As we celebrate the Pakistan Day (Pakistan Resolution Day) today, it is important to go back to the original scheme as was conceived and the rationale on the basis of which this resolution was passed by a political party that claimed to be the sole representative of the Muslim population of undivided India. As explained in the following paragraphs the resolution is a political document based solely on certain economic issues. It does not contain any theocratic notion as wrongly conceived and implemented by people who did not follow the Quaid. The following is the complete text of the resolution as was passed on March 23, 1940.
“THE LAHORE RESOLUTION”
Resolved at the Lahore Session of All-India Muslim League held on 22nd-24th March, 1940.
(1) While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council and the Working Committee of the All India Muslim League as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and 3rd February 1940 on the constitutional issues, this Session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935, is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.
(2) 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 Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principle, namely 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.
(3) That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them; and in other parts of India where the Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.
(4) This Session further authorises the Working Committee to frame a scheme of constitution in accordance with these basic principles, providing for the assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters as may be necessary.” In simple terms this resolution reflected the political decision that:
The scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935 is totally unsuited to and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to the Muslims of India;
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” ;
Areas where Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specially provided in the constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.
Assumption finally by the respective regions of all powers such as defence, external affairs, communications, customs and such other matters.
The matter was quite simple and resolved quite easily. It rejected the scheme of federation as envisaged by the Government of India Act, 1935. After having rejected that, it required the creation of ‘Independent States’ in North West and Eastern Zones. These states were however required to attain full separation from the Indian federation over time when even defence, external affairs, communications, customs were also required to be given to such states. This is completely, wholly and practically a political solution for the Muslim majority provinces.
This means that in order to understand this demand the political and economic premise of the Government of India Act, 1935 has to be analysed carefully. The main features of the Government of India Act, 1935 were as under:
All India Federation— The Act provided for an All-India Federation comprising the British Indian Provinces and the Indian States.
Provincial autonomy— One redeeming feature of the new Act was that it marked the beginning of Provincial Autonomy.
Division of subjects— The approach to form the federation and implement provincial autonomy paved the way for the division of subjects between the Centre and the Provinces. The division of subjects that were given by the Government of India Act, 1919 was revised and some more subjects were added to it by this Act of 1935 that had legislative three lists. These were:
Federal list— 59 items
• Provincial list— 54 items
• Concurrent list— 36 items
Dyarchy at the Centre— The Act of 1935 abolished dyarchy at the Centre. There were two categories of federal subjects: • Reserved subjects and Transferred subjects.
Bicameral legislature— Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the Central Legislature was bicameral, consisting of the Federal Assembly and Council of States. The Council of States was to be an upper house and a permanent body with one third of its membership retiring after every three years.
If the matter is further examined in depth then it is required to identify the matters which were not acceptable to the Quaid and the Muslim League. They are not explicitly mentioned in the Lahore Resolution. Nevertheless, empirical evidence and analysis of the theme of the Lahore resolution identifies that the main issue was the expected departure of the British and abolition of ‘dyarchy’ at the Centre. The situation, therefore, had given birth to deep insecurity among Muslims. The word ‘Pakistan’ was coined much later. It is not there in the 1940 resolution.
Prior to the 1935 Act, Centre was represented by the Viceroy, who represented the Crown. The provincial councils were represented by the elected people. The Crown had overriding powers over the provinces. Under the 1935 Act such powers were required to be transferred to the Federal Assembly at the Centre. The Quaid and the Muslim League were not comfortable with the situation that was supposed to arise after the removal of dyarchy at the Centre. Powers were supposed to be given to the Government at the centre which was to be dominated by non-Muslims; therefore, the Quaid and Muslim League felt that such majority-dominated Indian National Congress was not supposed to safeguard provincial interests therefore the 1935 Act was not to be accepted.
Other than that almost all the features of 1935 Act have been adopted by two states— India and Pakistan. This sense of insecurity by absolute majority was the only political basis behind creation of Pakistan. There is reason to argue now after over 80 years whether it was right or wrong. However it is also a fact that adversarial relations between two parts of India were not part of the scheme. The Resolution of 1940 needs to be understood by our new generation in its correct politico-economic sense. There is no other basis, especially any theocratic assertion. The Quaid being a competent lawyer was not supposed to rely on any basis which is not defensible in the court of law.
Within this perspective Pakistanis are required to examine the issues that arose in 1971 when our Eastern wing became uncomfortable and alienated and placed ‘Six Points’ as their election agenda. This was one of reasons behind the creation of Bangladesh. It was almost the same situation as was faced in 1940. Now in 2022 we are again faced with difficult propositions. Through the 18th Amendment there has been a settlement of subjects with an NFC Award. However, the post- 18th Amendment situation reveals that there has been no devolution of powers and reduction of size by the Federation. Furthermore, one province has an absolute majority in the National Assembly which is allowed to take all economic decisions. Furthermore, the Federation is highly burdened by debt servicing and defence. There is no devolution of power to local governments. In this situation it is high time to consider that all political decisions as reflected above are the result of inherent insecurity experienced or felt by a particular group. Common economic interests constitute the only basis of unity in a Federation that is required to be maintained.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2022