Remembering a great Pakistani: Sir Zafrullah Khan

PS: I support the current Pakistani electoral system which gives a Christian or a
Non-muslim woman three times the number of votes than a Muslim man... as a way of affirmative action... Does that make me non-secular? Similarly... Ambedkar was of the exact same view as Jinnah about minority communities getting the right to choose what kind of representation they would want (and unlike Jinnah who preferred joint electorates, Ambedkar preferred separate electorates for his community).... does that make Ambedkar non-secular.

I disagree with your definition

Pew Research....

My guess is that you`ve never applied your mind to history....

The fact is that Jinnah was calling for an evolution to joint electorates ... Many states - many secular states like Netherlands have had in the interim period a system of consociationalism.... it is the commitment that matters. By your logic India shouldn`t be called a secular state because it distinguishes between citizens in matters of family law. Hence... mere temporary acceptance of ``separate electorates`` as a temporary measure is not enough to negate one`s commitment to a separation of church and state. Thus this temporary acceptance of a communal electorate had little to do with religious doctrine...
However... separation of church and state could not come at the cost of annihilation of a popular Muslim demand.... constitutions of multicultural states are made on consensus... Jinnah wanted acceptance of joint electorates voluntary.

How can the answer to 1 be yes and no. It is only yes. He didn`t struggle for the separate electorates... simple.

Similarly ... answer to 2 can only be Yes... because he said so clearly that he preferred joint electorates.

And finally Sir Fazli is important because he is a favorite ``secular`` politician of many Indians... the fact that he abused Jinnah for being in favor of joint electorates tells us a different story.

Re: # 468 Manto
What counts ultimately is the document that he was willing to affix his signature to. The 14 point agenda is not a secular agenda and it had Jinnah`s backing. That certain Leaguers opposed him and were more extreme in their views is nice to hear, but now it does not matter. His making a speech to supporters (e.g. UP muslims in Allahbad in 1931) is not quite the same as putting his name on a document that he put forth as a negotiating basis to the Congress. The two are not the same same. If you see that he was doing a difficult balancing act I can believe that. But being secular? He was not being secular by supporting the 14 point agenda. People resign on matters of principle if they do not agree with the agenda of others. Jinnah himself did that when he resigned from the Congress on a matter of principle. If he passionately cared about being secular and viewed that as being more important than separate electorates, he would have done something drastic (e.g. resigning, or not backing the 14 point agenda. But he did not.)
To answer your 3 questions:

1. Yes and no. His 14 point agenda affirmed the need for separate electorates
2. Yes and no. Bottom line: not enough to pass the test of ‘separation of church and state’ that you laid out in your earlier post
3. Maybe. I don’t know who Fazli Hussain was. But how does it matter now?

Dear harish mian,

Your latest post is another affirmation of your view that ``barking dogs don`t bite``. I am going to skip through your abuse as it is pointless saying that which you adequately prove yourself. I am sorry... I can`t cut and paste the exact piece from Patrick French because I have relied on a hard copy which I had read some time ago. However ... by googling I found this review of Mr French`s book which makes a mention of the said unsourced line:

``It is baffling that French chooses to highlight Gandhi’s allegiance to Hindu Dharma and Jinnah’s ‘secularism’.( ``... the founder of the homeland for muslims remained a secularist of sorts to the end`` page 27). French tries to paint the picture of Indian (Republic of India) Muslims being highly distrustful of Gandhi , the credibility of which is highly questionable. Gandhi’s fasts to end the Calcutta riots and to pay the 55 crore due to Pakistan receive a passing mention. That the Indian Muslims were staunch supporters of the Congress right until the Bombay riots is not even mentioned. While French chooses to call Gandhi a ‘bania’ , ‘ Gujarati Mentality’ etc. with people ranging from Bal Thackeray to Ashok Row Kave( a homosexual activist ) are quoted to make his point, Jinnah is made out to be a man with a ‘sharp mind’ whose achievements were ‘phenomenal’. While Attenborough’s Gandhi definitely fails to portray Gandhi in all his facets, it is definitely not ‘grossly inaccurate’. French claims that Jinnah is portrayed in the film as ‘demented trickster’. Is he?.... `` Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi has Jinnah as a demented trickster, blundering about and muttering unsourced lines such as, ‘I will have India divided or India destroyed’ ``.... now...now... where in the film does Jinnah say all this? http://www.indolink.com/Book/book15.html

He has discussed the whole thing... and this proves the reference. I`ve already produced on the other board ... the gaping holes and inconsistencies in Margaret Bourke-White`s testimony ....

