Extra(1A) Speeches and statements by M.A. Jinnah from the period 1941-1942
Many historians assert that M.A.Jinnah espoused the idea of an independent Muslim state, Pakistan, only as bargaining position for purposes of procuring a better deal for Muslims and Muslim-majority provinces in the future united India constitution and that he had no real intention of establishing Pakistan as an independent state.
These assertions are not borne out by Jinnah's speeches, statements and positions in the 1940-1946 period. From these it is clear that
1. Jinnah was very specific that the goal of the Muslim League was the establishment of one or more independent states in the north-west and north-east Muslim-majority regions. His descriptions and prescriptions for the complete independence of such a state were very specific too.
2. His campaigns and solicitations of Muslim Indians' support for the independent state of Pakistan were nationwide and public in scope and sweep.
3. He rejected any final or interim constitutional proposal that prejudiced the establishment of an independent Pakistan. He did this in many ways, including
a. by rejecting the notion that Muslims would be satisfied with safeguards as a minority and asserting they were a nation aiming to be a state
b. by demanding that all interim proposals for central government give the Muslim League seats equal in number to the Congress to prevent torpedoing of a future Pakistan by the Congress majority
c. by vilifying and ruling out agreement with any party which did not accept the specific principle of an independent state of Pakistan.
d. by accusing all parties seeking from the British a timetable for independence and early transfer of power as their price for co-operation in the war, of actually aiming to establish Hindu raj to crush the Muslims and deny Pakistan.
e. by soliciting foreign governments' support for establishment of an independent state of Pakistan.
The above can be seen, for example, in those of Jinnah's speeches and statements from the period 1941-1942 which are quoted below.
[ Other Jinnah speeches and statements can be found here: Extra(1), Extra (1B), Extra(1C), Extra(2), Extra(6A), Extra(7), Extra(8)]
Statement contradicting a report under the heading 'Revised Pakistan Scheme Committee's recommendations', New Delhi, February 18, 1941
Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, President of the All-India Muslim League has issued the following statement to the Press:
"My attention has been drawn to a report under the heading 'Revised Pakistan Scheme Committee's recommendations' published in a newspaper to-day. This is entirely incorrect. After the Lahore resolution, now popularly know as the Pakistan resolution, was passed last March, the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League appointed a sub-committee to invite any proposal on the basis of the fundamental principles embodied in the Lahore resolution.
"The Lahore resolution" "Inter alia" laid down that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Mussalmans unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute 'independent states' in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.
"It is not correct either that the Working Committee of the League is going to consider any of these schemes at this meeting on February 22. I would however welcome any scheme or proposal coming from any source and I believe there are many Mussalmans and others who are applying their minds to this problem.
"I, however, want to make it clear that the All-India Muslim League is officially not concerned with the schemes that are published in the newspapers from time to time.
"Some confusion prevails in the minds of some individuals in regard to the use of the word 'Pakistan'. This word has become synonymous with the Lahore resolution owing to the fact that it is a convenient and compendious method of describing the Lahore resolution quoted above. For the reason the British and Indian newspapers generally adopted the word 'Pakistan' to describe the Muslim demand as embodied in the Lahore resolution. I really see no objection to it and I fail to understand why some people are making a mountain out of this molehill.
Presidential Address at the 28th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League, Madras, April 15, 1941(excerpts)
"The next question I want to place before you is that we have now got to define-and define beyond doubt-what our goal is. There are many people who either do not understand or misunderstand or do not want to understand. They are ignorant people, not amongst Muslims-thank heavens for that-and it is really amazing-I will give you one or two instances later-how our decision or resolutions are misinterpreted or misrepresented. In order that there should be no room left for misunderstanding and that no doubt should be left in the mind of any intelligent or sensible Indian- it does not matter to which class or community he belongs-let me clarify our position with regard to our goal.
What is the goal of the All-India Muslim League? What is its ideology and what its policy? Let me tell you as clearly as I can possibly define it, that the goal of the All-India Muslim League is this: We want the establishment of completely independent states in the North-West and Eastern zones of India, with full control finally of defence, foreign affairs, communications, customs, currency, exchange, etc. We do not want in any circumstances a constitution of an All-India character with one government at the Centre. We will never agree to that. If we once agree to that, let me tell you, the Muslims will be absolutely wiped out of existence. We shall never be tributaries of any power or any government at the Centre so far as the North West and Eastern zones of our free national homelands are concerned.
