Preface to the second edition

in the Persian Conss~-1 itution of 1906 for a separate ecclesiastical
committee of ulama ”conversant with the affairs of the world”-
to supervise the legi s lative activity of the Majlis. Iqbal considers ithis a ”dangerous arrangement,” and thinks that the proper place of the ulama is within the Muslim legislative assembly, where Jhcy should help an«nci guide free discussion. After describing the Shia constitutional «tlieory, which might have been responsible for the peculiar arra_ nagement in Iran, Iqbal says:
But whatever mae^y be the Persian constitutional theory, thearrangement is not •frree from danger, and may be tried, if at all, only as a temporar _y measure in Sunni countries. The Ulema should form a vital p»-art of a Muslim legislative assembly helping and guiding free disc wssion on questions relating to law. The only effective remedy for tlie possibilities of erroneous interpretations is to reform the prese*m~t system of legal education in Muhammadan countries to extend iCuss sphere, and to combine it with an intelligent study of moderrm jurisprudence.24
Iqbal’s last years -we;e darkened by prologed ill-health. He was also fated to w j*ness some unpleasant developments in the Provinces, where the CZongress came into power in 1937. Even more ^pressing was the aslght of some young Muslims-and many ”lama-trying to corrzue to ”an unmanly compromise’’ with the

180 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

opposite party. Iqbal’s faith, however, never faltered. In the words of Jinnah-never given to cheap or undeserved praisehe stood like a rock in the darkest days. He was confident that the Muslims, who had weathered many a storm, would overcome this, and urged that there should be no lowering of the flag. He stood firmly by the Muslim League, and was one of those who criticised the half-hearted- allegiance of the Muslim Unionists to the Muslim League, and felt that if the League was to become a party of the masses it would have to fight the Unionist landed aristocracy.
Iqbal did not live to see the realisation of his dream of the Muslim state. He died on 21 April 1938-less than ten years before the establishment of Pakistan-but when the final showdown came in the key province of the Punjab, foremost amongst those who pulled down the Unionist edifice, and paved the way for Pakistan, were those young men-and women-who had drunk deeply at the fountain of Iqbal’s poetry. The pen was indeed mightier than the sword.
Notes
1. Quoted in Safina-i-Hayat of Munsbi Ghulam Qadir Farrukh, p. 23.
2. See Introduction to Tazkirah of Abul Kalam Azad.
3. Omitted from Bang-i-Dara, but may be read in Kulliyat-i-Iqbal published at Hyderabad.
4. Shamloo, Speeches and Statements of Iqbal, p. 188.
5. Ibid., p. 12.
6. Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims, A Political History, 1855-1947. p. 231,
7. Ibid., pp. 269-70.
8. Ibid., p. 270.
9. See photograph No. 47 at the end of Ruzgar-i-Faqir, Vol. II.
10. See Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, 1 July 1964.
11. In fairness to the Quaid-i-Azam it maybe mentioned that at tb« request of Khwaja Abdur Rahim and others, he addressed a letter to Chaudbr) Rahmat Ali asking for his association in the active struggle for Pakistan but this help was not forthcoming. After Chaudhri Rahmat Ali’s death a{ Cambridge his debts were paid by the Pakistan Government. His papers ar« reported to have been destroyed by the Master of Emanual College.
12. Vide Nawa-i-Waqt, 27 June 1964.
13. Letters of Iqbal to Jinnah, p. 21.
14. Vide Abdus Salam Khurshid, article in Mashrtq, Lahore, 1 April
*^VHHHKj
? I

