CHAPTER XV
WHO CAN DECIDE ?
There are two sides to the question of Pakistan, the Hindu side and the Muslim side. This cannot be
avoided. Unfortunately however the attitude of both is far from rational. Both are deeply embedded
in sentiment. The layers of this sentiment are so thick that reason at present finds it extremely
difficult to penetrate. Whether these opposing sentiments will wither away or they will thicken,
time and circumstances alone can tell. How long Indians will have to wait for the melting of the
snow no one can prophesy. But one thing is certain that 'until this snow melts freedom will have to
be put in cold storage. I am sure there must be many millions of thinking Indians who are dead
opposed to this indefinite postponement of Indian freedom till an ideal and a permanent solution of
Pakistan is found. I am one of them. I am one of those who hold that if Pakistan is a problem and
not a pose there is no escape and a solution must be found for it. I am one of those who believe that
what is inevitable must be faced. There is no use burying one's head in the sand and refusing to take
notice of what is happening round about because the sound of it hurts one's sentiments. I am also
one of those who believe that one must, if one can, be ready with a solution long before the hour of
decision arrives. It is wise to build a bridge if one knows that one will be forced to cross the river.
The principal problem of Pakistan is : who can decide whether there shall or shall not be Pakistan ?
I have thought over the subject for the last three years, and I have come to some conclusions as to
the proper answer to this question. These conclusions I would like to share with others interested in
the solution of the problem so that they may be further explored. To give clarity to my conclusions,
I have thought that it would serve the purpose better if I were to put them, in the form of an Act of
Parliament. The following is the draft of the Act which embodies my conclusions:â
Government of India (Preliminary Provisions) Act
Be it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same as follows :â
I.â(1) If within six months from the date appointed in this behalf a majority of the Muslim
members of the Legislatures of the Provinces of the North-West Frontier, the Punjab, Sind and
Bengal pass a resolution that the predominantly Muslim areas be separated from British India, His
Majesty shall cause a poll to be taken on that question of the Muslim and the non-Muslim electors
of these Provinces and of Baluchistan in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) The question shall be submitted to the electors in these Provinces in the following form :â (i)
Are you in favour of separation from British India ? (U) Are you against separation ?
(3) The poll of Muslim and non-Muslim electors shall be taken separately.
II.â(1) If on a result of the poll, a majority of Muslim electors are found to be in favour of
separation and a majority of non-Muslim electors against separation, His Majesty shall by
proclamation appoint a Boundary Commission for the purpose of preparing a list of such districts
and areas in these Provinces in which a majority of inhabitants are Muslims. Such districts and
areas shall be called Scheduled Districts.
(2) The Scheduled Districts shall be collectively designated as Pakistan and the rest of British India
as Hindustan. The Scheduled Districts lying in the North-west shall be called the State of Western
Pakistan and those lying in the North-east shall be called Eastern Pakistan.
///.â(1) After the findings of the Boundary Commission have become final either by agreement or
the award of an Arbitrator, His Majesty shall cause another poll to be taken of the electors of the
Scheduled Districts.
(2) The following shall be the form of the questions submitted to the electors :â (i) Are you in
favour of separation forthwith ? (U) Are you against separation forthwith ?
IV.â(I ) If the majority is in favour of separation forthwith it shall be lawful for His Majesty to
make arrangements for the framing of two separate constitutions, one for Pakistan and the other for
Hindustan.
(2) The New States of Pakistan and Hindustan shall commence to function as separate States on the
day appointed by His Majesty by proclamation issued in that behalf.
(3) If the majority are against separation forthwith it shall be lawful for His Majesty to make
arrangements for the framing of a single constitution for British India as a whole.
V.â No motion for the separation of Pakistan. lf the poll under the last preceding section has been
against separation forthwith and no motion for incorporation of Pakistan into Hindustan if the poll
under the last preceding section has been in favour of separation forthwith shall be entertained until
ten years have elapsed from the date appointed by His Majesty for putting into effect the new
constitution for British India or the two separate constitutions for Pakistan and Hindustan.
VI.â(1) In the event of two separate constitutions coming into existence under Section Four it
shall be lawful for His Majesty to establish as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council of
India with a view to the eventual establishment of a constitution for the whole of British India, and
to bringing about harmonious action between the Legislatures and Governments of Pakistan and
Hindustan, and to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters
affecting the whole of British India, and to providing for the administration of services which the
two parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of British
India, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered.
(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of India shall consist of a President nominated in
accordance with instructions from His Majesty and forty other persons, of whom twenty shall be
members representing Pakistan and twenty shall be members representing Hindustan.
(3) The members of the Council of India shall be elected in each case by the members of the Lower
Houses of the Parliament of Pakistan or Hindustan.
(4) The election of members of the Council of India shall be the first business of the Legislatures of
Pakistan and Hindustan.
(5) A member of the Council shall, on ceasing to be a member of that House of the Legislature of
Pakistan or Hindustan by which he was elected a member of the Council, cease to be a member of
the Council : Provided that, on the dissolution of the Legislature of Pakistan or Hindustan, the
persons who are members of the Council shall continue to hold office as members of the Council
until a new election has taken place and shall then retire unless re-elected.
(6) The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present
and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise.
(7) The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the
President.
(8) The Council may act notwithstanding a deficiency in their number, and the quorum of the
Council shall be fifteen.
(9) Subject as aforesaid, the Council may regulate their own procedure, including the delegation of
powers to committees.
(10) The constitution of the Council of India may from time to time be varied by identical Acts
passed by the Legislature of Pakistan and the Legislature of Hindustan, and the Acts may provide
for all or any of the members of the Council of India being elected by parliamentary electors, and
determine the constituencies by which the several elective members are to be returned and the
number of the members to be returned by the several constituencies and the method of election.
VII.â(1) The Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan may, by identical Acts, delegate to the
Council of India any of the powers of the Legislatures and Government of Pakistan and Hindustan,
and such Acts may determine the manner in which the powers so delegated are to be exercisable by
the Council.
(2) The powers of making laws with respect to railways and waterways shall, as from the day
appointed for the operation of the new constitution, become the powers of the Council of India and
not of Pakistan or Hindustan : Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Legislature
of Pakistan or Hindustan making laws authorising the construction, extension, or improvement of
railways and waterways where the works to be constructed are situate wholly in Pakistan or
Hindustan as the case may be.
(3) The Council may consider any questions which may appear in any way to bear on the welfare of
both Pakistan and Hindustan, and may, by resolution, make suggestions in relation thereto as they
may think proper, but suggestions so made shall have no legislative effect.
(4) It shall be lawful for the Council of India to make recommendations to the Legislatures of
Pakistan and Hindustan as to the advisability of passing identical Acts delegating to the Council of
India the administration of any all-India subject, with a view to avoiding the necessity of
administering them separately in Pakistan or Hindustan.
(5) It shall be lawful for either Legislature at any time by Act to deprive the delegation to the
Council of India of any powers which are in pursuance of such identical Acts as aforesaid for the
time being delegated to the Council and thereupon the powers in question shall cease to be
exercisable by the Council of India and shall become exercisable in parts of British India within
their respective jurisdictions by the Legislatures and Governments of Pakistan and Hindustan and
the Council shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the transfer, including
adjustments of any funds in their hands or at their disposal.
VIII.â(1) If at the end of ten years after coming into operation of a constitution for British India as
prescribed by Section IVâ(3) a petition is presented to His Majesty by a majority of the Muslim
members representing the Scheduled Districts in the Provincial and Central Legislatures demanding
a poll to be taken with regard to the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan, His Majesty shall cause
a poll to be taken. (2) The following shall be the form of the questions submitted to the electors :â
d) Are you in favour of separation of Pakistan from Hindustan ?
(ii) Are you against the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan ?
IX.â If the result of the poll is in favour of separation it shall be lawful for His Majesty to declare
by an Order-in-Council that from a day appointed in that behalf Pakistan shall cease to be a part of
British India, and dissolve the Council of India.
X.â(1) Where two constitutions have come into existence under circumstances mentioned in
Section IV it shall be lawful for His Majesty to declare by an Order-in-Council that Pakistan shall
cease to be a separate State and shall form part of Hindustan. Provided that no such order shall be
made until ten years have elapsed from the commencement of the separate constitution for
Pakistan. Provided also that no such declaration shall be made unless the Popular Legislatures of
Pakistan and Hindustan have passed Constituent Acts as are provided for in Section Xâ(2).
(2) The popular Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan may, by identical Acts agreed to by an
absolute majority of members at the third reading (hereinafter referred to as Constituent Acts),
establish, in lieu of the Council of India, a Legislature for United India, and may determine the
number of members thereof and the manner in which the members are to be appointed or elected
and the constituencies for which the several elective members are to be returned, and the number of
members to be returned by the several constituencies, and the method of appointment or election,
and the relations of the two Houses if provided for to one another.
XI.â(1) On the date of the union of Pakistan and Hindustan the Council of India shall cease to
exist and there shall be transferred to the Legislature and Government of India all powers then
exercisable by the Council of India.
(2) There shall also be transferred to the Legislature and Government of British India all the powers
and duties of the Legislatures and Government of Pakistan and Hindustan, including all powers as
to taxation, and those Legislatures and Government shall cease to exist.
XII.â(1) A poll under this Act shall be taken by ballot in the same manner so far as possible as a
poll of electors for the election of a member to serve in a Legislature and His Majesty may make
rules adopting the election laws for the purpose of the taking of the poll.
(2) An elector shall not vote more than once at the poll, although registered in more than one place.
(3) Elector means every adult male and female residing in the Provinces of North-West Frontier,
the Punjab, Sind, and Bengal and in Baluchistan.
XIII.â This Act may be called the Indian Constitution
(Preliminary Provisions) Act, I94 .
I do not think .that any detailed explanation is necessary for the reader to follow and grasp the
conclusions I have endeavoured to embody in this skeleton Act. Perhaps it might be advantageous
if I bring out some of the salient features of the proposals to which the projected statute of
Parliament is intended to give effect by comparing them with the Cripps proposals.
In my opinion it is no use for Indians to ask and the British Parliament to agree to proceed
forthwith to pass an Act conferring Dominion Status or Independence without first disposing of the
issue of Pakistan. The Pakistan issue must be treated as a preliminary issue and must be disposed of
one way or the other. This is why I have called the proposed Act " The Government of India
(Preliminary Provisions) Act." The issue of Pakistan being one of self-determination must be
decided by the wishes of the people. It is for this that I propose to take a poll of the Muslims and
non-Muslims in the predominantly Muslim Provinces. If the Majority of the Muslims are in favour
of separation and a majority of non-Muslims are against separation, steps must be taken to delimit
the areas wherever it is possible by redrawing provincial boundaries on ethnic and cultural lines by
separating the Muslim majority districts from the districts in which the majority consists of
non-Muslims. A Boundary Commission is necessary for this purpose. So a Boundary Commission
is provided for in the Act. It would be better if the Boundary Commission could be international in
its composition.
The scheme of separate referenda of Muslims and non-Muslims is based on two principles which I
regard as fundamental. The first is that a minority can demand safeguards for its protection against
the tyranny of the majority. It can demand them as a condition precedent. But a minority has no
right to put a veto on the right of the majority .to decide on questions of ultimate destiny. This is the
reason why I have confined the referendum on the establishment of Pakistan to Muslims only. The
second is that a communal majority cannot claim a communal minority to submit itself to its
dictates. Only a political majority may be permitted to rule a political minority. This principle has
been modified in India where a communal minority is placed under a communal majority subject to
certain safeguards. But this is as regards the ordinary question of social, economic and political
importance. It has never been conceded and can never be conceded that a communal majority has a
right to dictate to a communal minority on an issue which is of a constitutional character. That is
the reason why I have provided a separate referendum of non-Muslims only, to decide whether they
prefer to go in Pakistan or come into Hindustan
After the Boundary Commission has done its work of delimiting the areas, various possibilities can
arise. The Musalmans may stop with the delimitation of the boundaries of Pakistan. They may be
satisfied that after all the principle of Pakistan has been acceptedâwhich is what delimitation
means. Assuming that the Musalmans are not satisfied with mere delimitation but want to move in
the direction of establishing Pakistan there are two courses open to them. They may want to
establish Pakistan forthwith or they may agree to live under a common Central Government for a
period of say ten years and put the Hindus on their trial. Hindus will have an opportunity to show
that the minorities can trust them. The Muslims will learn from experience how far their fears of
Hindu Raj are justified. There is another possibility also. The Musalmans of Pakistan having
decided to separate forthwith may after a period become so disgusted with Pakistan that they might
desire to come back and be incorporated in Hindustan and be one people subject to one single
constitution.
