Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:52:52.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jinnah and the Pakistan Demand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

R. J. Moore
R. J. Moore
Affiliation:
Flinders University of South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an age sceptical of the historic role of great men there is universal agreement that Mahomed Ali Jinnah was central to the Muslim League's emergence after 1937 as the voice of a Muslim nation; to its articulation in March 1940 of the Pakistan demand for separate statehood for the Muslim majority provinces of north-western and eastern India; and to its achievement in August 1947 of the separate but truncated state of Pakistan by the Partition of India. Subcontinental judgements of Jinnah are bound to be parti pris and to exaggerate his individual importance. While Pakistanis generally see him as the Quaid-i-Azam, Great Leader, or father of their nation, Indians often regard him as the Lucifer who tempted his people into the unforgivable sin against their nationalist faith. Among distinguished foreign scholars, unbiassed by national commitment, his stature is similarly elevated. Sir Penderel Moon has written:

There is, I believe, no historical parallel for a single individual effecting such a political revolution; and his achievement is a striking refutation of the theory that in the making of history the individual is of little or no significance. It was Mr Jinnah who created Pakistan and undoubtedly made history.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1983 , pp. 529 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am indebted to my colleague, Dr Lance Brennan, for discussions and suggestions for sources on the subject of this article.

1 SirMoon, Penderel, ‘Mr Jinnah's Changing Attitude to the Idea of Pakistan’, paper presented at Quaid-i-Azam Centenary Congress, Islamabad, 1976.Google Scholar

2 L. Ziring, ‘Jinnah: The Burden of Leadership’, ibid.

3 Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, M. D. (eds), The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives, 1935–1947 (London, 1970), 29.Google Scholar

4 Mansergh, N., The Prelude to Partition: Concepts and Aims in Ireland and India, The 1976 Commonwealth Lecture (Cambridge, 1978), 26, 59.Google Scholar

5 Viceroy's Personal Report No. 3, 17 April 1947, Mansergh, N. and Moon, P. (eds), The Transfer of Power (T.P.), X (1981), Doc. 165.Google Scholar

6 Mountbatten to Sir Stafford Cripps, 9 July 1947, CAB 127/139, Public Record Office (P.R.O.), London.

7 E.g. Clement Attlee's draft memoirs, ATLE 1/13, Churchill Coll., Cambridge; Mountbatten on Nehru and Patel in letter to Cripps, 9 July 1947, loc. cit.; Moon to J.McL. Short, 2 September 1946, CAB 127/150, P.R.O.; Hodson, H. V., The Great Divide: Britain—India—Pakistan (London, 1969), 217–18Google Scholar; Collins, L. and Lapierre, D., Freedom at Midnight (London, 1975), 101Google Scholar; Gopal, S., Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography, I (London, 1975), 257Google Scholar; Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, IV (Delhi, 1972), 574.Google Scholar

8 Sayeed, K. B., ‘The Personality of Jinnah and His Political Strategy’Google Scholar, Philips, and Wainwright, , Partition of India, 276–93, esp. 282.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 293. Dr Ian Copland has recently observed that Jinnah ‘remains an enigma’ (‘Islam and Political Mobilization in Kashmir, 1931–34’, Pacific Affairs, 54.2 (1981), 228–59).Google Scholar

10 E.g. Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement, IV, 321ff.Google Scholar

11 See Moon, , ‘Jinnah's Changing Attitude’, for an analysis of such arguments.Google Scholar

12 E.g. Mehrotra, S. R., ‘The Congress and the Partition of India’Google Scholar, Philips, and Wainwright, , Partition of India, 188–221, p. 216Google Scholar; Seal, A., ‘Imperialism and Nationalism in India’, Gallagher, J. A., Johnson, G. and Seal, A. (eds), Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics, 1870–1940 (Cambridge, 1973), 1–27, p. 24.Google Scholar

13 For recent studies of mobilization, see Copland, , ‘Islam and Political Mobilization’, esp. 228–31, 257–9.Google Scholar

14 Cited in Bolitho, H., Jinnah: Creator of Pakistan (London, 1954), 70.Google Scholar

15 Jalal, A. and Seal, A., ‘Alternative to Partition: Muslim Politics Between the Wars’, Baker, C., Johnson, G. and Seal, A. (eds), Power, Profit and Politics: Essays in Imperialism, Nationalism and Change in Twentieth Century India (Cambridge, 1981), 415–54Google Scholar; Moore, , The Crisis of Indian Unity, 1917–40 (Oxford, 1974).Google Scholar

