“Raven-haired with a moustache almost as full as Kitchener’s and lean as a rapier, sounding like Ronald Colman, dressed like Anthony Eden, and admired by many women at first sight while envied by most men”, is how wife of a British General once described Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Once widely known as the Ambassador of Hindi-Muslim unity and staunch critic of Gandhi’s introduction of religious vocabulary and Hindu symbolism in the Indian subcontinent’s politics came to Lahore in 1940 to preside the annual session of the All India Muslim League and to give a course of action from henceforward. The course of action, he would set for the Muslims of India would transform forever the future of the Indian subcontinent and the Muslim majority areas. The Muslim League held its three-day annual session at Lahore on March 22-23-24, 1940 and the Muslim leaders and delegates from all over British India participated in it. This annual meeting was open to public. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah presided over the session as the President of the Muslim League.
In his presidential address, Quaid-i-Azam eloquently explained as to why a separate homeland is the only solution acceptable to the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. He stated: “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 one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for 150 years had failed to achieve cannot be realised by the imposition of a central government.” He further argued: “(Islam and Hinduism) 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 most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revive our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry, nor inter dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. 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”.
The annual session concluded with a unanimously passed resolution that, “no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that:
……”geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”
In his secret report to the Viceroy on 25th of March, the Governor of the Punjab, Sir Henry Craik wrote: As regards the result of the Muslim League session, I imagine you are in as good a position to appreciate these as I am. My own impression is that the influence and that the unanimity and enthusiasm shown at the session have given the League a position of far greater authority than it previously enjoyed.”
The Lahore Resolution gave a direction and set an objective for which All India Muslim League under the resolute leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam struggled for the next seven years. Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947. However, a fundamental question still debated among the historians and students of Indian Subcontinental freedom struggle is what led to this development? Why the Muslim leadership of India decided to move away from constitutional guarantees to safeguard their interests and rights within a united India? and opted to seek a separate and independent Muslim homeland?
A separate homeland was not what the Indian Muslim leader aimed for most of their political struggle. Even in 1906, When All India Muslim League was established, it was supposed to be a Muslim elite forum for interacting with the British government for securing Muslim societal and political concerns. AIML aimed at protecting and advancing Muslim cultural and civilisational identity, interests and rights within united India. Even the demand for a separate electorate for the Muslim members was made with this perspective in mind. The then Muslim leadership strongly believed that the Muslims will be able to manage their affairs in Muslim majority provinces and, in other provinces, constitutional safeguards will protect their identity, rights and interests. Initially there was positive development in this regard. For instance, in the 1916 Lucknow Pact between the Indian National Congress and All India Muslim League, an understanding of sorts was reached between the two. However, a decade later, Congress relegated on most of what it agreed upon a decade earlier in 1916. The Muslims of India continued to support the idea of a federal system with autonomy to the provinces. This was done so with the belief that it would enable the Indian Muslims to take care of their interests in the Muslim majority provinces. In the Delhi Muslim proposals (1927), All Parties Muslim Conference (1929) and above all in Jinnah’s Fourteen Points (1929), Indian Muslims’ main demand was constitutional guarantees to ensure Muslim rights and interests. Jinnah’s fourteen points are arguably the most important in this regard as in these Jinnah advocated to safeguard the Muslim interests within the federation of India. Again during the Roundtables held between1930 to 1932, the Muslim leadership emphasised constitutional safeguards, including federalism, for the protection and advancement of Muslim identity, rights and interests. The Nehru report of 1928 and the disappointment of Jinnah’s effort to convince the Congress leadership to incorporate Indian Muslims demand in the report frustrated Indian Muslim leaders especially those who actively worked towards formulating a joint position on political and constitutional issues. The Indian Muslim leadership felt betrayed and alienated. However, what was to happen next was the icing on the cake. Fast forward to 1937. Congress managed to establish provincial governments in seven provinces. These governments lasted for two years only as Congress leadership decided to resign in 1939. However, what happened in these two years altered the course of political history of India and how the Indian Muslim leadership viewed their prospects in a post-British United India. Congress ministries ordered singing of the anthem Band-e-Mataram, a song from Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s novel Ananda Matha, opening each day’s proceedings in Legislative Assemblies as well as in educational institutions where it also became a feature of the curriculum in the Congress-run provinces. Hindu symbolism was introduced in the educational institutes across the board especially throughout Bihar and Central province under the Warda educational scheme or the Vidya Mandar scheme. This scheme was aimed at highlighting the superiority of the Hindu culture and tradition among the young Muslim students. Hindi language was given the top priority and Hindu culture and symbols were promoted as the Indian culture.
Hindu heroes including Gandhi were eulogized and projected while Muslim contribution to the Indian subcontinent was distorted. Muslims were extremely discriminated against in all walks of life. New recruitments for government jobs almost excluded them and tahey were treated unjustly. Muslim League constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur to investigate and document the treatment of Muslims during the Congress ministries.
The committee presented its findings commonly known as the Pirpur Report on November 15, 1938. Two reports: The Sharif Report (1939) and the Fazl-ul- Haq Report (1939) also documented several evidences in this regard. The pro-Hindu tilt of Congress was so obvious that even several British observers were compelled to point it out. For instance, writing in the June 1939 issue of the National Review, declared that Congress governments were “the rising tide of political Hinduism”. The Muslim League in particular and the Muslim leaders and intelligentsia in general took the Muslim experience during this time as a preview of what an independent India would look like once the British leave.
The Congress ministries especially their policies and action towards the Indian Muslims generated a fear of being overcome by an insensitive as well as indifferent majority led by the Congress Party in independent united India. This context is important to understand why Quaid-i-Azam reconsidered and re-evaluate options available to the Indian Muslims and came up with the Lahore Resolution. Seven years later, on August 14, 1947, Pakistan became a reality.
-The author is a Karachi-based political scientist and historian.
#genesis #Lahore #Resolution