9
H. H. THE AGA KHAN

Iqbal
[ 181
15. Letter dated 14 Decenattser 1932 to M.A.H. Siddiqi, Secretary, Iqbal Literary Association, London-
16. Shamloo, op. cit., p. 9-% .
17. Not completely, thou g; hn. The writer was present at this meeting (anniversary of Anjuman Hima«:a»’sat-Hslam, 1924) as a young student, primarily to catch a glimpse of Iqbal-f««o r the first time. The audience wanted a poem, but they were confronted wit’~hu a discourse of great profundity-and great length. The audience was ge’ntflHL ng restive. When Iqbal came to a sentence ”Life is unending , . .” some* «o*dy interrupted by saying loudly, ”Like your lecture”. Iqbal stopped shonrt. in disgust and the audience again started shouting for a poem. Iqbal re:» jissted for quite a while, but ultimately, on the intervention of an elderly genflitl e=-man, relented. He recited a short poem, and the meeting ended in a happy =a tnrnosphere.
18. Jang, Karachi, Iqbal ESsa^y Number, 1967.
19. Sh. Ata Ullah, Ed., /^faear Nama (Letters of Iqbal), Pt. I, p. 238.
20. Shamloo, op. cit., p. 1±5IB_
21. Reconstruction ofRelig*-i «o us Thought in Islam, pp. 156-7.
22. Ibid., p. 168.
23. Ibid., pp. 173-4.
24. Ibid., pp. 175-6.

Chapter 12
THE AGA KHAN
(1877-1957)
APOLITICAL leader, who ip solid, fruitful achievements ranks only below Syed Ahmed Khan, the Quaid-i-Azam and one or two other leaders, but with whom the present generation is only dimly acquainted was His Highness Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, more generally known as the Aga Khan. His ill-health made permanent stay in the subcontinent impossible and his aristocratic temperament was such that he wanted the palm without the dust. He appeared on the scene only at crucial moments and normally remained in the background, but for thirty long years, i.e. from 1904 till 1934, he dominated the national scene-and overshadowed other great figures.
The Aga Khan who was the hereditary head of the Ismaili Khojas was born at Karachi on 2 November 1877. When his father died he was only eight, but under the guidance of a wise mother he received liberal education, not only in Arabic and Persian literature and history but also in English and modern subjects. At first, his active work was confined mainly to .the •welfare of his followers, but Mohsin-ul-Mulk who used to spend the summer months at Bombay and was able to meet him there soon attracted him to a wider national field. The Aga Khan was Chairman of the.Reception Committee for the All-India Muslim Educational Conference which met at Bombay in 1903. He was, next, selected to preside over the important session of All-Indi’ Muslim Educational Conference, which met at Delhi in 1904 immediately after the Durbar held by Lord Curzon. The Confei ence was of special importance, as it was attended by a numbe of celebrities who had come to attend the Durbar. The Aga Kbai» read a thoughtful and statesmanlike address, and in particula
The Aga Khan
( 183
urged the setting up of a Central Muslim University at Aligarh. He headed the historic Simla Deputation which successfully presented Muslim demands before Lord Minto on 1 October 1906. After this, the Aga Khan and Mohsin-ul-Mulk corresponded on the need for having a political organisation which could carry on the work of the Deputation, and next year, on trie basis of a scheme circulated by Nawab Salim Ullah Khan of Dacca, it was decided to organise the All-India Muslim League. When the first formal session of the League met at Karachi in the last week of December

1907, the Aga Khan was elected its permanent President and continued to hold this office till he resigned in 1913, following the shift in Muslim politics. In 1911 he toured all over the country with Maulana Shaukat AH on his side as his honorary Political Secretary, to raise funds for the Aligarh University and was able to collect all the money that was required.

The shift in Muslim politics, growing preoccupation of Indian Muslims with the affairs of Turkey and the powerful Khilafat Movement brought new leadership to the fore, but the Aga Khan’s help was available for all good causes. Essentially a moderate and constructive statesman, he did not share the policy and the programme of the popular Khilafat leadership, but he continued to urge, in his own way, the point of view of Muslim India and render such services to the Turkish cause as were possible. He and Syed Ameer Ali met influential British leaders, explained the Turkish case in the columns of the British press and provided the channels through which financial assistance was sent from India for the relief of Turkish sufferers of Smyrna and elsewhere. They, however, brought upon themselves the wrath of the Turkish Government when Kamal Ataturk abolished the Caliphate. On 24 November 1923, the two leaders addressed the Turkish Government giving the point of view of the Indian Muslims on the steps taken by Turkey. They posted their letter in London, and according to Syed Ameer Ali’s subsequent account, allowed nearly a week to pass before forwarding copies of their communication to the Constantinople press. Nevertheless, owing to some accident of communications, the text reached Constantinople newspapers before it was delivered in Ankara. Three Papers published it, and the authorities in Ankara first came to