The leadership of Hindu India has, I regret to say, been fooled. They have been bamboozled by the policy and the diplomacy of the British Government who are dangling in front of them a united all-India constitution and democracy-the two carrots before donkeys! The British Government knows-and I say to the Hindu leadership, you have lost the last shred of statesmanship if you do not realize yet that the British Government know it-that Muslim India will never submit to an all-India constitution and one central government. The British statesmen know that the so-called democracy and the parliamentary system of government is nothing but a farce in the country. It is not, as some people mix it up, a question of Muslims objecting to a government based on the brotherhood of man, as it is often alleged by people who really do not understand what they are talking about when they talk of either democracy or Islam. Democracy means, to begin with, majority rule. Majority rule in a single nation, in a single society, is understandable, although even there it has failed. Representative government in a single nation, harmonious, homogenous and one is understandable. But you have only got to apply your mind for a few minutes to see the truth.
Can such a system ever work or succeed when you have two different nations-indeed more than two different societies, the Muslim society and the Hindu society? In this land of yours*(*meaning the Madras Province) there is another nation, the Dravidians. This land is really Dravidastan. Imagine that three percent of the Brahmins high caste, by skillful manoeuvering and by skillful methods of electioneering which they have studied, should secure the majority. Is this democracy or is it a farce? Therefore, I give my fullest sympathy and support to the non-Brahmins. I say to them: The only way for you is to come into your own, live your own life according to your own culture and according to your own language-thank God that Hindi did not go very far here-and your own history is to go ahead with your ideal. I have every sympathy for you and I shall do all I can to support you to establish Dravidastan. The seven per cent of Muslims will stretch their hand of friendship to you and live with you on lines of equality, justice and fairplay.
Referring to the ideology of the League, Mr. Jinnah said that it had already been made very clear. But there were people in this country and especially there was a section of the Hindu press, who should be reminded of the same over and over again. The ideology of the League, he said, is based on the fundamental principle that Muslim India is an independent nationality. Any attempt to get them to merge their nationality or political identity or entity will not only be resisted but, in my opinion, it will be futile for anyone to attempt it. We are determined, and let there be no mistake about it, to establish the status of an independent nation and an independent State in this subcontinent.
League's Memorandum to the Viceroy
Mr. Jinnah next referred to the resolution adopted by the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League in June 1940, asking the Government of India to take serious steps to strengthen the defence of India and authorizing Mr. Jinnah enter into communication with the Viceroy with a view to exploring and possibly devising all prompt measures to intensify war efforts. This resolution was supplemented by a memorandum which he presented to the Viceroy in July 1940. In it he had said that no pronouncement or statement should be made by the Government which would militate against the basic and fundamental principles laid down in the Lahore resolution of Pakistan, that the Government should given a definite and categorical assurance to the Muslims that no interim or final scheme of constitution should be made without the consent and approval of Muslims of India, that in view of the grave danger to the country everything should be done to intensify the war efforts, to defend the country and to maintain internal security. They suggested then that the Viceroy's Executive Council be enlarged within the framework of the present constitution, that the additional number should be fixed after further consultation, and that the Muslim representatives should be equal in number to the Congress representatives. They also suggested that in the provinces where Section 93 of the Government of India Act was in operation, non-official advisers should be appointed.
Did we say anywhere in the memorandum, "Pakistan here and now"? The Lahore resolution was passed in March 1940 and this memorandum was prepared in July 1940. Why was it that we never said anything about Pakistan in memorandum?
Before telling them the reason, Mr. Jinnah said, he would like to inform them that all sorts of messages are sent out that the Pakistan issue is postponed, Pakistan is now put aside. This was, Mr. Jinnah added, nothing but wishful thinking on the part of those who had their feet deep in the mire. Why not say honestly and frankly that you have committed a blunder and that you are also willing to come into line?
Returning to the point as to why they did not demand Pakistan here and now, Mr. Jinnah said that it was due to one and only reason, namely, we did not wish to embarrass the British Government when they are engaged in this struggle of life and death and their own existence. That is why we said that as soon as the circumstances may permit or soon after the war the whole problem of India's constitution must be examined de novo.
