Home | Contact Us | Archive | Online Books | Subscribe    
Jana Sangh Today | A Monthly Magazine

Write to us | Email this Story

Unfinished Agenda of Partition
Pakistan, a new country with a new name appeared...
Nov 2016

Pakistan, a new country with a new name appeared on the world map in 1947. Its emergence was preceded by a series of statements by Muslim leaders and articles by Muslim intellectuals suggesting balkanization of India. For example:
(1)    The three independent nations of Pakistan, Bengal and Usmanistan would form a triple alliance, the enclosed map drawn up by C. Rahmat Ali portrays the proposed division of India (The Millat of Islam, Cambridge, UK, 1935)

(2)  Dr. Syed Abdul Latif of Hyderabad University in two pamphlets published in 1938 and a booklet published in 1939; supplemented by a statement in 1939 outlined a division of India into Cultural Zones. Four Muslims and eleven Hindus. In addition to the three suggested in Rahmat Ali's map, the fourth Muslim zone would run from eastern boarder of Patiala to Lucknow with Delhi as its centre. The Indian states interspersed all over the country would be distributed between different zones. Each zone would be a homogenous state. He conceived of north-central zone as a permanent home for all Muslims living in the United Provinces and Bihar.

Dr. Latif also recommended a wholesale transference of Hindus and Muslims citing the well known example of the exchange of Greek and Turkish populations under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1923-24. (The Cultural Future of India, Bombay, 1938; a Fedration of Cultural Zones for India, Secunderabad, 1938; The Statesman, 1939 and The Muslim Problem in India, Bombay, 1939)

(3) In 1938, another scheme was propounded by Sir Abdulla Haroon. He recommended the division of India into two separate federations-of Muslims and Hindus. The main body of the Muslim Fedration would comprise north-west and Kashmir.

(4)    ln 1939, Sir Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan published Confederacy of India. He suggested a division of India into five countries - The Indus Regions; Hindu India; States of Rajputana and Central India; The Deccan States (Hyderabad and Mysore) and Bengal excluding Hindu districts but including parts of Assam.

The Pakistan Resolution was formally passed at the 1940 Lahore session of the All India Muslim League. After its passage, the only eminent Hindu leaders who responded back to the various proposals made by the League leaders were Dr. Rajendra Prasad, whose book India Divided was published in 1946. Dr. Ambedker's seminal volume Thoughts on Pakistan appeared in 1940 on the morrow of Pakistan Resolution. These two publications thoroughly dealt with the question of an exchange of populations arising from the creation of Pakistan. The following pages provide an insight into what these two eminent leaders thought about the issue of Pakistan. 

Views of Dr. Rajendra Prasad regarding Muslims left behind in Hindustan: (quoted from his book.)
Another question has been engaging public attention ever since the two nations theory was propounded. All Muslims being one nation by reason of their religion alone' irrespective of any other considerations like the territory they inhabit, the language they speak, etc., the question naturally arises what would be the position and status of the Muslims who will be left in Hindustan, which according to the League proposal will be a Hindu State.
Jinnah accepts the position that the Muslims who are citizens of India today will, after Partition, cease to be citizens of Hindustan and therefore they will have three alternatives to choose from. Let us examine these three alternatives.

The first alternative is that they may accept citizenship in the State in which they are. It may be pointed out that citizenship can be acquired by a foreigner in a State only under rules made for that purpose by the State concerned. It is open to any State which is independent to regulate and control its own population and to lay down restrictions on foreigners acquiring citizenship and even to prohibit it altogether. The history of the British Dominions like South Africa, Canada and Australia, which are all members of the British Commonwealth and Empire, to which India also belongs, and which owe allegiance to the same King-Emperor to whom Indians are in law required to owe allegiance, shows how they have successfully and effectively prevented Indians from acquiring the rights of citizenship. The United States of America also regulates immigration and does not permit any and every foreigner to acquire the right of citizenship simply because the foreigner wishes to have that right. So if Hindustan is to be really a free and sovereign State, it will have the same right to regulate its citizenship and to lay down rules for and even to prohibit acquisition of the rights of citizenship by foreigners. It will not lie with the Muslims left in Hindustan to become its citizens unless Hindustan permits it. Jinnah, of course, assumes that

Hindus must not be allowed to put difficulties in their way.
The second alternative is that they can remain there as foreigners. Here again he makes the same assumption. Hindustan like any other independent State will not be bound to allow foreigners to remain on its territory, particularly when they happen to be in such large numbers as the Muslims will be. It is also worth remembering that an independent State may regulate and even prohibit the acquisition of property, particularly immovable property, by foreigners within its territory. We have the illustration once again of South Africa before our eyes.

