India has long been a sub-continent with a diverse population vis-à-vis cultures, religions, languages, and ethnic composition. If we see the history of Mughals from 1526 to 1857, we can observe that they used devices of territorial autonomy as a means of managing the diversity and as methods of effective government control over the vast sub-continent. Later, the British also controlled India through
de facto federal institutions since 1919, using the divide and rule policy as an
important instrument for the administration of India (Adeney, 2007). Federalism, however, was never simply a top-down gift from colonial masters but a result of demands by the different sections of nationalist politicians and compromises by
the British. The emerging leaders of India were demanding it, though there were differences of opinion about its structure and working.
The history of the British India shows us that the struggle of AIML revolves around the politics of provincial autonomy and federalism before it became one for a separate state. In this regard, the first step was taken by the delegates of Simla Deputation of 1906. The delegates met the Viceroy, Lord Minto, at Simla to raise the demand of a separate electorate for the Muslims of India, and secured his consent on the matter (Aziz, 1998: 20 and IOR/L/PJ/6/791, File No. P&J.4372: 1- 8). The demand for a separate electorate was later incorporated into the Government of India Act 1909 which also allowed weightage for Muslims in representation in those provinces where the Muslims were in minority, and allowed the propertied Indians to elect their representatives to various legislative councils (Keith, 1926). AIML and AINC were struggling against each other to gain more benefits in the realm of governance for their respective communities, but during World War I, they realized that confrontation with each other would not be productive for either side (Shah, 1994, 33). Thus, under the Lucknow pact 1916, the AINC agreed to the AIML demand of 1/3rd representation in the Central Legislative Assembly and separate electorates were also endorsed not only for the Muslims but for all communities, unless a community itself demanded joint electorates (Shah, 1994: 34; and Sayeed, 1960: 39-43). The Pact also led the two communities to demand Home Rule for India. This certainly signifies that the Indians were not happy with the reforms introduced by the British Government and therefore, they stood for more representation within the administration of India.
After the World War I, the British Government introduced another package of reforms known as Government of India Act, 1919. Under these reforms, the
suffrage, membership and powers of the provincial legislatures were expanded. It introduced a system of Dyarchy (dual form of government) at provincial level where the powers at this level were divided into two categories: the ‘transferred’ and the ‘reserved’ subjects. The transferred subjects such as local self- government, education, public health, and agriculture were given to the elected members who in turn were responsible to the provincial legislative bodies. Other more crucial subjects such as law and order, police, land revenue and irrigation were reserved for the Governor who administered these subjects through unaccountable executive councillors who were not answerable to provincial legislative bodies. The system of Dyarchy was unacceptable to the Indians because it made the ministers helpless; how could a local minister supersede the Crown under such a system of Dyarchy as the powers were shared by both (for details, see Mehra, 1928; Wallbank, 1958; and Keith, 1926). The 1919 reforms failed to satisfy the Indians and a majority of the leaders of the two parties did not approve these reforms because these were below their expectations (Shah, 1994: 34; Aziz, 1998: 33-34; and Vohra, 1997: 120-184).
The AIML in its 15th session, held in Lahore on 24th and 25th May 1924, demanded decentralized federation with complete provincial autonomy (Pirzada, n.d: 578), while on the other hand, AINC stood for centralized federation. The British Government also appointed a Statutory Commission inNovember 1927 under the leadership of Sir John Simon. The task of the commission was to investigate the Indian constitutional problems and make recommendations to the British Government for the future constitution of India. But since there was no Indian representative in it, the Indian political parties boycotted the commission outright.