Yugoslavia and India
In this connection, Mr. Jinnah referred to the march of events in Yugoslavia and said that, following the German capture of Zagreb, the Yugoslavia province of Croatia has been proclaimed an 'independent state' according to the German News Agency, and a Croat general had called on all officials, army officers and non-commissioned officers to take the oath of allegiance to the 'New State'. They should remember, Mr. Jinnah said, that in Yugoslavia there were the Croats, the Slovenes and the Serbs. Their position was very much like our position in India: Dravidastan and the Dravidians, Pakistan and the Muslims and Hindustan and the Hindus. Here is a mighty sub-continent and the question really is: Are you going to wait and allow somebody else to come here and do the job for you or are you going to do it yourselves?
Statement on the Sapru Conference circulated to all branches of the League, May 23, 1941
Now let us examine the position of the Muslim League in the light of these proposals and in the light of present-day politics. Ever since the war started and even to-day the position of the Muslim League has been and still is that within the framework of the existing constitution and apart from issues and problems that may arise when we come to tackle the future problems of the Indian constitution we were and are still ready and willing to assume responsibility for the prosecution of the war and the defence of India, provided a real and substantial share in the authority of the Government and the Centre and in the Provinces is given to representatives of the All-India Muslim League.
The difficulty that was created was due to the Congress refusing to take up this reasonable attitude and secondly to the fact that the Hindu Mahasabha, which could not claim to represent a solid body of Hindus, put forward an exorbitant demand that its representation in the proposed expansion of the Governor-General's Executive Council should be according to population.
The Muslim League declared that this was an emergency war arrangement and, therefore, if the Congress came in as representing all Hindus and as the Muslim League represents all Muslims both should have equal representations in this arrangement; and if the Congress refused to come in, it was obvious that the main burden would fall on the shoulders of the Muslim League, and therefore, it should have a majority in the Executive Council. Lastly, the Muslim League wanted an assurance that in the event of the Congress coming in later the Muslim League's position would be secured, and that it would not be let down.
It has also made it clear that in the meantime the British Government should not do anything which would in any way militate against the Muslim League proposal to partition India.
What exactly was the reason why the Viceroy and the British Government suspended this arrangement of the expansion of the Executive Council within the frame-work of the present constitution, it is difficult to realize and understand although it is given out that the reason was that the Muslim League in particular asked for a measure of representation as against the Hindu element and made stipulations as to the future which the Viceroy could not see his way to accepting. In the light of the above fact which is the only true version, this is not quite the correct position to attribute to the Muslim League.
Speech at Muslim University Union, Aligarh, November 2, 1941(excerpts)
Why not apply your mind as practical men? They are fighting for a constitution with India as a single unit in which Muslims can only be treated as a minority. That position can never be accepted by Muslims. We are on the defensive, not on the offensive. What we suggest is that we take over the government of this country under a system which we can both work. Why stick to a system which has failed for a quarter of a century? We have failed, because the basic principles on which we work are different.
What happens when two brothers cannot pull together? They resort to partition and then they are happy. Under the Pakistan scheme we want to do the same. The Hindus will have three-fourths of India with a population of 250 millions. Is it not fair? Should this proposal lead to civil war? I only want a share and Mr. Gandhi wants the whole. At whose wish will the civil war come?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, what are the Hindu leaders saying? I will quote only one passage from the speech of a prominent erstwhile Congressman and ex-Home Minister, Mr. Munshi. He is reported to have said, "The State under the Pakistan scheme would not be a civil government responsible to a composite legislature consisting of all communities, but a religious State pledged to rule according to the teachings of that religion thus by implication excluding all others not following that religion from a share in the government. One crore and thirteen lakhs of Sikhs and Hindus would constitute a minority under the protection of the religious State of Muslims. These Hindus and Sikhs would be on sufferance in the Punjab and would be foreigners in Hindustan.'. Is it not incitement to the Sikhs and Hindus? Telling them that it would be a religious State excluding them from all power, is entirely untrue.
