Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Jinnah’s People vs. Real Estate Ideologues

At the 60th anniversary of Pakistan’s independence it is appropriate to recall that the creation of our country had not really been Mr Jinnah’s principal goal.

Close colleagues of the Muslim leader have stated on historical record: "Jinnah never wanted a Pakistan which involved the partition of India”.

The demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan was essentially a bargaining chip utilised to push the Congress Party into acknowledging the rights of the large Muslim minority present in India.

Let me remind those who are unaware that on 6th June 1946 Jinnah and the Muslim League voted to accept the plan calling for a confederated united India. Under this ‘Cabinet Mission Plan’ there would be a grouping of autonomous Muslim and Hindu provinces which allowed for a three tiered federation between Hindu and Muslim provinces, with the centre in Delhi only keeping the subjects of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Currency and Communication, all other subjects would vest in the provinces. These provinces would have been free to form groups (i.e. Muslim and Hindu) with their own executives and legislatures that would then deal with such subjects as the provinces within the group assigned them.

As we now know it was the rejection of this plan by the Congress party and the subsequent dishonest shenanigans of Mountbatten and Nehru, that forced a disappointed and dying Jinnah to accept 'the moth eaten and truncated’ state that we now know as Pakistan.

The profoundly vain and egotistical Mountbatten was so angered by Jinnah’s refusal to accept him as Pakistan’s first Governor General that he acidly warned him: "(This) may cost you the whole of your assets and the future of Pakistan” (Stanley Wolpert, Shameful Flight, OUP, 2006, p. 164).

Thanks to vengeful Mountbatten and Nehru, India delayed transferring Pakistan’s share of assets, which together with the Kashmir debacle embittered the relation between the two countries.

The precarious existence of the early Pakistan resulted in a warped emotional tunnel-vision which gave India-obsessed defence/foreign policies precedence over the economic wellbeing of its people. Six decades of this irrational passion has led to misplaced priorities which doomed our country to widespread illiteracy and economic penury. At the same it illogically elevated the status of the armed forces into some sort of ‘conquering heroes’ – which is ironic considering after six decades of existence our military has yet to win anything in the battlefield (other than those fought against its own people in East Pakistan, Balochistan and elsewhere).

Much of the blame for this distorted vision lies with self-styled intellectuals who appointed themselves guardians of our ‘National Ideology’. This dogma offered no economic or social benefits to the common citizen, but was instead steeped in a visceral distrust of India and called upon our ‘noble’ armed forces to defend every inch of ‘our sacred soil’ (which included Kashmir).

In a revealing moment I asked one of these ideologues: ‘What is more important? The future wellbeing of millions Muslim Kashmiris or obtaining the Vale of Kashmir’. The answer was immediate: ‘The Vale of Kashmir!”

Somewhere along the line these ideologues have managed to miss the boat completely. Whether one takes a religious, ethical or commonsensical approach the answer remains the same: It is always the people who matter (and not some piece of imagined real estate).

Unfortunately from the early days of Pakistan’s existence these absurd convictions have pervaded our Establishment. And so, the Army has always been there to protect ‘our sacred soil’ rather than to defend the liberties of its people. Compare that with the Allied Forces during the WWII who fought for five longs years to defend the freedom of their people from the tyranny of Nazism.

In defence of this pernicious ‘National Ideology’ it has been acceptable for our military leadership to declare thousands of Pakistani citizens (in East Pakistan, Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP) anti-state miscreants and kill them in course of their ‘sacred duty’ to protect Pakistan. As an editorial recently pointed out:
'Alas, much of this was done with a large civilian consensus in the dominant Punjab province'.
It is therefore understandable that there exists a degree of animosity towards Punjab from the smaller provinces.

Contrary to this spurious ideology it is clear from our history that Pakistan came into existence simply to safeguard the economic and social wellbeing of Indian Muslims who feared getting subsumed by an overwhelming Hindu Majority. While Jinnah relentlessly fought for the rights of his people, it must be remembered, that he never uttered a word about the sacredness of any soil.


Sixty years down the track, your Blogger believes, it is high time we honoured Mr Jinnah's mission by placing the wellbeing of 160 million Pakistanis above all else.
________________________________________

An Addendum

The above Blog was written simply to mark 60 years of Pakistan’s existence, hence the reference to Mr Jinnah. The why and wherefores of Pakistan’s creation, in your Blogger’s opinion, are now only of historical relevance – Pakistan exists and that is all that should matter.