These are some of the possibilities I see. These possibilities should in my judgement be kept open
for time and circumstances to have their effect. It seems to me to be wrong to say to the Musalmans
if you want to remain as part of India then you can never go out or if you want to go then you can
never come back. I have in my scheme kept the door open and have provided for both the
possibilities in the Act (1) for union after a separation of ten years, (2) for separation for ten years
and union there after. I personally prefer the second alternative although I have no strong views
either way. It would be much better that the Musalmans should have the experience of Pakistan. A
union after an experience of Pakistan is bound to be stable and lasting. In case Pakistan comes into
existence forthwith, it seems to me necessary that the separation should not altogether be a
severance, sharp and complete. It is necessary to maintain live contact between Pakistan and
Hindustan so as to prevent any estrangement growing up and preventing the chances of reunion. A
Council of India is accordingly provided for in the Act. It cannot be mistaken for a federation. It is
not even a confederation. Its purpose is to do nothing more than to serve as a coupling to link
Pakistan to Hindustan until they are united under a single constitution.
Such is my scheme. It is based on a community-wise plebiscite. The scheme is flexible. It takes
account of the fact that the Hindu sentiment is against it. It also recognizes the fact that the Muslim
demand for Pakistan may only be a passing mood. The scheme is not a divorce. It is only a judicial
separation. It gives to the Hindus a term. They can use it to show that they can be trusted with
authority to rule justly. It gives the Musalmans a term to try out Pakistan.
It might be desirable to compare my proposals with those of Sir Stafford Cripps. The proposals
were given out as a serial story in parts. The draft Declaration issued on 29th March 1943 contained
only the following :â
" His Majesty's Government therefore make the following terms:â
(a) Immediately upon cessation of hostilities steps shall be taken to set up in India in manner
described hereafter an elected body charged with the task of framing a new constitution for India.
(B) Provision shall be made, as set out below, for participation of Indian States in the
constitution-making body.
© His Majesty's Government undertake to accept and implement forthwith the constitution so
framed subject only to:
(i) The right of any province of British India that is not prepared to accept the new constitution to
retain its present constitutional position, provision being made for its subsequent accession if it so
decides.
With such non-acceding provinces should they so desire. His Majesty's Government will be
prepared to agree upon a new constitution giving them the same full status as the Indian Union and
arrived at by a procedure analogous to that here laid down."
Particulars of accession and secession were given in his broadcast. They were in the following
terms :â
" That constitution-making body will have as its object the framing of a single constitution for the
whole of Indiaâthat is, of British India, together with such of the Indian States as may decide to
join in.
" But we realize this very simple fact. If you want to persuade a number of people who are inclined
to be antagonistic to enter the same room, it is unwise to tell them that once they go in there is no
way out, they are to be forever locked in together.
" It is much wiser to tell them they can go in and if they find they can't come to a common decision,
then there is nothing to prevent those who wish, from leaving again by another door. They are
much more likely all to go in if they have knowledge that they can by their free will go out again if
they cannot agree.
" Well, that is what we say to the provinces of India. Come together to frame a common
constitutionâif you find after all your discussion and all the give and take of a constitution-making
assembly that you cannot overcome your differences and that some provinces are still not satisfied
with the constitution, then such provinces can go out and remain out if they wish and just the same
degree of self-government and freedom will be available for them as for the Union itself, that is to
say complete self-government."
To complete the picture further details were added at the Press Conference. Explaining the plan for
accession or secession of provinces Sir Stafford Cripps said :â
" If at the end of the Constituent Assembly proceedings, any province or provinces did not wish to
accept the new constitution and join the Union, it was free to keep outâprovided the Provincial
Assembly of that province, by a substantial vote say not less than 60 per cent., decided against
accession. If it was less than 60 per cent, the minority could claim a plebiscite of the whole
province for ascertaining the will of the people. In the case of the plebiscite, a bare majority would
be enough. Sir Stafford explained that for completing accession there would have to be a positive
vote from the Provincial Assembly concerned. The non-acceding province could, if they wanted,
combine into a separate union through a separate Constituent Assembly, but in order to make such
a Union practicable they should be geographically contiguous."
The main difference between my plan and that of Sir Stafford Cripps is quite obvious. For deciding
the issue of accession or secession which is only another way of saying, will there be or will there
not be Pakistan, Sir Stafford Cripps took the Province as a deciding unit. I have taken community
as the deciding unit. I have no doubt that Sir Stafford adopted a wrong basis. The Province can be a
proper unit if the points of dispute were interprovincial. For instance, if the points of dispute related
to questions such as distribution of taxation, of water, etc., one could understand the Province as a
whole or a particular majority in that Province having the right to decide. But the dispute regarding
Pakistan is an inter-communal problem which has involved two communities in the same Province.
Further the issue in the dispute is not on what terms the two communities will agree to associate in
a common political life. The dispute goes deeper and raises the question whether the communities
are prepared at all to associate in a common political life. It is a communal difference in its essence
and can only be decided by a community-wise plebiscite.
IV
I do not claim any originality for the solution I have proposed. The ideas which underlie it are
drawn from three sources, from the Irish Unity Conference at which Horace Plunket presided, from
the Home Rule Amending Bill of Mr. Asquith and from the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. It
will be seen that my solution of the Pakistan problem is the result of pooled wisdom. Will it be
accepted ? There are four ways of resolving the conflict which is raging round the question of
Pakistan. First is that the British Government should act as the deciding authority. Second is that
the Hindus and the Muslims should agree. Third is to submit the issue to an International Board of
Arbitration and the fourth is to fight it out by a Civil War.
Although India today is a political mad-house there are I hope enough sane people in the country
who would not allow matters to reach the stage of Civil War. There is no prospect of an agreement
between political leaders in the near future. The A.I.C.C. of the Indian National Congress at a
meeting in Allahabad held in April 1942 on the motion of Mr. Jagat Narayan Lal resolved 16
[f16] not to entertain the proposal for Pakistan. Two other ways are left to have the problem solved.
One is by the people concerned ; the other is by international arbitration. This is the way I have
suggested. I prefer the former. For various reasons this seems to me the only right course. The
leaders having failed to resolve the dispute it is time it was taken to the people for decision. Indeed,
it is inconceivable how an issue like that of partition of territory and transference of peoples'
allegiance from one government to another can be decided by political leaders. Such things are no
doubt done by conquerors to whom victory in war is sufficient authority to do what they like with
the conquered people. But we are not working under such a lawless condition. In normal times
when constitutional procedure is not in abeyance the views of political leaders cannot have the
effect which the fiats of dictators have. That would be contrary to the rule of democracy. The
highest value that can be put upon the views of leaders is to regard them as worthy to be placed on
the agenda. They cannot replace or obviate the necessity of having the matter decided by the
people. This is the position which was taken by Sir Stafford Cripps. The stand taken by the Muslim
League was, let there be Pakistan because the Muslim League has decided to have it. That position
has been negatived by the Cripps proposals and quite rightly. The Muslim League is recognized by
the Cripps proposals only to the extent of having a right to propose that Pakistan as a proposition be
considered. It has not been given the right to decide. Again it does not seem to have been realized
that the decision of an All-India body like the Congress which does not carry with it the active
consent of the majority of the people, immediately affected by the issue of Pakistan, cannot carry
the matter to solution. What good can it do if Mr. Gandhi or Mr. Rajagopalachariar agreeing or the
All-India Congress Committee resolving to concede Pakistan, if it was opposed by the Hindus of
the Punjab, or Bengal. Really speaking it is not the business of the people of Bombay or Madras to
say, ' let there be Pakistan ' It must be left to be decided by the people who are living in those areas
and who will have to bear the consequences of so violent, so revolutionary and so fundamental a
change in the political and economic system with which their lives and fortunes have been closely
bound up for so many years. A referendum by people in the Pakistan Provinces seems to me the
safest and the most constitutional method of solving the problem of Pakistan.
But I fear that solving the question of Pakistan by a referendum of the people howsoever attractive
may not find much favour with those who count. Even the Muslim League may not be very
enthusiastic about it. This is not because the proposal is unsound. Quite the contrary. The fact is
that there is another solution which has its own attractions. It calls upon the British Government to
establish Pakistan by the exercise of its sovereign authority. The reason why this solution may be
preferred to that which rests on the consent of the people is that it is simple and involves no such
elaborate procedure as that of a referendum to the people and has none of the uncertainties involved
in a referendum. But there is another ground why it is preferred, namely, that there is a precedent
for it. The precedent is the Irish precedent and the argument is that if the British Government by
virtue of its sovereign authority divided Ireland and created Ulster why cannot the British
Government divide India and create Pakistan ?
The British Parliament is the most sovereign legislative body in the world. De L'home, a French
writer on English Constitution, observed that there is nothing the British Parliament cannot do
except make man a woman and woman a man. And although the sovereignty of the British
Parliament over the affairs of the Dominions is limited by the Statute of Westminster it is still
unlimited so far as India is concerned. There is nothing in law to prevent the British Parliament
from proceeding to divide India as it did in the case of Ireland. It can do it, but will it do it? The
question is not one of power but of will.
Those who urge the British Government to follow the precedent in Ireland should ask what led the
British Government to partition Ireland. Was it the conscience of the British Government which led
them to sanction the course they took or was it forced upon them by circumstances to which they
had to yield ? A student of the history of Irish Home Rule will have to admit that the partition of
Ireland was not sanctioned by conscience but by the force of circumstances. It is not often clearly
realized that no party to the Irish dispute wanted partition of Ireland. Not even Carson, the Leader
of Ulster. Carson was opposed to Home Rule but he was not in favour of partition. His primary
position was to oppose Home Rule and maintain the integrity of Ireland. It was only as a second
line of defence against the imposition of Home Rule that he insisted on partition. This will be quite
clear from his speeches both inside and outside the House of Commons. Asquith's Government on
the other side was equally opposed to partition. This may be seen from the proceedings in the
House of Commons over the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1912. Twice amendments were moved for the
exclusion of Ulster from the provisions of the Bill, once in the Committee stage by Mr.
Agar-Roberts and again on the third reading by Carson himself. Both the times the Government
opposed and the amendments were lost.
Permanent partition of Ireland was effected in 1920 by Mr. Lloyd George in his Government of
Ireland Act. Many people think that this was the first time that partition of Ireland was thought of
and that it was due to the dictation of the ConservativeâUnionists in the Coalition Government of
which Mr. Lloyd George was the nominal head. It may be true that Mr. Lloyd George succumbed
to the influence of the predominant party in his coalition. But it is not true that partition was
thought of in 1920 for the first time. Nor is it true that the Liberal Party had not undergone a change
and shown its readiness to favour partition as a possible solution. As a matter of fact partition as a
solution came in 1914 six years before Mr. Lloyd George's Act when the Asquith Government, a
purely Liberal Government, was in office. The real cause which led to the partition of Ireland can
be understood only by examining the factors which made the Liberal Government of Mr. Asquith
change its mind. I feel certain that the factor which brought about this change in the viewpoint of
the Liberal Government was the Military crisis which took place in March 1914 and which is
generally referred to as the " Curragh Incident". A few facts will be sufficient to explain what the "
Curragh Incident " was and how decisive it was in bringing about a change in the policy of the
Asquith Government.
To begin at a convenient point the Irish Home Rule Bill had gone through all its stages by the end
of 1913. Mr. Asquith who had been challenged that he was proceeding without a mandate from the
electorate had however given an undertaking that the Act would not be given effect to until another
general election had been held. In the ordinary course there would have been a general election in
1915 if the War had not supervened. But the Ulstermen were not prepared to take their chance in a
general election and started taking active steps to oppose Home Rule. They were not always very
scrupulous in choosing their means and their methods and under the seductive pose that they were
fighting against the Government which was preventing them from remaining loyal subjects of the
King they resorted to means which nobody would hesitate to call shameless and nefarious. There
was one Maginot Line on which the Ulstermen always depended for defeating Home Rule. That
was the House of Lords. But by the Parliament Act of 1911 the House of Lords had become a
Wailing Wall neither strong nor high. It had ceased to be a line of defence to rely upon. Knowing
that the Bill might pass notwithstanding its rejection by the House of Lords, feeling that in the next
election Asquith might win, the Ulstermen had become desperate and were searching for another
line of defence. They found it in the Army. The plan was twofold. It included the project of getting
the House of Lords to hold up the Annual Army Act so as to ensure that there would be no Army in
existence to be used against Ulster. The second project was to spread their propagandaâThat
Home Rule will be Home Ruleâin the Army with a view to preparing the Army to disobey the
Government in case Government decided to use the Army for forcing Home Rule on Ireland. The
first became unnecessary as they succeeded easily in bringing about the second. This became clear
in March 1914 when there occurred the Curragh Incident. The Government had reasons to suspect
that certain Army depots in Ireland were likely to be raided by the Unionist Volunteers. On March
20th, order-were sent to Sir Arthur Paget, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland, to take
steps to safeguard these depols. His reply was a telegram to the effect that officers were not
prepared to obey and were resigning their commissions and it was feared that men would refuse to
move. General Sir Hubert Gough had refused to serve against the Ulster Unionists and his example
had been followed by others. The Government realized that the Army had become political,
17[f.17] nay, partisan. It took fright and decided in favour of partition acting on the well-known
maxim that wisdom is the better part of valour. What made Asquith change his position was not
conscience but the fright of the Army rebelling. The fright was so great that no one thereafter felt
bold enough to challenge the Army and enforce Home Rule without partition.