He seems to suggest that non Muslims in Pakistan will be treated as untouchables. Let me tell Mr. Munshi that untouchability is only known to his religion and his philosophy and not ours. Islam stands for justice, equality, fairplay, toleration and even generosity to non Muslims who may be under our protection. They are like our brothers to us and would be the citizens of the State...
As far as Muslim India is concerned, we have forged our own charter and that is Pakistan. And for this charter of ours we want to make it clear that we will sacrifice anything and everything. Dismiss from your mind that it is a counter for bargaining or a catchword. All these inferences, all these interpretations are wrong. Propaganda is going on even in foreign countries that Muslim League is only manoeuvring to wrest as much power as possible. Mr. Gandhi said in 1939 that the Muslim League was out to sell itself to the highest bidder. It is a most reprehensible lie. We are not going to budge an inch from the position we have taken. Nothing will make us swerve from our goal.
We are determined to watch and guard our own interests, and we are capable of doing it separately...
Presidential Address delivered extempore at the fifth annual session of the All-India Muslim Students' Federation, Nagpur, December 26, 1941
What is the Hindu Mahasabha doing? Its ambition is to militarize and industrialize the Hindus, urge the Hindus to join the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and support the war. Militarize what? Industrialize what? the Hindu nation? I ask Mr. Savarkar and field-marshal Moonje: Do you think that everyone in this country is a fool? Do you think you can fool the British? Why this sort of talk and why this lip-loyalty of co-operation with an ulterior motive of filling the ranks of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force by Hindus? And then what will they do? The answer is clear, then they say, 'Pakistan will evaporate into the air, and the British will go back to London town and settle down there,'. Don't you think that these gentlemen who talk like this should be locked up somewhere?
My young friends, the Hindu Mahasabha is dreaming. Dreaming of what? They do not make any secret of it. Why is it that they are against Pakistan? Why? Our proposal of Pakistan is not inimical to them if they honestly and dispassionately examine it.
The Muslim says: Give me those parts of India where we are in a majority and where I have got my homeland. Let me live there under my own rule and I undertake to protect the non Muslim minority. You live in the Hindu India proper and you can protect the Muslim minority. You have three-fourths.
But they do not want three-fourths; they want the whole. How are they going to get the whole? What is Mr. Savarkar's scheme? His scheme is that when he gets 75 per cent of the Hindus in the Army, in the Navy and the Air Force and in the administration-and by that time I think Field-Marshal Moonje will see to it that every Hindu eats meat-he will then see that Hindu raj is established!
What is to happen to those Muslims who are in the north-west and north-east? What will happen to those frontiers? It is this. The frontiers will be occupied by the Hindu garrison just as the British garrison is occupying the north-west. Instead of the British it will be Hindu garrison, entirely composed of Hindus, who will see and make it their business to see that the Muslims in those parts are not allowed to raise their heads. They will establish a central government and that central government will have supreme control over the entire subcontinent. Of course, Afghanistan might be added later on. And thereby Muslim India will never get even to the point of obtaining any kind of responsible government but certainly not to the point of developing themselves to a status or position of an independent State. In other words, their rights are gone for ever, the right to the status of an independent country with their own army, air force and navy in those parts of the subcontinent.
Gentlemen, when we come to think of it, not only it is a dream but it is the greatest folly to persist in the position as the Hindu Mahasabha is doing.
What is the demand of the Hindu Mahasabha? Now they have to give up every demand except Bhagalpur. That will be settled within a few days. They say to the British:'We are willing to be your camp followers, we are willing to serve you in any capacity you want; you throw open the Army, the Navy and the Air Force to the Hindus; we will do what you want.'
But while they are saying this with a sinister and insidious motive, which no one can mistake for anything else, at the same time they are pressing for the establishment of Hindudom through another brother. He says:'You must fix a time-limit and give India Dominion Status of the Westminister variety.'
Who is to give it? The British Government? I ask, is it not, on the face of it, futile and absurd? In the first instance the British Government cannot do it. But even if they do it, do you expect the British Government to put Savarkar on the gaddi and do the policing of his raj? What is the sanction behind this constitution of Dominion Status of the Westminister variety? How is that to be given? As Mr. Amery rightly says, it is not a decoration or a medal that can be attached to your buttonhole with a safety pin. It is a question of running the government of this sub-continent. So you want that the British bayonet should keep you on the gaddi? Do you expect it?