The third alternative is that the Musalmans who will be left in Hindustan can go to Pakistan. This, of course, is legally possible. Every foreigner is entitled to leave the foreign State and to go to his own State unless he is accused of a crime for which he is triable in the foreign State. The Musalmans of Hindustan can leave Hindustan if they so desire but they cannot carry away with them their lands and houses, even if they are allowed and are in a position to take away their movables like cash, jewellery, cattle and furniture. Hindustan will not be bound to give any compensation for what they leave behind. They will have migrated out of Hindustan of their own free will by reason of their having adopted a foreign nationality. It is difficult to believe that the Muslims of Hindustan will choose this alternative of emigration from Hindustan. Their attachment to their lands and homes will make any such break most difficult, if not impracticable. The distance which they will, in many cases, have to travel before they can reach Pakistan will be immense and the consequent suffering will be unbearable. Last, though not least, the complete dislocation of their finances and economy which emigration will involve will effectively prohibit any such enterprise. They will have, therefore, only the first two alternatives to choose from and there they will not be free to do so as the foreign State of Hindustan will have an effective and determining hand in the matter.

All these considerations which arise out of the two nations theory do not appear to trouble the protagonists of Pakistan. Jinnah now evidently accepts the position, which indeed cannot be questioned, that the Muslims in Hindustan will have the status of foreigners or aliens and will, therefore, be subject to the same disabilities that a foreigner suffers from. The same consideration might not apply to Hindus and non-Muslims who will be left in Pakistan, as they do not claim to be members of another nation and as such citizens of another State. But in any case even if they are treated as foreigners or aliens, the difference in their position will be that foreign citizenship will have been forced upon them against their will, while in the case of Muslims, it will have been chosen by them of their own free will with their eyes open and indeed against the wishes and in face of the opposition of the

Hindus and other non-Muslims. (source: India Divided)
Views of Dr. BR Ambedkar regarding the creation of Pakistan (quoted from his book)
Let me now turn to the other question which I said the critic is entitled to put to me. What is my position regarding the issue of Pakistan in the light of the objections, which I have set out? I have no doubts as to my position. I hold firmly that, subject to certain conditions, detailed in the chapters that follow, if the Musalmans are bent on having Pakistan then it must be conceded to them. I know my critics will at once accuse me of inconsistency and will demand reasons for so extraordinary a conclusion - extraordinary because of the view expressed by me in the earlier part of this chapter that the Muslim case for Pakistan has nothing in it which can be said to carry the compelling force which the decree of an inexorable fate may be said to have. I withdraw nothing from what I have said as to the weaknesses in the Muslim case for Pakistan. Yet I hold that if the Muslims must have Pakistan there is no escape from conceding it to them. As to the reasons which have led me to that conclusion I shall not hesitate to say that the strength or weakness of the logic of Pakistan is not one of them. In my judgement there are two governing factors which must determine the issue. First is the defence of India and second is the sentiment of the Muslims. I will state why I regard them as decisive and how in my opinion they tell in favour of Pakistan.

To begin with the first, one-cannot ignore that what is important is not the winning of independence but the having of the sure means of maintaining it. The ultimate guarantee of the independence of a country is a safe army - an army on which you can rely to fight for the country at all time and in any eventuality. The army in India must necessarily be a mixed army composed of Hindus and Muslims. If India is invaded by a foreign power, can the Muslims in the army be trusted to defend India? Suppose invaders are their co-religionists. Will the Muslims side with the invaders or will they stand against them and save India? This is a very crucial question. Obviously, the answer to this question must depend upon to what extent the Muslims in the army have caught the infection of the two-nation theory, which is the foundation of Pakistan. If they are infected, then the army in India cannot be safe.

Instead of being the guardian of the independence of India, it will continue to be a menace and a potential danger to its independence. I confess I feel aghast when I hear some Britishers argue that it is for the defence of India that they must reject Pakistan. Some Hindus also sing the same tune. I feel certain that either they are unaware as to what the determining factor in the independence of India is or that they are talking of the defence of India not as an independent country responsible for its own defence but as a British possession to be defended by them against an intruder. This is a hopelessly wrong angle of vision. The question is not whether the British will be able to defend India better if there was no partition of India. The question is whether Indians will be able to defend a free India. To that, I repeat, the only answer is that Indians will be able to defend a free India on one and one condition alone - namely, if the army in India remains non-political, unaffected by the poison of Pakistan. I want to warn Indians against the most stupid habit that has grown up in this country of discussing the question of Swaraj without reference to the question of the army. Nothing can be more fatal than the failure to realize that a political army is the greatest danger to the liberty of India. It is worse than having no army.

