Allahabad Address

Several Muslim leaders and thinkers having insight into the Muslim-Hindu situation proposed the separation of Muslim India.

However, Allama Muhammad Iqbal gave the most lucid explanation of the inner feelings of Muslim community in his presidential address to the All India Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930. Allama Muhammad Iqbal was a poet, philosopher and thinker who had gained countrywide fame and recognition by 1930.

Political events had taken an ominous turn. There was a two-pronged attack on the Muslim interests. On one hand, the Hindus offered a tough opposition by proposing the Nehru Report as the ultimate constitution for India. On the other, the British government in India had totally ignored the Muslim demands in the Simon Commission report.

At this critical juncture, Iqbal realized that the peculiar problems of the Muslims in North-West India could only be understood by people belonging to this region and that in order to survive they would have to chalk out their own line of action.

In his address, Allama Iqbal explained that Islam was the major formative factor in the life history of Indian Muslims. It furnished those basic emotions and loyalties, which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups and finally transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own.

He defined the Muslims of India as a nation and suggested that there could be no possibility of peace in the country unless and until they were recognized as a nation. He claimed that the only way for the Muslims and Hindus to prosper in accordance with their respective cultural values was under a federal system where Muslim majority units were given the same privileges that were to be given to the Hindu majority units.

As a permanent solution to the Muslim-Hindu problem, Iqbal proposed that Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan and Sindh should be converted into one province. He declared that the northwestern part of the country was destined to unite as a self-governed unit, within the British Empire or without it. This, he suggested, was the only way to do away with communal riots and bring peace in the Sub-continent.

The greatest historical significance of Allama Iqbal’s Allahabad address was that it cleared all political confusion from the minds of the Muslims, thus enabling them to determine their new destination.

The national spirit that Iqbal fused amongst the Muslims of India later on developed into the ideological basis of Pakistan.

All Parties Muslim Conference

The immediate result of the publication of the Nehru Report was that Muslims of all shades of opinion united in opposition to it. The two wings of the Muslim League that had been split since 1924 came
closer. On January 21, 1929, the All Parties Muslim Conference convened in Delhi under Aga Khan. Nearly every shade of opinion was represented. The Conference laid down the Muslims demands in the clearest possible terms:

• The only form of government suitable to Indian conditions was a federal system with complete autonomy and residuary powers vested in the constituent states.
• Muslims should not be deprived of the right to elect their representatives through separate electorates without their consent.
• Muslims should continue to have weight-age in the Hindu majority provinces and they were willing to accord the same privilege to non-Muslim minorities in Sindh, the N. W. F. P. and Baluchistan.
• Muslims should have their due share in the central and provincial cabinets.
• Muslim majority in all Muslim majority provinces (with particular reference to Bengal and Punjab) should in no way be disturbed.

This resolution was the Muslims’ reply to the Nehru Report. The rejection of the Congress-inspired constitution was completely unanimous and clear. On two points the Muslims were adamant: separate electorates must continue and India must have a federal form of government. The Nehru Report was primarily repudiated because it denied these conditions. At this critical juncture, Jinnah made the last attempt to unite the Hindus and the Muslims. At All Parties Convention at Calcutta in 1929, he suggested certain modifications to be made in the recommendations of the Nehru Report. These were as follows:

• One-third of the elected representatives of both the houses of the central legislature should be Muslim.
• In the event of adult suffrage not being established in Punjab and Bengal, there should be reservations of seats for the Muslims on the basis of population for ten years; subject to a re-examination after that period, but they shall have no right to contest additional seats.
• Residuary powers should be left to the provinces and should not rest with the central legislature.

The committee rejected these suggestions. In March 1929, Quaid-i-Azam compiled a set of recommendations that greatly influenced Muslim thinking for the better part of the next decade.