Our position has been made repeatedly clear. Only the day before yesterday I issued a statement to the News Chronicle clarifying our position[see next excerpt below]. Our position is just and I have no doubt it will continue to be. I think no man, who has got the slightest sense of justice and fairness, can blame us. Our position has been that we recognize the common danger to Britain and India. We recognize the common peril. In the interests of our own people and to protect our own homes and hearths, we are willing to take our share in this peril. But we cannot do that successfully unless we are placed in a position of having real and genuine share in the responsibility and authority of the Government at the Centre and in the Province.
The British Government are responsible for wasting these more than two years, and I think that if they go on delaying like this, they will regret and rue the day for allowing this sincere, honest and straightforward offer of the Muslim League to lapse.
Statement to the News Chronicle(London), Bombay December 24, 1941(excerpts)
I have come to the conclusion that the British Government do not care or value sufficiently the cooperation and assistance of the Muslims except as camp-followers and that they are waiting until they can persuade the Congress to come in or else they have no desire to part with any power in favour of those who fully realize the common peril of this war both to Great Britain and India and are thus willing provisionally to accept the position described by me as a war contract.
We have clearly indicated this to the Viceroy and His Majesty's Government as far back as June, 1940 and offered our cooperation on that basis and advised them to go ahead with the Muslim League and such other parties as were willing to undertake the responsibility of the defence of our country and to intensify the war efforts in face of the imminent and common danger. But I am afraid no serious heed has been paid to it so far. It is for the British Government to decide how long they propose to wait until the Congress makes up its mind.
Interview to the Associated Press of India on British Policy, Bombay, January 2, 1942(excerpts)
If any new declaration is made on the part of the British Government departing from the declaration of August 8, 1940, as to the future constitution of India, or any proposal or move, which in any way would militate against the Muslim demand for Pakistan, or prejudge it, or denounce it in any way, as seems to be the main effort of the Hindu leaders, it will not only create an unprecedented catastrophe but result in grave disaster at this critical juncture of the war and war efforts, apart from the fact that it will constitute a gross breach of faith with Muslim India.
With regard to the immediate issue, viz., the prosecution of war and war efforts, the Muslim League has from the beginning been ready and willing, without prejudice to the major political issues, to shoulder the burden of the defence of the country, singly or in co-operation with other parties, on the basis that real share and responsibility is given to Muslim India in the authority of governments at the Centre and the Provinces, within the framework of the present existing constitution. But so far no serious heed has been paid to this policy of the All-India Muslim League by the British Government.
Muslim India is fighting and struggling for survival and for its right to self-determination, whereas Congress and other Hindu organizations are speeding to establish supremacy and domination over the Muslims as an All-India minority by establishing one central government over the whole of India, and thus to dominate control even those zones where the Muslims are in solid majority and interfere even in their internal affairs by virtue of the vital powers which must remain vested in the central government, such as Defence, Communications, Customs and Finance and various other executive and administrative powers.
Presidential Address delivered by Mr. M.A. Jinnah, at the plenary session of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League Conference, Serajganj, February 15, 1942.
We have repeatedly declared that the cardinal principle and aim of the Muslim League is to safeguard the political rights and status of the Mussalmans of India. We have been on the defensive all along. And what have we been wanting? We want to live in this land as free and independent people and not under the raj or the government of anyone else. The arrogance, the hatred and the aggressiveness that is demonstrated by the Hindu leaders that we must live as the minority people, under the domination of the Hindu majority is patent. It is that policy, that programme, that aggressiveness and that offensive and arrogant attitude against which we are fighting. The Muslims in India are a nation.
They will not submit to any position other than that of complete equality with the Hindu community in this country.
Now let me proceed to the next point - Pakistan. We have heard many arguments but what do we find in the latest pronouncement of Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who always thinks in terms of internationalism? What does he say? He does not repeat the wretched arguments that his colleagues and most of the other Hindu leaders have been repeating ad nauseum. He does not think in terms of India. For him, India does not exist. Let me read to you an extract of his speech as reported in the press on the 2nd of this month.