The point that I wished to make – probably not too clearly - was that Mr Jinnah did not fight to create a geographical entity but instead struggled to protect the rights of British India’s Muslims. And it was as a result of his battle to safeguard the interests of these people that Pakistan came into being.

The real purpose behind this Blog was to highlight the fact that for years spurious notions of “National Ideology”, “National Interest” and “National Security” have resulted in the rights of millions of ordinary Pakistanis being trampled under the pernicious jackboot of authority.

I believe it is high time that we acknowledged that it is the people who make up a country (and not simply the land they occupy); and that the civil rights and the wishes of the Pakistani citizen should take precedence over all else if we hope to succeed as a modern nation state.
________________________________________




19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure where you get the notion that Jinnah did not want a separate state. He did very much want a separate state and kept abusing Nehru and Gandhi for not conceding it.

"Presidential Address delivered at the Thirtieth Session of the All-India Muslim League, Delhi, April 24, 1943
Minority Provinces
Do not forget the minority provinces. It is they who have spread the light when there was darkness in the majority provinces. It is they who were the spearheads that the Congress wanted to crush with their overwhelming majority in the Muslim minority provinces. It is they who had suffered for you in the majority provinces, for your sake, for your benefit and for your advantage. But never mind, it is all in the role of a minority to suffer. We of the minority have suffered and are ready to face any consequences if we can liberate the 75 millions of our brethren in the north-western and eastern zones.

We have got a great deal to do. Of course, it has now been made clear as to what we are struggling for. Any one who now pretends that he does not understand, well, what shall I say? He is a fool or a dishonest man. Our goal is clear: our demands are clear. What is it that we want? We want to establish independent States in those zones which are our homelands and where we are in a majority. In other words we do not want to be in a union with those zones where the Hindus are in a majority and the Mussalmans are in a minority."


Interview to Mr. Steward Emeny, Representative of 'News Chronicle' of London, New Delhi, February 29, 1944

Q. Why should the Government not open negotiations with Congress or allow somebody like Mr. Rajagopalacharia, who agreed in principle to your demand for Pakistan, separate Muslim and Hindu states, to go and try, and to persuade Mr. Gandhi to change their attitude?

Mr. Jinnah: That means that, unless Mr. Gandhi is persuaded, the Government won't meet our just demand for Pakistan. We cannot accept this position. So far as the Government is concerned, I don't know what their policy is in this matter, but if Government were to follow your suggestion it would be an admission that Congress has won, and that Government cannot get on without Congress.

Q. Well, what should be done?

Mr. Jinnah: If the British Government is sincere in its desire for peace in India it should now frame a new constitution dividing India into two sovereign nations-Pakistan for Muslims representing one-quarter of country and Hindustan for Hindus who have three-quarters of all India.

Q. But, surely, it is not a desirable thing to weaken India and lay her open to future aggression by dividing her into two countries?

Mr. Jinnah: I don't agree that India would be any safer under a forced unity. In fact, she might be more vulnerable, because Hindus and Muslims will never be reconciled with each other. Any agreement between Muslims and Hindus to work together as a single unit even in a federation is an impossibility. Newfoundland has been promised complete independence. If the little Newfoundland can stand on its own feet in the same continent as Canada, then Pakistan with its population of 70 to 80 millions equal to twice the population of Great Britain is certainly strong enough to march alone.... Britain has for years tried to establish India as a united nation and all its efforts have failed. But Britain must reconcile herself to the idea of an India consisting of two nations.

Q. But you know that Congress and the Hindus would never accept that. If Government tries to implement such a plan Congress and Hindus would launch civil disobedience campaign and there would be violence and possibly a civil war?

Mr. Jinnah: On the contrary, nothing like that would happen. If British Government announced its intention of setting up Pakistan and Hindustan, Congress and Hindus would accept it within three months. In other words Government would have called the Congress bluff. In fact, the Pakistan principle is working smoothly already in the five predominantly Muslim provinces where Hindus are holding cabinet office in the Muslim League Governments.

Pakistan would be in the interests of every body. Certainly Hindus would have not grievance under it, because they would get three-fourths of India - a territory larger and population greater than any sovereign state with the exception of Soviet Russia and China.


