The writer is the Chairperson of the History Department at Forman Christian College, Lahore
Ever since the dismissal of Dr Khan Sahib’s ministry on August 22, 1947, the incident has become a contentious public issue. While there is little disagreement among academic circles that the dismissal was ill-advised and set a wrong precedent — especially since the seminal work of Khalid bin Sayeed in the 1960s — public understanding and perception of the event remains murky and is often overtaken by people interested in sheer rhetoric and spin, and by anti-Pashtun racists. But let us look at the reality.
In the provincial elections of 1946 in the erstwhile NWFP, the Congress won 19 Muslim seats and 11 non-Muslim seats. Its ally, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind won a further two seats. The Muslim League won 17 Muslim seats and the Akalis won one seat. Therefore, Khan Sahib, who not only had a clear majority in the assembly, but had also won more Muslim seats than the Muslim League, formed the government.
While it is true that Khan Sahib put himself in a difficult moral position by stating that he will resign in the event of the Muslim League winning the Pakistan referendum, and then backtracked on it later, one must also remember that the Congress did indeed boycott the referendum. Therefore, leaving the fate of the ministry to the party, rather than his whim, is not as immoral as some have suggested. As a matter of fact, it might just be that the premier, rather than arbitrarily deciding the fate of the ministry, wanted the party which he represented to take a decision of this magnitude.
Now to the dismissal itself: Jinnah had asked Lord Mountbatten to dismiss the Congress ministry in the NWFP before independence, but even though Mountbatten agreed, Westminster overruled him arguing that neither had the constitutional machinery of the province broken down, nor had the Congress party lost its majority in the legislature — hence the ministry remained. After independence, Jinnah instructed the governor, Sir George Cunningham, to dismiss the Congress ministry and replace it with a Muslim League one. Interestingly, section 51(5) (the section under which the ministry was dismissed) was inserted by Mountbatten on the advice of Jinnah to bring the governors clearly under the thumb of the governor general.
Now, the supporters of the dismissal would argue that with independence, the 12 non-Muslim members of the assembly spontaneously combusted, which was verifiable in a mere week, and therefore, the Congress ministry had lost its majority. However, even without the 12 non-Muslim members being counted, the Congress still had 19 Muslim seats in a house of now 38, exactly 50 per cent, and with the Jamiat members, it had a clear majority. Therefore, the Congress was still not a minority, even if one accepts the highly tenuous argument that the non-Muslim members simply fled immediately and that it was verified, etc. and all legal procedures were followed to declare their seats empty.
Furthermore, supporters of the dismissal would claim that the Muslim League did indeed prove its majority in the legislature. This is true, but this majority was only proven in March 1948 at the budget session, six months after the installation of the League ministry. Now, it is not hard to imagine how a party can manoeuvre a majority when it is given official support and six months to muster it. No wonder several Congress legislators defected to the Muslim League, in what we now call, “horse-trading”.
In the end, I want to reiterate that I do not doubt that the Muslim League was, perhaps, more popular in the NWFP at that time, and that in time, a Muslim League ministry was inevitable. My only qualm is with the procedure which left a precedent. Let me end by quoting distinguished historian Khalid bin Sayeed on this: “Even if the League circles doubted the sincerity of Khan Sahib’s professions of loyalty, they could have asked the Frontier Provincial League leader, Qaiyum Khan, to produce a majority in the assembly and move a motion of no-confidence ... Such a course of action would have clearly saved the central government from resorting to reserve powers and thereby creating a precedence ... [It] was surely open to the central government to direct the governor to dissolve the provincial assembly and to hold fresh elections. The precedent of dismissing a ministry which had a majority and then commissioning another man to form a ministry in the hope that the latter would soon be in a position to produce a majority was bound to lead to political instability ... .”
Published in The Express Tribune, April 2nd, 2013.
COMMENTS (30)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Khan's ministry should have resigned after the plebiscite, after which they had no mandate. Instead they clung on to power. Bangash is using back door arguments to justify it. These secularists opposed Pakistan, and were aligned with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the INC. The son of their leader was aligned with India and the Soviet Union and the grandson is aligned with US and the puppet government in Kabul.
@gp65:
How should I respond, when ET moderators trash my comments every now and then making use of 'may' veto and refusing to recognise that we are in the 21st century global village of "Knowledge Society" trying to learn free of charge or obligation from one another.. ET is not fully integrated into the "freedom of Ideas" system!
Rex Minor
@Rex Minor: Would you still say you are just a German Muslim with no Pakhtun heritage as you have claimed frequently?
@Feroz:
I agree with your spirit sir, as well as your rationale for comparison; people in the Pakhtun land have always lived in peace in the absence of foreigners, though they are all armed. By foreigners I mean those who do not speak their language or live their culture. The three names you mentioned were all womanisers and charlatan machiavilean political figures, whereas Bacha Khan was none of those; he was named Frontier Gandhi because unlike his fellow Pashtuns he preached and practiced non-violence at the time, following the strategic phlosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.