He wondered how the Muslim League talk of partitioning India and forming a separate Muslim bloc, when some Islamic countries, which were separate Muslim blocs, had lost their freedom. Those who talked of such partition had closed their eyes and ears to the happenings of the world and had refused to take lessons from the war. He also wondered how a Muslim bloc in India could stand by itself, when in the present day world big nations could not stand alone.
All that I can say to Mr. Nehru is to let us look after ourselves and to let us see whether we can stand by ourselves. May I know from him how the whole of India can stand alone when in the present-day world big nations have not been able to stand alone?"
Presidential Address at the 29th Annual Session of the All India Muslim League, Allahabad, April 4, 1942.(excerpts)
[On Cripps' proposals]
I told you that I would refer to the actual clauses of the proposals and how the constitution-making body will be set up or formed, and the provision is this. Immediately upon the end of hostilities the constitution-making body shall be composed as follows, unless leaders of the principal communities agree to some other machinery before the end of hostilities. So at the end of the hostilities the constitution-making body will be composed by this method:
"Immediately upon the results of the elections being known of the provincial elections which would be necessary at the end of the hostilities, the entire membership of the lower Houses of all provincial legislatures shall as a single electoral college proceed to elect the constitution-making body by system of proportional representation. This new body shall be in number about one-tenth of the number of the electoral colleges." Therefore, I think, you understand that all the members of the Assemblies of eleven provinces will meet together as one single electoral college and they will be roughly sixteen hundred members and they will be entitled to elect one-tenth, which means, in all, one hundred and sixty members by means of proportional representation. That is the constitution-making body.
"After that we come to the Indian States who will be invited to send their representatives and number will be according to their population. But how they will be chosen it is not mentioned at all in this document-whether by nomination or some method of election. Now, gentlemen, this is the document as far as the future is concerned.
What the Document Means
"Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is the document and let me put it in a few words what it means and how I understand it. It means, whatever may be the constitutional implications of the status and the powers of the dominion that may be set up, the main objective is the creation of a new Indian Union. We start with that. For that purpose a constitution-making body will be set up which will be the sovereign body. "A sovereign body will start"-to use the language of Sir Stafford Cripps-"with a preference for an All-India Union."
"Think what will be the composition of that body. The composition of that body would be that first of all it will be elected from amongst the members of the eleven Assemblies meeting together as one college and by means of proportional representation, not separate electorates. When that body is formed I cannot conceive how they can come to any other conclusion except the Union, and that is why it is so composed.
"But after the constitution-making body has framed the constitution by a bare majority, it is true that any single province or provinces who do not approve of that constitution are given a chance to go through another test which I shall explain hereafter. But remember that, at the most Mussalmans even by separate electorate, will not be more than 25 percent but by the system of proportional representation they might be less in number in the constitution-making body. So the overwhelming majority will be non Muslim and, therefore, the probabilities are contemplated that the constitution may by a majority be in favour of only one Union.
The other point which is not there is "Will the decision of this constitution-making body be taken by the bare majority or not? Reading that document, as I do, clearly it cannot be anything else, because it is the accepted rule of every document that when we want to lay down a specific majority we state so. If you do not state so, then it means the rule of a bare majority. For instance in our own constitution we have the clause that our constitution cannot be changed except by a majority of two thirds. So that is the constitution-making body. If I may comment on this a little Mr. Gandhi will come to this constitution making body with a dead certainty of getting a constitution which will emerge for an All-India Union.
Now when that is done, the province or provinces which would feel unhappy are given the consolation-'No, no, you have yet another chance before you are killed.' And what is that chance? That chance is this-and it is not in the document but a suggestion of Sir Stafford Cripps (of course, various suggestions have been made; we shall also make our suggestion when the time comes; but at present he has made a suggestion.) He says, 'Look here, if forty-one per cent are against it then a plebiscite.' Whose plebiscite? Of course, the plebiscite of the province.
"Whose self-determination do you want to ascertain? Self-determination of the two nations put together or one nation alone? The answer is, of course, of both put together.
"That is another chance, and if you get the plebiscite in your favour then, at least you will escape the slaughter-house before our qurbani is made. This is the point of the most vital character as far as Muslim India is concerned.
Recognition of Principles of Pakistan And Muslim Self-determination
... After explaining the draft declaration of the proposals I think I am echoing your feelings when I say that the Mussalmans feel deeply disappointed that the entity and integrity of the Muslim nation has not been expressly recognized.
