Speeches and statements by Jinnah 1943-1945

Extra(1C)  Speeches and statements by M.A. Jinnah from the period 1943-1945
Documents included:
  • Address to the students of Ismail College, Bombay, February 1, 1943 (full text)
  • Presidential Address delivered at the Thirtieth Session of the All-India Muslim League, Delhi, April 24, 1943 (excerpts)
  • Speech at the Baluchistan Muslim League Conference, Quetta, July 3, 1943 (excerpts)
  • Interview to Mr. Steward Emeny, Representative of 'News Chronicle' of London, New Delhi, February 29, 1944 (excerpts)
  • Speech at a meeting of the Aligarh Muslim University Union, Aligarh, March 9 1944(excerpts)
  • Speech at the Concluding Session of the Punjab Muslim Student's Federation Conference, Lahore, March 19, 1944 (excerpts)
  • Interview to a Foreign Correspondent regarding Mr. Gandhi's offer, Bombay, October 6, 1944 (excerpts)
  • Address to the Members of the League Planning Committee, New Delhi, November 5, 1944 (excerpts)
  • Statement regarding Liaquat-Desai Agreement, Bombay, January 22, 1945 (full text)
  • Statement made to the Press correspondents on Wavell proposals, Simla, June 29, 1945 (excerpts)
  • Statement at a press conference, Simla, July 14, 1945 (excerpts)
  • Speech at a meeting held under the auspices of Baluchistan Muslim Students Federation, Quetta, October 18, 1945(excerpts)
  • Interview to a representative of the Associated Press of America, clarifying various aspects of Pakistan, Bombay, November 8, 1945(full text)
  • Interview  to the representatives of the Associated Press of America, Bombay, November 1, 1945 (excerpts)
  • Address to Students of Islamia College, Peshawar, November 25, 1945 (excerpts)
  • Statement on the announcement about the visit of the Parliamentary Delegation to India, Bombay, December 6, 1945 (excerpts)
  • Interview to Duncan Hooper, Reuter's Special Correspondent, Bombay, December 7, 1945 (excerpts)
From 'Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam', Vol. III, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore

[ Other Jinnah speeches and statements can be found here: Extra(1)Extra (1A), Extra(1B)Extra(2), Extra(6A), Extra(7)Extra(8)]

Comment

One finds from Jinnah's speeches in the period 1940-45 that before 1947 the "Hindus" were relentlessly and viciously vilified by Jinnah as being power-hungry for not agreeing to partition India into two independent states as he demanded (this appears to have been Jinnah's single-point political platform in this period). And  yet, it is mystifying that after 1947,   many have refused to acknowledge this patent fact about Jinnah, preferring to vilify "Hindus" and the Congress as power-hungry for agreeing to partition India into two independent states, while declaring Jinnah completely innocent of wanting any such partition. 

The deep sense of tragedy, loss and of "failed" nationalism felt by countless millions in India after Partition occured could be a perfectly understandable reason for this "inconsistency"  in the general public. Such an inconsistency is however not quite as understandable  where  informed historians are concerned,  and carries the odor of intellectual dishonesty.

Summarizing the 1943-1945 period - in 1943, Gandhi was   incarcerated mostly incommunicado by the British (and had been at the edge of death during his fast in jail in February - March 1943), and most of the Congress leadership was also in jail that year. The Congress was almost defunct as an organisation at that time, and Jinnah's vitriol poured on his absent opponents in this period is thus noteworthy. (Also see Extra(6A)). In mid-1944 Gandhi was released from jail on health grounds by Viceroy Wavell and in the latter half of the year, the Gandhi-Jinnah talks took place ( Extra(2)).  In mid-1945, Viceroy Wavell tried to reconstitute and Indianise the Executive Council during the first Simla Conference.  Jinnah vetoed the effort as the Viceroy did not grant Jinnah's demands of appointing all the Muslims, and the parity of  those Muslims with not just the Congress or Hindus but all nonMuslim Indians combined.

In 'Jinnah and the Pakistan Demand'  in Modern Asian Studies, 1983, R.J. Moore writes:

"Jinnah's mobilization of the League in reaction to Congress 'totalitarianism' under the 1935 Act had made it the voice of the putative nation. In December 1939 Liaquat estimated that it had over three million two anna members. In the early wartime negotiations Jinnah could, pursuant to the two nations theory, make acceptance of the League's status as sole Muslim spokesman the pre-condition of co-operation with the government or Congress, thereby outflanking dissidents(be they even premiers) by  appeals to the national will. It was another corollory of his theory that as one of the two nations Muslim India must be treated as the co-equal of Hindu or Congress India. In consequence, the League called for the right to consultation prior to any British statement about India's constitutional future and to veto any scheme.

By November, Rajendra Prasad (now Congress president) shrewdly perceived that Jinnah's insistence upon the League's equality with Congress would mean not only 'equality in the matter of negotiations' but also 'division of power in equal shares between the Congress and the League or between Hindus and Muslims, irrespective of population or any other consideration'.

The meaning of the two nation theory and its implications for Jinnah's leadership became manifest in League Working Committee resolutions in June 1940. In any wartime reconstruction of the central or provincial governments the League must receive half of the seats (more if the Congress was non-co-operating), Jinnah alone might negotiate with Viceroy or Congress, and without his consent no League member might serve on war committees. The resolutions were a rebuff for Sikander[Hayat Khan], who, appalled at the grave implications for India of allies' defeats in Europe, was negotiating with Congress leaders for a constitutional settlement. In August, a British statement, effectively according the Muslims a veto on any constitutional scheme, seemed to remove the danger of a Hindu raj. Here was a  major victory for the two nations theory. Another was soon to follow.

Leading Muslim politicians, including the premiers, were now prepared to join war committees on a basis short of parity. By so doing they would, in effect, be compromising the cause of Muslim equality embodied in the two nations theory. In summer 1941 Jinnah brought the theory to bear in order to force their resignations from the Viceroy's Defence Council. That this was no mere exercise of personal power but rather the execution of essential League policy is revealed by Liaquat's advice to Jinnah a month before the Working Committee met to consider the matter. Liaquat advised that Jinnah's condemnation of the collaborators had 'given expression to the feelings of a vast majority of Musalmans on the subject'.
..
On 24 August the Working Committee demanded the colloborators' resignations from the Defence Council and expelled from the League those who resisted the verdict. The Council did not meet to ratify the action for two months but its attitude was not in doubt. Jinnah was, of course, aware of allegations that he was a dictator. The two nations theory enabled him plausibly to brand as 'traitors' Muslims who collaborated with the Raj on a basis short of parity. As a national leader he saw it as his duty to identify their 'mistakes', leaving the Working Committee and the Council to determine their punishment.