Can His Majesty's Government be depended upon to repeat in India what it did in Ireland ? I am
unable to answer the question. But two things I will say. The first thing is that His Majesty's
Government knows full well what have been the consequences of this partition of Ireland. The Irish
Free State has become the most irreconcilable enemy of Great Britain. The enmity knows no limits.
The wound caused by partition will never be healed so long as partition remains a settled fact. The
Partition of Ireland cannot but be said to be morally indefensible inasmuch as it was the result not
of the consent of the people but of superior force. It was as bad as the murder of Duncan by
Macbeth. The blood stains left on His Majesty's Government are as deep as those on Lady Macbeth
and of which Lady Macbeth said that " All the perfumes of Arabia " had failed to remove the stink.
That His Majesty's Government does not like to be responsible for the execution of another deed of
partition is quite clear from its policy with the Jew-Arab problem in Palestine. It appointed the Peel
Commission to investigate. The Commission recommended partition of Palestine. The Government
accepted 18[f.18] it in principle as the most hopeful line of solving the deadlock. Suddenly the
Government realized the gravity of forcing such a solution on the Arabs and appointed another
Royal Commission called the Woodhead Commission which condemned partition and opened an
easy way to a Government which was anxious to extricate itself from a terrible position. The
partition of Ireland is not a precedent worthy to be followed. It is an ugly incident which requires to
be avoided. It is a warning and not an example. I doubt very much if His Majesty's Government
will partition India on its own authority at the behest of the Muslim League.
And why should His Majesty's Government oblige the Muslim League ? In the case of Ulster there
was the tie of blood which made a powerful section of the British politicians take the side of Ulster.
It was this tie of blood which made Lord Curzon say " You are compelling Ulster to divorce her
present husband, to whom she is not unfaithful and you are compelling her to marry someone else
who she cordially dislikes, with whom she does not want to live." There is no such kinship between
His Majesty's Government and the Muslim League and it would be a vain hope for the League to
expect His Majesty's Government to take her side.
The other thing I would like to say is that it would not be in the interests of the Muslim League to
achieve its object by invoking the authority of His Majesty's Government to bring about the
partition of India. In my judgement more important than getting Pakistan is the procedure to be
adopted in bringing about Pakistan if the object is that after partition Pakistan and Hindustan should
continue as two friendly States with goodwill and no malice towards each other.
What is the procedure which is best suited for the realization of this end ? Everyone will agree that
the procedure must be such that it must not involve victory to one community and humiliation to
the other. The method must be of peace with honour to both sides. I do not know if there is another
solution better calculated to achieve this end than the decision by a referendum of the people. I
have made my suggestion as to which is the best course. Others also will come forth with theirs. I
cannot say that mine is the best. But whatever the suggestion be unless good sense as well as a
sense of responsibility is brought to bear upon the solution of this question it will remain a festering
sore.
EPILOGUE
Here I propose to stop. For I feel that I have said all that I can say about the subject. To use legal
language I have drawn the pleadings. This I may claim to have done at sufficient length. In doing
so, I have adopted that prolix style so dear to the Victorian lawyers, under which the two sides plied
one another with plea and replication, rejoinder and rebutter, surrejoinder and surrebutter and so on.
I have done this deliberately with the object that a full statement of the case for and against
Pakistan may be made. The foregoing pages contain the pleadings. The facts contained therein are
true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have also given my findings. It is now for Hindus and
Muslims to give theirs.
To help them in their task it might be well to set out the issues. On the pleadings the following
issues seem to be necessary issues:
(1) Is Hindu-Muslim unity necessary for India's political advancement ? If necessary, is it still
possible of realization notwithstanding the new ideology of the Hindus and the Muslims being two
different nations?
(2) If Hindu-Muslim unity is possible, should it be reached by appeasement or by settlement ?
(3) If it is to be achieved by appeasement, what are the new concessions that can be offered to the
Muslims to obtain their willing co-operation, without prejudice to other interests ?
(4) (4) If it is to be achieved by a settlement, what are the terms of that - settlement ? If there are
only two alternatives, (i) Division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan, or (ii) Fifty-fifty share in
Legislature, Executive and the Services, which alternative is preferable ?
(5) Whether India, if she remained one integral whole, can rely upon both Hindus and Musalmans
to defend her independence, assuming it is won from the British?
(6) Having regard to the prevailing antagonism between Hindus and Musalmans and having regard
to the new ideology demarcating them as two distinct nations and postulating an opposition in their
ultimate destinies, whether a single constitution for these two nations can be built in the hope that
they will show an intention to work it and not to stop it ?
(7) On the assumption that the two-nation theory has come to stay, will not India as one single unit
become an incoherent body without organic unity, incapable of developing into a strong united
nation bound by a common faith in a common destiny and therefore likely to remain a feebler and
sickly country, easy to be kept in perpetual subjection either of the British or-of any other foreign
power ?
(8) If India cannot be one united country, is it not better that Indians should help India in the
peaceful dissolution of this incoherent whole into its natural parts, namely, Pakistan and Hindustan
?
(9) Whether it is not better to provide for the growth of two independent and separate nations, a
Muslim nation inhabiting Pakistan and a Hindu nation inhabiting Hindustan, than pursue the vain
attempt to keep India as one undivided country in the false hope that Hindus and Muslims will
some day be one and occupy it as the members of one nation and sons of one motherland ?
Nothing can come in the way of an Indian getting to grips with these issues and reaching his own
conclusions with the help of the material contained in the foregoing pages except three things :
(1)A false sentiment of historical patriotism, (2) a false conception of the exclusive ownership of
territory and (3) absence of willingness to think for oneself. Of these obstacles, the last is the most
difficult to get over. Unfortunately thought in India is rare and free thought is rarer still. This is
particularly true of Hindus. That is why a large part of the argument of this book has been
addressed to them. The reasons for this are obvious. The Hindus are in a majority. Being in a
majority, their view point must count! There is not much possibility of peaceful solution if no
attempt is made to meet their objections rational or sentimental. But there are special reasons which
have led me to address so large a part of the argument to them and which may not be quite so
obvious to others. I feel that those Hindus who are guiding the destinies of their fellows have lost
what Carlyle calls " the Seeing Eye " and are walking in the glamour of certain vain illusions, the
consequences of which must, I fear, be terrible for the Hindus. The Hindus are in the grip of the
Congress and the Congress is in the grip of Mr. Gandhi. It cannot be said that Mr. Gandhi has given
the Congress the right lead. Mr. Gandhi first sought to avoid facing the issue by taking refuge in
two things. He started by saying that to partition India is a moral wrong and a sin to which he will
never be a party. This is a strange argument. India is not the only country faced with the issue of
partition or shifting of frontiers based on natural and historical factors to those based on the
national factors. Poland has been partitioned three times and no one can be sure that there will be
no more partition of Poland. There are very few countries in Europe which have not undergone
partition during the last 150 years. This shows that the partition of a country is neither moral nor
immoral. It is unmoral. It is a social, political or military question. Sin has no place in it.
As a second refuge Mr. Gandhi started by protesting that the Muslim League did not represent the
Muslims and that Pakistan was only a fancy of Mr. Jinnah. It is difficult to understand how Mr.
Gandhi could be so blind as not to see how Mr. Jinnah's influence over the Muslim masses has been
growing day by day and how he has engaged himself in mobilizing all his forces for battle. Never
before was Mr. Jinnah a man for the masses. He distrusted them. 19[f.19] To exclude them from
political power he was always for a high franchise. Mr. Jinnah was never known to be a very
devout, pious or a professing Muslim. Besides kissing the Holy Koran as and when he was sworn
in as an M.L.A., he does not appear to have bothered much about its contents or its special tenets. It
is doubtful if he frequented any mosque either out of curiosity or religious fervour. Mr. Jinnah was
never found in the midst of Muslim mass congregations, religious or political.
Today one finds a complete change in Mr. Jinnah. He has become a man of the masses. He is no
longer above them. He is among them. Now they have raised him above themselves and call him
their Qaid-e-Azam. He has not only become a believer in Islam, but is prepared to die for Islam.
Today, he knows more of Islam than mere Kalama. Today, he goes to the mosque to hear Khutba
and takes delight in joining the Id congregational prayers. Dongri and Null Bazaar once knew Mr.
Jinnah by name. Today they know him by his presence. No Muslim meeting in Bombay begins or
ends without Allah-ho-Akbar and Long Live Qaid-e-Azam. In this Mr. Jinnah has merely followed
King Henry IV of Franceâthe unhappy father-in-law of the English King Charles I. Henry IV was
a Huguenot by faith. But he did not hesitate to attend mass in a Catholic Church in Paris. He
believed that to change his Huguenot faith and go to mass was an easy price to pay for the powerful
support of Paris. As Paris became worth a mass to Henry IV, so have Dongri and Null Bazaar
become worth a mass to Mr. Jinnah and for similar reason. It is strategy ; it is mobilization. But
even if it is viewed as the sinking of Mr. Jinnah from reason to superstition, he is sinking with his
ideology which by his very sinking is spreading into all the different strata of Muslim society and is
becoming part and parcel of its mental make-up. This is as clear as anything could be. The only
basis for Mr. Gandhi's extraordinary view is the existence of what are called Nationalist
Musalmans. It is difficult to see any real difference between the communal Muslims who form the
Muslim League and the Nationalist Muslims. It is extremely doubtful whether the Nationalist
Musalmans have any real community of sentiment, aim and policy with the Congress which marks
them off from the Muslim League. Indeed many Congressmen are alleged to hold the view that
there is no different between the two and that the Nationalist Muslim inside the Congress are only
an outpost of the communal Muslims. This view does not seem to be quite devoid of truth when
one recalls that the late Dr. Ansari, the leader of the Nationalist Musalmans, refused to oppose the
Communal Award although it gave the Muslims separate electorates in teeth of the resolution
passed by the Congress and the Nationalist Musalmans. Nay, so great has been the increase in the
influence of the League among the Musalmans that many Musalmans who were opposed to the
League have been compelled to seek for a place in the League or make peace with it. Anyone who
takes account of the turns and twists of the late Sir Sikandar Hyat Khan and Mr. Faziul Huq, the
late Premier of Bengal, must admit the truth of this fact. Both Sir Sikandar and Mr. Fazlul Huq
were opposed to the formation of branches of the Muslim League in their Provinces when Mr.
Jinnah tried to revive it in 1937. Notwithstanding their opposition, when the branches of the League
were formed in the Punjab and in Bengal within one year both were compelled to join them. It is a
case of those coming to scoff remaining to pray. No more cogent proof seems to be necessary to
prove the victory of the League.
Notwithstanding this Mr. Gandhi instead of negotiating with Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League
with a view to a settlement, took a different turn. He got the Congress to pass the famous Quit India
Resolution on the 8th August 1942. This Quit India Resolution was primarily a challenge to the
British Government. But it was also an attempt to do away with the intervention of the British
Government in the discussion of the Minority question and thereby securing for the Congress a free
hand to settle it on its own terms and according to its own lights. It was in effect, if not in intention,
an attempt to win independence by bypassing the Muslims and the other minorities. The Quit India
Campaign turned out to be a complete failure.
It was a mad venture and took the most diabolical form. It was a scorch-earth campaign in which
the victims of looting, arson and murder were Indians and the perpetrators were Congressmen.
Beaten, he started a fast for twenty-one days in March 1943 while he was in gaol with the object of
getting out of it. He failed. Thereafter he fell ill. As he was reported to be sinking the British
Government released him for fear that he might die on their hand and bring them ignominy. On
coming out of gaol, he found that he and the Congress had not only missed the bus but had also lost
the road. To retrieve the position and win for the Congress the respect of the British Government as
a premier party in the country which it had lost by reason of the failure of the campaign that
followed up the Quit India Resolution, and the violence which accompanied it, he started
negotiating with the Viceroy. Thwarted in that attempt, Mr. Gandhi turned to Mr. Jinnah. On the
17th July 1944 Mr. Gandhi wrote to Mr. Jinnah expressing his desire to meet him and discuss with
him the communal question. Mr. Jinnah agreed to receive Mr. Gandhi in his house in Bombay.
They met on the 9th September 1944. It was good that at long last wisdom dawned on Mr. Gandhi
and he agreed to see the light which was staring him in the face and which he had so far refused to
see.
The basis of their talks was the offer made by Mr. Rajagopalachariar to Mr. Jinnah in April 1944
which, according to the somewhat incredible 20[f.20] story told by Mr. Rajagopalachariar, was
discussed by him with Mr. Gandhi in March 1943 when he (Mr. Gandhi) was fasting in gaol and to
which Mr. Gandhi had given his full approval. The following is the text of Mr. Rajagopalachariar's
formula popularly spoken of as the C. R. Formula:â
(1) Subject to the terms set out below as regards the constitution for Free India, the Muslim
League endorses the Indian demand for Independence and will co-operate with the Congress in the
formation of a provisional interim government for the transitional period.