Q. But surely there would be civil war. You would be creating an Indian Ulster which Hindus might one day attack in the name of united India.

Mr. Jinnah: I don't agree, but there would be under the new consitution transitional period for settlement and adjustment during which time British authority so far as armed forces and foreign affairs are concerned, would remain paramount. The length of the transitional period would depend on the speed with which the two peoples and Great Britain adjusted themselves to the new constitution. Finally, the two Indian nations would enter into treaties with Britain, just as Egypt did when she won her independence.

Q. What if Britain then refused to leave India on the ground that relations between Hindustan and Pakistan were not good enough to live as neighbours?

Mr. Jinnah: That might happen, but it is not likely. Even so we should enjoy a degree of autonomy which we do not possess today. As a separate nation and dominion, we should at least be in a better position to deal with and possibly reach an agreement with the British Government which we are not able to do so during the present deadlock.
...

Speech at the Concluding Session of the Punjab Muslim Student's Federation Conference, Lahore, March 19, 1944

..
With regard to the constitution of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, which asking his followers among the Mussalmans not to be misled, maintained that they must acquire the territory first before they could frame any constitution for that territory. Quoting the example of Afghanistan, Mr. Jinnah said that as Nadir Khan came after Amanullah and he ended the reign of Bachha Saqa, he got possession of the land and then asked the Millat (people) to elect representatives to what was called the constitution making body, which sat to frame the constitution of Afghanistan. Mr. Jinnah said that the form of Government in Pakistan and its constitution could only be decided upon by a constitution making body appointed by the people - and he called it a constituent Assembly - that body being a sovereign body to frame the constitution.

Interview to a Foreign Correspondent regarding Mr. Gandhi's offer, Bombay, October 6, 1944

"There is only one practical, realistic way of resolving Muslim-Hindu differences. This is to divide India into the two sovereign parts of Pakistan and Hindustan by the recognition of the whole of the North-West Frontier province, Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab, Bengal and Assam as sovereign Muslim territories as they now stand, and for each of us to trust the other to give equitable treatment to Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Muslim minorities in Hindustan, we are prepared to trust 15 million Muslims to them if they will trust us."

This view was expressed to me today by Mr. Jinnah in a two-and-a-half hour conversation on his talks with Mr. Gandhi.


Speech at a meeting held under the auspices of Baluchistan Muslim Students Federation, Quetta, October 18, 1945

Mr. Gandhi who professes to be the custodian of truth is in fact an advocate of falsehood. Who is prepared to believe that people like Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Nehru do not understand Pakistan?
...
They say they do not understand Pakistan. If you do not understand it, then what is it that you are opposing? On the contrary, I find that even a child of 12 or 13 understands it. When I see Muslim boys shouting for Pakistan, I very often enquire from them as to what Pakistan is, and believe me, I am not exaggerating, they give me perfect answers.

Mr. Jinnah then related that he met a boy of 12 at Karachi and described how he answered to the various questions and added : "Even Muslim children understand it, but here is this great leader, a great internationalist, who says he does not understand Pakistan! Pakistan means partition, Pakistan means division, it means you must take Hindu provinces of yours and leave out Muslim provinces where we want to establish our own Government. All these pretensions, all these excuses are simply to confound, confound and confound. Why don't you say plainly instead of going round and round. We want to take Pakistan as soon as we can and Inshaallah we shall have Pakistan.

Interview to a representative of the Associated Press of America, clarifying various aspects of Pakistan, Bombay, November 8, 1945(full text)

Mr Jinnah emphasized and re-emphasized that he spoke for himself as a citizen and as President of the League. But the directing genius of the forces of Pakistan did not intend to try to dictate to the Constitution drafting and legislative bodies of Pakistan and did not want to create an impression that he was trying to do so now.

Some of the highlights of his statements on various phases of the Pakistan controversy may be summed up as follows:

Geographically, Pakistan would embrace all of the North-West Frontier, Baluchistan, Sind and the Punjab Provinces in North-Western India. On the eastern side of India would be the other portion of Pakistan composed of Bengal and Assam.

Politically, Pakistan would be a democracy. Mr. Jinnah said that he personally hoped its major industrial and public utility services would be socialized. The component states or provinces of Pakistan would have autonomy.