1. It is highly unlikely ``Fezzes`` were thrown up into the sky... because for one thing Fez was replaced by the Karakul cap and hats... if you see the pictures Muslim League meetings from 1940s onwards... you will hardly find any fez wearing leaguer... clearly like a good writer, Bourke-White was adding twist and masala to what had been narrated to her... her story sounds more like a high school graduation in the Mid West... then a meeting of the League... which was ... as is not a ``jalsa`` but a meeting of the working committee in a board room under a roof. ...

2. Also... another discrepancy that you`ve produced is that there were ``large`` pictures of Jinnah on the ``stage``. Once again I ask you to produce a single meeting of the Muslim League with these large Jinnah portraits ... Again... since Margaret Bourke-White was writing this much later... her memory seems to be playing tricks on her. None of the Muslim League meetings ever had Jinnah`s posters or portraits... nor was it the normal politicking style at the time.

3. There was no ``stage`` as there was no ``public meeting``. It was the meeting of the Central Working Committee .. in a boardroom on a large table.

.....

Now on to your other points:

1. M C Chagla`s view counts because he was an Indian nationalist of the opposing camp and his testimony is at best from an antagonistic point of view. If you rely on what he recalled... then you should accept his point of view as well- that Jinnah did not want partition. Otherwise there is no point quoting it selectively ...

2. I did not waste any hardwork... it is you who seems to be really upset at your inability to argue on any real points.

3. You were proven to be a liar on the tailor issue- which you still haven`t apologised for despite claiming that you would.

4. Jinnah`s over-riding command on 14th August 1946, two days before Direct Action Day, declared that it was going to be a peaceful civil disobedience movement .. and he forbid his followers who engaged in loose talk to refrain from any activity that would bring bad name to the League. This is reaffirmed by H V Hodson and others` views..

Given that most of the people who died in Calcutta were Muslims... and most of the perpetrators were Congressmen and their goondas... your assertion that they killed Muslims because they were asking for it... is like giving a rapist a blank cheque. I think it is clear as day that the Calcutta Killings were a Congress planned event ... to bring down the fragile CROSS COMMUNAL MINISTRY ... headed by the League. Even the person blamed for the violence... by the Indians... H S Suhrawardy was hardly the sort to resort to violence ... and he and Isphahani worked day and night in the immediate aftermath to restore peace, sanity and to bring aid to the suffering people.

What was Congress doing? Patel was gloating over the mass murder of Muslims and Gandhi was declaring that Hindus killing Muslims in Calcutta did not amount to violence but infact was non-violence of another kind... whatever that convoluted statement meant- god knows.


5. So the fact that GB Singh has served in the US army makes him less credible a historian? Amazing arguments you have my friend!

#472 by Yasser

Yes... I think we all heard your bark

Unlike you who claims to be a lawyer, writer, SAP coordinator, journalist, aspiring economist etc., nowhere did I ever talk about my profession except once in response to an interactor. So yes, you only heard a bark because that`s perhaps the species you belong to.

... but when asked to show something for it... other than 1800mobilelavatory customer service ... you had nothing.

Bhai Yasser, we already know your family background, why must you remind us of it again and again, hain?

You know in my case it would be versatility (though I suspect that comment about being fickle is indicative of some truth in your life)... given that I had a full time job + I was enrolled full time degree ... my association with journalism was more of a passion than a career.. anyway... I can see those pangs of insecurity have begun to affect your better judgement.

ROTFL!!!! It is clear who suffers from pangs of insecurity. When you have to shout from the rooftops about what you do on an anonymous website, one can safely presume that the person suffers from some complex. Like the meek kid tries to act brave when the bully is not around, but folds up when confronted, your plight is all too familiar.

Also unless you feel British Historian Patrick French is a liar too and only Indians tell the truth and the primary source evidence is wrong and only Bourke-White`s hearsay is corret, there is no way any of my claims have been busted.

First of all, you must cut and paste what Patrick French said in order to even have a discussion. Just because you say he said so and so doesn’t make it true, does it? Is that how you argue in court? No wonder you are forced to seek alternative careers.

Now if you really think Chaura Chauri is the only incident of Gandhian Violence and Terrorism... then you are more ignorant of history than I imagined... as a first assignment, I suggest you read up on Moplah uprising.

Again, in true Jinnah style, you are distorting my words. Chauri Chaura was NOT intended to be violent, unlike DAD, where Leaguers issued explicit threats of violence and bloodshed in the days preceding August 16th, 1946.