After rejecting the Simon Commission, Indians accepted the challenge of Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India, to produce a constitution acceptable to all sections of Indian society (Sayeed, 1960: 66-70 and Wallbank, 1958: 161-62). In an All Parties’ Conference, held in Bombay on 29 May 1928, a ten member committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru to draft a future constitution of India.19 When the report of the committee, called Nehru Report was made public, it received much criticism from AIML as it discarded important points such as separate electorates, 1/3rd representation for the Muslims in the Central Legislative Assembly, and weightage for minorities, all of which had previously agreed upon under the Lucknow Pact. The report recommended a responsible system of government in which the majority would be sovereign. The then leadership of AIML feared a permanent minority status within India. Consequently, as a response to the Nehru Report, Mohammad Ali Jinnah presented his fourteen points stressing that “the form of any future constitution for India should be federal with all residuary powers vested in the provinces. The Central Government to have control of only such matters of the common interest as may be prescribed by the constitution” (cited in Wallbank, 1958: 185). Jinnah further advocated in his 14 points that uniform measures of autonomy shall be granted to all provinces and no change be made to the constitution by the central legislature except with the agreement of the provinces constituting the Indian federation (Sayeed, 1960: 75 and Pirzada, 1986: 53).
After the Nehru Report and Jinnah’s 14 points, communal strife widened (Aziz, 1998: 36-38 and Wallbank, 1958: 185). As per recommendations of Simon Report, a series of Round Table Conferences (RTCs) were convened in London
1919 The members of the committee were: Shuaib Qureshi and Sir Ali Imam (Muslim representatives), M.S. Aney and Mr. M.R. Jayakar (Hindu Mahasabha), Mr. G.R. Pardhan (the non-Brahmin), Sardar Mangal Singh (Sikh League), Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and Mr. N.M. Joshi (Liberal and Labour respectively), and Subhas Chandra Bose including the chairman of the committee were to represents the Hindu point of view (All Parties Conference, 1928: 17 & 23).
for the purpose of reaching an agreeable solution on the future constitution of India, but all in vain. This is because AIML strongly advocated and supported the proposal of a federal system with maximum provincial autonomy while AINC favoured centralized federation (Ahmed, 1990: 26).
Thus, due to the uncompromising attitudes of AIML and AINC on any future constitution of India, the select Committee of the British Parliament presented its draft Bill on February 5, 1935 before the House of Commons. After a review, the House of Commons in July 1935 announced it as the working constitution of India, popularly known as the Government of India Act 1935.
The Act under section 5 (1) declared India to be a federation (The Government of India Act, 1935). Constitutionally, this was the first time when India was pronounced as a federation. The Act provided for a federation in which British- ruled provinces and princely states were taken as units. However, the Act was partially implemented at the provincial level and the federal aspect never came into operation because the states (i.e., the princely states which were under British sovereignty but not ruled directly by the British) did not join the federation.
Under the Government of India Act 1935, elections at provincial level were held in 1937. The AINC emerged victorious in 6 out of the 11 provinces. During the formation of ministries, when the AIML attempted to form a coalition government with AINC in United Province (U.P) - where the AIML had won 27 out of 64 Muslim seats (Ahmed, 1990: 27, and Pandey, 1978: 631) - the Congress put forward two conditions for the formation of such a coalition government. The conditions were:
[T]he League 'in the United Provinces Legislature shall cease to function as a separate group, the members of the Muslim League in the U.P. shall become part of the Congress Party and will fully share with other members
of the Party their privileges and obligations as members of the Congress Party', that 'the policy laid down by the Congress Working Committee for their members in the Legislature....shall be faithfully carried out by all members in the Legislature by the members of the Congress Party including their members', and that 'the Muslim League Parliamentary Board in the United Provinces will be dissolved, and no candidates will thereafter be set up by the said Board at any bye-elections' (cited in Pandey, 1978: 631).
Such conditions humiliated the AIML by preventing it from forming any coalition government (Ahmed, 1990; Aziz, 1998; and Pandey, 1978). After the installation of ministries in 8 out of the 11 provinces, the rivalry of AIML and AINC came out into the open. For instance, the Congress introduced new policies such as the educational policy (called Wardha educational scheme; which the AIML termed anti-Muslim), a national song (Vande Mataram; that contains some anti-Muslim stanzas), and Muslim Mass Contact Movement (aimed at diverting the Muslims towards Congress party) (for details, see Pandey: 1978 and Sayeed, 1960). The policies and attitude of the Congress ministries towards the Muslims provided an opportunity for the AIML to launch a strong propaganda campaign against the Congress rule and promote its own popularity amongst Muslims masses (Sarkar, 1983: 355). Communal politics were at their peak during this time and the League succeeded in inducing anti-Congress feelings amongst Muslims (ibid, 1983).