Fourteen Points of M. A. Jinnah

A positive aspect of Nehru Report was that it resulted in the unity of divided Muslim groups. In a meeting of the council of All India Muslim League on March 28, 1929, members of both the Shafi League and Jinnah League participated. Quaid-i-Azam termed the Nehru Report as a Hindu document, but considered simply rejecting the report as insufficient. He decided to give an alternative Muslim agenda. It was in this meeting that Quaid-i-Azam presented his famous Fourteen Points. These points were as follows:

• The form of the future constitution should be federal with the residuary powers vested in the provinces.
• A uniform measure of autonomy shall be granted to all provinces.
• All legislatures in the country and other elected bodies shall be constituted on the definite principle of adequate and effective representation of minorities in every province without reducing the majority in any province to a minority or even equality.
• In the Central Legislative, Muslim representation shall not be less than one-third.
• 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.
• Any territorial distribution that might at any time be necessary shall not in any way affect the Muslim majority in the Punjab, Bengal and the North West Frontier Province.
• Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.
• No bill or any resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourth of the members of any community in that particular body oppose such a bill resolution or part thereof on the ground that it would be injurious to the interests of that community or in the alternative, such other method is devised as may be found feasible and practicable to deal with such cases.

• Sindh should be separated from the Bombay presidency.
• Reforms should be introduced in the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan on the same footing as in the other provinces.
• Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency.
• 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.
• No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.
• No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the State’s contribution of the Indian Federation.

The council of the All India Muslim League accepted fourteen points of the Quaid. A resolution was passed according to which no scheme for the future constitution of the Government of India would be acceptable to the Muslims unless and until it included the demands of the Quaid presented in the fourteen points.

Nehru Report

The Government of India Act 1919 was essentially transitional in character. Under Section 84 of the said Act, a statutory Commission was to be appointed at the end of ten years to determine the next stage in the realization of self-rule in India. Accordingly, the Simon Commission was sent to the Sub-continent under the command of Sir John Simon. All members of the commission were British. This was regarded as highly insulting to the Indians and immediate protest was raised from all the important political parties. When the Simon Commission arrived, the local masses welcomed it by with slogans of “Go back Simon!”. All the major political parties of Sub-continent, except the Shafi League of Punjab, boycotted the Simon Commission.

After the failure of Simon Commission, there was no alternative for the British government but to ask the local people to frame a constitution for themselves. They knew that the Congress and Muslim League were the two main parties and that they both had serious difference of opinions. Birkenhead, Secretary of Sate for Indian Affairs, threw the ball in the Indian politicians’ court, and asked them to draw a draft of the forthcoming Act on which both Hindus and Muslims could agree. The Indian leaders accepted the challenge and for this purpose, the All Parties Conference was held at Delhi in January 1928. More than a hundred delegates of almost all the parties of the Sub-continent assembled and participated in the conference. Unfortunately, the leaders were not able to come to any conclusion. The biggest hindrance was the issue of the rights of minorities. The second meeting of the All Parties Conference was held in March the same year, but the leaders still had their differences and again were not able to reach a conclusion. The only work done in this conference was the appointment of two subcommittees. But due to the mutual differences between Muslims and Hindus, the committees failed to produce any positive result.

When the All Parties Conference met for the third time in Bombay on May 19 1928, there was hardly any prospect of an agreed constitution. It was then decided that a small committee should be appointed to work out the details of the constitution. Motilal Nehru headed this committee. There were nine other members in this committee including two Muslims, Syed Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi.

The committee worked for three months at Allahabad and its memorandum was called the “Nehru Report”. The chairman joined hands with the Hindu Mahasabha and unceremoniously quashed the recent Congress acceptance of the Delhi Proposals. The Nehru Report recommended that a Declaration of Rights should be inserted in the constitution assuring the fullest liberty of conscience and religion.