Also it is not about testimonials... it is about the facts...

Exactly! Which is what I was arguing about Chagla. You’ve just undone hours of hard work put into writing up posts by agreeing with what I’ve been emphasizing for days but was finding it difficult to get through to your skull. While what Chagla felt didn’t matter since it was his opinion, what Jinnah said to him: that he didn’t care about the fate of UP’s Muslims is what matters. Basically, it proved that Jinnah was the opportunist of the worst kind.

And GB Singh is a historian? Gimme a break!! I dug up Google and found that he served in the US Army and from the looks of it, appears to be quite an attention seeker. Historian? Sure!

Dear Harish_Hyd,

You wrote: I absolutely have no intention of declaring what I do for a living, because as they say: barking dogs don`t bite (I`m sure you know the corollary to that).

Yes... I think we all heard your bark : you will die of sheer shock, but suffice it to say that at 25, you are more than a couple of years too late compared to me loud and clear... but when asked to show something for it... other than 1800mobilelavatory customer service ... you had nothing. I am sure doing outsourced customer service under the name ``Harry`` is nothing to be proud of. Atleast you have a fair estimate of where you stand in life... (Ref: your statement about barking etc).

You know in my case it would be versatility (though I suspect that comment about being fickle is indicative of some truth in your life)... given that I had a full time job + I was enrolled full time degree ... my association with journalism was more of a passion than a career.. anyway... I can see those pangs of insecurity have begun to affect your better judgement. Also unless you feel British Historian Patrick French is a liar too and only Indians tell the truth and the primary source evidence is wrong and only Bourke-White`s hearsay is corret, there is no way any of my claims have been busted.

Now if you really think Chaura Chauri is the only incident of Gandhian Violence and Terrorism... then you are more ignorant of history than I imagined... as a first assignment, I suggest you read up on Moplah uprising.

As for your assertion that Jinnah was in hiding ... you will have to give some proof that Jinnah was not where he was held to be.... at 10 Aurangzeb Road New Delhi... or 2 Mountpleasant Road Bombay... Once again you`ve burst your own bubble.... as with the tailor issue.

Also it is not about testimonials... it is about the facts... primary source evidence forces any reasonable person to conclude that Gandhi was a racist, casteist Hindu fanatic... the only conclusion one can draw is that Dr. King didn`t see the primary source evidence ... which is factual... since the statements Dr King attributed to Gandhi were Dr. Ambedkar`s... As for
Dr. King... the specific claim has been made by the book ``Gandhi behind the mask of divinity`` by G B Singh. Yet it doesn`t matter one way or the other.

#460 by Yasser

Yaar ... not that I am interested... but knowing you if it was anything worthwhile... you would have spilled it out by now... so please forgive me for not believing you.

Bhai Yasser, not everyone can be like you, shouting from the rooftops about the myriad professions that you claim you have your fingers into. versatility is one thing, but usually people who dabble into too many things are either incompetent in their chosen profession or are of fickle nature.

I absolutely have no intention of declaring what I do for a living, because as they say: barking dogs don`t bite (I`m sure you know the corollary to that).

#459 by Yasser

You say that inciting violence is considered an offence and people get arrested for it. Then you do an about face and declare:

`` but somehow even the British never thought he did, no?`` (About Gandhi)

Yaar Yasser, only two types of people won`t understand my statment in that post. One who is a wilful liar and the other who cannot understand English. The British somehow never thought Gandhi could incite violence, so every time he was arrested, he would be released after short periods.

Did Gandhi not get arrested? Gandhi got arrested ... and you insinuated that only those who incited violence got arrested... hence using your logic Gandhi incited violence. By the same token Jinnah never got arrested and using your logic (which is backed by facts) Jinnah never incited violence.

Aww...trying to be a bit too clever, are we? There is only one instance in which Gandhi`s call led to violence, and even there, he had made it clear that there was to be no violence: Chauri Chaura. When violence did take place, he immediately called it off and went on an indefinite fast and only after the accused gave up, did he call it off. In the court, Gandhi took full responsibility for the violence and asked that the harshest punishment be given to him for what happened. In contrast, the opportunist bastard Jinnah went into hiding for days as violence raged on and never made even a half-hearted attempt to stop it, emerging in the end and ``condemning`` the loss of life.