By applying the theory vigorously Jinnah engineered the nationalization of Muslim politics throughout the war. The theory's meaning was revealed most dramatically at Simla in June 1945, when Jinnah demanded not only Hindu-Muslim parity in the viceroy's executive but also that all the Muslim members must be League nominees. The demand destroyed Lord Wavell's attempt to reconstruct his government on the basis of party representation.'
(end quotes)

In 'Muslims and Political Representation in Colonial India: The Making of Pakistan', Modern Asian Studies, 1986, Farzana Shaikh writes:

"..The League's claim to parity was to receive a substantial boost in the Summer of 1945 when renewed efforts were made to create a representative Interim Government.

Towards this end, plans were announced for a reconstruction of the Viceroy's Executive Council on the basis of a balanced representation of the main Indian communities and 'an equal proportion of Muslims and Caste Hindus'. By doing so, the government hoped to appease the League by conceding a form of communal parity while preserving an overall Hindu majority by providing for the separate representation of Scheduled Caste Hindus.

But the government's understanding of communal parity was to prove unsatisfactory to the League. Jinnah denied that parity between Muslims and caste Hindus could ever be meaningful, and explained that in the event of a coalition between Caste Hindus and members of small parties, Indian Muslims would immediately be reduced to a third on the proposed Council, thereby destroying any semblance of parity.

The thrust of Jinnah's claim lay in the conviction that all Indian minorities with the exception of Indian Muslims shared Congress's committment to a united India founded on the principle of liberal democracy. This led, by implication, to the novel contention that neither political parity between League and Congress nor communal parity between Hindus and Muslims could really accomodate the notion of parity. The issue was really about a form of ideological parity between Muslims and nonMuslims as  undifferentiated political categories, between those who advocated parity and those who stood for majority rule; between the proponents of partition and the defenders of a united India."
(end quotes)

In  late 1945  and early 1946, elections to provincial governments were held in preparation of a fresh British effort to offer constitutional advance to India.  Jinnah and the Muslim League campaigned on the sole issue of Pakistan.
(end comment)


From 'Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam', Vol. III, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore

Address to the students of Ismail College, Bombay, February 1, 1943 (full text)


Emphasizing the Muslim League's demand for 'Pakistan', vis-a-vis the present political deadlock in the country, Mr. M.A.Jinnah, in an address to the students of the Ismail College declared that it was a matter of commonsense that if the two parties in the country made combined efforts then the British Government would yield. So far the position of the British Government was that they wanted "to stabilize and consolidate the deadlock". They proclaimed that they were only too ready to transfer power, provided there was unity. Some asked whether they were sincere and his reply was: Why not disarm the British Government of an argument which they advanced both at home and abroad? "Tell them that we are agreed," said Mr. Jinnah, adding  "hand over the power. Then will be our time for a struggle which will be of one voice, under one authority and united command of all peoples of the country. Why not create that situation?" he asked.

Mr. Jinnah said that rule of parliamentary democracy was not suited to the genius of this land and was alien to the Hindu philosophy. Now the Hindus had suddenly fallen in love with democracy because they could dominate over the Muslims. "The result of this unlimited ambition, obsession and dream," said Mr. Jinnah "is this. At the most critical juncture in the history of the subcontinent there is a deadlock. We are constantly told that this must be solved. It can be solved only by knocking out this dream of the Hindu leadership. There is the mass movement, the campaign of sabotage, destruction of lives and property in which innocent people lost their lives. No people can ever succeed in a political struggle by resorting to a mass movement when in our own country there are large sections of people and the hundred million Muslims who consider this not merely as a domestic difference but that this is a war declared against them."

Earlier in his speech Mr. Jinnah denied that the Muslim League was fighting for religious rights or that it was a communal organisation in the same sense in which the Hindus understood it. The religious rights of the Mussalmans were embedded in their soul and body and nobody could take them away.

What is Religion?

"Which government," he asked, "claiming to be a civilised government can demolish our mosque, or which government is going to interfere with religion which is strictly a matter between God and man? The question is that the Mussalmans are a nation, distinct from the Hindus.

"The Muslims ruled over this country for nearly 800 years and for the past two centuries both the Hindus and Muslims were ruled by the British. During the last half a century people have begun to think and strive that any government must be responsible ultimately to the people.

It is a historical fact that the Mussalmans are a separate nation and hence we must have our own States. Mr. Jinnah emphasized that the sooner Hindu leadership appreciated the Muslim point of view the sooner would be the salvation for both. He thought it was the best thing for Hindus to seize three-fourths of India with its teeming population and to establish their own homeland and to live according to their social life and to treat the minorities under them just as any civilised government should treat.

"As far as we are concerned" Mr. Jinnah said, "we make this solemn declaration and give this solemn assurance that we will treat your minorities not only in the manner that a civilised government should treat them but better because it is an injunction in the Quran to treat the minorities so."
Top

Presidential Address delivered at the Thirtieth Session of the All-India Muslim League, Delhi, April 24, 1943 (excerpts) [More excerpts of this speech here: Extra(6A)]

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.
..
Presiding  over a public meeting in Bombay in 1930, Maulana Mohammad Ali who had worked, suffered and made sacrifices, along with the congressmen, said:

"Mr Gandhi is working under the influence of the communalist Hindu Mahasabha. He is fighting for the supremacy of Hinduism and the submersion of Muslims. He has never consulted the Muslim community on the question of starting Civil Disobedience movement. He wants to triumphantly pass over the head of the Indian Muslim community. We have not broken any pledge, pact or treaty. We are not traitors to India. The Mussalmans have been oppressed and persecuted by the excesses of the Hindu majority in the last ten years but Mr. Gandhi never tried to improve matters or condemn Hindu terrorism against the Muslims. He never denounced the movements of Shuddhi and Sanghatan which openly and clearly aimed at annihilation of Muslims and Islam in India. He repudiated and broke the Madras Hindu-Muslim agreement. Now we have no option but to follow the Quranic teaching, namely, 'If you fear treachery and pledge-breaking from any community, then throw her treaty on her face. Allah does not approve the action of traitors and pledge-breakers."