The following were the recommendations advanced by the Nehru Report:

• India should be given the status of a dominion.
• There should be federal form of government with residuary powers vested in the center.
• India should have a parliamentary form of government headed by a Prime Minister and six ministers appointed by the Governor General.
• There should be bi-cameral legislature.
• There should be no separate electorate for any community.
• System of weightage for minorities was as bad as that of separate electorates.
• Reservation of Muslim seats could be possible in the provinces where Muslim population was at least ten percent, but this was to be in strict proportion to the size of the community.
• Muslims should enjoy one-fourth representation in the Central Legislature.
• Sindh should be separated from Bombay only if the Committee certified that it was financially self-sufficient.
• The N. W. F. P. should be given full provincial status.
• A new Kanarese-speaking province Karnatic should be established in South India.
• Hindi should be made the official language of India.

The recommendations of the Nehru Report went against the interests of the Muslim community. It was an attempt to serve Hindu predominance over Muslims. The Nehru Committee’s greatest blow was the rejection of separate electorates. If the report had taken into account the Delhi Proposals, the Muslims might have accepted it. But the Nehru Committee did not consider the Delhi Proposals at all while formulating their report. The Muslims were asking for one-third representation in the center while Nehru Committee gave them only one-fourth representation. It is true that two demands of Muslims were considered in the Nehru Report but both of them incomplete. It was said that Sindh should be separated from Bombay but the condition of self-economy was also put forward. It demanded constitutional reforms in N. W. F. P. but Baluchistan was overlooked in the report.

Of the two Muslim members of the Nehru Committee, Syed Ali Imam could attend only one meeting due to his illness and Shoaib Qureshi did not endorse views of the Committee on the issue of Muslim representation in legislature. Thus the Nehru Report was nothing else than a Congress document and thus totally opposed by Muslims of the Sub-continent. The Hindus under Congress threatened the government with a disobedience movement if the Nehru report was not implemented into the Act by December 31, 1929. This Hindu attitude proved to be a milestone in the freedom movement of the Muslims. It also proved to be a turning point in the life of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. After reading the Nehru Report, Jinnah announced a ‘parting of the ways’. The Nehru Report reflected the inner prejudice and narrow-minded approach of the Hindus.

Delhi Muslim Proposals

Considering separate electorates to be the main hindrance in improving Hindu-Muslim relations, Quaid-i-Azam proposed that if the Hindus agreed to provide certain safeguards, the Muslims would give up this demand. Consequently, the proposals were formally approved at a conference held by the Muslims in 1927 at Delhi, and are now called “The Delhi-Muslim Proposals”. Following are the safeguards that were proposed:

• The formation of a separate province of Sindh.
• Introduction of reforms in the North West Frontier Province and in Baluchistan on the same footing as in other provinces.
• Unless and until the above proposals were implemented, the Muslims would never surrender the right of their representation through separate electorates. Muslims would be willing to abandon separate electorates in favor of joint electorates with the reservation of seats fixed in proportion to the population of different communities, if the above two proposals were implemented to the full satisfaction of Muslims and also if the following proposals were accepted.
• Hindu minorities in Sindh, Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province be accorded the same concessions in the form of reservation of seats over and above the proportion of their population as Muslims would get in Hindu majority provinces.
• Muslim representation in the Central Legislature would not be less than one-third.
• In addition to provisions like religious freedom, there was to be a further guarantee in the constitution that on communal matters no bill or resolution would be considered or passed if three-fourth of the members of the community concerned were opposed to it.

These proposals were to be accepted or rejected in toto. So, in effect, the Muslims agreed to give up the separate electorates in form of the reservation of seats. Unfortunately, the Congress first accepted but later rejected the proposals.

Simon Commission

The Government of India Act of 1919 was essentially transitional in character. UnderSECTION 84 of the said Act, a statutory commission was to be appointed at the end of ten years, to determine the next stage in the realization of self-rule in India.

The British government appointed a commission under Sir John Simon in November 1927. The commission, which had no Indian members, was being sent to investigate India’s constitutional problems and make recommendations to the government on the future constitution of India.