About my sources: So... according to you because Edolphus Towns is black.. Arthur Kemp is non-Hindu... G B Singh is a sikh and Richard Grenier ... well he is an American.. they are all dubious sources... forget that one of them was elected more times than any other african american... and others are scholars of international renown...

If Edolphus Towns is black, so were Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Both never hid their admiration for Gandhi. If and Richard Grenier and Arthur Kemp are white, then so were Stanley Wolpert, Margaret Bourke-White, Albert Einstein, and countless others who spoke of him in glowing terms. If G.B. Singh was a Sikh, then so were Master Tara Singh and countless others who latched on to his every word.

OK, in addition to your busted claim that Jinnah never uttered the words ``we will either have a divided India or a destroyed India``, here is another list of statements you made without giving absolutely no reference, which amply prove that you are a liar:

1. where is the evidence that Martin Luther King was chastened after his visit to India as you alleged?

2. Where is the evidence that Margaret Bourke-White was a Gandhi lover?

VRV...

You wrote: DAD: The official correspondence of civic administration and the statements of ML leaders doesn’t amount to be evidence????

Well here is what Lord Wavell has to say:

``I`ve found no evidence of muslim league involvement in calcutta killings and appreciably larger number of Muslims died than Hindus``

(Mansergh Volume IX TOPP Page 879)


...could you answer the following questions:

1. If show of force was what was required... why not Delhi or Bombay or Lahore... where League had considerable following and where the blame could be put on other parties?

2. How is disproportionately large number of Muslim Leaguers being butchered is a show of force?

3. How come ... the ``civic administration`` ruled out League`s culpability?


Don`t go around repeating the same old lies. The only conclusive statement we have is from Sardar Patel a top leader of the Congress Party who was very happy at the massacre of Muslims in Calcutta...

Dear Pew Research:

Had you bothered to read what I wrote in toto... you would know that Muslim League itself was divided into two wings... the pro-british pro-separate electorate Shafi League and the pro-Congress pro-joint electorate Jinnah League... in 1929... both leagues compromised... the continuation of separate electorates was a Shafi League demand.... Jinnah added the proviso that the door shall be opened for eventual return to joint electorate.

The point you miss is that the 14 points were a collection of Delhi Conference demands and Jinnah had added this bit:

provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.`

I don`t know if you are aware of what a ``proviso`` is but it has over riding effect. I suggest you pick up a good book on interpretation of statutes and legal clauses to understand what a proviso is.

You obviously deliberately chose to miss this bit:

Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—


``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.

This is August 1931... so how can you say what he stood for in 1929?

It is clear that I did not try to portray Jinnah as anything else... you did.

You said he was involved in a struggle for separate electorates... whereas... it is clear that separate electorates were there before him and he had opposed them ... and was only advocating them as a temporary measure. As for your 467.... this was also the Delhi conference proposal... that was incorporated in the complete demands.. Ironically...while Jinnah as an Ismaili was only forwarding his constituents demands.... these issues are what ``Secularists`` in India today agitate about... so I am not sure what your issue is.


Answer this question fairly:

1. Did Jinnah struggle for separate electorates- when they were already in place and Jinnah had opposed them?

2. Did Jinnah not prefer joint electorates?

3. Did Muslim leaders like Sir. Fazli Hussain not oppose Jinnah because he stood for joint electorates?

Re: # 463 Manto
Let me also add details from point number 12 of his 1929 14 point agenda: `the constitution should embody adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, RELIGION, PERSONAL LAWS and Muslim charitable institution and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.` (EMPHASIS ADDED)

Re: # 462, #463 Manto

Manto, I think that you are missing my point. The 14 points of Jinnah were introduced in 1929, ten or eleven years AFTER his response to Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill that you quote extensively from in #463. There can be no doubt that in his 14 point agenda, point number 5 was, `Representation of communal groups shall continue to be by means of separate electorate as at present, provided it shall be open to any community at any time to abandon its separate electorate in favor of a joint electorate.`. So, quoting extensively in #463 is pointless since we know without a doubt what he stood for in 1929. I read the 14 points carefully, and nowhere did I find anything to support your assertion that `said that joint electorates should be adopted eventually.`. Your assertions cannot be backed up by historical evidence. Why are you attempting to depict Jinnah as a person that he was not?

Correction to Post 464

Pl read as:

So, by the logic u propound Rehmat Ali’s Dinia was supposed to have been created i/o Pakistan, a forerunner to complete Islamisation of Indian subcontinent (including Islamisation of Sri Lanka)?

i/o

So, by the logic u propound Rehmat Ali’s Dinia was supposed to have been created i/o Pakistan, a forerunner to complete Islamisation of Indian subcontinent followed by Islamisation of Sri Lanka?

