Its genesis and significance

The Lahore Resolution, passed by the All India Muslim League (Muslim League) in its session held at Lahore on March 22-24, 1940, is one of the key documents of the struggle for protecting and promoting Muslim identity, rights and interests in British India. The resolution reflected a clear shift in the Muslim League strategy from seeking protection and safeguards for the Muslims within a federal India to the demand for a separate homeland for them.
The genesis and implications of the resolution cannot be fully appreciated without examining the gradual evolution of the Muslim political struggle in British India and the political developments that took place during the next seven years after the passage of the resolution, that is, 1940 to 1947.
The movement for the establishment of Pakistan passed through several evolutionary phases before the passing of this resolution. The movement did not end with the approval of the resolution. Rather, it continued for another seven years, 1940-47, for achieving its goal. Therefore, the resolution cannot be understood without taking into account how the Muslim League came to the conclusion of demanding a separate homeland and what happened in the last seven years. The resolution cannot be interpreted by adopting a purely literalist approach towards its text and ignoring its historical context.
The resolution addressed the Muslim question in all-India context, pointing out to the direction the Muslim intended to adopt for securing their political future. It did not offer a framework for political and constitutional arrangements in the proposed Muslim homeland. In fact, this was not the concern of the Muslim League leadership in March 1940. Its leadership was focused mainly on protecting Muslim identity, rights and interests against the perceived threat of being overwhelmed by an unsympathetic majority led by the Congress Party. It could be viewed as a rejoinder to the Congress Party perspective that all Indians were a single nation.
The Muslim League shared the Congress objective of independence from the British but it also wanted a separate homeland for the Muslim in order to seek independence from the control of the Congress that was expected to be established after the British left India.
The resolution did not mention the word "Pakistan" in the text and there was no talk of any linkage of the new homeland with Islam because, as argued earlier, the resolution had addressed the Muslim question in British India against the backdrop of the demand of the Congress party for one independent state for all Indians. The Muslim League emphasised Muslim identity, rights and interests to distinguish them from the Congress and strengthen the case for a separate homeland. The issue of linkage of Pakistan with Islam came later in order to mobilize support among the Muslims in the post-1940 period, especially when it appeared that Pakistan was likely to come into existence.
The Lahore Resolution rejected the federal system under the Government of India Act, 1935 as "totally unsuited to and unworkable in the peculiar conditions" of India and "unacceptable to Muslim India." It asked for its revision and maintained that the Muslims would not accept any new constitutional arrangement unless it was framed "with their approval and consent."
The key paragraph of the resolution that floated the notion of a separate homeland reads: "Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, viz, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the north-western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute Independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."
The speeches of the Muslim League leaders in the Lahore session show that the focus was on the future of Indian political and constitutional order and they wanted the British government to frame the new constitution to accommodate the demand for a separate homeland in the Muslim majority areas. The resolution did not name the Muslim majority provinces or gave the precise boundaries of the new homeland. Rather it used three terms, ie, units, regions and zones. When the proposal of the homeland was given in broad terms how could the resolution propose political power arrangements inside of the homeland.
The resolution clearly indicated that the Muslim activists had drastically changed their views about their status and role in the political and constitutional arrangements for the future. Initially the Muslim League demanded separate electorate, constitutional and political safeguards, representation of Muslim in cabinets, legislatures and the bureaucracy and a federal system with autonomy to provinces.
They learnt over the years, especially from the experience of the Congress ministers in the provinces in 1937-39 that the Congress was insensitive to their concerns and demands. This forced the Muslim League leaders to examine the whole Hindu-Muslim question afresh and suggest better ways to protect their socio-cultural identity, rights and interest. It was in this context that they adopted a radically different approach in March 1940 that aimed at establishing a separate homeland comprising the Muslim majority areas in British India.
Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, the then Chief Minister of the Punjab, claimed in 1941 that the original draft of the resolution proposed by him was changed drastically by the Muslim League Working Committee to exclude the notion of centre under an Indian federation.
What causes confusion about the resolution is the use of words "Independent States" rather than "State." Further the resolution says that the constituent units will be "autonomous and sovereign." In a federal system the constituent units cannot be both autonomous and sovereign at the same time. Sovereignty is assigned to the federal state as a whole and the constituent units can be autonomous. If the constituent units are sovereign, it is no longer one federation. Each unit becomes a sovereign state.
Some writers argue that the use of plural word "States" was a typographical mistake. It is difficult to verify this claim. However, if one views the resolution in the context of the debate in those years about the role and position of the Muslims in the future, one can identify ambiguity on these issues. Whether they should be part of a single Indian federation or they should have their own one or many homelands?
The drafters of the Lahore Resolutions were in full knowledge of various proposals for partition of India. Some of these proposals suggested two or more Muslim homelands. The Lahore Resolution was not categorical about the nature and boundaries of the Muslim homeland because it wanted to win as much support as possible from India's diverse Muslim population.
The Muslim thought process about their political future continued to move forward in the post-1940 period. The Madras session of the Muslim League in 1941, added the word "together" in the resolution after the word "grouped." Various Muslim League leaders began talking of a single Muslim state rather than two or more Muslim states within one year or so after the passing of the resolution.
When in September 1944, M.K. Gandhi asked Jinnah if the constituent units in two zones would constitute independent states, Mohammad Ali Jinnah replied in his letter dated September 17, 1944, that "they will form units of Pakistan." This issue was clarified in April 1946 in the Muslim League's Delhi convention of its elected members to the central and provincial assemblies. The resolution reiterated their support to the demand for a single state comprising the Muslim majority areas.
The demand of some political groups in Pakistan that the constitution of Pakistan must be based on the text of the Lahore Resolution is an out of context use of this resolution. It did not offer any framework for internal power arrangements in Pakistan. That was never the purpose of the Lahore Resolution. It was born out of the all-India context and it aimed at addressing the Muslim question in that context. It has to be read along with other proposals for the partition of India or about separate Muslim homelands that existed at that time.
Further, the seven years after the passing of the Lahore Resolution are critical to the establishment of Pakistan when the Muslim League brought the common Muslims on board for its homeland demand. The Pakistan demand adopted a clear shape during these seven years.
Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah began to talk about the internal dynamics of Pakistan in broad and generalized terms from 1944 onwards. The references were at the normative level and no detailed plan of action or a formal declaration of objectives of the constitution of Pakistan was evolved by the Muslim League in the pre-independence period. The Muslim League fought for Pakistan on three fronts: the British, the Congress and the Muslim groups that opposed the establishment of Pakistan.
There is however enough evidence available to suggest that Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League favoured a democratic and participatory political framework with provincial autonomy and rights. He also viewed Islam as a source of guidance and an ethical basis of the state and society. However, there was no concept of a religious or theocratic state that enforced Islamic through official decrees and discriminated among the citizens on the basis of religion. The notion of equal citizenship irrespective of religion, caste, creed, region or gender is strong in the Quaid's speeches and statements in 1947-48.
The demand for participatory governance, equal citizenship and extended provincial autonomy is in line with the spirit of the Pakistan Movement. However, the Lahore Resolution cannot be quoted in support of such demands because it does not say anything on these issues.
The 18th constitutional amendment (2010) has significantly increased the quantum of administrative and financial autonomy for the provinces. The provinces never enjoyed so much autonomy in the past. This strengthens the spirit of the Pakistan movement and contributes significantly to making Pakistan a stable and coherent state.
The Author: is Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Punjab University, Lahore, and a former Visiting Professor to Columbia University New York; SAIS, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C.; and Heidelberg University, Germany.