(2) After the termination of the war, a commission shall be appointed for demarcating contiguous
districts in the north-west and east of India, wherein the Muslim population is in absolute majority.
In the areas thus demarcated, a plebiscite of all the inhabitants held on the basis of adult suffrage
or other practicable franchise shall ultimately decide the issue of separation from Hindustan. If the
majority decide in favour of forming a sovereign State separate from Hindustan, such decision
shall be given effect to, without prejudice to the right of districts on the border to choose to join
either State.
(3) It will be open to all parties to advocate their points of view before the plebiscite is held.
(4) In the event of separation, mutual agreements shall be entered into for safeguarding defence,
and commerce and communications and for other essential purposes.
(5) Any transfer of population shall only be on an absolutely voluntary basis.
(6) These terms shall be binding only in case of transfer by Britain of full power and responsibility
for the governance of India.
The talks which began on the 9th September were carried on over a period of 18 days till 27th
September when it was announced that the talks had failed. The failure of the talks produced
different reactions in the minds of different people. Some were glad, others were sorry. But as both
had been, just previous to the talks, worsted by their opponents in their struggle for supremacy,
Gandhi by the British and Jinnah by the Unionist Party in the Punjab, and had lost a good deal of
their credit the majority of people expected that they would put forth some constructive effort to
bring about a solution. The failure may have been due to the defects of personalities. But it must
however be said that failure was inevitable having regard to certain fundamental faults in the C. R.
Formula. In the first place, it tied up the communal question with the political question in an
indissoluble knot. No political settlement, no communal settlement, is the strategy on which the
formula proceeds. The formula did not offer a solution. It invited Mr. Jinnah to enter into a deal. It
was a bargainâ" If you help us in getting independence, we shall be glad to consider your proposal
for Pakistan. " I don't know from where Mr. Rajagopalachariar got the idea that this was the best
means of getting independence. It is possible that he borrowed it from the old Hindu kings of India
who built up alliance for protecting their independence against foreign enemies by giving their
daughters to neighbouring princes. Mr. Rajagopalachariar forgot that such alliances brought neither
a good husband nor a permanent ally. To make communal settlement depend upon help rendered in
winning freedom is a very unwise way of proceeding in a matter of this kind. It is a way of one
party drawing another party into its net by offering communal privileges as a bait. The C. R.
Formula made communal settlement an article for sale.
The second fault in the C. R. Formula relates to the machinery for giving effect to any agreement
that may be arrived at. The agency suggested in the C. R. Formula is the Provisional Government.
In suggesting this Mr. Rajagopalachariar obviously overlooked two difficulties. The first thing he
overlooked is that once the Provisional Government was established, the promises of the
contracting parties, to use legal phraseology, did not remain concurrent promises. The case became
one of the executed promise against an executory promise. By consenting to the establishment of a
Provisional Government, the League would have executed its promise to help the Congress to win
independence. But the promise of the Congress to bring about Pakistan would remain executory.
Mr. Jinnah who insists, and quite rightly, that the promises should be concurrent could never be
expected to agree to place himself in such a position. The second difficulty which Mr.
Rajagopalachariar has overlooked is what would happen if the Provisional Government failed to
give effect to the Congress part of the agreement. Who is to enforce it ? The Provisional
Government is to be a sovereign government, not subject to superior authority. If it was unwilling
to give effect to the agreement, the only sanction open to the Muslims would be rebellion. To make
the Provisional Government the agency for forging a new Constitution, for bringing about Pakistan,
nobody will accept. It is a snare and not a solution.
The only way of bringing about the constitutional changes will be through an Act of Parliament
embodying provisions agreed upon by the important elements in the national life of British India.
There is no other way.
There is a third fault in the C. R. Formula. It relates to the provision for a treaty between Pakistan
and Hindustan to safeguard what are called matters of common interests such as Defence, Foreign
Affairs, Customs, etc. Here again Mr. Rajagopalachariar does not seem to be aware of obvious
difficulties. How are matters of common interest to be safeguarded? I see only two ways. One is to
have a Central Government vested with Executive and Legislative authority in respect of these
matters. This means Pakistan and Hindustan will not be sovereign States. Will Mr. Jinnah agree to
this ? Obviously he does not. The other way is to make Pakistan and Hindustan sovereign States
and to bind them by a treaty relating to matters of common interests. But what is there to ensure
that the terms of the treaty will be observed ? As a sovereign State Pakistan can always repudiate it
even if it was a Dominion. Mr. Rajagopalachariar obviously drew his inspiration in drafting this
clause from the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. But he forgot the fact that the treaty lasted so long as
Ireland was not a Dominion and that as soon as it became a Dominion it repudiated the treaty and
the British Parliament stood silent and grinned, for it knew that it could do nothing.
One does not mind very much that the talks failed. What one feels sorry for is that the talks failed
giving us a clear idea of some of the questions about which Mr. Jinnah has been observing discreet
silence in his public utterances, though he has been quite outspoken about them in his private talks.
These questions areâ (1) Is Pakistan to be conceded because of the Resolution of the Muslim
League ? (2) Are the Muslims, as distinguished from the Muslim League, to have no say in the
matter ? (3) What will be the boundaries of Pakistan ? Whether the boundaries will be the present
administrative boundaries of the Punjab and Bengal or whether the boundaries of Pakistan will be
ethnological boundaries ? (4) What do the words " subject to such territorial adjustments as may be
necessary " which occur in the Lahore Resolution mean ? What were the territorial adjustments the
League had in mind ? (5) What does the word " finally " which occurs in the last part of the Lahore
Resolution mean ? Did the League contemplate a transition period in which Pakistan will not be an
independent and sovereign State ? (6) If Mr. Jinnah's proposal that the boundaries of Eastern and
Western Pakistan are to be the present administrative boundaries, will he allow the Scheduled
Castes, or, if I may say so, the non-Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal to determine by a plebiscite
whether they wish to be included in Mr. Jinnah's Pakistan and whether Mr. Jinnah would be
prepared to abide by the results of the plebiscite of the non-Muslim elements in the Punjab and
Bengal ?
(7) Does Mr. Jinnah want a corridor running through U. P. and Bihar to connect up Eastern
Pakistan to Western Pakistan ? It would have been a great gain if straight questions had been put to
Mr. Jinnah and unequivocal answers obtained. But instead of coming to grips with Mr. Jinnah on
these questions, Mr. Gandhi spent his whole time proving that the C. R. Formula is substantially the
same as the League's Lahore Resolutionâwhich was ingenious if not nonsensical and thereby lost
the best opportunity he had of having these questions clarified.
After these talks Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah have retired to their pavilions as players in a cricket
match do after their game is over, as though there is nothing further to be done. There is no
indication whether they will meet again and if so when. What next ? is not a question which seems
to worry them. Yet it is difficult to see how India can make any political advance without a solution
of the question which one may refuse to discuss. It does not belong to that class of questions about
which people can agree to differ. It is a question for which solution will have to be found. How ? It
must be by agreement or by arbitration. If it is to be by agreement, it must be the result of
negotiationsâof give and take and not of surrender by one side to the other. That is not agreement.
It is dictation. Good sense may in the end prevail and parties may come to an agreement. But
agreement may turn out to be a very dilatory way. It may take long before good sense prevails.
How long one cannot say. The political freedom of India is a most urgent necessity. It cannot be
postponed and yet without a solution of the communal problem it cannot be hastened. To make it
dependent on agreement is to postpone its solution indefinitely. Another expeditious method must
be found. It seems to me that arbitration by an International Board is the best way out. The disputed
points in the minorities problem including that of Pakistan should be remitted to such a Board. The
Board should be constituted of persons drawn from countries outside the British Empire. Each
statutory minority in IndiaâMuslims, Scheduled Castes, Sikhs, Indian Christiansâshould be
asked to select its nominee to this Board of Arbitration. These minorities as also the Hindus should
appear before the Board in support of their demands and should agree to abide by the decision
given by the Board. The British should give the following undertakings :â
(1) That they will have nothing to do with the communal settlement. It will be left to agreement or
to a Board of Arbitration.
(2) They will implement the decision of the Board of Arbitration on the communal question by
embodying it in the Government of India Act.
(3) That the award of the International Board of Arbitration would be regarded by them as a
sufficient discharge of their obligations to the minorities in India and would agree to give India
Dominion Status.
The procedure has many advantages. It eliminates the fear of British interference in the communal
settlement which has been offered by the Congress as an excuse for its not being able to settle the
communal problem. It is alleged that, as there is always the possibility of the minorities getting
from the British something more than what the Congress thinks it proper to give, the minorities do
not wish to come to terms with the Congress. The proposal has a second advantage. It removes the
objection of the Congress that by making the constitution subject to the consent of the minorities,
the British Government has placed a veto in the hands, of the minorities over the constitutional
progress of India. It is complained that the minorities can unreasonably withhold their consent or
they can be prevailed upon by the British Government to withhold their consent as the minorities
are suspected by the Congress to be mere tools in the hands of the British Government.
International arbitration removes completely every ground of complaint on this account. There
should be no objection on the part of the minorities. If their demands are fair and just no minority
need have any fear from a Board of International Arbitration. There is nothing unfair in the
requirement of a submission to arbitration. It follows the well known rule of law, namely, that no
man should be allowed to be a judge in his own case. There is no reason to make any exception in
the case of a minority. Like an individual it cannot claim to sit in judgement over its own case.
What about the British Government ? I cannot see any reason why the British Government should
object to any part of this scheme. The Communal Award has brought great odium on the British. It
has been a thankless task and the British should be glad to be relieved of it. On the question of the
discharge of their responsibilities for making adequate provision for the safety and security of
certain communities in respect of which they have regarded themselves as trustees before they
relinquish their sovereignty what more can such communities ask than the implantation in the
constitution of safeguards in terms of the award of an International Board of Arbitration ? There is
only one contingency which may appear to create some difficulty for the British Government in the
matter of enforcing the award of the Board of Arbitration. Such a contingency can arise if any one
of the parties to the dispute is not prepared to submit its case to arbitration.
In that case the question will be: will the British Government be justified in enforcing the award
against such a party ? I see no difficulty in saying that the British Government can with perfect
justice proceed to enforce the award against such a party. After all what is the status of a party
which refuses to submit its case to arbitration ? The answer is that such a party is an aggressor.
How is an aggressor dealt with ? By subjecting him to sanctions. Implementing the award of the
Board of Arbitration in a constitution against a party which refuses to go to arbitration is simply
another name for the process of applying sanctions against an aggressor. The British Government
need not feel embarrassed in following this process if the contingency should arise. For it is a well
recognized process of dealing with such cases and has the imprimatur of the League of Nations
which evolved this formula when Mussolini refused to submit to arbitration his dispute with
Abyssinia. What I have proposed may not be the answer to the question : What next ? I don't know
what else can be. All I know is that there will be no freedom for India without an answer. It must be
decisive, it must be prompt and it must be satisfactory to the parties concerned.
Contents Appendices
[f.1]CanadaâChapter 1.
[f2]The Political Future of South Africa, 1927.
[f3]The South African Commonwealth, p. 365.
[f.4]On this point, see Report of the Inquiry Committee appointed by the All-India Muslim League
to inquire into Muslim grievances in Congress Provinces popularly known as Pirpur Report. Also
Report of the Bihar Provincial Muslim League to inquire into some grievances of Muslims in Bihar
and the Press Note issued by the Information Officer, Government of Bihar, replying to some of the
allegations contained in these reports published in Amrita Bazar Patrika of 13-3-39.
[f.5]Canada Year Book, 1936.
[f6]South Africa Year Book. 1941.
[f.7]Statesman's Year Book, 1941.
[f.8]That is for the Province of Quebec.
[f.9]Italics not in the original.
[f.10]Quoted by Sir James O'Connorâ-History of Ireland, Vol. II, p. 257.
[f.11]History of Ireland, vol. II
[f.12]Italics are mine.
[f.13]Eastern Times (Lahore) of 17th November 1942.
[f.14]Hansard (House of Commons), 1920, Vol. 129, p. 1315. Italics are mine.
[f.15]Those who want more information on the question of transfer of population may consult with
great advantage The Exchange of Minorities, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey by Stephen P. Ladas
(Mac), 1932, where the scheme for the transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria and
Greece and Turkey has been fully set out.
[f16]The text of the resolution is as follows :â
" The A. I. C. C. is of opinion that any proposal to disintegrate India by giving liberty to any
component Slate or territorial unit to secede from the Indian Union or Federation will be highly
detrimental to the best interests of the people of the States and Provinces and the country as a whole
and the Congress, therefore, cannot agree to any such proposal."
[f.17]On this point see Life of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson by Major General Sir C.
E.Callwell, Vol. 1., Chapter IX ; also Parliamentary Debates (House of Lords), 1914, Vol. 15, pp.
998-1017, on Ulster and the Army. This shows that the Army had been won over by the Ulsterites
long before the Curragh Incident. It is possible that Mr. Asquith decided in 1913 to bring in an
Amending Bill to exclude Ulster from Home Rule for six years because he had become aware that
the Army had gone over to Ulster and that it could not be used for enforcing Home Rule.
