Adil Najam
Other posts in this series for March 23, 2007 - here and here.
March 23 commemorates the passage of what was originally the ‘Lahore Resolution’ (Qarardad i Lahore) and later became better known as the ‘Pakistan Resolution’ (Qarardad i Pakistan). If there is a single most important founding document of Pakistan, it has to be this Resolution passed at the annual session of the All India Muslim League at its 1940 meeting (22-24 March) at Minto Park (now called Iqbal Park), Lahore (by the way, what a wonderful idea - for political parties to have annual, open, meaningful, annual sessions where real decisions are taken in a transparent and democratic manner!). In 1941, this Lahore (Pakistan) Resolution became part of the Muslim League constitution and in 1946 it became the basis of the demand for Pakistan.
Most Pakistanis know what the resolution says; or, at least we think we do; in most cases rightly so. But because we are so very sure that we know what it says, we usually do not take the time to actually read it. Maybe we should. And there cannot be a better day to do so than today.It is, like many of the most important documents in history, a fairly short text. I reproduce it here in full. The first two paragraphs are contextual related to the then discussions on federation within the Government of India Act 1935. The third and the fourth paragraphs are the key operational content which is usually cited in textbooks. However, my view is that the final short paragraph is also key; especially in that it talks in the plural about “respective regions” (as do previous paragraphs).
While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League, as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th & 18th September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd of February, 1940 on the constitutional issue, this Session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act 1935, is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.
It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939 made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslims in India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.
Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units’ are demarcated into regions which should be constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern Zones of (British) India should be grouped to constitute “independent States” in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.
That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultations with them and in other parts of (British) India where the Mussalmans (Muslims) are in a majority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.
This session further authorises the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defense, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary.
Apart from the fact that the Resolution talks clearly about “respective regions” (words that have import in the context of the events of 1971), I find the 4th paragraph particularly important. The complex structure of the language notwithstanding, the sentiment is clear as is its emphasis on the rights of minorities - not just of Muslims as a minority but of non-Muslim minorities in areas where they envisaged Muslim sovereignty. In such a short document, for the founding fathers to have devoted so much space to this issue would suggest that they - having lived as a minority themselves - considered the subject of minority rights to be of particular importance. This is one of the many areas where we were unable to live up to their aspirations.
Thank you for a very nice post.
Dear Sir, I was born in Lahore in 1934. Have always wanted to visit— being an Indian couldn’t become possible. I have not read the above posts. I wish things settle down in Pk and the present turmoil disappears soon.Through my site a young person from Pk came in contact with me– I couldn’t help him much; he wanted to get treated here for his disease. I said you merely spend to & fro fare only; here you will live free; no expence. But without telling me any reason for not doing, after a while he went off contact. God help him if he still is in need of that. I am at the last small lap of my life. But if I can help any needy from lahore to get treated here, I would consider that as a special privilege. Best wishes to all Lahorians. God bless, Prem
Dear Mahi,
I suggest that you read Stanley Wolpert’s “Shameful Flight” and see for yourself the entire context.
Jawaharlal Nehru had a blindspot when it came to Pakistan. That after Gandhi and Jinnah’s departure, he was the only leader of any stature might have masked that blindspot… but books now coming out seem to be showing the real picture.
YLH: Of course not, I think my comment stems a different understanding of your Nehru quote. I don’t believe Nehru is saying here that we will keep that conflict alive to drain Pakistan. But that the conflict cannot be resolved by India withdrawing. In which case, if Pakistan wants to keep the conflict simmering, it will drain Pakistan more. As far as I understand things, Indian govt’s de facto position (and one that is an easy sell politically) is that the Kashmir issue is settled with the LOC. So Nehru isn’t suggesting bleeding Pakistan, but that if the LoC based status quo is not good enough for Pakistan, then Pakistan bleeds more. (This is what I meant by ‘Pakistan is its own master in brooking the drain of resources of not’.)
So my point was that this has to be expected of an India leader answerable to the Indian masses.
Mahi,
I am very surprised by your comment. Are you saying that it was okay for someone like Nehru, who was extremely self righteous and who often waxed eloquent about a new world blah … to declare that Kashmir conflict should be perpetuated because it would be a greater drain on Pakistan?
YLF: I think we have to differentiate between Pakistan and Kashmir. Nehru is referring to the Kashmir tussle, hardly about Pakistan proper. And as in any tussle/battle, you will keenly appraise your advantages. Thats hardly to mean that Nehru is out to get Pakistan. That Nehru thinks of Kashmir from an Indian perspective should hardly be a surprise. Also, Pakistan is its own master in brooking the drain of resources or not.
So this can hardly be the basis for a threat to your national existence no?
Mahi…
The perception of Indian threat to Pakistan is not without basis… your finest prime minister.. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to Sri Prikasa :
“I was amazed that you hinted at Kashmir being handed over to Pakistan. If we did anything of the kind, our Government would not last many days and there would be no peace…. it would lead to war with Pakistan because of the public opinion here and warlike elements coming in control of our policy. We cannot and will not leave Kashmir to its fate… the Fact that Kashmir is of most vital significance to India… Here lies the rub…. we have to see this through to the end. Kashmir is going to be a drain on our resources, but it is going to be a greater drain on Pakistan. ”
Page 189- Shameful Flight by Stanley Wolpert.
Samdani, thanks for your response. If I understand you correctly (in conjunction with a comment from Adil in the aftermath of the Samjhauta Exp bombing), Pakistanis dislike the very idea of discussing or bringing up anything related to partition. Fair enough, I guess it comes across as questioning your separate existence.
I’ll leave you with an (possibly imperfect) analogy as to why Indians see it as an obvious thing to discuss: say your spouse decides he/she has to leave you for a better life. Even if you respect their choice, how likely is it that you will not want to know or understand why they wanted to leave you in the first place? Unless you kicked them out, won’t you entertain the belief that the differences could be worked out? At the least, wont you want to understand the differences? Want to say, it wasn’t about me? Will you be able to say they know best, I’ll never even try to rationally understand their decision? Or is any questioning on your part only an unstated intent of demolition of their individuality?
(Just to be clear, I’m aware the analogy isn’t perfect, just couldn’t think of something better).
If Pakistanis really believe that there is such a fundamental basis for their separate existence (beyond the realm of questioning) I can’t help think that it shortchanges the hundreds of years of Mulsim rule in the subcontinent. Did the great Mughals then fail to establish any kind of ‘Indian’ culture? Any kind of common ground, that their descendants can only survive under a separate umbrella?
Anyhow, you must be correct in that this forum must have discussed such topics by the bushel in the past, so please ignore this message, if you feel it goes down the same road.