Economically, Mr Jinnah contended, Pakistan, divided into two separate zones, is just as sound an undertaking as if it were a country with all of its States in one bloc; that is natural resources and population would be sufficient to make it a great world power.

Most Powerful State
Declaring that Pakistan would embrace a population of some one hundred million persons, Mr. Jinnah added: "England became power with only a population of 35 million. Pakistan could become one of the most powerful states economically."

Even now a Muslim League committee is studying the field for developing Pakistan States as a nation. There is a great future for it, with its still untouched iron, petroleum, sulphur, coal and other mineral deposits many of which already have been mapped. The Punjab is putting up one of the greatest hydroelectric stations in the world and this will mean a rural electrification and industrial development programme.

There is no merit to contentions that to draw masses of persons into industry would rob farms of needed labour and invite food shortages or famine.

There would be ample revenues from "equitable taxation, levied in a manner consistent with social justice" to finance good Government and "allow us to have a State as good as any in the world and better than many sovereign countries on the map of the world today.."

This would be a Muslim state. As far as the Musalmans are concerned there would be no social barriers of any kind against the Hindus or anyone else. The Musalmans are a people who believe in and act on the basic principle of equality of manhood and fraternity.

No One-Party Government

Mr. Jinnah said that he did not expect that Pakistan would have one-party Government and that he would oppose one party rule. "An opposition party or parties are good correctives for any party which is in power" he said.

Hindu minorities in Pakistan can rest assured that their rights will be protected. No civilised Government can be run successfully without giving minorities a complete sense of security and confidence. They must be made to feel that they have a hand in Government and to do this they must have adequate representation in it. Pakistan will give this.


The theory of Pakistan guarantees that federated units of the National Government would have all the autonomy that you will find in the constitutions of the United States of America, Canada and Australia. But certain vital powers will remain vested in the Central Government such as the monetary system, national defence and other federal responsibilities.

Each federated State or province would have its own legislative executive and judicial systems, each of the three branches of Government being constitutionally separate.

National Defence
Britain has been strong with an empire scattered over the globe. We can be strong with a Pakistan which has one of its zones in the west and one in the east of India. We would be more closely knit than the British Commonwealth of Nations.

And do not forget that more than 55 per cent of the Indian Army comes from the Punjab and are mostly Muslims.

Supposing the Muslim League proves in the elections that it speaks for a majority of Muslims in India, he was asked, when would the first moves be made to set up a constitution drafting body and start the task of founding a country?

British Attitude
That depends on the attitude of the British Government and of the Congress Party. The British Government has said it would grant independence to two or more dominions in India. We would have to wait and see.


Interview to Duncan Hooper, Reuter's Special Correspondent, Bombay, December 7, 1945

The British Government, Mr Jinnah added, are putting the cart before the horse in proposing an all India constitution making before a settlement of the Pakistan issue. First we must get agreement on Pakistan. Then, and only then, can we proceed to the next step. But there will have to be not one, but two, constitution-making bodies- one to frame and decide the constitution of Hindustan and the other to frame and decide the constitution of Pakistan.

..Patchwork methods will not work at this stage in India's destiny. What is needed is real statemanship and a real effort to face facts. We could settle the Indian problem in ten minutes if Mr. Gandhi would say: "I agree that there should be Pakistan- I agree that one fourth of India comprised of six provinces, Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab, N.W.F.P, Bengal and Assam with their present boundaries should constitute Pakistan state."

After that it would be a simple matter to sit down as friends and work out the details of a friendly and neighbourly life between the two great nations of this sub-continent.

Canada and United States live together. Why can't Hindus and Muslims? Granted there may have to be many adjustments. It is possible that there will have to be exchange of populations, if it can be done on a purely voluntary basis.

There will also doubtless have to be frontier adjustments where primarily Hindu and Moslem lands are contiguous to Hindustan and Pakistan states, as the case may be. All that can come - but first it is necessary to take the present provincial borders as the boundaries of the future Pakistan.

Our Pakistan government will probably be a federal government, modelled on the lines of autonomous provinces with the key power in matters of defence and foreign affairs etc, at the centre. But that will be for the constitution-making body, our constitutional making body, to decide.

I personally do not doubt the sincerity of the British government. But I do doubt the sincerity of those who profess to see any hope of a settlement outside the granting of full Pakistan to the Muslims of India.