[f.18]See Parliamentary Debates (Commons), 1938-39, Vol. 341, pp. 1987-2107 ; also (Lords)
1936-37, Vol. 106, pp. 599-674.
[f.19]Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his autobiography says that Mr. Jinnah wanted the Congress to
restrict its membership to matriculates
[f.20]The formula was discussed with Mr. Gandhi in March 1943 but was not communicated to
Mr. Jinnah till April 1944.
PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA
________________________________________________________________
Contents
APPENDICES
Appendix I : Population of India by Communities
Appendix II : Communal distribution of population by Minorities in the Provinces of British India
Appendix III : Communal distribution of population by Minorities in the States
Appendix IV : Communal distribution of population in the Punjab by Districts
Appendix V : Communal distribution of population in Bengal by Districts
Appendix VI : Communal distribution of population in Assam by Districts
Appendix VII : Proportion of Muslim population in N.-W. F. Province by Districts
APPENDIX I
POPULATION OF INDIA BY COMMUNITIES
Communities British India Indian States and
Agencies
Total
1. Hindus 150,890,146 55,227,180 206,117,326
2. Muslims 79,398,503 12,659,593 92.058.096
3. Scheduled Castes 21[f.1] 39,920,807 8.892,373 48,813,180
4. Tribal 16,713,256 8.728,233 25,441,489
5. Sikhs 4,165,097 1,526,350 5,691,447
6. Christians
(i) Indian Christians 1,655,982 1,413,808 3,069,790
(ii) Anglo-Indians 113,936 26,486 140,422
(iii) Others 75,751 7,708 83,459
7. Jains 578,372 870,914 1.449.286
8. Buddhists 167,413 64,590 232,003
9. Parsees 101,968 12,922 114,890
10. Jews 19.327 3,153 22,480
11. Others 371,403 38,474 409,877
Total 294,171,961 89,471,784 383,643,745
NOTE.âThe figures for the Scheduled Castes both for British India and Indian States do not give the
correct totals. The figures for Ajmer-Merwara in British India and for Gwalior State are not included in the
totals. The Census Reports for 1940 fail to give these figures.
APPENDIX II
COMMUNAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY MINORITIES IN THE PROVINCES OF
BRITISH INDIA
Total Muslims Scheduled Castes Indian
Christians
Sikhs
Provinces
Population Population % Population % Population % Population %
1.
Ajmere-Merwara
583,693 89,899 15.4 Nil 3,895 .8 867 .15
2. Andaman
Nicobar
33,768 8,005 23.7 Nil 779 2.3 744 2.2
3. Assam 10,204,733 3,442,479 33.7 676,291 6.6 37,750 .4 3,464 .03
4. British
Baluchistan
501,631 438,930 87.5 5,102 1.0 2,633 .5 11,918 2.3
5. Bengal 60,306,525 33,005,434 54.7 7,878,970 13.0 110,923 .2 16,281 .03
6. Bihar* 36,340,151 4,716,314 12.9 4,840,379 13.3 24,693 .07 13,213 .04
7. Bombay 20,849,840 1,920,368 9.2 1,855,148 8.9 338,812 1.6 8,011 .04
8. Central
Provinces &
Berar*
16,813,584 783,697 4.7 3,051,413 18.1 48,260 .3 14,996 .09
9. Coorg 168,726 14,780 8.8 25,740 15.3 3,309 2.0 Nil
10. Delhi 917,939 304,971 33.2 121,693 13.3 10,494 1.1 16,157 1.8
11. Madras 49,341,810 3,896,452 7.9 8,068,492 16.4 2,001,082 4.06 418 .001
12. N.-W.F.P. 3,038,067 2,788,797 91.8 Nil 5,426 .2 57,989 1.9
13. Orissa 8,728,544 146,301 1.7 1,238,171 14.2 26,584 .3 232 .003
14. Punjab 28,418,819 16,217,242 57 1,248,635 4.4 486,038 1.7 3,757,401 13.2
15. Panth Piploda 5,267 251 4.8 918 17.4 216 4.1 Nil
16. Sind 4,229,221 3,054,635 72.2 191,634 4.5 13,232 .3 31,011 .7
17. United
Provinces @
55,020,617 8,416,308 15.3 11,717,158 21.3 131,327 .2 232,445 .4
Total 295,502.935 79,344,863 26.9 40,919,744 13.9 3,245,453 1.0 4,155,147 1.0
* Bihar 28,823,802 4,168,470 14.4 3,919,619 13.6 12,651 .04 3,204 .01
Chota Nagpur 7,516,349 547,844 7.3 420,760 5.6 12,042 .2 10,009 .1
* C.P. 13,208,718 448,528 3.4 2,359,836 17.9 42,135 .3 12,766 .1
Berar 3.604,866 335,169 93 691.577 19.2 6,125 .2 2,230 .05
@ Agra 40,903,147 6,231,062 15-2 8,018,803 19.6 120,549 .3 226,096 .5
Oudh 14,114,470 2,185,246 15.5 3,698,355 26.2 10,778 .08 6,349 .05
APPENDIX III
COMMUNAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY MINORITIES
IN INDIAN STATES
States and
Agencies
Total
Population
Muslims Scheduled Castes Indian
Christians
Sikhs
Population % Population % Population % Population %
1. Assam 725,655 31,662 4.4 265 .04 25913 3.6 381 .05
2. Baluchistan 356,204 346,251 97.2 65 .02 40 .01 126 .04
3. Baroda 2,855,010 223,610 7.8 230,794 8.1 9182 .3 566 .02
4. Bengal 2,144,829 372,113 17.3 269,729 12.6 564 .03 28 .001
5. Central India 7,506,427 439,850 5.9 1,027,009 13.7 7,582 .1 2731 .04
6. Chattisgarh 4,050,000 28,773 0.7 483,132 11.9 11,820 .3 507 .01
7. Cochin 1,422,875 109,188 7.7 141,154 9.9 399,394 28.1 9
8. Deccan
(and Kolhapur)
2,785,428 182,036 6.5 306,898 11.0 17,236 .6 22 .001
9. Gujarat 1,458,702 58,000 3.9 55,204 3-8 4,215 .3 182 .01
10. Gwalior 4,006,159 240,903 6.0 1,352 .03 2,342 .06
11. Hyderabad 16,338,534 2,097,475 12.8 2,928,048 17.9 215,989 1.3 5,330 .03
12. Kashmir and
Feudatories
4,021.616 3,073,540 76.4 113,464 2.8 3,079 .08 65,903 1.6
13. Madras 498,754 30,263 6.0 83,734 16.8 20,806 4.2 5
14. Mysore 7,329,140 485,230 66 1,405,067 19.2 98,580 1.3 269 004
15. N.-W.F.P. 46,267 22,068 47.7 Nil 571 1.2 4,472 9.1
16. Orissa 3,023,731 14,355 0.47 352,088 11.6 2,249 .07 151 .005
17. Punjab 5,503,554 2,251,459 40.9 349,962 6.4 6,952 .1 1,342,685 24.4
18. Punjab Hill 1,090,644 46,678 4.3 238,774 21.9 188 .02 17,739 1-6
19. Rajputana 13,670,208 1,297,841 9.5 4,349 .03 81,896 .6
20. Sikkim 121,520 83 0.07 76 06 34 .03 1
21. Travancore 6.070,018 434,150 7.2 395,952 6.5 1,958,491 32.3 31
22. U.P. 928,470 273,625 29.5 152,927 16-5 1,281 .1 731 .08
23. Western India 4,904,156 600,440 12.2 358,038 7.3 3,105 .06 239 .005
Total 91,810,571 15,733,133 16.59 8,892,373 9.7 2,794,959 3.1 1,526,350 1.7
APPENDIX IV
COMMUNAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN THE PUNJAB BY DISTRICTS
Muslims Scheduled
Castes
Indian
Christians
Sikhs Hindus
Districts Total
Population
Population % Population % Population % Population % Population %
1. Hissar 1,006,709 285,208 28.3 128,240 12.7 1,235 .1 60,731 6.0 524,602 52.1
2. Rohtak 956,399 166,569 17.4 135,103 14.1 1,026 .1 1,466 .2 645,371 57.5
3. Gurgaon 851,458 285,992 33.6 119,250 14.0 1,457 .2 637 .07 441,287 51.8
4. Karnal 994,575 304,346 30.6 136,713 13.7 1,223 .1 19,887 2.0 529,588 53.2
5. Ambala 847,745 268,999 31.7 124,006 14.6 4,892 .6 153,543 18.1 288,652 34.0
6. Simla 38,576 7,022 18.2 7,092 18.4 508 1.3 1,032 2.7 22,374 58.-0
7. Kangra 899,377 43,249 4.8 121,622 13.5 590 .07 4,809 .5 725,909 80.7
8. Hoshiyarpur 1,170,323 380,759 32.5 170,855 14.6 6,060 .5 198,194 16.9 413,837 35.4
9. Jullundar 1.127,190 509,804 45.2 154,431 13.7 5,971 .5 298,744 26.5 156,579 13.9
10. Ludhiana . 818,615 302,482 36.9 68,469 8.4 1,632 .2 341,175 41.7 106,246 12.9
11. Ferozpore . 1.423,076 641,448 45.1 73,504 5.1 11,031 .8 479,486 33.7 216,229 15.2
12. Lahore 1,695,375 1,027,772 60.6 32,735 1.9 67,686 4.0 310,648 18.3 252,004 14.9
13. Amritsar 1,413,876 657,695 46.5 22,750 1.6 25,330 1.8 510,845 36.1 194,727 13.8
14. Gurdaspur . 1,153,511 589,923 51.1 45,839 4.0 40,262 4.4 221,251 19.2 244,935 21.2
15. Sialkot 1,190,497 739,218 62.1 65,354 5.5 73,846 6.2 139,409 11.7 165,965 13.9
16. Gujranwalla 912,235 642,706 70.5 7,485 .8 60,380 6.6 99,139 10.9 100,630 11.0
17. Shakhupura 852,508 542,344 63.6 22,438 2.6 59,985 7.0 160,706 18.9 66,744 7.8
18. Gujarat 1,104, 52 945,609 85.6 4,621 .4 4,391 .4 70.233 6.3 80,022 7.2
19. Shahapur 998,921 835,918 83.7 9,693 1.0 12,690 1.3 48.046 4.8 92,479 9.2
20. Jhealam . 629,658 563,033 89.4 771 .1 730 .1 24,680 3.9 40,117 6.4
21. Rawalpindi 785,231 628,193 80.0 4.233 .5 4,212 .5 64,127 8.2 78,245 10.0
22. Attock 675,875 611,128 90.4 1,015 .1 504 .09 20,102 30 42,194 6.2
23. Mianwali . 506,321 436,260 86.2 1,008 .2 324 .06 6,865 1.3 61,806 12.2
24.
Montgomery
1,329,103 918,564 69.1 43,456 3.2 24,101 1.9 175.064 13.2 167,510 12.6
25. Lyallpore 1,396,305 877,518 62.8 68,222 4.9 51,694 3.7 262,737 18.8 135,637 9.7
26. Jhang. 821,631 678,736 82.6 1,943 .2 744 .1 12,238 1.-5 127,946 15.6
27. Multan 1,484,333 1,157,911 78.0 24.530 1.7 13,270 .9 61,628 4.1 225,342 15.2
28.
