Lahore Resolution (1940)

Lahore Resolution

With the introduction of political reforms in India by the British, the Muslims realized that they would become a permanent minority in a democratic system and it would never be possible for them to protect their fundamental rights. They only constituted one fourth of the total Indian population and were much lesser in number than the majority Hindu community. In order to protect their political, social and religious rights they first demanded for separate electorates. However, due to the political developments that took place in the country they realized that even the right of separate electorates would not be enough and they had to search for some other long term solution.

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 & 18th of September and 22nd of October, 1939, and the 3rd of February, 1940 on the constitutional issue, 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.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939 made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslims in India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be 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 (British) India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities 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 and in other parts of India where the Muslims are in a minority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically 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.

Muhammad Iqbal, the poet philosopher in his famous Allahbad address made it clear that Islam has its own social and economic system and in order to implement it a political entity was required. When Jinnah came back to India in order to reorganize Muslim League and to make it a political party of the Muslim masses, he got the opportunity to interact with Iqbal. Iqbal through his letters tried to persuade Jinnah that the only solution available was a separate state for the Indian Muslims where they could spend their lives according to the teachings of Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW). Though Jinnah was convinced by late 1930s, but being a realist he was not ready to announce the new plan until he was confident that the vast majority of the Muslims were behind him. Overwhelming support from the Muslim masses for his call to celebrate Day of Deliverance on December 22, 1939 was actually a vote of confidence given by the Muslim Community in the leadership of Jinnah, whom they by then had started considering as their Quaid-i-Azam.

Lahore Resolution and Pakistani minorities

During the closing stages of the independence movement, the ulema were used by Congress to bring down the Muslim League and its leadership

 There are a few points that are never considered when theLahore Resolution is discussed. Foremost is the fact that there is no reference to Islam or a state for Islam. It speaks of Muslim India and a settlement between the major communities of British India. Second and more importantly, the Resolution states, “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,” the adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards to be decided in consultation with the minorities in the units. Consultation here constitutes a binding effect, i.e. whatever decision is to be taken affecting the rights of minorities in the units cannot be against the advice given by the minorities. The principle behind the Lahore Resolution was that a permanent majority by numbers cannot and should not be allowed to impose its ideas on a permanent minority. This required therefore a constitution that extends the principle of equal citizenship as well as rights above and beyond that citizenship to minorities. If we own the Lahore Resolution as the founding document of this country, we must endeavour to fulfil the promise that this Resolution makes explicitly to the minorities. What stands in the way of faithful execution of the Resolution in letter and spirit? It is the utter and total confusion that vested interests have managed to create about Pakistan and its founding principles. This distortion is carried on by both sides of the spectrum, ironically agreeing with each other unwittingly. It is quite disingenuously held that Pakistan was the consequence of a movement to create an exclusivist Islamic state. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The most bigoted and sectarian of the ulema (clerics) actually opposed the Pakistan Movement. It needs no repeating that the religious factor in politics was introduced by Gandhi who used the Muslim religious cause of the Khilafat to attempt to sideline the liberal Muslim elites and professionals. It was on Gandhi’s advice that Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Hind was formed in 1924 and Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam was formed in 1929. Achyut Patwardhan of the Congress Party hit the nail on the head when he wrote the following:
“It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the movementfreedom , the ‘Himalayan error’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error, which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemal Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemal was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League.”