My friend Manto,

I posted it thrice with necessary corrections, nothing otherwise.

I have busted your points therefore u chose to navigate the discussion to other areas like 9/11 and that stuff. Sorry buddy, it`s a very bad trait.

You need to read the official correspondence of the British govt officials in Calcutta and the assertions of Suhrawardy and the statements of Muslim Leaguers in this connection. DAD was meant to show the British govt and Congress the street power of ML and that`s what was meant by Direct Action (You blame Congress for Direct Action!!!!!!). The DAD is a trailer of a possible civil war situation in India if the British were leave India without granting Pakistan. This was made clear by Suhrawardy to Wavell (abt the civil war situation OR replication of Calcutta events in other parts of India, Source: Memoirs of Suhrawardy).

If u want whitewash the blood stains of ML, then I dont argue further.

Giving Muslim majority districts outside the proposed Pakistan were NOT meant to be given to Pakistan, coz for eg. United Provinces was not a Muslim majority province. So, by the logic u propound Rehmat Ali’s Dinia was supposed to have been created i/o Pakistan, a forerunner to complete Islamisation of Indian subcontinent followed by Islamisation of Sri Lanka? In reality ur country was the dream of a crazy scum by name Rahmat Ali and you guys still follow the dream and the Islamic empire lost. Poor chaps!

Manto, we don’t invent history BUT we discuss the points based on its merits and demerits. Don’t take anything to heart.

DAD: The official correspondence of civic administration and the statements of ML leaders doesn’t amount to be evidence?????

>>>>>>In Calcutta, Gandhi and Patel especially planned violence<<<<<<<

Ha Ha Ha….................. Liar-e-Azam, a very suitable name for you!

PS to Pew Research:

The following excerpts show that Jinnah never wavered from his faith in joint electorates... and his evidence to the select committee shows how against separate electorates he really was..

This is from Dr. B R Ambedkar`s ``Pakistan or Partition of India``:


A study of his past pronouncement may well begin with the year 1906 when the leaders of the Muslim community waited upon Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslim community. It is to be noted that Mr. Jinnah was not a member of the deputation. Whether he was not invited to join the deputation or whether he was invited to join and declined is not known. But the fact remains that he did not lend his support to the Muslim claim to separate representation when it was put forth in 1906.

In 1918 Mr. Jinnah resigned his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council as a protest against the Rowlatt Bill. 98[f.54] In tendering his resignation Mr. Jinnah said :

`` I feel that under the prevailing conditions, I can be of no use to my people in the Council, nor consistently with one`s self-respect is cooperation possible with a Government that shows such utter disregard for the opinion of the representatives of the people at the Council Chamber and the feelings and the sentiments of the people outside. `` In 1919 Mr. Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill, then on the anvil. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question.

EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.

Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.

Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.

Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India ?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].

Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—1 do.

Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—

I think so.< /B>

Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes. Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.

Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.

Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course ?—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.< /B>

Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do ; a very,—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.

Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.

Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moselms of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.

Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.

Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.

Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.

EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT

Q. 3853.—...........Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.

Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them ?—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, `` How do you account for this ? `` and he told me, `` As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it. ``

Q. 3855.—That is useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.

Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right. Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion ?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done ?

Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it ?—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.

EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON

Q. 3892.—. ...... You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized ?—I can only give you certain facts : I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces ; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders ; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.

Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole ?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it.

Although Mr. Jinnah appeared as a witness on behalf of the Muslim League, he did not allow his membership of the League to come in the way of his loyalty to other political organizations in the country. Besides being a member of the Muslim League, Mr. Jinnah was a member of the Home Rule League and also of the Congress. As he said in his evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, he was a member of all three bodies although he openly disagreed with the Congress, with the Muslim League and that there were some views which the Home Rule League held which he did not share. That he was an independent but a nationalist ,is shown by his relationship with the Khilafatist Musalmans. In 1920 the Musalmans organized the Khilafat Conference. It became so powerful an organization that the Muslim League went under and lived in a state of suspended animation till 1924. During these years no Muslim leader could speak to the Muslim masses from a Muslim platform unless he was a member of the Khilafat Conference. That was the only platform for Muslims to meet Muslims. Even then Mr. Jinnah refused to join the Khilafat Conference. This was no doubt due to the fact that then he was only a statutory Musalman with none of the religious fire of the orthodox which he now says is burning within him. But the real reason why he did not join the Khilafat was because he was opposed to the Indian Musalmans engaging themselves in extra-territorial affairs relating to Muslims outside India.