Muzaffargarh
712,849 616,074 86.4 2,691 .4 218 .03 5.882 .8 87,952 12.3
29.DeraGazi
Khan
581,350 512,678 88.1 1,059 .2 46 .01 1.072 .2 66,348 114
30.Transfrontier
Tract
40,246 40,084 99.6 Nil Nil 2 160 .4
Total . 28.418,820 16,217,242 57.1 1,592,320 5.6 486,038 1.7 3,757,401 13.2 6,301,737 22.2
APPENDIX V
COMMUNAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN BENGAL BY DISTRICTS
Muslims Scheduled Castes Hindus Indian
Christians
Districts Total
Population
Population % Population % Population % Population %
1. Burdwan 1,890,732 336,665 17.8 430,300 22.8 963,520 51.0 3,280 .2
2. Birbhum 1,048,317 287,310 27.4 280,254. 26.7 406,182 38.8 344 .03
3. Banknra 1,289,640 55,564 4.3 355,290 97.5 723,269 56.1 1,216 .1
4.Midnapore 3,190,647 246,559 7.7 339,066 10.6 2.342,897 73.4 3,834 .1
5.Hooghly 1,377,729 207,077 15.0 245,810 17.8 853.734 61.9 543 .04
6. Howrah 1490,304 296,325 19.9 184,318 12.4 1,000,548 67.1 994 .06
7. 24-Parganas 3,536,386 1,148,180 32.5 743,397 21.0 1.566,599 44.3 20,823 .6
8. Calcutta 2,108,891 497,535 23.6 55,228 2.6 1,476,284 70.0 16,431 .8
9. Nadia 1,759,846 1,078,007 61.3 143,682 8.2 514,268 29.2 10,749 .6
10. Murshidabad 1,640,530 927,747 56.6 167,184 10.2 517,803 31.6 394 .02
11. Khulna 1,943,218 959,172 49.4 470,550 24.2 507,143 26.1 3,538 .2
12. Rajashahi 1,571,750 1,173.285 74.6 75,650 4.8 253,580 16.1 1,166 .07
13. Dinajpur 1,926,833 967,246 50.2 399,410 20.7 375,212 19.5 1,448 .07
14. Jalpaiguri
15. Darjeeling
16. Rangpur
17. Bogra
1,089,513
376,369
2,877,847
1,260.463
251,460
9,125
2,055,186
1,057,902
23.4
2.4
71.4
83.9
325,504
28,922
495,462
61,303
29.9
7.7
17.2
4.9
226,143
149,574
307,387
126,229
20.8
39.7
10.7
10.0
2,589
2,599
389
286
.2
.7
.01
.02
18. Pabna 1705,072 1,313,968 77.1 114,738 6.7 269,017 15.8 285 .02
19. Malda . 1,232,618 699,945 56.7 75,535 6.1 390,143 31.6 466 .04
20. Dacca 4,222,143 2,841,261 67.3 409,905 9.7 950,227 22.5 15,846 .4
21. Myrnensiagh
22. Faridpur
23. Bakargunj
24. Tippera
25. Naokhali
6,023,758
2,888,803
3,549,010
3,860,139
2,217,402
4,664.548
1,871,336
2,567,027
2,975,901
1,803,937
77.4
64.4
72.3
77.1
81.3
340,676
527,496
427,667
227,643
81,817
5.7
18.3
12.1
5.9
3.7
955,962
478,742
480,962
652,318
330.494
15.9
16.6
13.6
16.9
14.9
2,322
9,549
9,357
428
535
.04
.3
.2
.01
.02
26, Chittagong
27. Chittagong
Hill Tracts .
2,153,296
247,053
1,605,183
7,270
74.5
2.9
57,024
283
2.6
.1
401,050
4,598
18.6
1.9
395
60
.02
.02
28. Jessore 1,828,216 1,100,713 60.2 314,856 17.2 406,223 22.2 1057 .06
Total 60,306,525 33,005,434 54.7 7,378,.970 12.2 17,630,054 29.3 110,923 .2
APPENDIX VI
COMMUNAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN ASSAM BY DISTRICTS
Muslims Scheduled
Castes
Indian
Christians
Sikhs Hindus
Districts Total
Population
Population % Population % Population % Population % Population %
Surma
Valley
1.
Kachahar
641,181 232,950 36.3 51,961 8.1 3,744 .6 --- --- 173,855 27.1
2. Sylhet 3,116,602 1,892,117 60.7 364,510 11.7 2,590 .08 --- --- 785,004 25.2
3. Khasi
and Jantia
Hills
118,665 1,555 1.3 63 .05 120 .1 --- --- 12,676 10.7
4. Naga
Hills
189,641 531 .2 45 .02 9 --- --- 4,153 2.2
5. Lushai
Hills
152,786 101 .06 22 .01 Nil --- --- 2,425 1.6
Assam
Valley
--- ---
6. Goalpara 1,014,285 468,924 46.2 23,434 2.3 269 .03 --- --- 282,789 27.9
7. Kamrup 1,264,200 361,522 391 59,092 4.7 1,038 .08 --- --- 637,457 50.4
8. Darang 736,791 120,995 16.4 19.475 2.6 6,367 .8 --- --- 328,283 44.6
9.
Nowgong
710,800 250,113 35.2 59,214 8.3 4,049 .6 --- --- 229,137 32.2
10.
Sibsagar
1.074.741 51.769 4.8 50,184 4.7 15,268 1.4 --- --- 593,007 55.2
11.
Lakmipur
894,842 44.579 5.0 43,527 4.9 .3,786 .4 --- --- 457,509 51.1
12. Garo
Hills
233,569 10,398 4.5 789 .3 1 --- --- 13,518 5.8
13. Sadiya
Frontier
Tract
60,118 864 1.4 3,991 6.6 486 .8 --- --- 14.605 24.3
14.
Balipara
Frontier
Tract
6,512 61 .9 74 1.1 23 .4 --- --- 2.514 38.6
Total 10.204,733 3,442,479 33.7 676,291 6.6 37,750 .4 3,464 .03 3,536,932 34.6
APPENDIX VII
N.-W. F. PROVINCE PROPORTION OF MUSLIM POPULATION BY DISTRICTS
Districts Total
Population
Total Muslim
Population
P. C. of Muslim
Population to
Total
Total
Non-Muslim
Population
P. C. of
Non-Muslim to
Total
Hazara 796,230 756,004 94.9 40,226 5.1
Mardan 506,539 483,575 965 22,964 4.5
Peshawar . 851,833 769,589 90.4 82,244 9.6
Kohat 289,404 266,224 92.0 23,180 8.0
Bannu 295,930 257,648 871 38,282 12.9
D.I. Khan. 298,131 255,757 85.8 42,374 14.2
APPENDIX VIII
N.-W. F. PROVINCE
Proportion of Muslim to Non-Muslim Population in Towns C = Cantonment.
M = Municipality. N.A. = Notified Area.
Towns by Districts Total Population Total Muslim Population % of Muslims to Total
Total Non-Muslim Population %of Non-Muslims to Total:
Hazara
1. Abbottabad
C. 13,866 3,331 24 10,535 7.6
2. Abbottabad
M. 13,558 8,861 66.1 4,697 33.9
3. Haripur
M. 9,322 5.174 55.5 4,148 44.5
4. Baffa
N.A 7,988 7,166 89.7 822 10.3
5. Nawanshehr
N.A 6,414 5,075 791 1,339 20.9
6.Kot Najibullah
5,315 4,228 79.5 2,087 20.5
7. Mansehra
10,217 8,141 79.7 1,076 20.3
Mardan
8. Mardan
M. 39,200 28,994 73.9 10,206 26.1
9. Mardan
C. 3,294 1,307 39.7 1,987 60.3
Peshawar
10. Peshawar
M. 1,30,967 1,04,650 79.9 26,317 20.1
11. Peshawar
C. 42,453 18,322 43.2 24,131 56.8
12. Nowshera
N.A. 17,491 16,976 97 515 3
13. Nowshera
C. 26,531 11,256 42.4 15,275 57.6
14. Risalpur
C. 9,009 3,506 38.9 5,503 61.1
15. Cherat
C. 337 270 80.1 67 19.9
16. Charsada
16,945 15,747 92.9 1,198 7.1
17. Utamanzai
10,129 9,768 96.4 361 3.6
18. Tangi
12,906 12,456 96.5 450 3.5
19. Parang
13,496 13,494 99.9 2
Kohat
20. Kohat
M. 34,316 27,868 81.2 6,448 18.8
21. Kohat
C. 10,661 4,243 39.8 6.418 60.2
Bannu
22. Bannu
M. 33,210 8,507 25.6 24,703 74.4
23. Bannu
C. 5,294 2,189 41.4 3,105 58.6
24. Lakki
N.A. 10,141 5,883 58 4,258 42
Dera Ismail Khan
25. D. I. Khan .,.
M. 49,238 25,443 51.7 23,795 48.3
26. D. 1. Khan
C. 2,068 981 47.4 1,087 52.6
27. Kulachi
N.A. 8.840 6,610 74.8 2,230 25.2
28. Tank
N.A. 9,089 5,531 60.8 3,558 39.2
APPENDIX IX
SIND
DISTRIBUTION OF MUSLIM POPULATION BY DISTRICTS
Districts
Total Population
Total Muslim Population
P. C. of Muslims to Total
Total Non-Muslim.
P. C. of Non-Muslims to Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Dadu .
389,380 329,991 84.7 59,389 15.3
2. Hyderabad
758,748 507,620 66.9 251,128 33.1
3. Karachi.
713,900 457,035 64.0 256,865 .36.0
4. Larkana
511,208 418,543 81.9 92,665 18.1
5. Nawabshab
584,178 436,414 74.7 147,764 25.3
6. Sukkur .
692,556 491,634 71.0 200,922 29.0
7. Thar Parkar
581,004 292,025 50.3 288,979 49.7
8. Upper Sind Frontier
304,034 275,063 90.5 28,971 9.5
Total 22[f.1]
4,553,008 3,208,325 70.7 1,326,683 29.3
APPENDIX X
SIND
Proportion of Muslim to Non-Muslim Population in Towns M=Municipality; CI.C.==Civil Cantonment; Mily.C.= Military Cantonment
Towns by Districts
Total Population
Total Muslim Population
P. C. of Muslims to Total
Total Non-Muslim Population
P.C. of Non-Muslims to Total
1 2 3 4 5 6
Dadu
1. Dadu
M. 10,996 5,279 48 5,717 52.0
2. Kotri
M. 9,979 5,137 51.5 4,842 485
3. Manjhand
M. 3,025 1,053 34.8 1,972 65.2
4. Sebwan
M. 4,364 2,218 .50.8 2,146 49.2
Hyderabad
5. Hala
M. 7,960 5,042 63.3 2,918 36.7
6. Hyderabad
M.- 1,27,521 31,983 25.1 95,538 74.9
7. Hyderabad
Cl. C. 5,255 2,667 50.7 2,588 49.3
8. Hyderabad
Mily. C 1,917 1,419 74 498 26
9. Matiari . .
M. 5,910 4,339 73.4 1,571 26.6
10. Nasarpur
M. 3,810 2,331 61.2 1,479 38.8
11.Taado Allahyar
M. 8,406 1,690 20.1 6,716 79.9
12.Tando Mahomed Khan
M. 8,718 2,902 33.3 5,816 66.7
Karachi
13. Karachi
M. 3,58,492 1,52,365 42.5. 2,06,127 57.5
14. Karachi
CI.C. 5,854 895 15.3 4,959 84.7
15. Daigh Road
CI.C. 2,881 1,172 40.7 1,709 59.3
16. Manora
CI.C. 2,533 932 36.8 1,601 63.2
17. Karachi
Mily. C 15,895 7,063 44.4 8,832 5.56
18. Tatta
M. 8,262 4,198 50.8 4.064 49.2
Larkana
-
19. Kambar
M. 11,681 6,297 53.1 5,384 46.9
20. Larkana
M. 20,390 7,834 38.4 12,556 61.6
21. Ratedero
M. 9,925 2,393 24.1 7,532 75.-9
Nawabshah
22. Nawabshah
M. 17,509 4,420 25.3 13,089 74.7
23. Shahabadpur.
M. 11,786 1,898 16.1 9.888 839
24.Tando Adam.
M. 17,233 2,994 17.4 14.239 82.6
Sukkur
25. Ghari Yasin
M. 8,397 2,895 34.5 5,502 65.5
26. Ghotki
M. 5,236 1,533 29.3 3,703 70.7
27. Rohri
M. 14,721 4,132 28.7 10,589 71.9
28. Shikarpur
M. 67,746 21,775 32.1 45,971 67.9
29. Sukkur
M. 66,466 18,152 27.3 48,314 72.7
Thar Parkar
30. Mirpurkhas
M. 19,591 5,086 25.9 14,505 74.1
31. Umarkot
M. 4.275 986 22.9 3,289 77.1
Upper Sind Frontier
32. Jacobabad .
M. 21,588 9,774 45.3 11,814 54.7
APPENDIX XI
LANGUAGES USED IN INDIA BY MUSLIMS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE
( According to Census of 1921 )
Urdu (Western Hindi) 20,791,000
Bengali 23,995,000.
Punjabi 7,700,000
Sindhi 2,912,000
Kashmiri (and allied languages) 1,500,000
Pushtu 1,460,000
Gujarati 1,400,000
Tamil 1,250,000
Malayalam 1,107,000
Telugu 750,000
Oriya 400,000
Baluchi 224,000
Brahui 122,000
Arabic 42,000
Persian 22,000
Other languages 5,060,000
Total 68,735,000
APPENDIX XII
Address# presented to H. E. Lord Minto, Viceroy and
Governor General of India
By
A Deputation of the Muslim Community of India on 1st October 1906 at Simla
ADDRESS
" May it please your excellency,âAvailing ourselves of the permission accorded to us, we, the undersigned nobles, jagirdars, taluqdars, lawyers, zemindars, merchants and others representing a large body of the Mahomedan subjects of His Majesty the King-Emperor in different parts of India, beg most respectfully to approach your Excellency with the following address for your favourable consideration.