During the closing stages of the independence movement the ulema were used by Congress to bring down the Muslim League and its leadership. Ayesha Jalal in her book Self and Sovereignty writes, “There was something peculiar about a ‘secular’ nationalist party counting on the vocal support of anti-imperial cultural relativists of Ahrar and Madani to claim a Muslim following. A spate of pamphlets published by Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Hind and Ahrar delighted in exposing [the] League’s lack of Islamic credentials, pointing to Jinnah’s emphatic assertions about Pakistan being a democracy in which Hindus and Sikhs would have an almost equal population. Substantiation that pro-Congress Muslims did much to weaken the Muslim League’s case on equal citizenship rights is the rejection by the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Hind and Ahrar laity of any possible equation between a democratic and an Islamic government...Throughout the run-up to the 1945-1946 elections and beyond, Punjabi leaders like Shaukat Hayat and Mumtaz Daultana, not to mention Iftikharuddin and Communists tried reassuring Hindus and Sikhs that their citizenship rights would be protected in Pakistan. They had considerable backing from the Punjab League and the Press...Yet it (Ahrar) felt no pangs of conscience spreading sectarian hatred amongst Muslims. While Bashiruddin Mahmud was excoriated for being a ‘drunkard’ and a ‘womaniser’, Ahmadis were ‘warned’ that they would cease to exist once the British quitIndia. Mazhar Ali Azhar’s threat to restart the Madha-i-Sahaba against the Shias of Lucknow aimed at retarding [the] Muslim League by creating internal religious differences.”
Pakistanis must be very clear about their narrative. The movement for Pakistan was neither theocratic nor intolerant. Yes, it sought to preserve legitimate Muslim interests, but it was never unmindful of its own minorities. We chose to ignore Jinnah’s vision and followed the path of religious intolerance but if anything it was the opponents of the Pakistan Movement who resorted to the vilest of religious propaganda against the Muslim League to undermine its credentials as the representative body of the Muslim community. Therefore, as Hamza Alavi once wrote, the real inheritors of the Pakistan Movement and its legacy are the brave secularists and liberals who are putting up a valiant fight to preserve Jinnah’s Pakistan. 

The Significance of Lahore Resolution

the Lahore resolution of 1940 was basically the first call for an independent Muslim state by a group of influential Muslims called the muslim league led by Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah(he's sort of the founding father of Pakistan and the Lahore resolution is kind of like the declaration of independence). well actually, muslim states, plural. Pakistan was once multiple, separated countries-east and west Pakistan discussion of which would take more space then we have here. suffice to say the Pakistan envisioned by the Lahore resolution is not quite the one that happened. The muslim league was of the opinion that the muslim population of India would be better off with a separate country as opposed to living within an Indian state. They were proud of their history and were convinced that they would have less of a voice within the Indian government then outside of it-many were appalled by the corruption and callousness exhibited by some indian national leaders of the time. They were also afraid that as a minority within the indian state they would not be treated fairly. with the Lahore resolution Pakistan set course for independence, for better or worse. 

Organization

With the clarity of mind and backing of the Muslim community behind him, Quaid-i-Azam called for the 27^thannual session of All India Muslim League to be held from March 22 to 24, 1940 at Lahore. Sir Shah Nawaz Khan of Mamdot was made the head of the reception committee and Main Bashir Ahmad was nominated as secretary of the session. Prominent leaders including Chaudhry Khaliquzzam, Nawab Muhammad Ismail Khan, Nawab Bahadur Yar Jang, A.K. Fazlul Haq, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, Abdullah haroon, Qazi Muhammad Isa, I.I. Chundrigar, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Abdul Hashim and Malik Barkat Ali etc. attended the session.

Khaksar Tragedy

Due to the Khaksar Tragedy that took place on March 19, Sir Sikandar Hayat and others tried to persuade Jinnah to postpone the session but the determined Quaid was not ready for it. In order to participate in the session, he reached Lahore by train on March 21. He went straight to Mayo Hospital to see the wounded Khaksars. By doing so he managed to handle well the issue of Khaksar disturbances. On his arrival Jinnah told the print media that the All India Muslim League will make historic decision in the upcoming session.

Quaid-i-Azam’s Address

The venue of the session was Minto Park near Badshahi Masjid and Lahore Fort. The inaugural session was planned at around three in the afternoon on March 22. People started coming from the morning and by the afternoon the park was jam packed. According to a rough estimate around 100,000 attended the public meeting. In the beginning of the session, the welcome address was presented by the Nawab of Mamdot. This was followed by the historical speech of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The Quaid in his two hours presidential address in English narrated the events that took place in the past few months and concluded, “Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine together, and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.” He further claimed, “Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nationhood. We wish our people to develop to the fullest spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people”.

