Khawaja Razi Haider
The resolution, based on the demand for a separate homeland, passed in the March 1940 meeting of the All India Muslim League in Lahore, later popularly known as the Pakistan Resolution, holds great significance from the perspective of the long political, cultural, and social history of the Muslims of the subcontinent.
In that context, there is a significant level of consensus among historians, and every individual agrees on the fundamental point that based on centuries-old interactions between Muslims and Hindus, it was almost established that Hindus and Muslims are two separate communities and it is not possible for them to coexist within the same society.
This fact led to the creation and popularity of the two-nation theory, and in view of this, after 1857, the Muslims of the subcontinent not only promoted their national identity but also, under the guidance of this national identity, began their struggle to reclaim their political and cultural identity.
Historical facts also support the fact that Muslims, after their arrival in India and especially after establishing power, took measures to ensure that their governments were not perceived as alien or foreign by the local population. Muslim rulers socialized with the local population, made contacts, reconciled with local traditions, and attempted to create cultural harmony while avoiding ethnic separatism.
However, Hindus consistently kept themselves separate from Muslims because they disliked the dominance of anyone other than themselves in India, and they sought to establish their rule. As Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi has written, there was no expediency in the behavior of Hindus at any point in history. They were ready and willing to expel Muslims from the region, viewing the existence of a Muslim government as anathema. Their aim was to establish Hindu Raj in the subcontinent.
In the last period of the Mughal Empire, the Hindus had openly expressed their prejudice against the Muslims, and their last attempt Was to completely end the power of the Muslims. Particularly, during the eighteenth century, Sardar Shivaji vigorously pursued anti-Muslim agendas. His animosity towards Muslims reached such extremes that he wrote this letter to Raja Jai Singh:
 “My sword is thirsty for the blood of Muslims. It is a pity that this sword has to be unsheathed for another campaign.” It should have fallen like lightning on the heads of the Muslims. Who has no religion and who does not know how to do justice? The armies, roaring like thunderclouds, will pour down like a bloody rain of swords, causing all Muslims to be swept away in this torrent of blood from one end of Deccan to the other, leaving no trace of a Muslim identity.
From this letter of Shivaji, it is clear that he wanted to eliminate the Muslims from the subcontinent and make Hinduism the common religion of the region. In this context, other Hindu leaders also showed activity and used all kinds of tactics to end the supremacy of Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslims tried to build equal ways of cooperation between the two nations. These efforts of the Muslims are recorded on the pages of history not only till 1857 but also in the subsequent periods, but these efforts continuously proved futile.
Hindus persisted in their stance to the extent that in 1867, they demanded Hindi to be used instead of Urdu in the courts of Benares. According to Professor Sharif Al-Mujahid, although there was hardly any significant difference between the two languages except for the script, this demand was unjustified and its reasons were obscure from the Muslim perspective.
Consequently, Muslims became increasingly vigilant in safeguarding their socio-cultural and spiritual heritage from the obstinate Hinduism. Particularly notable was the adoption of the Salam Dua attire, emphasizing religious individualism and external distinctions from Hindus, a departure from the days of Muslim supremacy where such measures were unnecessary.
In this context, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan emerged as one of the earliest Muslim thinkers who instilled in Muslims a sense of being a distinct nation both theoretically and politically. He advised Muslims to dissociate themselves from the Indian National Congress, a political party dominated by Hindus aiming to maintain Hindu supremacy and urged them to uphold their national identity.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and his companions also deemed the Congress detrimental to the national identity of Muslims. Consequently, Muslim leaders deliberated on the formation of a separate political party. The actions of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and his associates revealed that the emerging class of Muslims, with a modern understanding, was unwilling to accept Hindu dominance.
Moreover, various events and circumstances further underscored the reality that Muslims and Hindus are two distinct nations, and attempting to accommodate them under one rule would exacerbate sectarian tensions and class conflicts.
The political life of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah began in 1905 with his association with the Congress party’s platform. He was recognized as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity till 1916 due to his moderate stance and concerted efforts towards fostering unity between the two communities.
By the third decade of the 20th century, it became evident that the biggest obstacle in the path of Hindu-Muslim unity was Hindu resistance. They did not desire Muslims to attain a dignified and prominent position in this region.
The Nehru Report of 1928 further clarified that the Indian National Congress and its leadership were solely focused on Hindu dominance and the establishment of Hindu power, which hindered any form of unity with Muslims. This realization was deeply felt by other Muslim leaders as well.
In December 1930, for the first time, the renowned poet and philosopher Allama Iqbal, during his presidential address at the All India Muslim League’s platform, emphasized that without acknowledging the existence of different nations based on Western democratic principles in India, it was not possible to apply these principles. Therefore, the demand of Muslims to establish an Islamic India in Hindustan was completely justified.
Allama Iqbal further stated that it was his desire to merge Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan into one province, whether it be a self-governing unit within the British Empire or outside it. In his view, it seemed that ultimately the Muslims of Northwestern India would have to establish a well-organized Islamic state. This recommendation by Allama Iqbal was the result of extensive analysis and demands in the political history of the region, reflecting his political foresight.