#This document has a great importance and significance in the history of India. It marks the beginning of the British Government's policy of giving favourable treatment to the Muslims in the administration of India which, it is alleged, was intended to wean them away from the Congress and to create a breach and disunity between the Hindus and the Musalmans. It has also acquired a certain amount of notoriety in the minds of the Indians in view of the statement made by late Maulana Mohammad Ali in his address as President of the Congress, stating that "it was a command performance", meaning thereby that the address was arranged by the British Government. On this account there has been a great deal of curiosity on the part of many Indians to know the text of the address and the reply given by Lord Minto. I had made a long search to obtain the same. I bad even-approached elderly Muslim politicians prominent in those days for a copy but none of them had it or knew where it was available. Newspapers of that day do not appear to have carried the text of the address and the reply. I was however lucky to get a copy of it from my friend Sir Raza Ali, M.L.A. (Central), who happened to have kept a cutting of the Indian Daily Telegraphâa paper then published from Lucknow but had long ago become defunct, in which .the full text of the address as well as of the reply was printed. I am grateful to Sir Raza Ali for a loan of the cutting. As the document marks a historic event in the political history of British administration in India, it might be of some interest to reproduce details about the function which the Simla correspondent of the Indian Daily Telegraph had published in its issue of October 3rd, 1906. Says the correspondent:â
The representatives of the Mahomedan community who were to present the address to His Excellency the Viceroy this morning at Viceregal Lodge collected in the Ballroom at 11 A.M. They numbered thirty-five and were seated in a horse-shoe facing His Excellency's chair. Precisely at II A.M. Lord Minto, preceded by his staff, entered the room, all standing to receive him. His Excellency was taken round and personally introduced to each member by the Aga Khan. The Khalifa from Patiala then asked, permission for the presentation of the address and the Aga Khan then advanced and facing His Excellency read the petition given below, all the representatives standing."
Those who formed the deputation were:âHis Highness Aga Sir Sultan Mahomed Shah Aga Khan, G.C.I.E., (Bombay), Shahzadah Bakhtiar Shah, O.I.E., Head of the Mysore family, Calcutta; Hon'ble Malik Omar Hayat Khan, C.I.E., Lieutenant 17th Prince of Wales' Tiwana Lancers, Tiwana, Shahpur (Punjab) ; Hon'ble Khan Bahadur Mian Mohomed Shah Din, Bar.-at-Law, Lahore; Hon'ble Maulvi Sharfuddin, Bar.-at-Law, Patna; Khan Bahadur Syed Nawab Ali Chowdhury, Mymensingh (Eastern Bengal); Nawab Bahadur Syed Amir Husan Khan. C.I.E., Calcutta; Naseer Hussain Khan Khayal, Calcutta; Khan Bahadur Mirza Shujaat Ali Beg; Persian Consul-General, Murshidabad, Cakutta (Bengal); Syed Ali Imam, Bar.-at-Law, Patna (Behar); Nawab Sarfraz Husain Khan, Patna (Behar); Khan Bahadur Ahmad Mohiuddin Khan. Stipendiary of the Carnatic family (Madras): Maulvi Rafiuddin Ahmed, Bar.-at-Law (Bombay) ; Ebrahimbhoy. Adamji Peerbhoy, General Merchant (Bombay) ; Mr. Abdur Rahim, Bar.-at-Law, Calcutta: Syed Allah-dad Shah, Special Magistrate and Vice-President, Zamindars' Association, Khairpore (Sindh); Maulana H. M. Malak, Head of Mehdi Bazh Bohras, Nagpur (Central Provinces) ; Mushir-ud-Doula Mumtazal-ul-Mulk Khan Bahadur Khalifa Syed Moha-med Hussain, Member of the State Council of Patiala (Punjab); Khan Bahadur Col. Abdul Majid Khan, Foreign Minister, Patiala (Punjab); Khan Bahadur Khwaja Kusuf Shah, Hony. Magistrate, Arnritsar (Punjab) ; Mian Mahomed Shafi, Bar.-at-Law, Lahore (Punjab); Shaikh Ghulam Sadik, Arnritsar (Punjab); Hakim Mohamed Ajmul Khan, Delhi (Punjab); Munshi Ihtisham Ali, Zamindar and Rais,. Kakori (Oudh); Syed Nabi Ullah, Bar.-at-Law, Rais Kara, Dist. Allahabad; Maulvi Syed Karamat Husain, Bar.-at-Law, Allahabad; Syed Abdulraoof, Bar.-at-Law, Allahabad; Munshi Abdur Salam Khan, retired Sub-Judge, Rampur: Khan Bahadur Mohamad Muzammil Ullah Khan, Zamindar, Secretary, Zamindars' Association, United Provinces, and Joint Secretary, M. A. 0. College Trustees. Aligarh; Haji Mohamed Ismail Khan, Zamindar, Aligarh; Sahabzadas Aitab Ahmad Khan, Bar.-at-Law. Aligarh: Maulvi Mushtaq Hussain, Rais, Arnroha, United Provinces; Maulvi Habibul Rahaman Khan, Zamindar, Bhikhanpur, United Provinces; Nawab Syed Sirdar Ali Khan. son of the late Nawab Sirdar Diler-UI-mulk Bahadur, C.I.E., Hyderabad (Deccan); Maulvi Syed Mahdee Ally Khan (Muhsin-ul-Mulk), Hony. Secretary, M. A. 0. College. Aligarh, Etawah, United Provinces.
The following gentlemen intended to have attended the presentation of the address to the Viceroy, but were prevented by illness or other causes:â Hon'ble Nawab Khwaja Salimulla, Nawab of Dacca, Hon'ble Nawab Haji Mohamed Fateh Ali Khan, Qazel-bash, Lahore; Hon'ble Syed Zainul-Edros, Surat, Khan Bahadur Kasim Mir Ghayas-uddin Peerzadah of Broach; Khan Bahadur Raja Jahandad of Hazara and Shaik Shahid Hussain of Lucknow. The correspondent of the Telegraph adds:â
Lady Minto, the Ladies Elliot and the Hon. Mrs. Hewett were present at the function.
At the presentation of the address today most of the deputies wore ordinary European dress with a fez as distinguishing head-dress, but the Patiala representatives, Lieut. Hon. Malik Omar Hayat Khan, Khan Bahadur Ali Choudhary, Khan Bahadur Ahmad Mohiuddin Khan and a few others, were in Indian dress, while a few others wore uniforms with gold lace. His Excellency the Viceroy was in morning dress with the Order of the Star of India on his frock coat.
GARDEN PARTY AT VICEREGAL LODGE
This afternoon a garden party was held in the Viceregal Lodge grounds when the Mahomedan representatives were received by the Viceroy, who spoke with each deputy individually.
The Hon. Mr. Baker, Financial Secretary, has invited the following Bengal gentlemen of the Mahomedan deputation to lunch tomorrow :â
Nawab Amir Hosein, Mirza Shujat Ali, Nawab Nasar Hossein, Hon. Shurfuddin and Ali Imam.
We fully realise and appreciate the incalculable benefits conferred by British rule on the teeming millions belonging to diverse races and professing diverse religions who form the population of the vast continent of India, and have every reason to be grateful for the peace, security, personal freedom and liberty of worship that we now enjoy. Further, from the wise and enlightened character of the Government, we have every reasonable ground for anticipating that these benefits will be progressive, and that India will in the future occupy an increasingly important position in the comity of nations.
One of the most important characteristics of British policy in India is the increasing deference that has so far as possible been paid from the first to the views and wishes of the people of the country in matters affecting their interests, with due regard always to the diversity of race and religion which forms such an important feature of all Indian progress.
Claims of the Community
Beginning with the confidential and unobtrusive method of consulting influential members of important communities in different parts of the country, this principle was gradually extended by the recognition of the right of recognised political or commercial organisations to communicate to the authorities their criticisms and views on measures of public importance, and finally by the nomination and election of direct representatives of the people in Municipalities, District Boards, and above all in the Legislative Chambers of the country. This last element is, we understand, about to be dealt with by the Committee appointed by your Excellency with the view of giving it further extension, and it is with reference mainly to our claim to a fair share in such extended representation and some other matters of importance affecting the interests of our community, that we have ventured to approach your Excellency on the present occasion.
Past Traditions
The Mahomedans of India number, according to the census taken in the year 1901, over sixty-two millions or between one-fifth and one-fourth of the total population of His Majesty's Indian dominions, and if a reduction be made for the uncivilised portions of the community enumerated under the heads of ani-mist and other minor religions, as well as for those classes who are ordinarily classified as Hindus but properly speaking are not Hindus at all, the proportion of Mahomedans to the Hindu majority becomes much larger. We therefore desire to submit that under any system of representation extended or limited a community in itself more numerous than the entire population of any first class European power except Russia may justly lay claim to adequate recognition as an important factor in the State.
We venture, indeed, with your Excellency's permission to go a step further, and urge that the position accorded to the Mahomedan community in any kind of representation, direct or indirect, and in all other ways affecting their status and influence should be commensurate, not merely with their numerical strength, but also with their political importance and the value of the contribution which they make to the defence of the empire, and we also hope that your Excellency will in this connection be pleased to give due consideration to the position which they occupied in India a little more than hundred years ago and of which the traditions have naturally not faded from their minds.
The Mahomedans of India have always placed implicit reliance on the sense of justice and love of fair dealing that have characterised their rulers, and have in consequence abstained from pressing their claims by methods that might prove at all embarrassing, but earnestly as we desire that the Mahomedans of India should not in the future depart from that excellent and time-honoured tradition, recent events have stirred up feelings, especially among the younger generation of Mahomedans) which might, in certain circumstances and under certain contingencies easily pass beyond the control of temperate counsel and sober guidance.
We therefore pray that the representations we herewith venture to submit, after a careful consideration of the views and wishes of a large number of our co-religionists in all parts of India, may be favoured with your excellency's earnest attention.
European representative institutions
We hope your excellency will pardon our stating at the outset that representative institutions of the European type are new to the Indian people; many of the most thoughtful members of our community in fact consider that the greatest care, forethought and caution will be necessary if they are to be successfully adapted to the social, religious and political conditions obtaining in India, and that in the absence of such care and caution their adoption is likely, among other evils, to place our national interests at the mercy of an unsympathetic majority. Since, however, our rulers have, in pursuance of the immemorial instincts and traditions, found it expedient to give these institutions an increasingly important place in the Government of the country, we Mahomedans, cannot any longer in justice to our own national interests hold aloof from participating in the conditions to which their policy has given rise. While, therefore, we are bound to acknowledge with gratitude that such representation as the Mahomedans of India have hitherto enjoyed has been due to a sense of justice and fairness on the part of your Excellency and your illustrious predecessor in office and the heads of Local Governments by whom the Mahomedan members of Legislative Chambers have almost without exception been nominated, we cannot help observing that the representation thus accorded to us has necessarily been inadequate to our requirements, and has not always carried with it the approval of those whom the nominees were selected to represent. This state of things was probably under existing circumstances unavoidable, for while on the one hand the number of nominations reserved to the Viceroy and Local Governments has necessarily been strictly limited, the selection on the other hand of really representative men, has, in the absence of any reliable method of ascertaining the direction of popular choice, been far from easy.
The Results of Election
As for the results of election, it is most unlikely that the name of any Mahomedan candidate will ever be submitted for the approval of Government by the electoral bodies as now constituted unless he is in sympathy with the majority in all matters of importance. Nor can we in fairness find fault with the desire of our non-Muslim fellow-subjects to take full advantage of their strength and vote only for members of their own community, or for persons who, if not Hindus, are expected to vote with the Hindu majority on whose goodwill they would have to depend for their future re-election. It is true that we have many and important interests in common with our Hindu fellow-countrymen and it will always be a matter of the utmost satisfaction to us to see these interests safeguarded by the presence in our Legislative Chambers of able supporters of these interests, irrespective of their nationality.
A DISTINCT COMMUNITY
Still, it cannot be denied that we Mahomedans are a distinct community with additional interests of our own which are not shared by other communities, and these have hitherto suffered from the fact that they have not been adequately represented. Even in the provinces in which the Mahomedans constitute a distinct majority of the population, they have too often been treated as though they were inappreciably small political factors that might without unfairness be neglected. This has been the case, to some extent, in the Punjab, but in a more marked degree in Sind and in Eastern Bengal.
Before formulating our views with regard to the election of representatives, we beg to observe that the political importance of a community to a considerable extent gains strength or suffers detriment according to the position that the members of that community occupy in the Service of the State. If, as is unfortunately the case with the Mahomedans, they are not adequately represented in this manner, they lose in the prestige and influence which are justly their due.
Employment in Government Service
We therefore pray that Government will be graciously pleased to provide that both in the gazetted and the subordinate and ministerial services of all Indian provinces a due proportion of Mahomedans shall always find place. Orders of like import have at times been issued by Local Governments in some provinces, but have not, unfortunately, in all cases been strictly observed on the ground that qualified Mahomedans were not forthcoming. This allegation, however well founded it may have been at one time, is, we submit, no longer tenable now, and wherever the will to employ them is not wanting the supply of qualified Mahomedans, we are happy to be able to assure your excellency, is equal to the demand.
The Competitive Element
Since, however, the number of qualified Mahomedans has increased, a tendency is unfortunately perceptible to reject them on the ground of relatively superior qualifications having to be given precedence. This introduces something like the competitive element in its worst form, and we may be permitted to draw your Excellency's attention to the political significance of the monopoly of all official influence by one class. We may also point out in this connection that the efforts of Mahomedan educationists have from the very outset of the educational movement among them been strenuously directed towards the development of character, and this we venture to think is of greater importance than mere mental alertness in the making of good public servants.