184 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

know of the communication from its publication in the press. As there was considerable opposition to the abolition of Caliphate within Turkey, Ataturk’s Government reacted violently to the action of Agaf Khan and Ameer Ali. Ismat Pasha Inonu publicly criticised their action and pointed out that they were Shias and could not be the spokesmen of the Sunni Muslims of India.
While the mystery of delay in receipt of the communication by the authorities at Ankara was never solved, this unfortunate episode highlights a happy development in the affairs of Muslim j India. The Aga Khan and Ameer Ali were both Shias but in modern Muslim India the sectarian differences had ceased to count in political matters. Situation had changed completely from the eighteenth century when Shia-Sunni differences had all but destroyed Muslim solidarity. The climax was to come during the Pakistan movement, when Muhammad Ali Jinnah, himself a Shia, worked hard to bring into existence a state in which Sunni Muslims were bound to be in an overwhelming majority.
The Aga Khan and Ameer Ali had received a sharp rebuff from the Turkish authorities but they did not allow this to interfere with their efforts in the cause of Turkey. In particular, the Aga Khan seems to have played an important role at a crucial moment. Turkish troubles were largely due to the policy of the British Premier Lloyd George who headed the Coalition Government of Liberals and Conservatives. But for his exit from the office following the break-up of the Coalition, it is certain that Britain would have intervened in favour of Greeks to whose support Lloyd George was personally committed and Ataturk would not have been able to consolidate his gains. Authoritative evidence is available to show that the Aga Khan personally contributed to the exit of Lloyd George. Beaverbrook, the influential press lord of Great Britain, has given details of events preceding the withdrawal of Conservative support to Lloyd George’s government. In his Politicians and the Press he refers to his visit to Deauville in August 1922 and adds, ”At the Royal Hotel there. His Highness Prince Aga Khan discussed with me the disastrous character of the relations of the British Government with the de facto Turkish Government. I decided to go to Angora and discover what the real intentions
The Aga Khan
[ 185
and terms of the new Turkish Government were. I had made arrangements, through the medium of Prince Aga Khan, for a meeting with Mustafa Kamal.”1 Lord Beaverbrook proceeded to Constantinople after discussing matters with the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill and Lord Birkenhead, and on his return ”tried the power of private persuasion in the interests of AngloTurkish peace”. He had long interviews with Lloyd George, Lord Birkenhead2 and Winston Churchill-the triumverate which dominated the counsels of the Coalition Ministry. He urged that ”they should at all costs abate the rigour of their antiTurkish attitudes and that they would not find it difficult to come to an honourable arrangement with the Turkish Government”.3 When three or four days’ discussion proved unavailing, Beaverbrook ”went to Bonor Law in his retirement and said to him.. ’These men mean war.’ As it turned out, this sentence epitomising a situation was the signal for the overthrow of the Coalition Government.”4 Bonor Law wrote to the press declaring that Britain could not act as ”the policeman of the world alone” and criticised the policy which the Coalition Government was following. His letter was the ”death-knell of the Coalition Ministry” and the famous party meeting of the Conservatives which was held at the Carlton Club on 19 October 1922 decided to withdraw support from Lloyd George’s government, and the Coalition collapsed. Next month, the Conservatives came to power under Bonor Law and a new policy was adopted under which agreement with the new Turkish leaders became possible.
Another distinguished journalist gives yet another instance of the manner in which Aga Khan used his contacts in high places to further Turkey’s interests. Those who are acquainted with the developments during the viceroyalty of Lord Reading will recall the occasion when the Government of India urged the British Government to revise the Treaty of Sevres on lines favourable to Turkey. During the last days of February 1922, Lord Reading’s government sent an important despatch to London, urging ”that the allies should evacuate Constantinople, giving back to the Sultan his former suzerainty over the Holy Places, and also restore Thrace and Smyrna to Turkey”.5 The Government of India asked for permission to publish this despatch.