Pashtuns are no more martial than other volks of the world. They are settled in tribes, speak the tribal dialect and do not allow anyone not speaking their dialect into their teritory. This gives them the security and this together with the Pakhtunwali culture gives them the will to resist occupation and no one todate has been able to defeat them, the Brits, Soviets or now the yanks have all been beaten back. The Brits stayed for a century with the policy of winning hearts and minds with their tricks in potacted cantonments. And those who used the route to invade India travelled at night acos the mountains and avoided the valleys and the mainland, including Alexander and Babar and others. Bach Khan policy failed his people and were the first to receive violence at the hands of the league of muslims who formed the first Govt. on the orders of the commander M Jinnah..
Despite what is occuring in the Pakhtun land and greater Pakistan, the criminality and violence in Rio (Brazil), Mexico city(Mexico) and Ohio(USA) is greater than in any other part of the world.
Rex Minor
@Rex Minor: I do not disagree with what you say. To be classified as a Gandhian an individual has to rise to a higher level and renounce all forms of violence, thereby placing faith in goodness of humans and God. It is a thorny political path that not only needs courage but also fortitude and endurance. The word Gandhian is not used loosely which is why Badshah Khan will be recorded in history alongside inspirational figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. A country has to be very lucky to produce such leaders even if they come once in many generations. Please understand that the Pashtuns are a marital race that suffered and endured plenty of violence -- every raider and marauder needed to pass through Pashtun lands via the Khyber Pass to go plunder and pillage India. Because of their location they faced great hardship. To win over the loyalty of these people to volunteerily choose a path of non violence, is a tall achievement. Pakistan is really suffering because of the way they treated their real heroes, while usurpers and scumbags usurped the power of the people.
@zalmai from kabul, Bro whats your problem where ever we lived but still comeback to homeland and build our homes for living spend millions of dollars or riyals and pakhtunwalli is long lost animal now days in pakistan except few places in mardan.
ET: Please please allow. I do not wish to indulge in an unnecessary quarrel online but since Badshah Khan is mentioned in the discussion, it is important to share the following quote which has a message so relevant for all nations, religions and cultures in this time of chaos and despair especially for the people of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan:
''Badshah Khan has discovered by practical experience that love can create more in a second than the atom bombs can destroy in centuries, that the kindest strength is the greatest strength, that the only way to be brave is to be right, and that a clean dream... is dearer than life and the soft eyes of your children. These are the things he taught us.''
Ghani Khan (1948), The Pathans
@Kathy:
Not a conspiracy as you seem to imply.
Yes, Yes.
Even a child knows there are only global conspiracies against Pakistan.
There are no conspiracies in Pakistan, of course.
@Feroz: The Nation of Pashtuns accepted the call of Mohammad(pbuh) and became muslims in the same vein as the children of the mongols king Chengez khan who conquered the world. The stregnth as well as the weakness of the Pashtun Nation is their belief in Islam.
Mr Jinnah expolited their weakness, and the majority freely voted for Pakistan, and are able to opt out of the union, or talibanise the entire region. Batcha Khan was a great Pashtun but did not have consensus for his alliance with Indian congress and gave way to league of muslims. What the muslim league did later was very shabby and remains a black spot in Pakistan history.
Rex Minor
@Kaalchakra
"Zalmai, I take strong exception to your running down of Pushtuns in Pakistan. They love Pakistan not because they have sold out to Punjabis but because they love Islam and consider their allegiance to Islam above any of their ethnic commitments. Since Pakistan was made for Islam and for Muslims, these Pushtuns love Pakistan."
Please don't speak for the Pashtuns, they still have their own spokesmen. Pashtuns owe allegiance to Pashtunwali first and foremost and then to their family and tribe. It is the Punjabis who tried to mold them into adhering to some Pan-Islamic ideology albeit unsuccessfully. You would not understand because you are not a Pashtun and you don't speak Pashto.
Sir, I know that certain actions of Jinnah were undemocratic, to say the least, but remember that a new/nascent state can never hope for a perfect democracy; founding fathers ought to be dictators. History is replete with such examples.
These actions were not the only reasons which brought about successive dictatorial regimes in the country; let's not get into that debate. However, we need to ADMIT that Jinnah had dictatorial tendencies; I can't disagree with you.
Bravo!
@gp65 States too can and do jail or put people under house arrest. The attempt at point-scoring that is ever so evident in your posts is what I alluded to through my comment. Since you will not settle for anything less than the Pakistanis apologizing to you and those YOU feel have been wronged, then grovel before you, then accept the 'greatness of India' and submit to it, I don't see any change in tactics from your side. Actually, you have been so heavily indoctrinated, precisely what you believe afflicts the other side, that you don't even realize it. That really is a tragedy.
