Events preceding the March session in Lahore, when Punjab’s Unionist Party premier, Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, banned all private armed militias, had created tensions. This ban also impacted Allama Mashriqi’s Khaksar Tehreek, whose party’s newspaper, Al-Islah, launched a very critical and provocative campaign against him. On March 19, contingents of the Khaksar Tehreek, carrying spades, started gathering near Bhati Gate. When the police tried to stop them, a fight ensued, resulting in the death of a British police officer and injuries to many policemen. Later, police reinforcements arrived and mercilessly brutalised many Khaksars, killing several of them. This evoked a lot of anger amongst the Muslims living within the walled city, who vented it against Sikandar Hayat. The situation became so critical that Sikander Hayat pleaded with the Quaid on telephone to postpone the planned session of the All-India Muslim League (AIML). However, the Quaid was adamant that the historic meeting would go ahead as planned.
On March 21, the Quaid arrived in Lahore, where a grand reception was planned and he was to lead a huge rally on his way to the League office on Davis Road. However, in deference to the Muslim families mourning their dead, he instructed the organisers to cancel the rally. He issued a press release in which he revealed that important decisions were to be taken in Lahore. In the evening, a meeting of the AIML Council was held, which finalised the list of members for the Subjects Committee.
On March 22, an open session of the AIML was held, where the Quaid delivered his presidential address in which he gave a brief account of political developments in the preceding two years. Towards the end of his address, while elaborating upon the two-nation theory, he made a reference to a letter written by Lala Lajpat Rai to Bengal’s famous leader CR Das in 1924, where the former had stated that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and they can never form part of one united nation.
In the evening, the Subjects Committee met, where the Quaid made it clear that the focus of the Lahore sessions would be on the Pakistan Resolution. Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan read out the proposed draft of the Resolution in Urdu, prepared by 21 members of the working committee. The resolution, translated into English by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, read, “That geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North Western and North Eastern Zones of India would be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”
When discussions resumed, Mr Ashiq Hussain Batalvi, proposed some changes, to ensure that Punjab and Bengal were not divided. Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan, however, assured him that this would not be allowed. Thus, no changes were made, the draft resolution was adopted and it was decided by the Quaid-e-Azam that Maulana Fazlul Haq would present the resolution in the open session on March 23, at Minto Park.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2013.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ Malik Tarik Ali, are you related by any chance to Malik Barkat Ali?
..."" Mr Ashiq Hussain Batalvi, proposed some changes, to ensure that Punjab and Bengal were not divided. Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan, however, assured him that this would not be allowed....""
then on 3rd June 1947 , the 10 member committee which had NO BENGALI ..and ONE LONE Sikh Baldev Singh
decided on the partition of the two Muslim majority provinces , and sealed the FATE of millions
ironic isn't it...
Here are two very important facts that those interested in this topic should know.
1) The word 'Pakistan' does mot appear even once in the five paragraphs of the Pakistan Resolution. 2) The day, 23 March is also the day when in 1931 Bhagat Singh was hanged in Lahore. His sacrifice contributed to Independence of India, and of Pakistan.
Here is a link to the articles written by Nasim Yousaf (Allama Mashriqi's grandson) on the partition of India, Two-Nation Theory etc. Everyone should read these pieces:
http://www.allamamashriqi.com/grandsonsarticles.html
Wonderful speech on the partition of India!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2uL2j2uqTI
What is the point of this piece? Pakistan is here. It is only of minor interest for the historians and needs to be discussed if at all, in universities. This short piece is incomplete, inconsistent with other accounts and inappropriate for inclusion here.
@Truthful: All i can say is that your definately not very truthful.
The Lahore Fort has witnessed many a rise and fall of conquerors, rebellion, downfall of dynasties and bloodshed, but never a revolution where 100 million Muslims of the subcontinent pledged to wage an unarmed constitutional struggle for the creation of a sovereign independent nation for themselves
Follow the link below to see a photograph of Mr Jinnah reading his address at the Lahore Session of the Muslim League.