After the Congress accepted non-co-operation, civil disobedience and boycott of Councils, Mr. Jinnah left the Congress. He became its critic but never accused it of being a Hindu body. He protested when such a statement was attributed to him by his opponents. There is a letter by Mr. Jinnah to the Editor of the Times of India written about the time which puts in a strange contrast the present opinion of Mr. Jinnah about the Congress and his opinion in the past. The letter 99[f.55] reads as follows :—.

`` To the Editor of `` The Times of India ``

Sir,—1 wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ` Banker `in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ` a Hindu Institution `. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared ;.but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. ``

After the Khilafat storm had blown over and the Muslims had shown a desire to return to the internal politics of India, the Muslim League was resuscitated. The session of the League held in Bombay on 30th December 1924 under the presidentship of Mr. Raza Ali was a lively one. Both Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Mahomed Ali took part in it. 100[f.56]

In this session of the League, a resolution was moved which affirmed the desirability of representatives of the various Muslim associations of India representing different shades of political thought meeting in a conference at an early date at Delhi or at some other central place with a view to develop `` a united and sound practical activity `` to supply the needs of the Muslim community. Mr. Jinnah in explaining the resolution said 101[f.57] :—

`` The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers. ``

The League also passed another resolution in the same session for appointing a committee of 33 prominent Musalmans to formulate the political demands of the Muslim community. The resolution was moved by Mr. Jinnah. In moving the resolution, Mr. Jinnah 102[f.58] :—

``Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country`s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity ? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides. ``

And he did not thus hesitate to arraign mischief makers in the sternest possible language that could only emanate from an earnest nationalist. In his capacity as the President of the session of the League held in Lahore on 24th May 1924 he said 103 [f59] :—

`` If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters. Englishmen being our arbiters. ``

In the two All-Parties Conferences, one held in 1925 and the other in 1928, Mr. Jinnah was prepared to settle the Hindu-Muslim question on the basis of joint electorates. In 1927 he openly said 104[f.60] from the League platform :—

`` I am not wedded to separate electorates,/B> although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure. ``

In 1928, Mr. Jinnah joined the Congress in the boycott of the Simon Commission. He did so even though the Hindus and Muslims had failed to come to a settlement and he did so at the cost of splitting the League into two.

Even when the ship of the Round Table Conference was about to break on the communal rock, Mr. Jinnah resented being named as a communalist who was responsible for the result and said that he preferred an agreed solution of the communal problem to the arbitration of the British Government. Addressing the U. P. Muslim Conference held at Allahabad on 8th August 105[f.61] 1931 Mr. Jinnah said :—

`` The first thing that I wish to tell you is that it is now absolutely essential and vital that Muslims should stand united. For Heaven`s sake close all your ranks and files and slop this internecine war. I urged this most vehemently and I pleaded to the best of my ability before Dr. Ansari, Mr. T. A. K. Sherwani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Syed Mahmud. I hope that before I leave the shores of India I shall hear the good news that whatever may be our differences ; whatever may be our convictions between ourselves, this is not the moment to quarrel between ourselves.

`` Another thing I want to tell you is this. There is a certain section of the press, there is a certain section of the Hindus, who constantly misrepresent me in various ways. I was only reading the speech of Mr. Gandhi this morning and Mr. Gandhi said that he loves Hindus and Muslims alike. I again say standing here on this platform that although I may not put forward that claim but I do put forward this honestly and sincerely that I want fair play between the two communities. ``

Continuing further Mr. Jinnah said: ``As to the most important question, which to my mind is the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement—all I can say to you is that I honestly believe that the Hindus should concede to the Muslims a majority in the Punjab and Bengal and if that is conceded, I think a settlement can be arrived at in a very short time.

``The next question that arises is one of separate vs. joint electorates. As most of you know, if a majority is conceded in the Punjab and Bengal, I would personally prefer a settlement on the basis of joint electorate. (Applause.) But I also know that there is a large body of Muslims—and I believe a majority of Muslims—who are holding on to separate electorate. My position is that I would rather have a settlement even on the footing of separate electorate, hoping and trusting that when we work our new constitution and when both Hindus and Muslims get rid of distrust, suspicion and fears and when they gel their freedom we would rise to the occasion and probably separate electorate will go sooner than most of us think.