"Any attempt to solve the problem of India by the process of evading the real issues and by over-emphasizing the territorial entity of the provinces which are mere accidents of British policy and administrative divisions is fundamentally wrong. Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the right to national self-determination is unequivocally recognized.
It must be realized that India was never a country or a nation. India's problem is international in this sub-continent and differences-cultural, social, political and economic-are so fundamental that they cannot be covered up, concealed or confused, but must be handled by all as realists.
The alleged power of the minority in the matter of secession suggested in the document is illusory, as Hindu India will dominate the decision in favour of one All-India Union in all the provinces and the Muslims in Bengal and the Punjab will be at the mercy of the Hindu minority in those provinces who will exert themselves to the fullest extent and length for keeping the Mussalmans tied to the chariot wheel of Hindudom. Thus the Mussalmans will be doomed to subjection in all the provinces.
We cannot barter away with our consent the future for the present while fully realizing the danger of foreign aggression and notwithstanding all our anxieties to defend India and to help the prosecution of war. To do so will be a crime on our part to posterity and generations of hundreds of millions of Muslims to come.
The document shows that Pakistan is treated as a remote possibility and there is a definite preference for a new Indian Union which is the main objective and suggestion and the rules and procedures and the process indicated in the document and the interviews and explanations of Sir Stafford Cripps so far are against us and we are called upon to play the game with loaded dice.
Statement on Cripp's proposal at Press Conference, New Delhi, April 13 1942(excerpts)
..we examined the whole of the proposal as one document and came to the conclusion that, as regards the future, the principle of partition(Pakistan) was not conceded, but there was possibility for a province or provinces to stand out. The machinery provided for that purpose was such that we came to the conclusion that in two Muslim majority provinces the rules of procedure laid down were such that the fate of ninety million Mussalmans would be decided by a few votes in the provincial legislatures where the Muslims are, as in Bengal and the Punjab, in a minority in this legislature-these being the major Muslim provinces. Similarly, in the Muslim majority provinces, N.W.F.P and Sind, the weightage given to non Muslims would make it extremely difficult for the Mussalmans to realize their goal. In effect Pakistan was not conceded unequivocally and the right of Muslim self-determination was denied. We, therefore, did not accept the proposals regarding the future, although we recognized that the same may constitute the foundations of British policy as a historic document.
The recognition given to the principle of partition, however, was very much appreciated by Muslim India.
Interview to the correspondent of International News Service of America, Bombay, May 21, 1942(full text)
"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.
CMP(1) - From Ayesha Jalal's 'The Sole Spokesman'
CMP(2) - Congress and Muslim League positions on 12 May 1946
CMP(3) - The Cabinet Mission Plan 16 May 1946
CMP(4) - Jinnah and ML responses to the CMP 22 May and June 6 1946
CMP(5) - Jinnah's meeting with Mission Delegation on 4 April 1946
CMP(6) - Jinnah's meeting with Missiion Delegation on 16 April 1946
CMP(7A) - Maulana Azad's meeting with Mission Delegation on 17 April 1946
CMP(7) - The Congress unease with parity 8-9 May 1946
CMP(7B) - Jinnah and Azad responses to preliminary proposals 8-9 May 1946
CMP(8A) - Simla Conference meetings on 5 May 1946 on the powers of the Union
CMP(8) - More exchanges on parity, Simla Conference meeting 11 May 1946
CMP(9) - Jinnah and Wyatt(1) on Pakistan and CMP, 8 Jan. and 25 May 1946
CMP(10) - Jinnah and Wyatt(2) on the interim government, 11 June 1946
CMP(11) - Congress opposition to grouping. Gandhi, Patel and Azad, May 1946
CMP(12) - Congress Working Committee resolutions, May-June 1946
CMP(12A) - Arguments over inclusion of a Congress Muslim, June 1946
CMP(12B) - Behind the scenes-Gandhi, June-July 1946
CMP(12C) - Behind the scenes-Jinnah, June-July 1946
CMP(13) - Jawaharlal Nehru's press conference on the Plan, 10 July 1946
CMP(14) - League rejected Plan, called Direct Action, July-August 1946
CMP(15) - Viceroy strong-arming Nehru, Gandhi on compulsory grouping, Pethick-Lawrence to Attlee, Aug -Sept 1946
CMP(16) - Intelligence assessment on Jinnah's options and threat of civil war, Sept. 1946
CMP(17) - League Boycott of the Constituent Assembly Dec. 1946
CMP(17A) - Congress "climbdown" on grouping and Jinnah's rejection, January 1947
CMP (A1) - Plain speaking from Sir Khizr Hayat, Abell on the Breakdown plan, Wavell
CMP(A2) - North West Frontier Province, Oct-Nov 1946 and Feb-March 1947
CMP(A3) - Bengal and Bihar, August - November 1946
CMP(A4) - Punjab, February - March 1947
CMP (18) - My take
CMP (19) - What did parity and communal veto mean in numbers?