..
Now we come to the Second Round Table Conference to which Mr. Gandhi went for the first time as the sole representative of the Congress. What happened there? All attempts for a settlement were again smashed up by him very clearly and with some excuse or the other. You will find in Dr. Ambedkar's book that one of the conditions that he imposed upon the Muslim delegation in London was that he would be prepared to agree to our proposals in the express condition that we, the Muslims, should oppose the scheduled castes asking for any kind of separate electorates or special treatment. In other words Mr. Gandhi did not want special treatment to be given to the scheduled castes. Now I ask you, Ladies and Gentlemen, how is it possible for any man, who has got any elementary idea of honour, of integrity, of fairplay, of justice, to agree to this, that these 60 millions who are the biggest blot on the fair name of India, should be kept as untouchables at the mercy of the Sanatanists, Mr. Gandhi being one. I assure you in the name of humanity I care more for them than for Mussalmans. After all, we, Mussalmans are capable of giving and taking. Could there there be any condition so offensive and absurd as this one laid down by Mr. Gandhi.

Second condition was that you Muslims agree that you will fight for the freedom of the country. Am I so degraded as to accept such a condition? I want the freedom of the people of this country more than anybody else. It looked as if Mr. Gandhi had the monopoly for the love and the freedom of the country. The thing naturally broke down. When the minorities committee of the Round Table Conference met, this is what Mr. Gandhi said - and the real thing that was at back of his mind always came out at the critical moment, in a round-about way. He was addressing the Minorities Committee and Mr. MacDonald was presiding. He said:

"Further you will allow me to say that this was hardly the time to summon the Minorities Committee. The solution of the communal tangle can be the crown of Swaraj Constitution and not its foundation. Our differences have hardened, if they have not arisen, by reason of the foreign domination. I have not a shadow of doubt that the iceberg of communal differences will melt under the warmth of the sun of freedom."
..
Even the Prime Minister was provoked to such an extent that he spoke out.
...
..
Gandhi Institutions
..That closed the chapter of the Round Table Conference. What happened then? I will tell you very briefly. Mr. Gandhi put up the following institutions:

1. "The Gandhi Ashram" (Monastry) at Sevagram Wardha (to serve as the Vatican of Gandhism and the Capital of the Congress).
2. "The Gandhi Seva Sanga" (a small body of nine Gandhian Cardinals or High Patriarchs who form the permanent Inner Cabinet of Gandhi and Gandhism).
3. "Gandhi Harijan Seva Sangha" (to consolidate the Depressed Classes as an integral part of Hinduism and to prevent their conversion to Islam or Christianity).
4. "Gandhi Hindi Prachar Sangha" (to propagate Sankritised Hindi as the state and national language of India and to displace Urdu from its place of primacy and popularity).
5. "Gandhi Nagri Prachar Sabha" (to propagate the idea that all Indian languages should be written in Hindu Devanagari script and to displace Urdu script).
6. "Gandhi Gram Sudhar Sabha" (Village Welfare League, to preach and propagate Gandhian Principles in villages).
7. "Gandhi Khadi Pratisthan" (to preach the cult of the spinning-wheel and Khadi or hand-woven cloth which is worshipped as a fetish).
8. "Gandhi Wardha Talimi Sangha" was also later organised to propagate Gandhian principles of religion, spiritualism, national economy and nationalism through a state-controlled system of compulsory primary education. Under the Wardha Scheme the entire system of education of the country was sought to be made subservient to the propagation of Gandhism (which was only a new form of Hinduism to the exclusion of all other religions).
9. "Gandhi Gow Raksha Sabha" (Cow cult Association) Gandhi is a great believer in the Hindu Cow Cult - the worship of the cow as a goddess. He hhas, therefore, made Gow Raksha Sabha and Cow Exhibition as an adjunct of the Congress.
10. Gandhi Seva Sangha is the Mother Superior of all these associations. Mr. Gandhi addressing the Gandhi Seva Sangha says:
"Spheres of action of these associations are limited. But yours is unlimited. Yours is a mighty tree of which these various associations may be called branches."

This is how he addresses his Mother-Superior. Not only that, but you will find that he appointed certain Deputies. Besides dividing the whole sub-continent of India into three definite parliamentary zones and appointing three parliamentary zone-dictators like their Nazi counterparts of District Fuehrers, they have also gradually developed permanent deputy Mahatmas in almost all provinces and zones. These deputy Mahatmas are the confirmed Cardinals of gandhism, believers in the Gandhian principles and Gandhian dictatorship... The Frontier Gandhi, Abdul Gaffar, is in charge of the Hinduising influences and emasculation of the martial Pathans, the bugbears of the dreamers of Hindu raj.

...

Now we are repeatedly told by this organisation in India that the Muslim League is a communal organisation. It is  the Hindu leaders who have deliberately and with a set purpose destroyed any possible chance of adjustment between these two communities by well-planned and systematic manoeuvres and by organising themselves. And then they call it nationalism,..nationalism,  democracy,.. democracy!

I ask you: "Is this nationalism, is this democracy?" (Cries of No, No, from all corners). When we say "No" we have this experience for 25 years and unimpeachable evidence. But we have heard and felt hurt when in vain they say, "You have destroyed it, You talk of Nationalism and democracy" Either they can't understand or they are dishonest. Don't they understand it when we say that the parliamentary system of democracy is not suited to the genius of this country? Surely it is obvious. It is not a question of Democracy as a foundation of popular representative constitutional government.

Appeal to give up this pose

We have made it clear that there cannot be any room for democracy when you have a nation working on these lines. Not only have we evidence, but we have suffered and experienced that. When you talk of democracy, you are thoroughly dishonest. When you talk of democracy you mean Hindu raj, to dominate over the Muslims, a totally different nation, different in culture, different in everything. You yourself are working for Hindu nationalism and Hindu Raj.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we learned democracy 1,300 years ago. It is in our blood and it is as far away from the Hindu society as are the Arctic regions. You tell us that we are not democratic. It is we, who have learned the lesson of equality and brotherhood of man. Among you one caste will not take cup of water from another. Is this democracy? Is this honesty. We are for democracy. But not the democracy of your conception which will turn the whole of India into a Gandhi Ashram or one society and nation which will by this permanent majority destroy another nation or society in permanent minority and all that is dear to the minority.