`` Therefore I am for a settlement and peace among the Muslims first; I am for a settlement and peace between the Hindus and Mahommedans. This is not a lime for argument, not a time for propaganda work and not a time for embittering feelings between the two communities, because the enemy is at the door of both of us and I say without hesitation that if the Hindu-Muslim question is not settled, I have no doubt that the British will have to arbitrate and that he who arbitrates will keep to himself the substance of power and authority. Therefore, I hope they will not vilify me. After all, Mr. Gandhi himself says that he is willing to give the Muslims whatever they want, and my only sin is that I say to the Hindus give to the Muslims only 14 points, which is much less than the ` blank cheque ` which Mr. Gandhi is willing to give. I do not want a blank cheque, why not concede the 14 points ? When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says: `Give us a blank cheque ` when Mr. Patel says : ` Give us a blank cheque and we will sign it with a Swadeshi pen on a Swadeshi paper ` they are not communalists and I am a communalist ! I say to Hindus not to misrepresent everybody. I hope and trust that we shall be yet in a position to settle the question which will bring peace and happiness to the millions in our country.

`` One thing more I want to tell you and I have done. During the lime of the Round Table Conference,—it is now an open book and anybody who cares to read it can learn for himself—I observed the one and the only principle and it was that when I left the shores of Bombay I said to the people that I would hold the interests of India sacred, and believe me—if you care to read the proceedings of the Conference, I am not bragging because I have done my duly—that I have loyally and faithfully fulfilled my promise to the fullest extent and I venture to say that if the Congress or Mr. Gandhi can get anything more than I fought for, I would congratulate them.

`` Concluding Mr. Jinnah said that they must come to a settlement, they must become friends eventually and he, therefore, appealed to the Muslims to show moderation, wisdom and conciliation, if possible, in the deliberation that might take place and the resolution that might be passed at the Conference. ``

As an additional illustration of the transformation in Muslim ideology, I propose to record the opinions once held by Mr. Barkat Ali who is now a follower of Mr. Jinnah and a staunch supporter of Pakistan.

When the Muslim League split-into two over the question of cooperation with the Simon Commission, one section led by Sir Mahommad Shafi favouring co-operation and another section led by Mr. Jinnah supporting the Congress plan of boycott, Mr. Barkat Ali belonged to the Jinnah section of the League. The two wings of the League held their annual sessions in 1928 at two different places. The Shafi wing met in Lahore and the Jinnah wing met in Calcutta. Mr. Barkat Ali, who was the Secretary of the Punjab Muslim League, attended the Calcutta session of the Jinnah wing of the League and moved the resolution relating to the communal settlement. The basis of the settlement was joint electorates. In moving the resolution Mr. Barkat Ali said 106 [f62] :—

`` For the first time in the history of the League there was a change in its angle of vision. We are offering by this change a sincere hand of fellowship to those of our Hindu countrymen who have objected to the principle of separate electorates. ``

In 1928 there was formed a Nationalist Party under the leadership of Dr. Ansari. 107[f.63] The Nationalist Muslim Party was a step in advance of the Jinnah wing of the Muslim League and was prepared to accept the Nehru Report, as it was, without any amendments—not even those which Mr. Jinnah was insisting upon. Mr. Barkat Ali, who in 1927 was with the Jinnah wing of the League, left the same as not being nationalistic enough and joined the Nationalist Muslim Party of Dr. Ansari. How great a nationalist Mr. Barkat Ali then was can be seen by his trenchant and vehement attack on Sir Muhammad lqbal for his having put forth in his presidential address to the annual session of the All-India Muslim League held at Allahabad in 1930 a scheme 108[f.64] for the division of India which is now taken up by Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali and which goes by the name of Pakistan. In 1931 there was held in Lahore the Punjab Nationalist Muslim Conference and Mr. Barkat Ali was the Chairman of the Reception Committee. The views he then expressed on Pakistan are worth recalling 109[f.65] Reiterating and reaffirming the conviction and the political faith of his party, Malik Barkat Ali, Chairman of the Reception Committee of the Conference, said :