The Congress decided to boycott the Simon Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India, to produce a constitution acceptable to the various elements in India.
There was a clear split in the Muslim League. Sir Muhammad Shafi, who wanted to cooperate with the commission, decided to convene a Muslim League session in Lahore in December 1927.

The other faction led by Jinnah stood for the boycott of the commission. This faction held a Muslim League session at Calcutta, and decided to form a subcommittee to confer with the working committee of the Indian National Congress and other organizations, with a view to draft a constitution for India.

The Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh

After the Lucknow Pact of 1916 both Hindus and Muslims started their struggle for the self-rule for India. It was a brief period of Hindu-Muslim unity. To probe into their secret activities, the British Government formed a committee headed by Justice Sidney Rowlatt. Rowlatt presented his report to the Government on 30 April 1918 and as a result the Government introduced a bill in the Imperial Legislative Council known as the ‘Rowlatt Bill’ that gave unlimited powers to the administration and the police. The accused had no right to appeal or employ a lawyer for his defence. The Government was authorized to put any individual under house arrest without assigning any reason.

During the First World War the Indians had made great sacrifices for the British and expected that in compensation of their services the British Government would grant self-government to them but on the contrary they got no reward but penalty in the shape of ‘Rowlatt Act’. When the bill was presented before the Imperial Legislative Council, all the 23 non-official members voted against it; among these members were those who were very loyal to the Government. However, despite the whole opposition and protest the bill was passed and was decreed as ‘Rowlatt Act’. As protest Quaid-i-Azam resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council.

Strikes started all over India and M. K Gandhi also launched his non-violence movement. At that time Sir Michael O’ Dwyer, the Governor of Punjab had a strong hatred for the Indians and even determined to exert British dominance by all means. He was of the view that the British, which had seized the government by force, could preserve it only with force. For that matter he banned all public meetings, processions and protests in the province. To curb the political unrest in Punjab the Government banned the two well-known leaders of Amritsar, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal from making speeches. Later on they were arrested and sent to Dharamsala. The news of their arrest spread like wild fire and left the whole city in panic. On 9 April 1919, a large crowd gathered in a park demanding the release of their leaders. The police even opened fire to disperse the crowd. On 10 April, General Dyer received orders to leave Jalundhar for Amritsar. He reached Amritsar with 475 English and 710 Indian soldiers and two armored vehicles.

On the morning of April 13, he toured around the city and made announcements at 19 places that all the public meetings and processions had been banned and in case these orders are defied, use of force would not be ruled out. When General Dyer was told that a meeting was being held at Jallianwala Bagh, he reached there instantly with 90 troops and ordered them to open fire on the unarmed gathering. The firing continued for fifteen minutes and left 379 people dead on the spot and more than 1200 critically injured.

General Dyer believed that the event of Jallianwala Bagh was a part of the conspiracy in which the Indians were involved to overthrow the British Government. But the Hunter Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the riots in Amritsar including the meeting at Jallianwala Bagh weren’t the part of any planned conspiracy to overthrow the British Government. After the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh martial law was imposed in the Punjab and all the citizens of Lahore were ordered to hand over all their vehicles, bicycles, lamps and fans to the military. Martial law orders were pasted on the walls of the houses of prominent persons including Fazl-e-Hussain, Pir Tajuddin and Khalifa Shujauddin. The Principal of Dyal Singh College was punished only because someone had pasted an anti-martial law placard on the college wall. Moreover, water and power connections were cut off at various places of Punjab especially Lahore.

The public opinion in England was divided into two groups regarding the brutal tactics used by General Dyer. One group considered it a timely action to teach a lesson to the Indian whereas in view of the second group the tragedy at Amritsar had played a vital role in arousing the nationalistic feelings among the Indians. On the whole, the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh shattered into pieces once for all the tradition of loyalty to the British Crown. And within a period of 27 years, it was proved that the brutal acts of General Dyer and Lt. Governor O’ Dwyer could not suppress the passion for independence that flared up after the above episode.