I give you these facts. I say, give up, give up this pose. You have made your bed. You may lie on it. Have your Hindu nationalism; have your democracy to your heart's content. Have your Hindustan if you can. I wish you God-speed. But I am not going, as long as there is life left in a single Mussalman, to have this Hindu raj. The Irish Nationalist Leader, Redmond, met Carson, the Ulster leader, and told him "Look here, can't we come to some settlement? Why do you want to separate from Ireland? Mind you, there is not one-millionth part of the differences between the peoples of Ulster and Ireland." What was Carson's reply? "I do not want to be ruled by you." My reply to Mr. Gandhi is, "I do not want to be ruled by you."

This is the position, I only appeal. If only  my humble voice can reach the Hindu India, I appeal to them. "Give up this pose. You want freedom for the people of this land. I say not only for myself but for all Mussalmans. Give up what seems a boyhood's dream of some Hindu leaders and what has been their manhood's aim. You have failed. Thank God, you have failed. Let us close that chapter.

...
What is our demand? Make a declaration. The Muslim League calls upon the British Government to come forward without further delay with an unequivocal declaration guaranteeing to the Mussalmans the right of self-determination and to pledge themselves that they will abide by the verdict of a plebiscite on the lines of the resolution passed at the Muslim League sessions in Lahore in 1940.
...
Let us first agree that there shall be two Indias. Then the constitution-making body will be elected by some system from the people and it is the people who will choose their representatives to go to the constitution-making body.

Therefore, I visualise a constitution-making body being set up and based on a very low franchise. It may be two annas, or it may be an adult franchise in Pakistan. You will elect your representatives to the constitution-making body. You may not know your power, you may not know how to use it. This would be your fault. But I am sure that democracy is in our blood. It is in our marrows. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold. It has got frozen and your arteries have not been functioning. But, thank God, the blood is circulating again, thanks to the Muslim League efforts. It will be a people's government.
...
I have visited some villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilisation? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualise that millions have been exploited and cannot get a meal a day. If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it. If they are wise they will have to adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of life. If they don't, God help them; we shall not help them. Therefore let us have faith in ourselves. Let us not falter or hesitate. That is our goal. We are going to achieve it. The constitution of Pakistan can only be framed by the Millat and the people. Prepare yourself and see that you frame a constitution which is to your heart's desire. There is a lot of misunderstanding. A lot of mischief is created. Is it going to be an Islamic government? Is it not begging the question? Is it not a question of passing a vote of censure on yourself? The constitution and the government will be what the people will decide. The only question is that of minorities.

The Minorities

The minorities are entitled to get a definite assurance and ask: "Where do we stand in the Pakistan that you  visualise?" That is an issue of giving a definite and clear assurance to the minorities. We have done it. We have passed a resolution that the minorities must be protected and safeguarded to the fullest extent and as I said before any civilised government will do it and ought to do it. So far as we are concerned our own history, our Prophet has given the clearest proof that non-Muslims have been treated not only justly and fairly but generously.

Now one more thing I wish to say about Pakistan is this. There is a new propaganda. We had many wicked propagandas like the one of cutting the mother cow into two, vivisection of mother India and all the rest. The latest argument which I think is really very wicked, of all, the most wicked of all. The argument is this: Mr. Jinnah is working for the territories in the northwest and eastern zones as "Pak" and the others as "Na-Pak". I have heard this from several quarters - and I was thunderstruck. You know what false propaganda can do. I think you will bear me out that when we passed the Lahore resolution we had not used the word "Pakistan". Who gave us this word? (cries of Hindus).

Let me tell you it is their fault. They started damning this resolution on the ground that it was Pakistan. They are really ignorant of the Muslim movement. They fathered this word upon us. "Give the dog a bad name and then hang him." They shouted Pan-Islamism. When this was exploded then came the cry that "Pakistan" means alliance with other Muslim countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Turkey - and they will grind down Hindu India? That is the deep game they are playing. You know perfectly well that Pakistan is a word which is really foisted upon us and fathered on us by some section of the Hindu press and also by the British press. Now our resolution was known for a long time as the Lahore resolution, popularly known as Pakistan. But how long are we to have this long phrase? Now I say to my Hindu and British friends: We thank you for giving us one word.

What is the origin of the word Pakistan? It was not the Muslim League or the Quaid-e-Azam who coined it. Some young fellows in London, who wanted a particular part of North-West to be separated from the rest of India, coined a name in 1929-1930, started the idea, and called a zone Pakistan. They picked up the letter "P" for Punjab, "A" for Afghan, (as the N.W.F.P. is know even today as Afghan), "K" for Kashmir, "S" for Sind, and "Tan" for Baluchistan. A name was coined. Thus, whatever may have been the meaning of this word at the time it is obvious that language of every civilised country invents new word - the word Pakistan has come to mean the Lahore Resolution.  We wanted a word and it was foisted on us and we found it convenient to use it as a synonym for the Lahore Resolution.

[Jinnah using the term Pakistan in July 1939 here: Extra(1B). Jinnah on applying the name "Pakistan" to the Lahore Resolution in 1941 : Extra(1A)   ]

Loose Federation

We are asked by some constitutional Pandits, why can't there be some sort of loose federation or confederation? People talk like that. I shall read out to you what I have written on this point, because it is important:

There are people who talk of some sort of a loose federation. There are people who talk of giving the widest freedom to the federating units and residuary powers resting with the units. But they forget the entire constitutional history of the various parts of the world. Federation however described and in whatever terms it is put, must ultimately deprive the federating units of the authority in all vital matters. The units, despite themselves, would be compelled to grant more and more powers to the central authority, until in the end a strong central government will have been established by the units themselves and they will be driven to do so by absolute necessity, if the basis of a federal government is accepted. Taking for instance the United States and her history, the Dominions of Canada and Australia, the Union of South Africa and Germany and of other lands where federal or confederal systems have been in existence, necessity has driven the component members and obliged them to increase and delegate their power and authority to the connecting link, namely, the central government.