186 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

The permission was granted by Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, and the telegram was duly published. Curzon, the Foreign Secretary, strongly objected to this and under Lloyd George’s insistence Montagu had to resign from.the British Cabinet and go into political wilderness. Sir Stanley Reed, the influential editor of The Times of India, has thrown light on the origin of this famous despatch. In his memoirs entitled The India I Knew-1897-1947, he writes, ”What was the origin of that despatch ? In a sense it was due to the inspiration of His Highness the Aga Khan. In one of our many talks on the political situation in India, generally at breakfast in the Aga’s pleasant bungalow in Bombay, facing the westering sea, he stressed the importance of action which would allay the just resentment of seventy millions of Moslems in India at the draft treaty with the Turks”.6 Reed discussed the question with Reading and Lloyd, the Governor of Bombay, and the despatch of which the original draft was prepared by Lord Lloyd, and which was endorsed by Government of India, was sent to London.
During the Khilafat Movement the Aga Khan was not in the centre of the picture but when, following the abolition of Khilafat by Turkey, the movement collapsed and Indian Muslims had to pay more attention to less romantic but ultimately more rewarding situation nearer home, they again turned to him. In 1927 the All-India Muslim League had split into two sections-one headed by Sir Muhammad Shafi and the other by Muhammad AH Jinnah-on the question of co-operation with the Simon Commission. There were numerous other bodies like the Khilafat Conference and Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind claiming to speak on behalf of Indian Muslims. Muslim India was so sadly divided owing to their allegiance to different parties and organisations that only an All-Parties Muslim Conference could give them cohesion and so a representative gathering was held at Delhi on the last day of 1928 and the first day of 1929. For this representative gathering nobody more capable of commanding the confidence of different groups than Aga Khan could be thought of, and he was asked to preside over its deliberations. Recounting the events of 1 January 1929, Coalman sa>s, ”That day His Highness the Aga Khan presided over the most representative gathering of
The Aga Khan
[ 187
l Moslems which has ever assembled during the rule of the British
j in India.”7 The Conference included not only the Muslim League
I leaders of both the (Shafi and Jinnah) sections but also Khilafat
leaders like Maulana Shaukat an and representatives of Jamiat-
ul-Ulama-i-Hind, and it consolidated the Muslim demands.
The Aga Khan’s most signal service v>as, however, during i the Round Table Conference of which different sessions were held [ in London from 12 November 1930 to 24 December 1932. The ostensible object of the Conference was to consider the recommendations of the Simon Commission, but it hammered out proposals which were to form the basis of the next political advance in continuance of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. At this crucial Conference the Aga Khan was in his own element. Not only -was he the leader of the Muslim group, but \\as also elected leader of the entire Indian Delegation. He played his cards remarkably well, and with his suavity of manners and tact, and ’general attitude of helpfulness kept the Muslim team solidly .together, in visible contrast to the many and discordant voices, l-which spoke from the other camp. He tried to come to an underITstanding with Mahatma Gandhi on the Hindu-Muslim question, |but when these talks proved unfruitful, he initiated a Minorities |Pact, by which all sections of the Indian political life, except the I caste Hindus and the Sikhs, joined hands with the Muslims. This I facilitated the task of the British Premier in giving his Communal J’Award (16 August 1932) which notwithstanding its deficiencies i improved the Muslim position in majority areas and was a mileIstone on the road to Pakistan. As A. K. Majumdar says, ”In 1906, |the Aga Khan presented his demands on behalf of the Muslims land Minto accepted; quarter of a century later Aga Khan again fpresented a demand and the Communal Award was the result.”8
tThe activities at the Round Table Conference marked the limax of the Aga Khan’s political career. Thereafter, the centre r f gravity shifted back to the subcontinent. The Aga Khan’s |success at the Round Table Conference was not due to any great porensic ability-as a matter of fact, he generally avoided public
I-speeches-but to his great wisdom, personal influence and the krge-hearted manner in which he helped all who turned to him. The extraordinary reputation for sagacity which he enjoyed ma

