Did the Lahore resolution become the reason for the establishment of Pakistan?

The Lahore Resolution, which was later given the status of the Pakistan Resolution, has passed for 81 years, but many parts of it have not been made public yet.

There is also an impression that this resolution demand was the first step towards Pakistan, while the fact is that Quaid-e-Azam considered this plan, which had been given by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali, to be impracticable, but in order to negotiate with the Congress, he rejected this plan. The action plan was adopted which they later had to reluctantly accept.

Apart from many Pakistani historians, Jaswant Singh, a prominent politician of India and a founding member of the BJP, also holds the same position. He held the important ministries of India like finance, defense and foreign affairs. In his book ‘Jinnah, India, Partition and Independence’ published in 2009, he held Nehru responsible for partition instead of Jinnah.

Nawab Sir Muhammad Yameen Khan, who was a senior leader of the Muslim League and a close friend of the Quaid-i-Azam, has written in his book ‘Nama Aqasan’, referring to the date of March 1, 1939, that ‘Dr. Ziauddin told me, Mr. Jinnah, Sir Zafarullah Khan, Syed Muhammad Hussain were called to Allahabad. At lunch Syed Muhammad Hussain began shouting, as is his wont, that Chaudhry Rehmat Ali’s scheme to combine Punjab, Kashmir, Frontier Province, Sindh, Balochistan and separate it from the rest of India. From them, Pakistan is formed in such a way that P is Punjab, A is Afghanistan, which means Frontier Province, K is Kashmir, S is Sindh and Tan is the end of Balochistan. As Syed Muhammad Hussain was speaking loudly, Sir Zafarullah Khan gently said to me, ‘This man has a big throat but a small mind.’ Mr. Zafarullah Khan was opposing them that it was impracticable, Mr. Jinnah listened carefully to the arguments of both and then said to me, ‘Why don’t we adopt this and make it the slogan of the Muslim League. So far we do not have any specific demand, if we raise it, we will be able to reconcile with the Congress, otherwise they will not agree.’

Begum Shaista Ikramullah also writes in her book ‘From Purdah to Parliament’ that ‘Pakistan was a fantasy not a reality for most Muslims. Major Muslim leaders also believed that some kind of mutual compromise would be reached and they would be able to maintain their separate status within a united India. Quaid-i-Azam also had the same idea. I remember when I first met him in October 1941, he said that the Canadian Constitution was the best solution to our problems. Until seven years after the resolution of Pakistan, he continued to talk to the British government on one side and the Congress on the other side about a mutual understanding and during this time there was almost an understanding more than once, which is a proof that he was not bluntly divided. wanted to If there was a failure in mutual agreement, the responsibility was not on the Quaid-e-Azam, but on the narrow-mindedness and prejudice of the Congress leaders.

The same position of Quaid-e-Azam is supported on page 325 of ‘Political Evolution of Muslim Punjab’ by Zahid Chaudhry and Hasan Jafari, in which it is written on August 14, 1947, with reference to Syed Hashim Raza, administrator of Karachi, that when Quaid-e-Azam declared independence. When he came to the ceremony, the representative of the New York Times said to him, “I congratulate you, you have finally taken Pakistan.”

Quaid-e-Azam heard this and said: ‘I did not get Pakistan alone. In the struggle for the establishment of Pakistan, I had a share of two for one rupee. In this struggle, the share of the Muslim nation of the subcontinent was equal to six rupees and in the formation of Pakistan, the share of the Hindu nation of the subcontinent was equal to eight rupees.

The Quaid-e-Azam further explained his position and said: ‘During the time when Saad Zaghloul Pasha was in power in Egypt. Christians in Egypt started a movement for their rights. Their proportion in the population was 13 percent. But they used to ask for rights at the rate of 20 percent. This case was getting serious day by day. Saad Zaghloul Pasha convened a meeting of his party and obtained the authority to resolve the settlement. He told Christians that we give you 25 percent rights instead of 20 percent. The Christians rejoiced. Even if the Christians got 25 percent, they could not spoil anything of the 75 percent of the Muslims.’ Quaid-i-Azam said, ‘Exactly the same problem was in the sub-continent as well. Muslims were proportionally more in the minority than the Hindu nation. If the Hindu leadership also showed evidence of generosity like Saad Zaghlul Pasha, then why would the Muslims of the subcontinent need to secure themselves by getting a separate homeland?

An objection is also made to the Lahore Resolution that its wording was vague and it did not write the names of the North-West and North-East Muslim-majority regions, but it was written that ‘after the necessary territorial changes, the regions in which There is a numerical majority and they should be merged and made independent states.’ Therefore, some historians object that if this resolution had not mentioned the territorial changes, the partition of Punjab and Bengal would not have happened in 1947, millions of innocent people would not have been massacred and millions of people would not have been forced to evacuate.

Ashiq Batalvi writes in his book ‘Our National Struggle’: ‘I proposed the amendment to the Lahore Resolution and said that ‘If you want to include Punjab and Bengal in the proposed states, where you have North-West and East of India. What has been mentioned about the regions, take the names of these provinces in clear words so that both our usurpers and opponents understand the reality of our demand now, otherwise half of Punjab and Bengal will be cut off after regional changes.

Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan responded to my amendment by saying that ‘We want to include Delhi and Aligarh, which are the centers of our civilization, in the proposed state under regional reshuffle, so please be satisfied that regional reshuffle does not mean that Punjab A part of will have to be given by hand.’

On June 3, 1947, when Lord Mountbatten gave the formula for the transfer of power, Quaid-i-Azam refused to accept it. Alan Campbell Johnson, who was Lord Mountbatten’s press attache, writes in his memoirs ‘Mission with Mountbatten’ that Quaid-i-Azam rejected the June 3 plan, ignoring Mountbatten’s pressure. They cannot make any assurances without the approval of their party.

On which Lord Mountbatten threatened that Nehru, Kripalani and Patel had clearly said that if the Quaid-e-Azam did not approve it, they would also reject it. On which Quaid-e-Azam said that he does not have the authority to make a decision on his own without the approval of the entire Muslim League Council. On which Mountbatten said, “If your attitude continues like this, anarchy will spread and you will always lose your hands from Pakistan.”

Jinnah shook his shoulders and said, ‘So then? So then?’ (Then what? Then what)

Quaid-e-Azam was ultimately in favor of a confederation in which Muslims would get maximum political rights, but Britain, Nehru and Patel all decided otherwise.

When Jaswant Singh revealed this historical fact, he was expelled from the BJP. Describing Quaid-e-Azam as a great secular leader, Jaswant Singh has written that both Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel accepted partition to gain power quickly.