These ideas are based entirely on a wrong footing due to want of correct understanding as to what really federation means or implies. It is not of much importance whether the units in theory have the residuary powers or the centre.

But once the units accept the basis of federal central government it follows that it will inevitably and out of sheer necessity resolve itself into an all-powerful central authority and the units will be compelled to grant and delegate more and more powers to the centre, which also can hold these units as connecting links, more or less like a country council or glorified municipalities or feudatory states under the central authority.

We are opposed to any scheme, nor can we agree to any proposal, which has for its basis any conception or idea of a central government - federal or confederal - for it is bound to lead in the long run to the emasculation of the entire Muslim nation, economically, socially, educationally, culturally, and politically and to the establishment of the Hindu majority raj in this sub-continent.

Therefore, remove from your mind any idea of some form of such loose federation. There is no such thing as loose federation. Where there is a central government and provincial governments they will go on tightening, tightening and tightening until you are pulverised with regard to your powers as units.

...

There remains finally one thing. I say to the Mussalmans, we have gone through nearly seven years of various vicissitudes and we have reached the stage where there is not the slightest doubt, that the 100 million Mussalmans are with us. When I say 100 million Mussalmans, I mean that 99 per cent of  them are with us - leaving aside some who are traitors, cranks, supermen or lunatics, an evil from which no society or nation is free.  The way in which I see them now is that the phoenix-like rise and regeneration of Muslim India from the very ashes of its ruination after the terrible destruction in India in the 18th and 19th centuries is a miracle. The people who had lost everything and who were placed by Providence between the two stones of a mill, not only came into their very own in a very short time but became, after the British, socially the most solid, militarily the most virile, and politically the most decisive factor in modern India.

Now it is time to take up the constructive programme to build up this nation, so that it can march on the path of our goal of Pakistan..
Top

Speech at the Baluchistan Muslim League Conference, Quetta, July 3, 1943

.. I think myself that there is now no doubt that a solid majority of the Mussalmans have understood what Pakistan means. There is no doubt about it, but there are others who are misled by the agents of our opponents who deliberately act as quislings and fifth columnists and they puzzle some of our people. Now I put it before you. It does not require a great lawyer or a great constitutionalist, if you will apply your mind you will understand within a very short time what Pakistan means. 

I have put questions to all sorts of our people, Mussalmans, on the country side, and at different gatherings, at railway stations, I have asked them what do you mean by Pakistan and I tell you that I was astonished at the Kisans and railway workers when they give me their answers. It is a common sense answer and quite sound. For instance I asked at one of the railway station at a gathering of nearly 500 people, what do you understand by Pakistan? The answer came from among those people one man said, "By Pakistan I understand  that I do not want Central Government for the whole of India, it means Hindu Raj and the provinces where we are in a majority will be under the yoke of Hindus." When I said that what do you then want? He said "I want first where the Muslims are in majority, we should have our independent government nothing to do with the Centre of the Hindu India". I said what are those parts? He told me N.W. Zone, he mentioned the name, he said Sind, Baluchistan, Punjab, N.W.F.P and Bengal. Then I asked him because he was in the C.P. where Muslims are only 4 per cent, what will happen to you who are here 4 per cent. He said "it is my misfortune that I am born here let my brethren have their own Hukumat and let them at least be free. God will protect us here".

We do not wish ill to the Hindus, what we want. We say here is the British Government, they have made solemn declarations that they are willing to transfer power and they are willing either as one India or two Indias or more than two dominions if you agree among yourselves. We are willing to give the constitution to one or more dominions that you may agree upon which will make each dominion stand on the same equal footing as the other dominions including England and you will have the same rights and what is more each dominion so constituted will have the right to secede if they so decide. Pakistan means let Hindus have their Government in Hindu India and let us have our Government in Muslim India and let us both be free. The reply of the Hindu is no, no, we want the whole. Why do you want to rule the whole?
...
We say to the Congress you represent the Hindus which is a fact and have your Hindustan and let us have our Muslim India-Pakistan. Let us live as good neighbours. In America, Europe and Asia how many states are there. Why does not the Continent of America have one government and mind you there are much less differences between these people like Canadian and other republics in South America. ...

I say it will be monstrosity, to suggest that Asia, Africa, Europe and America should have one Central Government for all these vast continents. It will be absolutely unnatural to put these various nations together because it will never work out but, it will be cock-pits of feuds and much more so will be the case in India, and I will say to the Hindus and the Congress, sooner you realise this the better. The quicker you realise, the quicker will be our progress. It is the Congress which is mainly responsible for holding up India's progress. Whole responsibility lies on them and so long as they have this dream of their boyhood and maintain it as aim of their manhood that they will establish a Hindu raj and strangle the hundred million of Muslims, so long they are postponing the progress and the freedom of this subcontinent.

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

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.
...
Top

Speech at a meeting of the Aligarh Muslim University Union, Aligarh, March 9 1944(excerpts)
..
Five years ago did any body talk about us or did anybody care to know who we were and what we wanted? But a great change has come about during the last few years. There is not a day when every newspaper, friendly or unfriendly does not talk about the Muslim League; if they were not friendly to us they abused us; and people do not abuse anybody, if he is nobody. "Flattering references are often made to me", Mr. Jinnah remarked, "that the key to the situation lies in my hands and that I can resolve the deadlock. Indeed, our friends went so far as to offer me the  crown of the Premier of this great United India."

It is all very complimentary, but we stand by our convictions, and neither flattery nor coercion can divert us from our determined purpose...

..Another party which as become very active of late is the Communist party. Their propaganda is insidious and I warn you not to fall into their clutches. Their propaganda is a snare and a trap. What is it that you want? All this talk of socialism, communism, national-socialism and every other ism is out of place. Do you think you can do anything just now? How and when can you decide as to what form of government you are going to have in Pakistan. We are told by one party or another that we must have a democratic or socialistic or a "nationalistic" form of government in Pakistan. These questions are raised to hoodwink you. At present you should just stand by Pakistan. It means first of all you  have to take possession of a territory.  Pakistan cannot exist in the air. When you have once taken possession of your homelands the question will then arise as to what form of government you are going to establish.