When the British Government declared war against Germany (World War II), the AINC resigned from its ministries in October 1939 to protest the fact that the British Government did not take the Indians into confidence for the declaration of war. On the other hand, the AIML observed this day as a day of deliverance on 22nd December 1939. Against this background, the AIML passed the famous Lahore Resolution of 1940 wherein it raised a demand for a separate state for the Muslims of India. The Resolution declared that:
No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslim unless geographically contiguous units are demarcated into region[s]
which should be so constituted with such territorial adjustment as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-West and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent state in which constituting units shall be autonomous and sovereign (Sherwani, 1969: 21).
This was the turning point in the League’s policy which went from Indian federation to separatism and division of India. There were further missions, formulas, talks, and plans regarding the constitutional and communal issues in India; these included the Cripps Mission of 1942, Rajagopalachari formula of 1942, the Gandhi-Jinnah talks of 1944, Wavell and Simla Conference of 1945, and the Cabinet Mission of 1946 (for details, see Sayeed, 1960 & 1967). The aim of all such efforts was to resolve the Hindu-Muslim problem of preserving post- independent India’s unity in one form or another, but eventually they failed to keep the country united.20
The Act not only failed to hold Indian diversity together but it also created cleavages between the two main communal groups, the Hindus and Muslims, because there was no agreement between the two contending groups on the structure and working of federalism. According to Adeney (2007: 57) this was a “colonial imposition from above rather than a result of an agreement among the federating units for union.” This imposition of a constitution from above on contending and different federating units is understood as the reason for the Act’s failure (ibid, 2007). As discussed earlier (in chapter two), such agreement among units is an essence of successful federations, and those federations which lack agreement are often subject to failure or disintegration.
20
Janmahmad (1989), a veteran Baloch writer, is of the opinion that it was the British colonial masters who conspired to divide the Indians on the basis of religion. He straightaway rejects the notion of Muslims being a nation. He asserts that the British encouraged the Muslims of India towards separatism for various reasons such as: to punish the Hindus because they did not cooperate with British during their war efforts, to have a justification for the establishment of an Israeli state on the same religious footing as Pakistan, and to use Pakistan as a client state for their future adventures in the region.
Given the irreconcilable differences between the AINC and the AIML, the British Government decided to divide India into two sovereign states. On 18th July 1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947 whereby two sovereign states, India and Pakistan, emerged on the world map. The Act provided for the complete end of British control over Indian affairs from 15th August 1947. Both India and Pakistan adopted the Government of India Act 1935 as an interim constitution till they framed their own for their respective countries. India came up with its own constitution in 1950 while Pakistan took 9 years to frame its constitution. It was on 23rd March 1956 that Pakistan announced its first constitution.
Keeping in view the above discussion, it can be said that though the AINC and AIML were jointly struggling against the British rule, they differed in their views about the future setup of India. The League, throughout its struggle, stood for the rights of Muslims only; this is evident from the demands it made from time to time. The Congress accepted the League’s demands under the Lucknow Pact. However, the Nehru Report and the Congress ministries created a gulf between the two parties on communal grounds to such an extent that the leadership of AIML opted for separatism and division of India instead of working for a federal India. This is because the Congress provincial ministries following on from the elections under the Government of India Act 1935, created fears within the leadership of AIML, and they (the League leadership) realized that within federal India under the British parliamentary system, the Muslims would become a permanent minority vis-à-vis the Hindu majority. The Congress did not apprehend the League’s fears. The AIML passed the Lahore Resolution on 23rd March 1940 in which the demand was made that India should be divided into two sovereign states. In the same Resolution it was affirmed that each unit within the new state
of the Muslims would be autonomous and sovereign in its own affairs. But, unfortunately when Pakistan emerged, the wording of the Resolution was not honoured. The federating units were not allowed to enjoy autonomy but rather subjected to discrimination and exploitation at various levels. There are many reasons which led the federation of Pakistan to deprive the constituent units from enjoying provincial autonomy. I will discuss this under section four below. The next section is devoted to the examination of why Pakistan adopted federalism as a principle of government in spite of the fact that it had not worked within the larger Indian context.