Pakistan's establishment as an independent and sovereign state was the end-product of a long drawn evolutionary political struggle. It aimed at creating a homeland for the Muslims of British India who wanted to secure their civilizational and political identity, right and interests against the fear of being overwhelmed by an unsympathetic, at times hostile, majority.
Pakistan also represented the transition of the Muslims of British India from a minority community to a nation. Every community or political-cultural and ethnic identity does not become a nation. How the Muslims were able to achieve this transformation?
One of the milestone developments in this transformation process took place on March 23, 1940. It was on this date the All India Muslim League (AIML) officially presented a resolution in its annual public session in Lahore for grouping together the Muslim majority provinces to establish a homeland for them. This resolution was adopted on March 24 after several supportive speeches, including the presidential speech by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
This resolution was an important document because it gave a new direction to the Muslim search for security for its identity, rights and interests. Instead of repeating the old demand of constitutional safeguards and guarantees for the Muslims within an Indian federation, the AIML advocated an option outside of the federal system.
As the Muslim political struggle in British India developed as an evolutionary process, the resolution passed in the Lahore session of the AIML cannot be separated from its historical and political context. Similarly, the political developments in 1940-47 have to be taken into account that shaped the final details of the demand of a separate homeland.
The basic principles underlined in the March 23, 1940, Resolution were:
1. The resolution rejected the federal system as set out in the Government of India Act, 1935 by declaring it as "totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India."
2. No new revised constitutional plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it was framed "with their approval and consent."
3. New constitutional plan must be framed on the basis of the principle "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."
4. The religious minorities were promised "adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards. In these units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them."
The Madras session of the AIML in April 1941 adopted a resolution inserting the word "together" between "grouped" and "to constitute" in the text of the Lahore Resolution. The sentence then read: ....the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-western and Eastern Zones of India should be grouped together to constitute Independent States. (See no.3 above).
No serious controversy arose in 1940-47 about the use of the terms like "Independent States" and "the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign" because the resolution was examined in the political context of the 1940s and in the light of the Muslim political experience in British India. The political developments in the 1940-47 period created clarity about what the Muslims were aiming at under the leadership of Jinnah and the AIML.
Historical Backdrop
The Lahore Resolution was drafted in the backdrop of two important developments. First, traditionally the Muslim leadership demanded separate electorate, reservations of seats in the cabinet and the legislative bodies, constitutional safeguards and guarantees for protecting their political and cultural rights and representation in governmental system. They also talked of provincial autonomy so that the Muslim majority provinces were able to govern them in accordance with their political choices. However, the AIML leadership learnt from the bitter experience of the Congress rule in non-Muslim majority province during 1937-39 that a federal system with provincial autonomy did not guarantee their socio-cultural identity, civil and political rights and socio-economic interests, including access to government jobs and patronage. They began to think about going beyond the notion of federation. The Sindh Provincial Muslim League (1938) was the first to suggest that the AIML needs to review its position on federal system altogether in view of the political experience of the Muslims.
Second, the Muslim political leaders had started talking about "Muslim homeland" in India in the mid and late 1930s. Some leaders suggested the need of carving out three or four homelands in various parts of India as exclusively Muslim areas. The AIML Resolution used the term "states" against the backdrop of these proposals for several Muslim homelands and in order to attract as much support as possible of the Muslim elite living in different parts of India. If the Lahore Resolution is read along with other proposals floating among Indian Muslim about their political future, it was not surprising that the resolution used a broadly based text which made sense in the context of 1940.
The Muslim political struggle shaped up gradually. The Muslim political and societal elite did not demand separate homeland from the beginning. They made different demands for protecting their identity, rights and interests. In March 1940 they floated the idea rejecting the federal model for India. However, the Muslim political movement did not end in 1940. The political developments in the next seven years resulted in changes in their strategies; they were able to put forward their demand for a separate homeland in more precise and definite terms.
The AIML had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan (1946) for the political future of India, which retained a loose federal system at least for the next ten years. The AIML agreed to this Plan because the Muslim majority provinces were grouped in two units and they had the right to review the relationship with each other and with the federal system after ten years. As the Congress did not accept these political conditions and refused to work within the framework of the Cabinet Mission proposals, the AIML withdrew its approval. This strengthened the AMIL commitment to seek their homeland in a steadfast manner.
Within two years of the passing of the Lahore Resolution the AIML leadership began to emphasise singular term of state. The communication between Jinnah and M.K. Gandhi clarified the notion of a Muslim homeland. Gandhi asked Jinnah in his letter of September 15, 1944 if the constituent units in the two zones would "constitute independent states?" Jinnah's response in his letter of September 17, 1944, was very categorical: "No. They will form units of Pakistan."