16 Zaidi, Z. H., ‘Aspects of Muslim League Policy, 1937–47’Google Scholar, Philips, and Wainwright, , Partition of India, 245–75, esp. 250–7Google Scholar. See also Gallagher, J. A., ‘Congress in Decline: Bengal, 1930 to 1939’, Locality, Province and Nation, 269–325, esp. 307–12.Google Scholar

17 Lady Mountbatten wrote to her husband of Miss Jinnah in April 1947: ‘Like Mr Jinnah, she has, of course, a persecution mania…’ (T.P. X, 207). M. L. Chagla, a useful witness, believed that she ‘injected an extra dose of venom’ into Jinnah's diatribes against the Hindus (Roses in December (Bombay, 1973), 119)Google Scholar. For recollections of Jinnah see also the works of Kanji Dwarkadas.

18 Brennan, L., ‘The Socio-Economic Background to Muslim Separatism in the United Provinces, 1900–1940’, unpublished seminar paper, Flinders University, 1982.Google Scholar

19 Husain, Azim, Fazl-i-Husain: a Political Biography (Bombay, 1946), 265.Google Scholar

20 Cited in Bolitho, , Jinnah, 113–14.Google Scholar

21 See Pandey, D., ‘Congress-Muslim League Relations, 1937–39: “The Parting of the Ways”‘, Modern Asian Studies, 12 (1978), 629–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Brennan (loc. cit.) shows that in the U.P. ‘for the first time since 1909 the Muslim élite seemed to have no leverage in the new institutions of government’, ‘many of the gains of the past thirty years seemed to be vanishing or at least under threat’, and ‘the foundations they had so carefully fought to build were shown to be straw’.

23 Prasad to Patel, II October 1938, Pandey, B. N. (ed.), The Indian Nationalist Movement, 1885–1947: Select Documents (London, 1979), 127–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Coupland, R. G., Indian Politics, 1936–42 (London, 1943), 167–78.Google Scholar

25 Jinnah's presidential address to Muslim League at Patna, 26 December 1938, Ahmad, Jamil-ud-din (ed.), Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, 2 vols (Lahore, 1960 edn), I, 67–81.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., 30.

27 Ibid., 139.

28 Ibid., 36, 139, 184.

29 Ibid., 116.

30 The earliest X ray photograph in the Quaid-i-Azam archives at Islamabad (Q.A.P.) is dated Lahore, 26 October 1936.

31 Cripps-Geoffrey Wilson diary of visit to India, 15 December 1939 (in possession of Mr. Maurice Shock).

32 Coupland's Indian diary, 1941–42 (C.D.), 17 January 1942, Rhodes House, Oxford.

33 Ibid., 8 April 1942.

34 A. V. Alexander's diary, 4 April 1946, Churchill Coll., Cambridge.

35 Cited in Hodson, , The Great Divide, 217.Google Scholar

36 The following account of the Karachi conference draws heavily on Jones, A. K., ‘Mr. Jinnah's Leadership and the Evolution of the Pakistan Idea: The Case of the Sind Provincial Muslim League Conference, 1938’, paper presented at Quaid-i-Azam Centenary Conference, Islamabad 1976.Google Scholar

37 Gazdar to Jinnah, 10 July 1937, cited in Ziring, ‘Jinnah’.

38 Shafi, Alhaj Mian Ahmad, Haji Sir Abdoola Haroon: A Biography (Karachi, n.d.).Google Scholar

39 Address of 9 October 1938, cited in Mr. Jones, , ‘Mr. Jinnah's Leadership’.Google Scholar

40 See Jinnah's Osmania University speech, 28 September 1939, Ahmad, , Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, I, 87Google Scholar; Diary, Cripps-Wilson, 15 December 1939Google Scholar; ‘Two Nations in India’, sent by Jinnah, to Time and Tide on 19 01 1940 and published 9 03 1940.Google Scholar

41 Statesman, 11 October 1938, cited in Jones, , ‘Mr. Jinnah's Leadership’.Google Scholar

42 Statesman, 14 October 1938, cited in Mehrotra, ‘The Congress and the Partition’, 207.Google Scholar

43 Pioneer, 15 October 1938, cited in Pirzada, S. S. (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan: All-India Muslim League Documents, 1906–47, 2 vols (Karachi, 1970), II, xix.Google Scholar

44 Zaidi, , ‘Aspects of Muslim League Policy’, 261.Google Scholar

45 Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 306–24.Google Scholar

46 Ibid., 321.

47 Ibid., xx–xxi.

48 Shafi, , Haji Sir Abdoola Haroon, 139.Google Scholar

49 Haroon's correspondence with Aga Khan in November-December 1938, in Shafi, ibid., 137–42. For the Aga Khan's own notion of a ‘United States of Southern Asia’ see ‘Scheme of His Highness Sir Aga Khan as modified by Sir Fazl-i-Husain, January 1936’, ibid., 118–21, and Jalal, and Seal, , ‘Alternative to Partition’, 445–9.Google Scholar

50 Shafi, , Haji Sir Abdoola Haroon, 150–1.Google Scholar

51 Haroon's introduction to Latif's, The Muslim Problem in India, Bombay, 07 1939, v–viii.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.; The Cultural Future of India, Bombay 1938; A Federation of Cultural Zones for India, Secunderabad, 20 December 1938; Statesman, 30 March 1939.