--
Jinnah accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan because it gave him separate sovereign constitution-making body on all subjects except foreign affairs and defence for all the regions he claimed as Pakistan and hence it did not preclude a sovereign Pakistan.

ALAM said...

What Muslim rights Jinnah was trying to protect?

Was it quota for Muslims on their sheer numbers? Or was it feudals in Muslim majority states? Right to say prayers 5 times a day?

You have to be clear on this one.

Anonymous said...

Onlooker is correct. Mr. Jinnah was just using the threat of a partition of India and the creation of the new state of Pakistan as a bargaining chip - He never thought that there would ever be these two hostile nations states...........He id d not want to be Governor General of a backwater with a lot of illiterate and feudal people he wanted to lead united India....MAHI

AAS said...

I don't really agree witht this post.

I think in the begginning the idea was to procure certain rights for muslims in a United India where they would not be oppressed by a Hindu Ideological Nation.(Gandhi)

But when Gandhi and other hindus balked, Jinnah i do believe accepted the idea of Pakistan.

Anyway, whats the point of this post ONLOOKER....do you want to go back to being part of India? Clearly, you feel Jinnah never intended this...yet it does not change the fact of our existence. So what?

Anonymous said...

I reckon AAS has lost the plot somewhat.

To me the post seems more about Pakistan's Neanderthal proclaimer's of so-called 'national ideology' and the issue of 'sacred rights of the people' vs. the concept of 'a sacred soil'.

The point Onlooker is trying to make - I think - is that Jinnah was concerned about the people and not so much about the land they did or did not occupy.

So I say: Long live the people of Pakistan!

AAS said...

To say that Pakistan is just some made up and cobbled together nation is not accurate nor does it really matter how it came into being. We can't change what has occurred.

There has been a long tradition of a viable and strong Indus civilization distinct from the Hindu civilization.

Unfortunately those in the elites no matter what there cultural or ethnic background is what has truly kept this nation from becoming modern.

Nitin said...

Dear Onlooker,

There is nothing to be gained by looking back at the past and wondering whether this was what Jinnah wanted. It does not matter. Kids don't often turn out to what their parents expected of them, and oftentimes, this is for the better.

What is important is for the people of Pakistan to ask themselves what do they want to make of it. Indeed, this gazing into history, or asking what Jinnah wanted sidetracks the issue and distracts attention from the all important debate---about the present and the future.

A stable, internally reconciled, democratic Pakistan, that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours is what we all need (and I say this from a Indian perspective).

Anonymous said...

Interview to the correspondent of International News Service of America, Bombay, May 21, 1942

"If they had an assured goal to fight for-independent Muslim states in post-war India-and arms with which to fight, 100 million Muslims of India would resist aggression and hurl the enemy out of India with invincible strength"- asserted Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah in an interview with Mr. W.W. Chapman, correspondent of International News Service of America.

Appreciating American sympathy to the principle of independence of India Mr. Jinnah said that true independence could come only with separate Muslim States in the north-west and eastern zones of India where Muslims constituted the majority of the population. If Britain yielded to the Congress political blackmail and approved a National State dominated by the Hindus there would be immediate and terrible chaos.

Mr. Jinnah pledged that 100 million Muslims of India will resist Japanese aggression-men,women and children-with tooth and nail. He, however, predicted that such resistance would be ineffective against the armed forces of invader and coupled his pledge with the renewed plea of independent Muslim States in post-war India and for arming the Muslim men of military age. He said, if we had such an assured goal to fight for and arms with which to fight we would stand side by side with the British forces and hurl the enemy out of India with invincible strength.

A note of bitterness crept in his voice when discussing the Congress action. He said, "the Congress is engaging in political blackmail, taking advantage of the fact that the terrible enemy is almost at India's door, to attempt to force the British to agree to the so-called national government in which Muslims would be out-numbered three-to-one and would be ruled by the Hindus as they were now being ruled by the British. Muslims will never agree to such an arrangement. They insist on independence from the British, from the Japanese invaders and from the Hindus. If Britain agreed to the Congress demand and approved a national State dominated by the Hindus there would be immediate and terrible chaos.