Therefore, do not allow your mind to be diverted by these extraneous ideas.

Let us concentrate all our attention on the question of taking possession of our homelands. The most important part on account of their power and authority at present are the British, and unless they undergo real change the settlement of the Indian problem will be delayed.
..

A number of Americans have asked me about the representative character of the Muslim League. I told them what better proof do you want than that, which the constitution remains suspended in Hindu majority provinces, the Muslim League Ministries are working in the Muslim majority provinces. The constitution is working without any serious defect or hitch. The Hindu majorities [?minorities] are already settling down and will settle down still further, to work in peace and cooperation with the Muslims in Pakistan areas.

...
Top

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

..
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 (excerpts) [Also see Extra(2)]

"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. "The offer made to us", said Mr. Jinnah, "is an insult to intelligence. I was asked to agree to a plebiscite where Muslims are not in absolute majority. What was meant by absolute majority? I asked Mr.Gandhi. His reply meant that only where we are more than 70 per cent of the entire population should be given control without a vote.

In this, he differed from Mr. Rajagopalachari, who said we should accept the legal definition of absolute majority which means 51 per cent of the entire population of an election area including people who do not vote - not 51 percent of the poll. A child can see that no party can hope to secure this. So I am asked to agree to a plebiscite which will probably leave a mutilated and unworkable Pakistan. This plebiscite would take place after the war and after I had agreed to co-operate in an interim National government in which 75 percent of the seats will be held by Hindus.

It would therefore, be a Hindu majority government which would, when it becomes a permanent federal government, set up the post-war commission for demarcating frontiers and arranging the plebscite. I am asked to agree, before the plebiscite and therefore before I know what Pakistan will be, to working arrangements on Defence, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Commerce, Customs, communications, etc, as a condition of our being allowed to have any kind of Pakistan at all, and it will be with a 75 per cent Hindu majority government with which we shall have to agree.

"What should we have left? A Pakistan probably pitted with islands of Hindustan not only on the frontiers but deep within Pakistan territory and further subject to control over such most vital matters of this National Government.

This is not independence.  It is a form of Provincial autonomy subject always in the most vital matters to a overwhelmingly Hindu federal authority. As long as Muslims are in a minority and they always will be, any such arrangement will leave us dependent on the Hindu majority rule. I asked Mr. Gandhi to define the constitution under which such a federation would work. These are matters of fundamental importance. How could I agree to the scrapping of the present constitution and framing of a new one as a substitute, as proposed by Mr. Gandhi, on the basis of a united India and democratic parliamentary government which would come into operation at once.

If we agree to this, the question of Pakistan would be shelved to doomsday and practically buried. That is what Mr. Gandhi wanted me to do. 'If you do not give me what I want,' says Mr. Gandhi, 'I will reserve the right to resort to mass civil disobedience.'

I cannot be accused of being pro-British. No Indian worthy of the name wants foreign domination. But don't you see that if I agreed to join this threat, it could only be my accepting Congress demands, which are opposed to Pakistan, and if the British government surrendered, Muslim India would be faced not only by Hindu majority rule but a Hindu majority triumphant with British co-operation?

If Mr. Gandhi does not mean to start civil disobedience, he should say so and withdraw the August resolution. He doesn't withdraw it. He re-emphasises it. The fact is that the Hindus want some kind of agreement which will still give them some form of control over Muslims. They will not reconcile themselves to our complete independence.
...
Top

Address to the Members of the League Planning Committee, New Delhi, November 5, 1944 (excerpts)

..we hear varying reports about possibilities and potentialities. I am talking particularly of the Pakistan areas. There are some people who say that the Pakistan areas are more or less devoid of mineral resources and that economically we shall not be able to exist. Thus the Hindu press keeps on telling us that the Muslims will be the biggest sufferers by the establishment of Pakistan. They would even go further and would like to persuade us that the Pakistan State would be bankrupt. That is one view. On the other hand, there are people who tell us that it is all nonsense and that we have very large deposits of petroleum, coal, iron-ore and other minerals in the Pakistan areas.

 I do not accept one view or the other. All that I can say as a layman is that in my opinion Pakistan will not be bankrupt; it will be a powerful state - though it may not be as rich as Hindustan. It is, however, a matter which should be carefully gone into by a committee of this type. After examining various aspects of the question you will arrive at your own conclusions which will be authoritative. You will indicate the possible lines of development. You will indicate the potentialities of Pakistan areas, and not merely of the Pakistan, but of the Hindustan areas as well, where thirty million of our co-religionists reside. A report with your seal on it will be be something in the nature of a guide. Thirdly, in whatever problems you tackle there is one point which I must request you to keep in mind - and it is this.

No Capitalism

It is not our purpose to make the rich richer and to accelerate the process of accumulation of wealth in the hands of few individuals. We should aim at levelling up the general standard of living amongst the masses and I hope your committee will pay due attention to this very important question. Our ideal should not be capitalistic but Islamic, and the interests and welfare of the people as a whole should be kept constantly in mind.
...

Wherever we have a Muslim League Ministry in power we shall try that your recommendation should be put through wherever possible. Your report will also help in knocking on the head the determined efforts which the present Government of India are making in the direction of centralising things. They are moving in that direction which means they are going to reduce the provinces to the position of mere Municipalities. That is the danger we have to guard against.
Top

Statement regarding Liaquat-Desai Agreement, Bombay, January 22, 1945 (full text)

Mr. M.A.Jinnah, in an interview declared : "My attention has been drawn to reports in a section of the press that an agreement has been arrived at between Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan on the one hand on behalf of the Muslim League and Mr. Bhulabhai Desai on the other hand on behalf of the Congress with the consent of Mr. Gandhi and myself. I know nothing about this. There is absolutely no foundation for connecting my name with the talks which may have taken place between Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Mr. Bhulabhai Desai. All I know is that the Nawabzada immediately after his attention was drawn to this wild rumour of his having come to an agreement with Mr. Bhulabhai Desai characterised it as a "lie and nonsense". I really cannot understand what benefit is expected from publishing this false news by a section of the press as it is doing the greatest possible harm.
  