Zalmai, I take strong exception to your running down of Pushtuns in Pakistan. They love Pakistan not because they have sold out to Punjabis but because they love Islam and consider their allegiance to Islam above any of their ethnic commitments. Since Pakistan was made for Islam and for Muslims, these Pushtuns love Pakistan.
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was so disappointed by Pakistan and Pakistanis that he chose to be buried in Afghanistan.
@Ali Tanoli
Jaye Pakistan (sic) jaye to jaye kahan?
@Author
Salamona aw neke hile
You are the only Pashtun in Pakistan who calls it like it is the rest have sold out to the Punjabis.
Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan will be forever remembered in history as the tallest Pashtun leader of all time, one of the few Muslim freedom fighters who sacrificed his life for freedom. That his battle for freedom of his people would lead to the creation of Pakistan was not imagined by him in his wildest dreams. He had well foreseen the creation of Pakistan would sound the death knell for the Pashtun people and their way of life. Badshah Khan struggled and sacrificed, others usurped.That the ANP has survived as a political party is solely due to the fact that Pashtun people still hold the Frontier Gandhi in great reverence.
@Razi: Assassinations can happen anywhere in the world. The list of political stalwarts assassinated is long in world history. The Indian state had no part to play in Gandhiji's assassination. The Pakistani state however jailed Badshah Khan and he even died under house arrest.
@gp65
Badshah Khan was jailed and Gandhi was murdered. Therein lies another important difference.
Thank Allah we Hazara peoples voted Muslim league jaye pakistan.
Mr.Bangash, Jinnah in fact dismissed a second provincial government in his one year of power, that of Ayub Khuhro in Sindh. He also declared to a Bengali crowd in Dhaka that Urdu would be the one & only national language. Look, its really stating the obvious, his assumption of what was a ceremonial office & then carrying on as all-powerful executive head in that position is what started off the train-wreck of Pakistani democracy. A democrat would have assumed the position of Prime Minister, but Jinnah was authoritarian by practice & temperament. Even his marriage to a teenager less than half his age indicates the same. He couldn't stomach the idea of someone else being Head of State, even a titular one. Jinnah's fans will say that he couldn't accept Mountbatten because he was biased against Pakistan, his wife was sleeping with Nehru, blah, blah. So there was really no other notable who could serve as ceremonial Head of State?? For those like YLH who have produced hagiographies of Jinnah, this is just too much reality to swallow.
I find it fascinating that even as late as 1946, when talk of Partition was everywhere and when Direct Action Day and other such events had made Hindus and Muslims suspicious of each other, NWFP still voted the Congress to power. The Muslims of NWFP voted for the Congress more than they did for the League.
It demonstrates how amazing Badshah Khan and Dr Khan Sahab were. While they were hardcore Pashtun nationalists, they were also great human beings. Badshah Khan also set up the Khudai Khidmatgars, whose volunteers had to forswear all violence and revenge. It also gives the lie to the Western narrative of Pashtuns - that they are a savage and "ungovernable" people. Pakistan's treatment of them was shameful.
@Mirza: Quite a known fact that he was assasinated by a former land revenue clerk belonging to Mianwali, who was sacked on corruption charges and not reinstated despte making a petetion. Not a conspiracy as you seem to imply.
@Faraz Kakar: " Two of India’s foremost men of God had been sacrificed in the name of religion"
True of course. But Gandhiji's assassin did not have public sympathy and was hanged. Khan sahib's tormentors did not face any accountability. Therein lies an important difference.
Dear Bangash Sahib, salamoona. I agree to your point. This is a timely rejoinder to the historians who consider themselves as the 'Custodians of the Ideology of Pakistan'. People of our generation, born in Pakistan need not their certificates whether we are good or bad Pakistanis. I would like you to read the last chapter of my book entitled Ethnicity, Islam and Nationalism (Karachi, OUP, 1999) on this important and sensitive topic. I have provided the full details of the dismissal on pp. 228-231 and the complete correspondence between Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy and The Earl of Listowel, the Secretary of States for India, has been given in Appendix VII, pp. 276-280.
‘‘Thus, within less than a year of the night that Mountbatten handed over the reins of power to India and Pakistan, Mahatma Gandhi had been assassinated by a Hindu who feared he was pro-Muslim and Badshah Khan had been jailed by an Islamic government that claimed he was pro-Hindu. The irony could not have been more complete. Two of India’s foremost men of God had been sacrificed in the name of religion.’’
Eknath Easwaran (1984), Non-violent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, a man to match his mountains)
I agree with you that the problems started with the dictatorial tendencies of PML from the very inception of Pakistan. Khan Sahib was not dealt fairly and was dismissed. In addition why is it that nobody ever talks/writes about Dr. Khan Sahib being butchered with a knife in Lahore?
Be prepared for worst criticism from the so called pseudo-intellectuals now. They may call you a traiter. Hats off to you for writing down the facts.
Trying to justify the undemocratic act of Jinnah..pathetic !!
You seem to justify the act of Jinnah somehow...but a wrong is a wrong !!