Mr. Jinnah said that he fully appreciated American sympathy to the principle of the independence of India but said that true independence can only come by Pakistan with separate Muslim state or States in north-west zone and eastern zone where Muslims are approximately 75 per cent of the population. He said that it is certainly fair; it would give Muslims one-fourth the area of India for their one-fourth of total population. It would leave the Hindus with three-fourths of area comprising the richest part of the country and would give them the most populous country in the world, except China and perhaps Russia. Were I a Hindu leader I would say "Let us get this chap Jinnah to sign his proposition quick, then we will be a tremendous Hindu country without a minority problem which otherwise prevents national unity always."

Mr. Jinnah charged the Congress with bad faith in putting an organization forward as representing Muslim as well as Hindu interests. It is entirely to confuse the rest of the world to win sympathy. Maulana Azad is a puppet President who has permitted himself to be used but who has no power in the Congress which is completely Hindu in thought and actions.

He believed that Britain and Hindus eventually will be forced to recognize his plan which was the only practical solution of India's problem. When this happened, he pledged that he would appoint himself champion of small minority of Hindus living in Muslim areas and would insist that the constitution should accord them full rights. If Hindus did the same to Muslim minority in their three quarters of India, the two countries should live amicably as good neighbours like Canada and the United States, Mexico and North America which no one suggests should be forced under one government merely because people inhabit the same continent.

Hindu three-fourths of India where the policy of non-cooperation and non-violence with enemy is proclaimed includes strategic ports of Madras and Bombay. Muslim population's region, where the people, he said, will fight aggression perfectly with proper arms but lacking that with barehands, includes Karachi, Chittagong and Calcutta, which are nearest to Burma where Japanese are massed.

M. A Jinnah's letter to Gandhiji, 25 September 1944

You have already rejected the basis and fundamental principles of the Lahore Resolution.
You do not accept that the Mussulmans of India are a nation.
You do not accept that the Mussulmans have an inherent right of self-determination.
You do not accept that they alone are entitled to exercise this right of theirs for self-determination.

You do not accept that Pakistan is composed of two zones, north-west and north-east comprising six Provinces, namely Sind, Baluchistan, North-West Frontier Province, the Punjab, Bengal,and Assam, subject to territorial adjustments, that may be agreed upon, as indicated in the Lahore Resolution.

The matter of demarcating and defining the territories can be taken up after the fundamentals above-mentioned are accepted, and for that purpose machinery may be set up by agreement.

* * *

As a result of our correspondence and discussions, I find that the question of India as Pakistan and Hindustan is only on your lips and it does not come from your heart.

* * *
Now, let me take your main terms:

(a) 'I proceed on the assumption that India is not to be regarded as two or more nations but as one family consisting of many members, of whom the Muslims living in the north-west zone, i.e., Baluchistan, Sind, North-West Frontier Province and that part of the Punjab where they are in absolute majority, desire to live in separation from the rest of India.'

If this term were accepted and given effect to, the present boundaries of these Provinces would be maimed and mutilated beyond redemption and leave us only with the husk, and it is opposed to the Lahore Resolution.

(b) That even those mutilated areas so defined, the right of self-determination will not be exercised by the Muslims, but by the inhabitants of those areas so demarcated. This again is opposed to the fundamentals of the Lahore Resolution.

(c) That if the vote is in favor of separation, they shall be allowed to 'form a separate State a soon as possible after India is free from foreign domination', Whereas we propose that we should come to a complete settlement of our own immediately, and by our united front and efforts do everything in our power to secure the freedom and independence of the peoples of India on the basis of Pakistan and Hindustan.

(d) Next, you say : 'There shall be a Treaty of Separation which should also provide for the efficient and satisfactory administration of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Internal Communications, Customs, Commerce, and the like, which must necessarily continue to be matters of common interest between the contracting parties.'

If these vital matters are to be administered by some Central authority, you do not indicate what sort of authority or machinery will be set up to administer these matters, and how and to whom again that authority will be responsible.

According to the Lahore Resolution, as I have already explained to you, all these matters, which are the life-blood of any State, cannot be delegated to any Central authority or Government. The matter of security of the two States and the natural and mutual obligations that may arise out of physical contiguity will be for the constitution-making body of Pakistan and that of Hindustan, or other party concerned, to deal with on the footing of their being two independent States.