Statement made to the Press correspondents on Wavell proposals, Simla, June 29, 1945 (excerpts) [Also see CMP(19)]

The Congress on any important matter will be safely entitled to count on the support of the Scheduled castes and the Sikhs. We are willing to make full contribution to any just and reasonable settlement. The Congress had already claimed the right to choose members from the Muslim block and some other party or parties may make similar claims.

While we have every desire to find a solution, this is a point, namely, that the Congress or any other body should be entitled to choose a Muslim from the Muslim bloc which we cannot accept either on principle or on facts as they are before us.

I want to give you a little background. Firstly, the Muslim League passed its resolution in Delhi in March, 1943 and there we formulated our demand. The demand was that we were always ready to consider any proposals or to negotiate with any party on the basis of equality of representation on the provisional Central Government. At the time the party meant was the Congress - provided the British Government made a declaration guaranteeing to the Musalmans the right of self-determination and undertaking to abide by the verdict of Musalmans to give effect to the Pakistan scheme in accordance with the principles outlined in the Lahore Resolution of the All India Muslim League in 1940.

The Wavell proposals do not concede or accord with the declaration referred to. Both the Viceroy's broadcast and the announcement by the Secretary of State contain certain negative assurances.The Secretary of State for India said as follows:

"At the present juncture, this is only possible on an interim and provisional basis. It must be without prejudice to the ultimate constitutional settlement. The ideal to which we have always looked is that of a All-India Union in which the states would play their full part. At the same time we have also recognised the possibility that agreement between Hindus and Muslims on any form of Indian unity may be unattainable. Any interim advance, therefore, must in no way prejudge the question whether the ultimate settlement is based on a united or divided India.

Muslim sympathy with Scheduled Castes

The Wavell proposals have for their basis laid down parity between Hindus, other than Scheduled castes, and Muslims.

We have no illusions about this parity, because on the Executive Council, as proposed, the Muslim quota will not be more than one-third, and in the whole of the Executive Council, the Musalmans will be in a minority of one-third.

There will be Scheduled caste representation, and Sikh representation and we do not know yet which other community or communities will secure representation, because the strength of the new Executive Council has yet to be determined. So is the case with regards the Scheduled Castes, their real grievance is of social tyranny and economic oppression in Hindu society, but with regard to political ideal or political goal, it is the same so far as the Scheduled castes are concerned. So, the representative or representatives of the Scheduled castes will not have any particular bias for us although, I repeat, we have the fullest sympathy with them and we shall always be ready and willing to help them improve position socially and economically. Therefore, it follows that the Congress will on many important matters be safely entitled to count on their support.

As regards Sikh representation, they are already opposed to dividing India and their political idea and goal are the same as those of the Congress. And so, they are not likely to have any particular bias for us. As to any other community, I do not know yet.

Then there will be the two British members, the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. The composition of the Council will, therefore, be such as to enable the Congress invariably to command a majority.

No provision against Congress Tyranny

I know the Viceroy's veto is there and I know that Mr. Amery says that the veto will be exercised to protect minorities but I also know that the Governor-General and Viceroy will be placed in a very invidious position if he were to exercise the veto constantly and as a normal business.

The powers and the functions of the proposed Executive Council are stated by Mr. Amery as follows in presenting the White Paper in the House of Commons:

"There is nothing in the proposals, if accepted, that will debar members of the Council from dealing with the whole problem of reconstruction entirely as they please. It will be for them to decide the industrial, agricultural, and health policies and so on. It will be in their power, as far as British India is concerned, to decide who is to represent her as ministers in foreign capitals, and in which capitals India wishes to be represented. The proposals, if accepted, impose no real barrier or check upon India's freedom to pursue her own course, both at home and in the world."

Therefore, there is no adequate provision against Congress forcing their decisions by a majority vote against the Muslim bloc. Therefore, we will have to consider how to provide against this position. We are willing to make full contribution to any just and reasonable settlement. The Congress have already claimed their right to choose a member or members from the Muslim bloc and some other party or parties may make similar claims.

While we have every desire to find a solution and come to an agreement, this point, namely, that the Congress or any other body should be entitled to choose a Muslim from the Muslim bloc, is one which we cannot accept either on principles or on the facts as they are before us.
...

Statement at a press conference, Simla, July 14, 1945 (excerpts) [Also see CMP(19)]

On a final examination and the analysis of the Wavell Plan, we found that it was a snare. There was a combination consisting of Gandhi-Hindu Congress, which stand for India's Hindu national independence as one India and the latest exponent of geographical unity, Lord Wavell and Glancy-Khizar who are bent upon creating disruption among the Musalmans in the Punjab, and we are sought to be pushed into this arrangement which, if we had agreed to, as proposed by Lord Wavell we would have signed our death warrant.

Our stand has been, and we have repeatedly made it clear to the British Government several times since 1940, that we cannot consider or enter into any provisional Government unless a declaration is made by the British Government guaranteeing the right of self-determination of Muslims and pledging that after the war, or so soon as it may be possible, the British Government would establish Pakistan having regard to the basic principles laid down in the Lahore resolution of the Muslim League passed in March 1940. This was condition No. 1 to our considering any provisional arrangement. Condition No. 2 was that we are not a minority but a nation and we can only enter into provisional arrangement, having regard to the necessities and exigencies of the moment created by the war and fully co-operate in the prosecution of the war and that in any arrangement we claimed equal number in the proposed executive.

The Wavell proposals set at naught both these conditions and called upon us to make the severest sacrifice. I know in his broadcast he said that these proposals are without prejudice to any future constitution or constitutions of India. While in one breath it is impressed upon us that these proposals are without prejudice and do not prejudge the Pakistan issue, yet the Plan in fact contradicts this in the next breath by its very terms. It is obvious to any intelligent man that if we accept this arrangement the Pakistan issue will be shelved and put in the cold storage indefinitely, whereas the Congress will have secured under this arrangement what they want, namely a clear road to their advance towards securing Hindu national independence of India, because the future Executive will work as a unitary Government of India and we know that this interim or provisional arrangement will have a way of setting down for an unlimited period and all the forces in the proposed Executive plus the known policy of the British Government and Lord Wavell's strong inclination for a united India, would completely jeopardise us.