Do note the 'Unarmed' bodyguards.
http://dawn.com/2013/03/23/an-interpretation-of-the-lahore-resolution/
The followers of Mr. Jinnah got what they wanted and have been stewing in their own juice ever since. Best of luck and wish them more of the same.
@Naimat: "I think the Lahore Resolution should have defined the constituent parts by name, Sind, Punjab,Baluchistan, KP(Frontier), Bengal etc, which could have avoided the division of Punjab and Bengal, that led to thousands of dead. The propsed amendment by Batalvi should have been incorporated."
Regardless of what the resolution included, that is exactly what Jinnah wanted. But just as Muslims of Punjab and Bengal did not want to live under Hindu majority, Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab and Bengal chose not to live under Muslim majority and in those areas they did not vote for Muslim League. So you would not have got those areas no matter what the resolution stated.
"The Lahore Fort has witnessed many a rise and fall of conquerors, rebellion, downfall of dynasties and bloodshed, but never a revolution where 100 million Muslims of the subcontinent pledged to wage an unarmed constitutional struggle for the creation of a sovereign independent nation for themselves, as took place at the historic Minto Park on March 23, 1940."
Clearly they forgot the unarmed part when Jinnah called for Direct Action Day.
"he (Jinnah) made a reference to a letter written by Lala Lajpat Rai to Bengal’s famous leader CR Das in 1924, where the former had stated that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and they can never form part of one united nation"
If what is said here is true than shall we conclude that the idea of 'Two Nation Theory' was of Lala Lajpat Rai and not of Allama Iqbal ..... ?
The author claims without indicating his source: "Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan read out the proposed draft of the Resolution in Urdu, prepared by 21 members of the working committee. The resolution, translated into English by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, read...."
This is the first time anyone has claimed that the original resolution was in Urdu, This must have been a radical shift from the past practice of the Muslim League, whose language of preference was always English. It was a pragmatic decision. Sad to see such baseless claims being made now. And the editors allowing it to go unchallenged.
If it was the 'Pakistan' resolution then why was Pakistan not mentioned in it?
What a coincidence that in 2013 Pakistan again faces a very critical and tense situation, just like in 1940. I think the Lahore Resolution should have defined the constituent parts by name, Sind, Punjab,Baluchistan, KP(Frontier), Bengal etc, which could have avoided the division of Punjab and Bengal, that led to thousands of dead. The propsed amendment by Batalvi should have been incorporated.
It is Lahore Resolution; not "Pakistan" Resolution. Word "Pakistan" was not even part of the vernacular at the time. If distortion of history continues at this rate, then in 60 years' time our pop historians will prove that "The Quid" was addressing the nation via telephone or Skype from London! Don't butcher the history please!
what is the point of this piece ? Ys we know Pakistan was envisoned by Jinnah as a Muslim majority state and he was ready to play the religious card to attain it. Rest as they say, is history.
"where 100 million Muslims of the subcontinent pledged to wage an unarmed constitutional struggle for the creation of a sovereign independent nation for themselves,". You are understating the case. As we all know it was the oppressed minorities who fought for Pakistan under the indefatigable leadership of Mr.Jinnah. Although a vast majority of Muslims were not allowed to vote for their preferences it was clearly known, they were all for Pakistan, like oppressed Hindus and Christians. Sadly the gates, of Pakistan, for Muslims of India were firmly shut in 1949 although they all struggled together in 1940. This is definitely not Jinnah's Pakistan.
73 years have passed since the historic Minto Park on March 23, 1940. Subsequent events have shown that Pakistan have become a worse place and on its route to abyss. There is no rule of law, bomb blasts on daily basis, power cuts, corruption and the list goes on. If there was such a thing as "Back to the Future" any sane person who could go back in time and remove the people who advocated these changes would deserve a knighthood. In those days the poor were cheated and they formed the majority.