Iqbal’s political insight led him to realize the imperative need for a separate homeland for Muslims in the region, understanding that the preservation of Muslim culture and traditions was impossible without it. His proposal instilled political awareness among disillusioned Muslims in the face of Hindu attitudes, prompting them to contemplate this direction earnestly.
Various schemes and proposals for the partition of India were presented from 1930 to 1940, among which Chaudhry Rehmat Ali’s proposal held significant importance. Not only did Chaudhry Rehmat Ali demand a separate federation comprising the northwestern provinces of India, but he also explicitly coined the term “Pakistan” for this federation. His proposal gained prominence when it was presented during the Round Table Conferences in London, where Muslim delegates were disheartened by the attitudes of Congress leaders.
Consequently, this proposal was not only deliberated upon in the Round Table Conference’s Select Committee but was also widely accepted among the Muslim community in British India. The demand for a separate homeland resonated from all sides, and subsequently, various proposals for the partition of India were put forward.
In October 1938, the Sindh Provincial Muslim League Conference presented a resolution, marking the first instance at the party level where the demand for the partition of India was made. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi wrote that the Muslim League, through its platform, presented, for the first time, the concept of a separate nation to the Muslims of India. It was the first time that the Muslim League initiated discussions for the self-determination rights of Indian Muslims and, for the first time, demanded a constitution that would enable Muslims to attain complete freedom.
Muslims’ concerns were further strengthened when, after the general elections in 1937, the Congress, overlooking Muslim representatives in Hindu-majority provinces, formed governments and implemented programs and policies aimed at assimilating Muslims into Hindu identity and keeping them merely subservient.
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah took a firm stance on the situation at the Muslim League session in Lucknow in October 1937, expressing in strong words that Congress was fundamentally a Hindu organization, a fact evident through its leaders’ words, actions, and programs. Since assuming power, the majority party has provided ample evidence that India is for Hindus.
The Congress-led governments subjected Muslim minorities to extreme injustice and inhumane treatment after the 1937 general elections. The Muslim League established a committee, known later as the Pirpur Report Committee under Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur, which highlighted in its report the widespread belief among Hindus that every Hindu aspires for ‘Ram Raj’ and views Congress government as a Hindu government.
A large number of Congress members, consisting mostly of Hindus, have harbored dreams of Hindu rule since the end of British colonialism. Continuous hostile behavior from Hindus intensified the feeling to such an extent that during the Lahore session in March 1940, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah clearly stated that Islam and Hinduism are not merely religions in their verbal sense, but distinct and particular social systems as well. It is merely a dream that Hindus and Muslims can rise together as a common nation.
The misunderstanding of a single Indian nation has gone beyond bounds and is the root cause of most of our problems. If we do not reconsider our views in time, this misconception will ruin India. The relationship between Hindus and Muslims is not merely based on different religious philosophies, social customs, traditions, and literature. They do not intermarry or dine together.
The fact is that they both adhere to cultures founded on conflicting ideologies and perceptions. Therefore, the consequence of merging two such nations into one state, with one being a majority and the other a minority, inevitably leads to increased unrest and, ultimately, the collapse of the entire system.
In that historic session in Lahore, a resolution was adopted for the resolution of constitutional issues of India, demanding, in clear terms, the establishment of a separate homeland for Muslims in British India. This resolution later became known and accepted as the Pakistan Resolution. The essence of this agreement was the creation of a nation where Muslims could live according to their principles and destinies.
This was the spirit of the agreement that emerged from the two-nation theory. Matloobul Hasan Syed, Quaid-e-Azam’s private secretary and his early biographer, wrote, “This agreement was a positive solution to the constitutional issues of Muslims, and after its acceptance, the horizon of their struggle became clear and bright. Their destination was in sight, and they had to strive for one thing, the creation of a free country.”
Matloobul Hasan Syed further wrote that “If the Pakistan Resolution had not been presented, India would not have been free today because it was only after the acceptance of this resolution that the concept of a separate homeland for Hindus emerged.”
The Muslims welcomed the creation of Pakistan with great enthusiasm, while Hindus displayed strong opposition. They began to interpret the agreement in a hostile manner, aiming to sow discord among Muslims. Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of the Hindus, wrote in his newspaper, Harijan, on April 6, 1940, emphasizing that understanding and respecting the personal interests of Muslims would always prevent them from dividing India.
He argued that their religion advocates a clear self-sacrifice that opposes division. He deemed the two-nation theory as unreal, condemning efforts to use it to alienate Muslims.
When considering the communal situation in India, it becomes evident that from Shivaji to Gandhi, every Hindu perceived the separate identity of Muslims and their inclusion in power as an unpardonable offense. They persistently sought to undermine Muslims by pushing them away from the two-nation theory, which forms the foundation of a separate homeland.
However, their aspirations couldn’t be realized, and Muslims, under the guidance of the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, achieved their desires and aspirations on August 14, 1947, not only by obtaining Pakistan but also by making it clear to Hindus and the entire world that Muslims are always prepared to fully engage in any trial for the preservation of their culture, traditions, and religious authority.
The author is the former director of Quaid-e-Azam Academy, Karachi.