53 Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 153–71.Google Scholar

54 Cited and discussed in Coupland, , Indian Politics, 199–201.Google Scholar

55 Malik, Hafeez (ed.), Iqbal: Poet-Philosopher of Pakistan (New York, 1971), appx, 383–90.Google Scholar

56 Ahmad Bashir to Jinnah etc., 22 March 1939, Q.A.P., file 96.

57 Ibid. See also Ahmad Bashir letter to a newspaper, 7 April 1939, ibid.

58 Ahmad Bashir to Jinnah, 21 October 1939, Q.A.P., file 96.

59 Cf. the signatures on preceding letters and of ‘(Mian) Bashir Ahmad’ on letter to Jinnah, 19 June 1946, Q.A.P., file 1092. For Bashir Ahmad, see Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 326, 462–3Google Scholar (poems read at League's Lahore session, 22 March 1940, and Karachi session, 25 December 1943); Muhammad Daud Rahbar in Malik, , Iqbal, p. 44Google Scholar. For his writings, see, e.g., ibid., bibliography; ‘Quaid-e-Azam: Some Glimpses of His Greatness’, Ahmad, Jamil-ud-din (ed.), Quaid-e-Azam as Seen by His Contemporaries (Lahore, 1966), 13–28.Google Scholar

60 Khan, Sikander Hyat, Outlines of a Scheme of Indian Federation, Lahore, 30 07 1939Google Scholar. See also Sikander's speech in Punjab Legislative Assembly Debates, 11 March 1941Google Scholar (in Menon, V. P., The Transfer of Power in India, 1957, appx I, 451–67).Google Scholar For another Punjabi scheme published in Lahore in summer 1939, see ‘A Punjabi’ [? Miyan Kifayat Ali] Confederacy of India, pub. by Sir Muhammad Shah Nawaz Khan of Mamdot.

61 Bashir, Ahmad, ‘Sir Sikandar Hayat's Scheme’ and ‘Sir Sikandar's Federal Scheme’, Civil and Military Gazette, 5 and 27 August 1939.Google Scholar

62 Hasan, Syed Zafarul and Qadri, Muhammad Afzal Husain, The Problem of Indian Muslims and its Solution, Aligarh Muslim University Press, 14 08 1939.Google Scholar

63 Printed commendation by Amiruddin Kedwaii, Umar Uddin, Zafar Ahmad Siddiqi, Masud Makhdum, Dr. Zaki Uddin, Dr. Burhan Ahmad Faruqi, Jamil-ud-din Ahmad and Muddassir Ali Shamsee, n.d., but attached to similarly printed address by ‘The Authors’, d. September 1939, Q.A.P., file 96.

64 Viceroy's statement, 18 October 1939, in Gwyer, M. and Appadorai, A. (eds), Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution, 1921–47, 1957, 490–3.Google Scholar

65 Ahmad Bashir to Jinnah, 21 October 1939, loc. cit. See also extract from his letter to Nehru, 6 December 1939, in Gopal, S. (ed.), Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, X (New Delhi, 1977), 420 n.Google Scholar

66 Gandhi, , ‘Opinions Differ’, Harijan, 11 11 1939Google Scholar, reported in Statesman (Delhi), 12 11 1939Google Scholar. Gandhi was replying to a private letter from ‘M.A. of Aligarh’ (see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, LXX (1977), 332–4).Google Scholar

67 Typescript document, 4pp., Q.A.P., file 96.

68 ‘Confidential Note for the President’, n.d., ibid.

69 Haroon to Hon. Sec. A.I.M.L., 2 February 1940, ibid.

70 Khaliquzzaman, C., Pathway to Pakistan (Lahore, 1961), 223–4Google Scholar. Khaliquzzaman grossly exaggerates his own role, though in March 1939 he had proposed to the Secretary of State a vague scheme for three or four separate federations of provinces and states under a small central co-ordinating body (ibid., 205–7; Marquess of Zetland, ‘Essayez’, 1956, 248–9). See also below, p. 552.Google Scholar

71 A.I.M.L. session, 22–24 March 1940, Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 325–49.Google Scholar

72 At the time Liaquat Ali Khan rightly said that the term ‘territorial readjustments’ connoted a Muslim claim to Aligarh and Delhi, an interpretation questioned by Pirzada in the light of later events (ibid., xx–xxi).