During his speech the Quaid quoted the letter written by Lala Lajpat Rai in 1924 to C.R. Das in which he clearly mentioned that the Hindus and the Muslims were two separate and distict nationas which could never be merged into a single nation. When Malik Barkat Ali claimed that Lala Lajpat Rai was a “Nationalist Hindu leader”, Quaid responded, “No Hindu can be a nationalist. Every Hindu is a Hindu first and last.”

The Resolution

On March 23, A.K. Fazul Haq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, moved the historical Lahore Resolution. The Resolution consisted of five paragraphs and each paragraph was only one sentence long. Although clumsily worded, it delivered a clear message. The resolution declared:

“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 of February 1940, on the constitutional issue, 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.

It further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October, 1939, made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty’s Government is reassuring in so far as it declares that the policy and plan on which the Government of India Act, 1935 is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to the Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.

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.

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 Mussalmans are in a minority, adequate, effective and mandatory safeguard 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.

This session further authorizes 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”.

Besides many others, the Resolution was seconded by Chaudhary Khaliquzzam from UP, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan from Punjab, Sardar Aurangzeb from the N. W. F. P, Sir Abdullah Haroon from Sindh, and Qazi Muhammad Esa from Baluchistan. Those who seconded the resolution, in their speeches declared the occasion as a historic one. The Resolution was eventually passed on the last day of the moot, i.e. March 24.

Controversies

The name Pakistan was not used in the resolution and the official name of the resolution was Lahore Resolution. It was the Hindu newspapers including Partap, Bande Matram, Milap, Tribune etc., who ironically coined the name Pakistan Resolution. However, the idea was appreciated by the Muslim masses and the Resolution is more known as Pakistan Resolution. Secondly, the Government and people of Pakistan wrongly celebrate March 23 as a national day in Pakistan. The actual day when the resolution was passed was March 24. It was only presented on March 23. Lastly, it the word “states” and not “state” was mentioned in the Resolution. It means that the authors of the Resolution were foreseeing two separate states in the north-western and eastern zones of India. But if one has a good look at the developments that followed, he or she would come to the conclusion that either the word “states” was included as a mistake or the League leadership soon had a second thought to their idea. A Resolution passed at the 1941 Madras session of the League stated, “Everyone should clearly understand that we are striving for one independent and sovereign Muslim State.” In all the speeches that Quaid delivered, he also used the word “an independent homeland” or “an independent Muslim state”.

Hindu Reaction

The Hindu reaction was, of course, quick, bitter and malicious. They called the “Pakistan” demand “anti-national.” They characterized it as “vivisection; above all, they denounced it as imperialist – inspired to obstruct India’s march to freedom.” In denouncing the demand outright, they, however, missed the central fact of the Indian political situation; the astonishingly tremendous response of the Pakistan demand had elicited from the Muslim masses. They also failed to take cognizance of the fact that a hundred million Muslims were now supremely conscious of their distinct nationhood and were prepared to stake everything to actualize their self-perceived destiny – the creation of an independent Muslim state in the sub-continent.

British Reaction

The British were equally hostile to the Muslim demand for at least two important reasons. First, they had long considered themselves as the architects of the unity of India and of an Indian nation. Second, they had long regarded the super-imposed unity under tax Britannica as their greatest achievement and lasting contribution in history. And the Pakistan demand threatened to undo these presumed achievements on which the British had long prided. However, despite the Hindu denunciation and the British alarm, the course of Muslim, indeed Indian, politics was from now on firmly set towards Pakistan.

Conclusion

The All India Muslim League Resolution of March 1940, commonly known as the Pakistan Resolution, is undoubtedly the most important event that changed the course of Indian history and left deep marks on the world history. With the passage of this Resolution, the Muslims of the sub-continent changed their demand from “Separate Electorates” to a “Separate State.”  This Resolution rejected the idea of a United India and the creation of an independent Muslim state was set as their ultimate goal. It gave new energy and courage to the Muslims of the region who gathered around Quaid-i-Azam from the platform of the Muslim League to struggle for their freedom. The dynamic leadership of the Quaid and the commitment and devotion of the followers made it possible for them to achieve an independent state within seven years of their struggle, and that too when the odds were against them.