`` We believe, first and foremost in the full freedom and honour of India. India, the country of our birth and the place with which all our most valued and dearly cherished associations are knit, must claim its first place in our affection and in our desires. We refuse to be parties to that sinister type of propaganda which would try to appeal to ignorant sentiment by professing to be Muslim first and Indian afterwards. To us a slogan of this kind is not only bare, meaningless cant, but downright mischievous. We cannot conceive of Islam in its best and last interests as in any way inimical to or in conflict with the best and permanent interests of India. India and Islam in India are identical, and whatever is to the detriment of India must, from the nature of it, be detrimental to Islam whether economically, politically, socially or even morally. Those politicians, therefore, are a class of false prophets and at bottom the foes of Islam, who talk of any inherent conflict between Islam and the welfare of India. Further, howsoever much our sympathy with our Muslim brethren outside India, i.e., the Turks and the Egyptians or the Arabs,—and it is a sentiment which is at once noble and healthy,—we can never allow that sympathy to work to the detriment of the essential interests of India. Our sympathy, in fact, with those countries can only be valuable to them, if India as the source, nursery and fountain of that sympathy, is really great. And if ever the lime comes, God forbid, when any Muslim Power from across the Frontier chooses to enslave India and snatch away the liberties of its people, no amount of pan-lslamic feeling, whatever it may mean, can stand in the way of Muslim India fighting shoulder to shoulder with non-Muslim India in defence of its liberties.

`` Let there be, therefore, no misgivings of any kind in that respect in any non-Muslim quarters. I am conscious that a certain class of narrow-minded Hindu politicians is constantly harping on the bogey of an Islamic danger to India from beyond the N.-W. Frontier passes but I desire to repeat that such statements and such fears are fundamentally wrong and unfounded. Muslim India shall as much defend India`s liberties as non-Muslim India, even if the invader happens to be a follower of Islam.

`` Next, we not only believe in a free India but we also believe in a united India—not the India of the Muslim, not the India of the Hindu or of the Sikh, not the India of this community or of that community but the India of all. And as this is our abiding faith, we refuse to be parties to any division of the India of the future into a Hindu or a Muslim India. However much the conception of a Hindu and a Muslim India may appeal and send into frenzied ecstasies abnormally orthodox mentalities of their party, we offer our full throated opposition to it, not only because it is singularly unpractical and utterly obnoxious but because it not only sounds the death-knell of all that is noble and lasting in modern political activity in India, but is also contrary to and opposed to India`s chief historical tradition.

`` India was one in the days of Asoka and Chandragupta and India remained one even when the sceptre and rod of Imperial sway passed from Hindu into Moghul or Muslim hands. And India shall remain one when we shall have attained the object of our desires and reached those uplands of freedom, where all the light illuminating us shall not be reflected glory but shall be light proceeding direct as it were from our very faces.

`` The conception of a divided India, which Sir Muhammad lqbal put forward recently in the course of his presidential utterance from the platform of the League at a time when that body had virtually become extinct and ceased to represent free Islam—I am glad to be able to say that Sir Muhammad lqbal has since recanted it—must not therefore delude anybody into thinking that it is Islam`s conception of the India to be. Even if Dr. Sir Muhammad lqbal had not recanted it as something which could not be put forward by any sane person, I should have emphatically and unhesitatingly repudiated it as something foreign to the genius and the spirit of the rising generation of Islam, and I really deem it a proud duty to affirm today that not only must there be no division of India in to communal provinces but that both Islam and Hinduism must run coterminously with the boundaries of India and must not be cribbed, cabined and confined within any shorter bounds. To the same category as Dr. lqbal`s conception of a Muslim India and a Hindu India, belongs the sinister proposals of some Sikh communalists to partition and divide the Punjab.

`` With a creed so expansive, namely a free and united India with its people all enjoying in equal measure and without any kinds of distinctions and disabilities the protection of laws made by the chosen representatives of the people on the widest possible basis of a true democracy, namely, adult franchise, and through the medium of joint electorates—and an administration charged with the duty of an impartial execution of the laws, fully accountable for its actions, not to a distant or remote Parliament of foreigners but to the chosen representatives of the land,—you would not expect me to enter into the details and lay before you, all the colours of my picture. And I should have really liked to conclude my general observations on the aims and objects of the Nationalist Muslim Party here, were it not that the much discussed question of joint or separate electorates, has today assumed proportions where no public man can possibly ignore it.

`` Whatever may have been the value or utility of separate electorates at a time when an artificially manipulated high-propertied franchise had the effect of converting a majority of the people in the population of a province into a minority in the electoral roll, and when communal passions and feelings ran particularly high, universal distrust poisoning the whole atmosphere like a general and all-pervading miasma,—we feel that in the circumstances of today and in the India of the future, separate electorates should have no place whatever. ``

Such were the views Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Barkat Ali held on nationalism, on separate electorates and on Pakistan.