..
Next, in the proposed Executive we would be reduced to a minority of one-third. All the other minorities, such as the Scheduled Castes, Sikhs and Christians have the same goal as the Congress. They have their grievances as minorities but their goal and ideology both cannot be different from or otherwise than that of United India. Ethnically and culturally they are very closely knitted to the Hindu society. I am not against full justice being done to all the minorities and they should be fully safeguarded and protected as such, wherever they may be. But in actual working and practice, invariably their vote will be against us, and there is no safeguard for us except the Viceroy's veto, which, it is well-known to any constitutionalist, cannot be exercised lightly as everyday business against majority decisions with regard to the policy and the principles that will have to be laid down and measure adopted, both administrative and legislative.

On top of this game, the last straw on the camel's back that even about the five members of the Muslim bloc which were alloted to us community-wise, which is the essence of the Wavell proposals, we are told that the Muslim League was not entitled to nominate all the Muslim representatives as our chosen spokesmen and there were two claims - the Congress claimed two and Glancy Khizar on behalf of the Punjab claimed one. This move on the part of these two went at the very root and the very existence of the Muslim League  regarding its position, character and status.

But finally we broke as Lord Wavell insisted upon his having one non-League nominee of Malik Khizar Hayat Khan representing Punjab Muslims. As I have said, it is only the blind who cannot see that the All-India Muslim League is the only authoritative representative organisation of the Musalmans. If we had  accepted this position as presented to us by Lord Wavell, we would have emerged out of this conference minus everything and we would have entirely betrayed our people. It would have been an abject surrender on our party for all we stand for and it would have been a death knell to the Muslim League. This was the position which faced us and we found that it was impossible for us to accept this arrangement.

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

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.

Nehru thought that the Muslims were as ignorant as in the past and they believed they would stampede the Muslims as they did before, not once but more than once. The appeal which stirred the Muslims in 1921 and 1930-31, and which the Muslims responded to, was for our freedom and independence. They joined these movements and made greatest of sacrifices, as you all know, and the Hindus thought they could bamboozle the Muslims the third time[in 1942]. You can fool once or twice, but not three times. What was it we were asked to do? We were asked to support what? To join this struggle for what? To demand Akhand Hindustan? The resolution for which you demanded our support and sacrifice, demanded unitary Central Government and a Constituent Assembly to frame the constitution of India. How can you expect the Muslims to support you?? Any decent and honest Muslim, who has a grain of common sense, would never support this highly inimical resolution. After very careful consideration at Bombay we decided that it was detrimental to the Musalmans, and, therefore, we asked them to stand aloof. I asked Pandit Nehru to accept the Pakistani resolution and then see who makes the greatest sacrifice.
...

Interview  to the representatives of the Associated Press of America, Bombay, November 1, 1945


...
United India dream

He described the Congress Party as campaigning for "a United India which cannot be united in the way Congress wants" and predicted that final counting of the vote would show that "the Muslim League and not the Congress party speak for the majority of Muslims in India."

Congress Hindu leaders speak of unity and brotherhood with Muslims in a United India, but they would not eat our food and if a Hindu shook hands with a Muslim he would wash his hands thereafter!

We (the Hindus and Muslims) are different in every thing. We differ in our religion, our civilisation and culture, our history, our language, our architecture, music, jurisprudence and laws, our food and our society, our dress-in every way we are different. We cannot get together only in the ballot box.

Hindu Aim
The Hindus want it (unitary government) because in that case they would have a perennial majority of three to one and thus one society with  its majority would rule the other society and nation, namely, Muslims, who would be in a minority always.

Simply stated, we contend 'let us live our life'; 'let you live your life'. The Muslims in their own country of Pakistan, distinct and separate from the country of Hindustan.

Mr. Jinnah said that he could not agree with critics of Pakistan plan who contend it is unworkable, because it would set up one section in north-western India and another section in north-eastern India, each a sort of "Island" separated by some hundreds of miles of Hindustan(country). He said they could work together smoothly and that problems of administration could be solved without too great difficulty.
...

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.

Address to Students of Islamia College, Peshawar, November 25, 1945 (excerpts)

Mr. Jinnah recalled how the Congress leaders, as a part of their strategy to befool Muslims, used to make "sporting offers" of making him the first Premier of the National Government.

Warning Note to Congress
Mr. Jinnah warned the Congress to give up their "nefarious methods" to cheat and intimidate the League. He declared no power on earth could crush the League.

Appeal to Congress
He said "There is only one way; that is of peaceful negotiations. Let us meet as equal representatives of two nations and decide upon the future of the great people of India, concede us Pakistan with grace or we shall take it."

What is Pakistan
Defining Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah said, "We want to get rid of the British but we don't want the change of masters. Let 3/4th of India belong to Hindus where they can rule as they wish and let Muslims have 1/4th of India where they are in majority. Let us both be free. What is terrible about it?

Mr. Jinnah said that Messrs. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and others should give up their ugly dream of ruling over whole of India which has been finally ended. "I have dashed it to the ground," he said.

Barring a few quislings, Mr. Jinnah said, all Muslims stood for Pakistan.

Vote for League, For Pakistan
Concluding, Mr. Jinnah made a fervent appeal for giving their verdict in favour of Pakistan by returning League candidates to the Frontier Assembly. "Now you must not fail your nation and we shall have Pakistan, Inshaallah."

Statement on the announcement about the visit of the Parliamentary Delegation to India, Bombay, December 6, 1945 (excerpts)

Mr. Jinnah suggested that the British Government should apply their mind definitely to the division of India and the establishment of Pakistan and Hindustan which means freedom for both Hindus and Muslims.

..
Muslim India will never accept any method of framing the Constitution of India by means of one Constitution-making body for all India in which the Musalmans will be in a hopeless minority and the conclusions are foregone in such an assembly nor will they agree to a constitution, federal or otherwise, with one centre, in which,  again, they will be in a hopeless minority and will be at the mercy of the perennial Hindu majority domination.

Furthermore, any attempt to set up a provisional Government at the centre, which would in any way prejudice or militate against the Pakistan demand, will not be acceptable to us, as the thin edge of the wedge, as it is sought by Hindu India under the term of the provisional "National" Government of India.


Interview to Duncan Hooper, Reuter's Special Correspondent, Bombay, December 7, 1945 (excerpts) (Also see CMP(9))

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.

Home

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

1830s-1898: British Forward Policy(1)


1899-1947: British Forward Policy(2)

Site Meter
Comments