Equally important is the fact that the army is the ultimate sanction which sustains government in the exercise of its authority inside the country, when it is challenged by a rebellious or recalcitrant element. Suppose the government of the day enunciates a policy which is vehemently opposed by a section of the Muslims. Suppose the government of the day is required to use its army to enforce its policy. Can the government of the day depend upon the Muslims in the army to obey its orders and shoot down the Muslim rebels? This again depends upon to what extent the Muslims in the army have caught the infection of the two-nation theory. If they have caught it, India cannot have a safe and secure government. 

Turning to the second governing factor the Hindus do not seem to attach any value to sentiment as a force in politics. The Hindus seem to rely upon two grounds to win against the Muslims. The first is that even if the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations, they can live under one state. The other is that the Muslim case for Pakistan is founded on strong sentiment rather than upon clear argument. I don't know how long the Hindus are going to fool themselves with such arguments. It is true that the first argument is not without precedent. At the same time it does not call for much intellignence to see that its value is extremely limited. Two nations and one state is a pretty plea. It has the same attraction which a sermon has and may result in the conversion of Muslim leaders. But instead of being uttered as a sermon if it is intended to issue it as an ordinance for the Muslims to obey it will be a mad project to which no sane man will agree. It will, I am sure, defeat the very purpose of Swaraj. The second argument is equally silly. That the Muslim case for Pakistan is founded on sentiment is far from being a matter of weakness; it is really its strong point. It does not need deep understanding of politics to know that the workability of a constitution is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of sentiment. A constitution like clothes must suit as well as please. If a constitution does not please, then, however perfect it may be, it will not work. To have a constitution which runs counter to the strong sentiments of a determined section is to court disaster if not to invite rebellion. 

Suppose the new constitution for a United India contained in it all the provisions necessary to safeguard the interests of the Muslims. But suppose the Muslims said “Thank you for your safeguards, we don’t want to be ruled by you”, and suppose they boycott the Legislatures, refuse to obey laws, oppose the payment of taxes; what is to happen? Are the Hindus prepared to extract obedience from Muslims by the use of Hindu bayonets? The non-Muslims do not seem to be aware that they are presented with a situation in which they are forced to choose between various alternatives. Let me state them. In the first place they have to choose between Freedom of India and the Unity of India. If the non-Muslims will insist on the Unity of India they put the quick realization of India's freedom into jeopardy. The second choice relates to the surest method of defending India, whether they can depend upon Muslims in free and united India to develop and sustain along with the non-Muslims the necessary will to defend the common liberties of both: or whether it is better to partition India and thereby ensure the safety of Muslim India by leaving its defence to the Muslims and of non-Muslims India by leaving its defence to non-Muslims. As to the first, I prefer freedom of India to the Unity of India.

On the second issue I prefer the partitioning of into Muslim India and non-Muslim India as the surest and safest method of providing for the defence of both It 1s certainly the safer of the two alternatives. I know it will be contended that my fears about the loyalty of the Muslims in the army to a Free and United India arising from the infection of the two-nation theory is only an imaginary fear. That is no doubt true. That does not militate against the soundness of the choice I have made I may be wrong. But I certainly can say without any fear of contradiction that, to use the words of Burke, it is better to be ridiculed for too great a credulity than to be ruined by too confident a sense of security. I don't want to leave things to chance. To leave so important an issue as the defence of India, to chance is to be guilty of the grossest crime. (Thoughts on Pakistan) 

MUSLIM LEAGUE leaders ask for population exchange
Jinnah, while addressing a press conference at Karachi on 25 November 1946 said that the authorities, both central and provincial, should immediately take up the question of exchange of population, as reported by Dawn, on 26 November, 1946. Sir Feroze Khan Noon; who later rose to be Prime Minister, had earlier on 8 April 1946, threatened to re-enact the murderous orgies of Chengez Khan and Halaqu Khan if non-Muslims took up an obstructive attitude against population exchange. Ismail Chundrigar, who also eventually rose to be Prime Minister Pakistan, had said that the British had no right to handover Muslims to a subject people over whom they had ruled for 500 years. Mohammad Ismail, a leader from Madras had declared that the Muslims of India were in the midst of a jehad. Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of the Prime Minister of Punjab, Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, had threatened, while the British were still in India, of a rehearsal of what the Muslims would do to the Hindus eventually. The point that came through clearly that transfer of population was an integral part of the demand for Pakistan.


November 2017


Uyghur Language Banned In China


Online Books
Prafull Goradia Website
Fico Tech



© janasangh.com 2017 Designed & Hosted by GreenMindz