The AIML formally articulated the notion of a single state in a resolution adopted by the meeting of the newly elected Muslim League members of the central and provincial legislatures in April 1946 in Delhi. The AIML contested the 1946 provincial elections on two major claims: the AIML was the sole organisation representing the Muslim and that their demand was the establishment of a separate homeland of Pakistan.
Therefore, the study of Pakistan movement cannot stop at 1940. The next 7 years have to be taken into account without which the establishment of Pakistan cannot be fully understood.
Post-Independence Debate
The Lahore Resolution was subjected to two kinds of controversies in the post-independence period. First, a number of regional-nationalist political leaders argued that the provinces should be given autonomy on the Lahore Resolution which talked about the units being autonomous and independent. Some argued for maximum autonomy for provinces with a federal government that exercised very limited powers. A few others suggested that Pakistan should be converted into a confederation where the provinces would be independent or semi-independent.
Second, in the immediate aftermath of the break-up of Pakistan and the establishment of Bangladesh in December 1971, a number of political writers and some leaders of the ruling Pakistan People's Party (December 1971-July 1977) argued that the establishment of two Muslim majority states, Pakistan and Bangladesh, had fully materialised the Lahore Resolution. It was argued that the Lahore Resolution envisaged two states for the Muslims of British India and, in December 1971, the second Muslim state came into existence.
These two interpretations of the Lahore Resolution can be described as misleading, implying a literalist approach towards its text. This resolution did not offer any framework for distribution of state-power between the centre and its units in Pakistan. It addressed the constitutional issues in an all-India context of the 1940s and offered a general statement on settling the Hindu-Muslim question in British India. It suggested a broad framework for articulating the constitutional relationship between the Muslim majority provinces with the rest of India.
The Lahore Resolution used three terms, ie, units, regions and zones, in the text rather than naming the Muslim majority provinces. Similarly, the resolution did not define the territorial boundaries of the new state. The resolution was the major step in search for a secure political, social, cultural and economic future for the Muslims of British India. The AIML presented the notion of a homeland comprising the Muslim majority areas at a time when several other proposals existed for creating Muslim homelands. None of these proposals was very definite about an exclusive sovereignty for proposed new homelands.
The political experience of the Muslims and the drift of the political events during the course of the Second World War helped them to fully articulate their demand in precise terms.
Today, the Lahore Resolution is relevant as a milestone and turning point in the Muslim struggle in British India for the protection and advancement of their cultural and civilizational identity, and rights and interests as a distinct and politically important community. It does not offer any constitutional formula for organising state power in the post-independence period.
The notion of a separate homeland became integral to the Muslim political discourse after the passage of the Lahore Resolution and the AIML became the zealous champion of this demand. However, Pakistan was granted independence on the basis of the Indian Independence Act, July 1947 rather than text of the Lahore Resolution. The Indian Independence Act envisaged two independent states of India and Pakistan, rejecting the ambitions of some princely states to stay independent of the two states. The proposal for an independent united Bengal was also shot-down in this process. Pakistan's territorial boundaries were finalised on the third day after the grant of independence by Cyril Radcliffe who headed the boundary commissions for demarcation of the Punjab and Bengal boundaries.
Current Issues
The movement for the establishment of Pakistan can be invoked today for emphasising the need of giving autonomy to provinces on the ground that the AIML advocated a federal system with autonomy for the provinces in the pre-independence period. However,there is nothing much in the freedom movement as a precise formula for distribution of power between the centre and provinces with the exception of the notion of limited provincial autonomy under the Government of India Act, 1935. The final scope of provincial autonomy in independent Pakistan is to be determined by the elected parliament.
The Muslim League adopted a negative attitude towards provincial autonomy after the establishment of Pakistan. This caused much alienation among the smaller provinces of Pakistan and especially in pre-1971 East Pakistan.
The 18th Constitutional Amendment (2010) is the first comprehensive attempt to meaningfully expand the scope of political, administrative and financial autonomy for provinces. This amendment is based on the argument that strong provinces mean a strong Pakistan which has replaced the old doctrine of a strong centre means a strong Pakistan. It is now incumbent on the federal government to genuinely transfer powers to the provinces as envisaged in the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The provinces need to develop sufficient capacity to exercise new powers assigned to them. The new provincial autonomy within the democratic framework reflects the spirit of Pakistan's freedom movement.
The Pakistan movement, especially the Lahore Resolution, promised adequate and effective guarantees for ensuring cultural and religious freedom for religious minorities. Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah advocated equal citizenship for all irrespective of their religious or ethnic identities. These principles are enshrined in Pakistan's constitution. The current challenge is how to implement these commitments to Pakistan's religious minorities and how to make the democratic process responsive to the needs and aspirations of the common people.
Comments
Comments are closed.