73 See above, n. 70, and below, p. 552.

74 See his speech of 11 March 1941 (see n. 60).

75 See Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, xxii–xxiiiGoogle Scholar; Philips, , Partition of India, 29.Google Scholar

76 Mansergh, , Prelude to Partition, 27.Google Scholar

77 Still, the Associated Press of India reported that as Jinnah spoke ‘there were many in that huge gathering of over 100,000 people who remembered the late Mohammed Iqbal, the poet of Islam, the animator of the idea of Pakistan’ (Pirzada, , II, 327Google Scholar). Jinnah later wrote of Iqbal: ‘His views were substantially in consonance with my own and had led me to the same conclusions as a result of careful examination and study of the constitutional problems facing India and found expression in due course in … the Lahore resolution…’ (Malik, , Iqbal, 384–5).Google Scholar

78 For the discussions, see Rizvi, Gowher, Linlithgow in India: A Study of British Policy and the Political Impasse in India, 1936–43, 1978, 129ff.Google Scholar; Veerathappa, K., ‘Britain and the Indian Problem (September 1939–May 1940)’, International Studies, VII (1966), 537–67Google Scholar; Moore, , ‘British Policy and the Indian Problem, 1936–40’Google Scholar, Philips, and Wainwright, , Partition of India, 79–94.Google Scholar

79 Cited in Pandey, D., ‘Congress-Muslim League Relations’, 647.Google Scholar

80 Prasad to Nehru, 12 November 1939, Pandey, B. N., Documents, 137–8.Google Scholar

81 Resolutions of A.I.M.L. Working Committee, 15–17 June 1940, Q.A.P., file 95. See also Coupland, , Indian Politics, 243.Google Scholar

82 Sikander to Jinnah, 31 May 1940, Q.A.P., file 21; Coupland, , Indian Politics, 241.Google Scholar

83 Viceroy's statement of 8 August 1940, Gwyer, and Appadorai, , Speeches and Documents, 504–5.Google Scholar

84 Liaquat to Jinnah, 28 July 1941, Q.A.P., file 1092.

85 Allegations of dictatorship remain prominent in Partition historiography (e.g. Collins, and Lapierre, , Freedom at Midnight, 103Google Scholar; Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement, IV, passimGoogle Scholar). Hodson wrote that Jinnah ‘displayed his authority … imperiously’ in August 1941 (The Great Divide, 89).Google Scholar

86 E.g., May 1944 speech, Ahmad, , Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, II, 47–50.Google Scholar

87 Press statement, Statesman, 19 February 1941.Google Scholar

88 E.g., November 1940 and April 1941 speeches, Ahmad, , op. cit., I, 184–5, 259.Google Scholar

89 Statesman (Delhi), 18 02 1941.Google Scholar

90 Menon, , The Transfer of Power in India, 451–67.Google Scholar

91 Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 359–71.Google Scholar

92 Menon, , The Transfer of Power in India, 105.Google Scholar

93 C.D., 2 February 1942.

94 Ibid., 17 January and 2 February 1942. Coupland assumed these cessions in his own “Agency Centre” scheme (The Future of India, 1943, 82).Google Scholar

95 Memo, on Pakistan, 21 March 1942, C.D., 269–70.

96 Declaration as published, 30 March 1942, T.P. I, 456.Google Scholar

97 Resolution of League Working Committee, 11 April 1942, ibid., 606.

98 See Moore, , Churchill, Cripps and India, 1939–45 (Oxford, 1979), 88 and n. 4Google Scholar; T.P. I, 380, 392, 393Google Scholar. The Cripps Mission file (802) in the Q.A.P. is ‘embargoed’.

99 C.D., 185, 214.

100 C.D., 221–2.

101 Working Committee resolution, 11 April 1942, loc. cit.

102 Ahmad, , Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, I, 582–6.Google Scholar

103 For further expressions of the idea, see ibid., I, 383, 409, 477, 567–8.

104 See Richard Casey to Wavell, 11 September 1944, T.P. V, 13, 79Google Scholar; East Pakistan Renaissance Society, Eastern Pakistan: Its Population, Delimitation and Economics, Calcutta, 09 1944Google Scholar. As early as 11 June 1940 Prof. A. Sadeque, Professor of Economics and Politics at Islamia College, Calcutta, sent to Jinnah a proposal for dividing India into Pakistan, Hindustan and ‘Greater Bengal’ (Q.A.P., file 106).