As regards the safeguarding the rights of Minorities, I have already explained that this question of safeguarding the Minorities is fully stated in the Lahore Resolution.

You will, therefore see that the entire basis of your new proposal is fundamentally opposed to the Lahore Resolution.



Statement by Mr. M. A Jinnah, 4 October 1944

Mr Jinnah was asked whether he had any scheme for the constitution of Pakistan. Mr Jinnah said that the principle of Pakistan should be first accepted and the scheme would be formulated thereafter.

Further explaining the point Mr Jinnah referred to a previous question, namely, the absence of two contracting Governments on behalf of Hindustan and Pakistan and said that it was true there were no de jure Governments. If the principle of division was accepted then it followed that both Hindustan and Pakistan would have to choose their own constitution-making bodies. Those bodies as representing two sovereign States would deal with questions of mutual and natural relations and obligations by virtue of physical contiguity of the States and they would then as two independent sovereign States-two nations-come to an agreement on various matters.

'Take the case of America,' he said, 'There are 23 independent sovereign States in America. They have their treaties and agreements with regard to their mutual interest. Even so the States in Europe have their own agreements with each other for inter-trade and commerce and even alliances. These are things that can be adjusted. Agreements and treaties are entered into even between two countries which have no physical contiguity. Here the two nations are neighbours and have physical contiguity."

Anonymous said...

Mountbatten tried to get Jinnah to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan:

From The Transfer of Power 1942-7 Volume X The Mountbatten Viceroyalty, Formulation of a Plan, Eds. Nicholas Mansergh and Penderel Moon.

Viceroy's Personal Report No. 4
24 April 1947
..
18. I am naturally still doing everything in my power to get the Cabinet Mission plan accepted. But although the Congress have nominally accepted both the plan and the statement of the 6th December, Jinnah and the Muslim League leaders I have spoken to are convinced that the Congress have no intention whatever of complying with the spirit of the plan. They consider that Congress would merely use their permanent majority at the Centre to manipulate the army, to bring pressure to bear on Groups B and C where necessary and to manipulate the right to raise finance for the Centre to the detriment of the internal economy of Groups B and C. In evidence of this they draw attention to the Constituent Assembly decision that Customs must be dealt with by the Centre in view of their implications on external affairs.

19. Liaquat went so far as to say that it was providential that Congress had refused the Cabinet Mission plan during the time that the League had accepted it, since it was now clear that they intended to use the Cabinet Mission plan to obtain a permanent stranglehold over the predominantly Muslim groups.

20. I have already pointed out to Jinnah and the League leaders that there must be some form of Centre or Supreme Defence Council even if Pakistan comes about, and that this Centre will have to deal with practically the same subjects as the Centre envisaged in the Cabinet Mission plan; that is to say, over-all defence. So we come to the ridiculous situation where Jinnah in his insistence on Pakistan is likely to get a very truncated edition of it and still have to go to some form of Centre, instead of accepting complete autonomy over Groups B and C with a somewhat similar Centre. The real difference of course lies in the fact that in the former case there would be parity at the Centre and the League could not be outvoted. But it shows what value the League sets on this parity, since to obtain it they are prepared to sacrifice the richest plums of Pakistan.

Record of Interview between Rear-Admiral Viscount Mountbatten of Burma and Mr. Jinnah
Mountbatten Papers. Viceroy's Interview No. 100

26 April 1947, 5-6.20pm

..Finally, I reverted to the Cabinet Mission plan, much to his distaste. I said "You told me that your objection to the Cabinet Mission plan was the fact that the Centre would be controlled by a majority vote of the Congress, and would be able to exert economic and military pressure to the detriment of Groups B & C. Is that your objection to the scheme?" He nodded his head vehemently; and I then said : "I have been looking into this, and there is little doubt that the provision in the Cabinet Mission plan whereby the Constituent Assembly votes on any major communal issue in two parts, and unless there is a majority of the members of both communities present and voting the measure cannot be passed." * If that were so, I pointed out, then surely he would have as many safeguards as he would ever get under Pakistan with a Central Defence Council. He replied emphatically "No; it is laid down that a difference of opinion on a major communal question should be decided by the Federal Court. It is clear that the President of the Constituent Assembly is not obliged to take their ruling. I asked the Chief Justice what he would do if his ruling was disregarded, and he replied that the Federal Court would refuse to give any more rulings. That would then leave it open to Congress to impose their will by majority vote.