CMP(20) - Another take -with links to reference material
CMP(21) - Mountbatten discussing CMP with Patel and Jinnah, 24-26 Apr 1947
CMP(22) - A reply on the Cabinet Mission Plan
Extra(1) - Jinnah's speech in March 1941 on independent sovereign Pakistan
Extra(1A) - Jinnah's Speeches and Statements from 1941-1942
Extra(1B) - Jinnah's Speeches and Statements from 1938-1940
Extra(1C) - Jinnah's speeches and Statements from 1943-45
Extra(2) - Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1944 on defining Pakistan
Extra(3) - BR Ambedkar quoted from his book 'Pakistan or the Partition of India'
Extra(4) - Congress and Muslim parties' on the Communal question 1927-1931
Extra(4A) - Excerpts of Motilal Nehru Committee Report 1928
Extra(4B) - Nehru, Bose, Jinnah Correspondence 1937-38
Extra(5) - BR Ambedkar on Communal Representation 1909-1947
Extra(6) - Gandhiji's scheme of offering the Prime Ministership to Jinnah in 1947
Extra(6A) - Jinnah on Congress's offers of Prime Ministership 1940-43
Extra (6B) - Apr-Jul 1947 Negotiations on Pakistan between Mountbatten and Jinnah
Extra(7) - M.A.Jinnah and Maulana Azad on two nation theory
Extra(8) - On Separate electorates, Joint electorates and Reserved constituencies
Extra(9) - Links to cartoons on Indian constitutional parleys from the Daily Mail, UK, 1942 and 1946-1947, by L.G. Illingworth
Extra(10) -Nehru Report 1928 (10 MB pdf)
Extra(11) -Iqbal's letters to Jinnah, May-June 1937
Extra(12) -Jinnah, Linlithgow, Sikander Hayat, Pakistan rumblings 1942-43
Durga Das (1) 1919-1931, Jallianwala Bagh to Bhagat Singh
Durga Das (2) 1931-1936, Crescent Card: Jinnah in London to Fazli Husain in Punjab
Durga Das(3) 1937-1940, Provincial Autonomy to Jinnah gets the veto
Durga Das(4) 1940-1945, The War Years: India's War Effort-Pakistan on a platter
Durga Das(5) 1945-1947, The Cabinet Mission to Divide and Quit
1937-1940(2) Congress and Jinnah fall out in U.P., Jinnah's anti-Congress campaign and the Viceroy gives Jinnah a Veto: Ayesha Jalal, Sarvepalli Gopal and Stanley Wolpert
1937: Congress-Jinnah tussle over coalition government in U. P., M.J. Akbar
1937: Nehru, Jinnah and Coalition Governments, Bimal Prasad
1939-1940: India and the War, Anita Inder Singh
1945-1946: The Elections of 1945-46, Anita Inder Singh
1857-1938 Glimpses of British policy in Punjab: Ian Talbot and David Page
1930-1939 Congress Decline in Bengal, John Gallagher
Glendevon (1) 1937: Congress's Office Acceptance Saga over Governor's Powers
Glendevon (2) 1937-1940: Federation, Jinnah, Congress activism in Princely States
Glendevon (3) 1939-1942: Linlithgow, Congress, Jinnah,War-time Realignments
1939-1947: Jinnah and the Anglo-Muslim League Alliance, Narendra Singh Sarila
1944: Gandhi-Jinnah talks, Jaswant Singh
1899-1947: British Forward Policy(2)