105 Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, xxx.Google Scholar

106 Moore, , Churchill, Cripps and India, 132–5. See below.Google Scholar

107 Moore, , Escape from Empire: The Attlee Government and the Indian Problem, 1983, 18–31.Google Scholar

108 E.g., interview of 8 November 1945, Ahmad, , II, 230–3.Google Scholar

109 Pirzada, , Foundations of Pakistan, II, 512–13.Google Scholar

110 T.P. VII, 71, 82.Google Scholar

111 Ibid., 126.

112 Ibid., 82.

113 See Ahmad to Jinnah, 29 May 1946, Q.A.P., file 1092.

114 T.P., VII, 303.Google Scholar

115 E.g., M. L. Qureshi (joint secretary of the League's Planning Committee) to Jinnah, 31 May 1946, Q.A.P., file 1092.

116 Ispahani, M. A. H., ‘Factors Leading to the Partition of British India’Google Scholar, Philips, and Wainwright, , Partition of India, 330–59, pp. 348–50.Google Scholar

117 Aurangzeb Khan to Jinnah, 19 May 1946, Q.A.P., file 12; Ahmad to Jinnah, 29 May 1946, loc. cit. See also typed lists of ‘Advantages’ and ‘Disadvantages’, n.d.; Liaquat to Jinnah, 21 May 1946; Prof. A. B. A. Haleem (Aligarh) to Jinnah, 23 May 1946; all in Q.A.P., file 12.

118 T.P. VII, 469.Google Scholar

119 Jinnah to Wavell, 8 June 1946, ibid., 473.

120 For elaboration see Moore, , Escape from Empire, 124–44.Google Scholar

121 See, e.g., Jinnah's bitter complaint to Attlee and Churchill, 6 July 1946, T.P. VIII, 68.Google Scholar

122 See, e.g., T.P. IX, 153.Google Scholar

123 E.g., Churchill to Jinnah and Lord Simon to Jinnah, both 11 December 1946, Q.A.P., file 21.

124 T.P. X, 229.Google Scholar

125 Commons Debates, 12 December 1946, cols. 1362–70Google Scholar; 20 December 1946, cols. 2341–52. See also Dwarkadas, K., Ten Years to Freedom (Bombay 1968), 195–6.Google Scholar

126 See Sir W. Monckton to Lord Templewood, 15 January 1947 and reply, 16 January 1947, Templewood Coll., India Office Library, London.

127 T.P. IX, 440; X, 105, 165.Google Scholar

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid., 256. See also 276, Annex, 1.

130 Ibid., 229. See also 227–8, 264. Cf. the common Pakistani belief that Jinnah saw Suhrawardy's scheme as a heresy (e.g. Ispahani, M. A. H., Qaid-e-Azam as I Knew Him (Karachi, 1967 edn), 257–8Google Scholar). For relations between Jinnah and Suhrawardy over the scheme from February 1947, see Ziring, , ‘Jinnah’. A draft scheme for a ‘Free State of Bengal’, d. 4 June 1947, appears in Q.A.P., file 142.Google Scholar

131 Moore, , ‘Mountbatten, India and the Commonwealth’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, XXIX.1 (1981), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

132 See also Brohi, A. K., ‘Reflections on the Quaid-i-Azam's Self-Selection as the First Governor-General of Pakistan’Google Scholar, and Burke, S. M., ‘Quaid-i-Azam's Decision to become Pakistan's First Governor-General’, papers presented at Quaid-i-Azam Centenary Conference, Islamabad 1976Google Scholar. Cf. Mountbatten's simple explanation in terms of Jinnah's vanity and megalomania, and Congress suspicions of Jinnah's fascist intentions (above, nn. 6–7).

133 In May 1949 three of Pakistan's governors, the three chiefs of staff, and 470 military officers, were still British.

134 For Gandhi see his Autobiography: the Story of My Experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad, 1927Google Scholar), and S. H. and Rudolph, L., The Modernity of Tradition (Chicago, 1967), Pt. II (‘The Traditional Roots of Charisma: Gandhi’).Google Scholar

135 Appeal for ‘Day of Deliverance’, 2 December 1939, Ahmad, , I, 98–100.Google Scholar

136 C.D., 17 January 1942.

137 See, e.g., M. L. Qureshi to Jinnah, 31 May 1946, loc. cit.

138 See my ‘Mountbatten, India and the Commonwealth’, 28–34Google Scholar; T.P. X, 387, 416.Google Scholar