"In fact the leaders of Congress are so dishonest, so crooked, and so obsessed with the idea with the idea of smashing the Muslim League, that there are no lengths to which they will not go to do so; and the only way of giving Pakistan a chance is to make it an independent nation of the British Commonwealth, with its own army and the right to argue cases at any Central Council on this basis." I was quite unable to shake him from this decision; and he begged me not to ask him to reconsider the Cabinet Mission plan again.

--

Anonymous said...

I am tired of these discussions of looking back whether Jinnah wanted Pakistan or not, whether he wanted the constitution secular or islamic etc.

Jinnah, may Allah rest his soul, is dead. Pakistan belongs to people of Pakistan and it is they who should decide what do they want?

Jinnah was gentleman enough to not give a constitution himself and left it to the people of Pakistan through the constituent assembly to decide what constitution they want.

About Kashmir, let the Kashmiris decide what they want. Whether they want to be a part of Pakistan, India or an independent land locked state. - imkhalil

Anonymous said...

The French and the Germans fought two bloody wars which resolved nothing and killed many young people. Now they are the core of a European union
in which former enemies live peacefully. The British and the Irish have found a way to settle their even older conflicts (that consumed among others Mr. Mountbatten). Cant'w we hope that a peace can be arranged between India and Pakistan, with a joint administration of Kashmir along the lines of the agreement over Northern Ireland?In the end people
are what matters not land or ideology or history. Let us focus on the future and not on how we got here.

Anonymous said...

"The point that I wished to make – probably not too clearly - was that Mr Jinnah did not fight to create a geographical entity but instead struggled to protect the rights of British India’s Muslims."

The historically accurate statement would be "Mr. Jinnah fought to create a geographical entity to protect the rights of Muslims in Muslim majority regions in British India's northwest and northeast."

Anything else is a big fudge and an outright lie.

Rana said...

Mr. Jinnah was never a selfish person. When he spoke of Pakistan he was referring to the best deal for the Muslims of India indeed. It was not to benefit a few and certainly not for a few tribes and feudals to rule and enjoy themselves.

The Two Nation Theory was a permanent one. On a temporary theory you do not make such a huge decision that affects the Muslims in every nook and corner of the country. He used to cry over the moth eaten Pakistan (Stanley Wolpert in Jinnah of Pakistan). He knew very well that this did not solve the problems of Muslims. He never differentiated between this Muslim and that.

When these landlords took over they truncated the two nation theory and said Muslims cannot enter Pakistan after 1951. Was The Two Nation theory time bound? If so it is the selfish act of a few. Mr. Jinnah was never selfish. So this cannot be true.

Those in power made this ideological issue into a land issue. Only two countries have been created on the basis of religion. First was Pakistan and next Israel. While every Jew can migrate to Israel any day, a Muslim of India cannot do that in Pakistan.

However the culprits were these Mohajirs who had no feeling what so ever with Muslims. They would talk about them as those who are the sufferers and would gloat about themselves. Their typical statement will be "we are well off". That you should have been who is questioning that. Muslims in India are happy for you.

But then Gujarath should take place despite Pakistan is a matter of shame. That shows Pakistan had no policies that helped the Muslim bretheren across the border in any way.

I am from Multhan and when I go to Karachi and discuss with Mohajirs there I am apalled. They have not even have got made an immigration policy that would help immediate relatives to migrate. Shame on these Mohajirs.

Traveller said...

JINNAH SOLD THE MUSLIMS TO THE JEWS

Nicholas Sullivan said...

Well it gives lots of knowledge about Real Estate........
I like tit & it gives directions before going to choose any Real Estate.....
RealtyJuggler includes 49 stunning realtor flyer template designs for your real estate flyer needs.Realtor Flyer Templates

guerrero said...

What a great post, I actually found it very thought provoking, thanks
Orlando property management

john said...

This is a good information I love this article very much thanks hypnosis.

Anonymous said...

Are you accustomed with Pandora Bangles ? If not, you will wish to yield the time to analyze the absorbing arrangement of styles and designs available. Not alone do they action murano bottle chaplet in a bubble arrangement of colors, but abounding are awful adorning with simple to see motifs and checkered patterns.

Pandora uk said...

Mulberry outlet