Mahomedans on the Bench
We venture to submit that the generality of Mahomedans in all parts of India feel aggrieved that Mahomedan Judges are not more frequently appointed to the High Courts and Chief Courts of Judicature. Since the creation of these Courts only three Mahomedan lawyers have held these honourable appointments, all of whom have fully justified their elevation to the Bench. At the present moment there is not a single Mahomedan Judge sitting on the Bench of any of these Courts, while there are three Hindu Judges in the Calcutta High Court, where the proportion of Mahomedans in the population is very large, and two in the Chief Court of the Punjab, where the Mahomedans form the majority of the population. It is not, therefore, an extravagant request on our part that a Mahomedan should be given a seat on the Bench of each of the High Courts and Chief Courts. Qualified Mahomedan lawyers eligible for these appointments can always be found, if not in one province then in another. We beg permission further to submit that the presence on the Bench of these Courts of a Judge learned in the Mahomedan Law will be a source of considerable strength to the administration of justice.
Municipal Representation
As Municipal and District Boards have to deal with important local interests affecting to a great extent the health, comfort, educational needs and even the religious concerns of the inhabitants, we shall, we hope, be pardoned if we solicit for a moment your Excellency's attention to the position of Mahomedans thereon before passing to higher concerns. These institutions form, as it were, the initial rungs in the ladder of self-government, and it is here that the principle of representation is brought home intimately to the intelligence of the people, yet the position of Mahomedans on these Boards is not at present regulated by any guiding principle capable of general application, and practice varies in different localities. The Aligarh Municipality, for example, is divided into six wards and each ward returns one Hindu and one Mahomedan Commissioner, and the same. principle we understand is adopted in a number of Municipalities in the Punjab and elsewhere, but in a good many places the Mahomedan tax-payers are not adequately represented. We would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the local authority should in every case be required to declare the number of Hindus and Mahomedans entitled to seats on Municipal and District Boards, such proportion to be determined in accordance with the numerical strength, social status, local influence and special requirements of either community. Once their relative proportion is authoritatively determined, we would suggest that either community should be allowed severally to return their own representatives as is the practice in many towns in the Punjab.
Fellows of Universities
We would also suggest that the Senates and Syndicates of Indian Universities might be similarly dealt with, that is to say, there should, so far as possible, be an authoritative declaration of the proportion in which Mahomedans are entitled to be represented in either body.
Nomination to Provincial Councils
We now proceed to the consideration of the question of our representation in the Legislative Chambers of the country. Beginning with the Provincial Councils, we would most respectfully suggest that as in the case of Municipalities and District Boards the proportion of Mahomedan representatives entitled to seats should be determined and declared with due regard to the important considerations which we have ventured to point out in paragraph 5 of this address, and that the important Mahomedan landowners, lawyers, merchants and representatives of other important interests, the Mahomedan members of District Boards and Municipalities and the Mahomedan Graduates of universities of a certain standing, say five years, should be formed into Electoral Colleges and be authorised, in accordance with such rules of procedure as your excellency's Government may be pleased to prescribe in that behalf, to return the number of members that maybe declared to be eligible.
The Viceroy's Council
With reward to the Imperial Legislative Council whereon the due representation of Mahomedan interests is a matter of vital importance, we crave leave to suggest (1) that in the cadre of the Council the proportion of Mahomedan representatives should not be determined on the basis of the numerical strength of the community, and that in any case the Mahomedan representatives should never be an ineffective minority; (2) that as far as possible, appointment by election should be given preference over nomination; (3) that for the purposes of choosing Mahomedan members, Mahomedan landowners, lawyers, merchants and representatives of other important interests of a status to be subsequently determined by your Excellency's Government, Mahomedan members of the Provincial Councils and Mahomedan fellows of universities should be invested with electoral powers to be exercised in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by your Excellency's Government in that behalf.
The Executive Council
An impression has lately been gaining ground that one or more Indian Members may be appointed on the Executive Council of the Viceroy. In the event of such appointment being made we beg that the claims of Mahomedans in that connection may not be overlooked. More than one Mahomedan, we venture to say, will be found in the country fit to serve with distinction in that august chamber.
A Mahomedan University
We beg to approach your Excellency on a subject which must closely affect our national welfare. We are convinced that our aspirations as a community and our future progress are largely dependent on the foundation of a Mahomedan University which will be the centre of our religious and intellectual life. We therefore most respectfully pray that your Excellency will take steps to help us in an undertaking in which our community is so deeply interested.
Inconclusion, we beg to assure your Excellency that in assisting the Mahomedan subjects of His Majesty at this stage in the development of Indian affairs in the directions indicated in the present address, your Excellency will be strengthening the basis of their unswerving loyalty to the Throne and laying the foundation of their political advancement and national prosperity, and your Excellency's name will be remembered with gratitude by their posterity for generations to come, and we feel confident that your Excellency will be gracious enough to give due consideration to our prayers. We have the honour to subscribe ourselves) Your Excellency's most obedient and humble servants.
LORD MINTO'S REPLY
Appreciation of Mahomedan aspirations
After the address; His Excellency rose and delivered a most sympathetic reply, which was frequently punctuated with cheers and cries of "Hear, hear" from the members of the deputation, particularly when his Excellency declared that he was entirely in accord with the views of the deputation that any electoral system must take cognizance of the various religious beliefs of this great Empire and that the British Government would always in the future as in the past safeguard the political rights of the different communities entrusted to their charge. The Viceroy concluded by thanking the deputation for affording him the unique opportunity of meeting so many representative men.
The Viceroy said :â
Your Highness and Gentlemen, Allow me before I attempt to reply to the many considerations your address embodies, to welcome you heartily to Simla. Your presence here to-day is very full of meaning. To the document which you have presented me are attached the signatures of nobles, of Ministers of various States, of great landowners, of lawyers, of merchants and of many others of His Majesty's subjects. I welcome the representative character of your deputation as expressing the views and aspirations of the enlightened Muslim community of India. I feel that all you have said emanates from a representative body basing its opinions on a matured consideration of the existing political conditions of India, totally apart from the small personal or political sympathies and antipathies of scattered localities, and I am grateful to you for the opportunity you are affording me of expressing my appreciation of the just aims of the followers of Islam and their determination to share in the political history of our Empire.
As your Viceroy, I am proud of the recognition you express of the benefits conferred by British rule on the diverse races of many creeds who go to form the population of this huge continent. You yourselves, the descendants of a conquering and ruling race, have told me to-day of your gratitude for the personal freedom, the liberty of worship, the general peace and the hopeful future which British administration has secured for India.
Help in the Past
It is interesting to look back on early British efforts to assist the Mahomedan population to qualify themselves for the public service. In 1782 Warren Hastings founded the Calcutta Madras-sah with the intention of enabling its students to compete on more equal terms with the Hindus for employment under Government. In 1811 my ancestor, Lord Minto, advocated improvements in the Madrassah and the establishment of Mahomedan Colleges at other places throughout India. In later years the efforts of the Mahomedan Association led to the Government resolution of 1885 dealing with the educational position of the Mahomedan community and their employment in the public service, whilst Mahomedan educational effort has culminated in the College of Aligarh that great institution which the noble and broad-minded devotion of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan has dedicated to his co-religionists.
The Aligarh College
It was in July 1877 that Lord Lytton laid the foundation stone of Aligarh, when Sir Syed Ahmed Khan addressed these memorable words to the Viceroy : " The personal honour which you have done me assures me of a great fact and fills me with feelings of a much higher nature than mere personal gratitude. I am assured that you, who upon this occasion represent the British rule, have sympathies with our labours and this assurance is very valuable and a source of great happiness. At my time of life it is a comfort to me to feel that the undertaking which has been for many years, and is now the sole object of my life has roused on the one hand the energies of my own countrymen, and on the other has won the sympathy of our British fellow-subjects and the support of our rulers, so that when the few years I may still be spared are over, and when I shall be no longer amongst you, the College will still prosper and succeed in educating my countrymen to have the same affection for their country, the same feelings of loyalty for the British rule, the same appreciation of its blessings, the same sincerity of friendship with our British fellow-subjects as have been the ruling feelings of my life."
Sir Syed's Influence
Aligarh has won its laurels. Its students have gone forth to fight the battle of life strong in the tenets of their own religion, strong in the precepts of loyalty and patriotism,and now when there is much that is critical in the political future of India the inspiration of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the teachings of Aligarh shine forth brilliantly in the pride of Mahomedan history, in the loyalty, commonsense and sound reasoning so eloquently expressed in your address. But, gentlemen, you go on to tell me that sincere as your belief is in the justice and fair dealings of your rulers, you cannot but be aware that "recent events " have stirred up feelings amongst the younger generation of Mahomedans which mighty''pass beyond the control of temperate counsel and sober guidance."
Policy in Eastern Bengal
Now I have no intention of entering into any discussion upon the affairs of Eastern Bengal and Assam, yet I hope that without offence to anyone I may thank the Mahomedan community of the new Province for the moderation and self-restraint they have shown under conditions which were new to them, and as to which there has been inevitably much misunderstanding, and that I may at the same time sympathise with all that is sincere in Bengalee sentiments. But above all, what I would ask you to believe is that the course the Viceroy and the Government of India have pursued in connection with the affairs of the new Province, the future of which is now I hope assured, has been dictated solely by a regard for what has appeared best for its present and future populations as a whole, irrespective of race or creed and that the Mahomedan community of Eastern Bengal and Assam can rely as firmly as ever on British justice and fairplay for the appreciation of its loyalty and the safeguarding of its interests.
The unrest in India
You have addressed me, gentlemen, at a time when the political atmosphere is full of change. We all feel it would be foolish to attempt to deny its existence, hopes and ambitions new to India are making themselves felt. We cannot ignore them âwe should be wrong to wish to do soâbut to what is all this unrest due? Not to the discontent of misgoverned millions â1 defy anyone honestly to assert that â not to say uprising of a disaffected people.
Fruits of Western Education
It is due to that educational growth in which only a very small portion of the population has as yet shared, of which British rule first sowed the seed and the fruits of which British rule is now doing its best to foster and to direct. There may be many tares in the harvest we are now reaping. The Western grain which we have sown may not be entirely suitable to the requirements of the people of India but the educational harvest will increase as years go on, and the healthiness of the nourishment it gives will depend on the careful administration and distribution of its products. You need not ask my pardon, gentlemen, for telling me that "Representative institutions of the European type are entirely new to the people of India " or that their introduction here requires the most earnest thought and care. I should be very far from welcoming all the political machinery of the Western world amongst the hereditary instincts and traditions of Eastern races. Western breadth of thought, the teachings of Western civilisation, the freedom of British individuality can do much for the people of India, but I recognise with you that they must not carry with them an impracticable insistence of the acceptance of political methods.
Political Future of Mahomedans
And now, gentlemen, I come to your own position in respect to the political future; the position of the Mahomedan community for whom you speak. You will, I feel sure, recognise that it is impossible for me to follow you through any detailed consideration of the conditions and the share that the community has a right to claim in the administration of public affairs. I can at present only deal with generalities. The points which you have raised are before the Committee, which, as you know, I have lately appointed to consider the question of presentation (? representation), and I will take care that your address is submitted to them, but at the same time I hope I may be able to reply to the general tenor of your remarks without in any way forestalling the Committee's report.
The Question of Representation
The pith of your address, as I understand it, is a claim that in any system of representation whether it affects a Municipality, a District Board or a Legislative Council, in which it is proposed to introduce or increase an electoral organisation, the Mahomedan community should be represented as a community. You point out that in many cases electoral bodies, as now constituted, cannot be expected to return a Mahomedan candidate, and that if by chance they did so it could only be at the sacrifice of such a candidate's view to those of a majority opposed to his own community whom he would in no way represent, and you justly claim that your numerical strength both in respect to the political importance of your community and the service it has rendered to the Empire entitle you to consideration. I am entirely in accord with you ; please do not misunderstand me. I make no attempt to indicate by what means the representation of communities can be obtained, but I am as firmly convinced as I believe you to be that any electoral representation in India would be doomed to mischievous failure which aimed at granting a personal enfranchisement regardless of the beliefs and traditions of the communities composing the population of this continent. The great mass of the people of India have no knowledge of representative institutions. I agree with you, gentlemen, that the initial rungs in the ladder of self-government are to be found in the Municipal and District Boards and that it is in that direction that we must look for the gradual political education of the people.
An Assurance
In the meantime I can only say to you that the Mahomedan community may rest assured that their political rights and interests as a community will be safeguarded in any administrative reorganization with which I am concerned and that you and the people of India may rely upon the British Raj to respect, as it has been its pride to do, the religious beliefs and the national traditions of the myriads composing the population of His Majesty's Indian Empire.
Your Highness and Gentlemen, I sincerely thank you for the unique opportunity your deputation has given me of meeting so many distinguished and representative Mahomedans. I deeply appreciate the energy and interest in public affairs which have brought you here from great distances, and I only regret that your visit to Simla is necessarily so short.
|
