereign state but as part of an Indian federation.
Gandhi contended that his offer gave the substance of the Lahore Resolution. Quaid-i-Azam did not agree to the proposal and the talks ended.
The British were alarmed at the successive victories of Japan during 1940s. When Burma was turned into a battle field and the war reached the Indian boarders, the British started feeling more concerned about the future of India. Situation in the country was further complicated as the Congress wanted to take advantage of the situation by accelerating their efforts in their struggle for independence. Moreover the differences between the Congress and the Muslim League were widening fast and visibly there was no chance to bring both the parties on a common agenda. In these circumstances, the British Government sent a mission to India in 1942 under Sir Stafford Cripps, the Lord Privy Seal, in order to achieve Hindu-Muslim consensus on some constitutional arrangement and to convince the Indians to postpone their struggle till the end of the Second World War.
Cripps arrived in Delhi on March 22, 1942 and had series of meetings with the leading Indian politicians including Jawaharlal Nehru, Abul Kalam Azad, Quaid-i-Azam, Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, A. K. Fazlul Haq, Dr. Ambedkar, V.D. Savarkar and Tej Bhadur Sappru etc. In the meetings Cripps tried to plead his case before these political leaders and tried to convince them to accept his following proposals:
During the course of the war, the British would retain their hold on India. Once the war finished, India would be granted dominion status with complete external and internal autonomy. It would however, be associated with the United Kingdom and other Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown.
At the end of the war, a Constituent Assembly would be set up with the power to frame the future constitution of India. The members of the assembly were to be elected on the basis of proportional representation by the provincial assemblies. Princely States would also be given representation in the Constituent Assembly.
The provinces not agreeing to the new constitution would have the right to keep itself out of the proposed Union. Such provinces would also be entitled to create their own separate Union. The British government would also invite them to join the commonwealth.
During the war an interim government comprising of different parties of India would be constituted. However, defence and external affairs would be the sole responsibility of the viceroy.
Quaid-i-Azam considered these proposals as “unsatisfactory” and was of the view that the acceptance of the Cripps proposals would “take the Muslims to the gallows.” He said that the proposals have “aroused our deepest anxieties and grave apprehensions, specially with reference to Pakistan Scheme which is a matter of life and death for Muslim India. We will, therefore, endeavour that the principle of Pakistan which finds only veiled recognition in the Document should be conceded in unequivocal terms.” The Quaid, however, was happy to know that in the Cripps proposals, at least the British Government had agreed in principle to the Muslim League’s demand of the partition of India. Yet, Quaid-i-Azam wanted the British Government and Cripps to thoroughly amend the proposals to make them acceptable for the Muslim League.
Actually Quaid-i-Azam and other Muslim League leaders were convinced that Cripps was a traditional supporter of Congress and thus could not present an objective solution to the problem. On the arrival of Cripps, Quaid-i-Azam made it clear that he was a friend of Congress and would only support the Congress’ interests. Congress leaders themselves accepted that Cripps was their man. On his first visit to India, Cripps in fact attended the meetings of the Congress Working Committee. He also visited Gandhi and was so much impressed by him that he wore white khadi suit. He openly ridiculed the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan when he said, “we cannot deny 25 carore Hindus desire of United India only because 9 carore Muslims oppose it.” In fact the proposals Cripps presented were mainly consisted of the ideas which were discussed in a meeting between Nehru and Cripps in 1938.
The British government wanted to get the cooperation of the Indian people in order to deal with the war situation. The divergence between the two major representative parties of the country harassed the British government. It found it difficult to make the war a success without the cooperation of both the Hindus and the Muslims.
On March 22, 1942, Britain sent Sir Stafford Cripps with constitutional proposals.
The important points of the declaration were as follows:
General elections in the provinces would be arranged as soon as the war ended.
A new Indian dominion, associated with the United Kingdom would be created.
Those provinces not joining the dominion could form their own separate union.
Minorities were to be protected.
However, both the Congress and the Muslim League rejected these proposals. Jinnah opposed the plan, as it did not concede Pakistan. Thus the plan came to nothing.
This article was last updated on Sunday, June 01, 2003
![Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah enjoying a boat ride, possibly in Dhaka, in the early 1940s. Standing on the left [wearing sherwani] is Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was at the time the Premier of Bengal. | Photo: The Press Information Department, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad (PID)](https://i.dawn.com/primary/2017/09/59b3d7602302f.jpg)
![Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Miss Fatima Jinnah, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Lady Edwina Mountbatten face jubilant crowds as they leave the Constituent Assembly. — Courtesy Directorate of Electronic Media and Publications [DEMP], Ministry of Information Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad](https://i.dawn.com/primary/2017/07/5978757e3f397.jpg)
khalidriazblog 