188 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

be judged by the fact that when King Edward the VIII was faced with the great crisis of his life and saw a grim choice staring him in the face over his proposed marriage to Mrs Simpson, he turned for advice to the Aga Khan, as Duchess of Windsor has indicated in her memoirs, entitled The Heart Has its Reasons.9 Of course, this issue was one in which even the Aga Khan could not help but the mere fact of the British sovereign turning to him for advice gives an indication of the reputation and the influence he enjoyed in the highest British circles.
During the last decade of the British Rule, a grim struggle started, in which the Aga Khan sitting thousands of miles away and with essentially a moderate and cosmopolitan outlook, was not well-equipped to help. He, however, continued his interest in the affairs of the Muslims of the subcontinent and his DL-aiond Jubilee was celebrated in Pakistan. On this occasion, as always, he spoke with mature wisdom and good sense, but perhaps the most important speech of his latter years was made on 8 February 1950, before the members of Pakistan Institute of International Affairs at Karachi. He was making his remarks before the ideological controversy became pronounced in Pakistan. In any case, with his brief occasional visits to the new state, he could not be expected to be very intimately acquainted with the conditions here, but he rightly placed his finger on what is the most crucial problem of the modern Muslim world. Speaking on ”The Future of Muslim States,” he said:
And finally, the fact must be faced that there is either an open or hidden clash between the conservative and the progressive elements in Muslim society. In Turkey this clash has led to a secular state. In Egypt it is there between the Ikhwan and the governing classes. It threatens itself in the opposition between the so-called Darul-Islam and the responsible government in Indonesia. Thank God, it is not so in Pakistan. But unless a healthy middle way such as existed in the first century is found, the ship may be on the rocks again. Pious Muslim thinkers who face realities in Egypt, North Africa and Iran know about it. I hope and pray that it may be the destiny of Pakistan whose creator Quaid-i-Azam was essentially a modern man, to bring about this spiritual and intellectual unity. Here and now, and by not only its example but its mediation and influence, [may it] prevent ever again from leading to final break as it did in Turkey, in any other
The Aga Khan
[ 189
Muslim state and society.*0
The Aga Khan passed away on 11 July 1957, and in accordance with his wishes this citizen of the world was buried in Egypt. According to his will, his son Prince Ali Khan was passed over at the time of succession, and his grandson, who had been educated at Harvard University, succeeded him. He is still very young but he is walking in the footsteps of his illustrious grandfather and taking keen interest in the welfare of the Muslim world. One of the early indications of this interest is his endowment of the Chair of Islamic Studies at Beyrut, to which distinguished scholars from different Muslim countries are, in turn, appointed as Visiting Professors.
Notes
1. Beaverbrook, Politicians and the Press, p. 48.
2. The biographer of Lloyd George records that Birkenhead explained to Beaverbrook that in the matter of Chanak, the British Government were fighting the ”battle of Christianity” (vide Frank Owen, Tempestuous Journey-Life and Times of Lloyd George, p. 653).
3. Beaverbrook, op. cit., p. 49.
4. Ibid.
5. Frank Owen, op. cit., pp. 603-4.
6. S. Reed, The India I Knew-1897-1947, pp. 187-9.
7. J. Coalman, Years of Destiny, 1926-32, p. 233.
8. A.K. Majumdar, Advent of Independence, p. 128.
9. The Duchess of Windsor says about ”this sagacious and experienced leader”: ”The Aga had been a close and admired friend of George V, who often consulted him privately on political matters” (p. 262 note).
10. Sultan Nazerali (Ed.), Message of H.R.H. Prince Aga Khan to the Nation of Pakistan and World of Islam, p. 11.

Chapter 13
EMERGENCE OF THE MUSLIM MAJORITY PROVINCES
IT has been said, with considerable justice, that the Muslims from the provinces where they were in a minority took the lead in the struggle which ended in the establishment of Pakistan. This was particularly true of the response to the call of Muslim League in the elections of 1936, which marked the beginning of the final phase of the struggle. It is also true of the basic struggle of the Indian Muslims for securing an honourable place in the Indian subcontinent. When this struggle started, sometime after the Revolt of 1857, Muslims in the minority areas-particularly in U.P., Bihar and at Delhi, the old Muslim capital-were ahead of Muslims in other areas, and they took up the cause of the community, irrespective of what would be the ultimate consequences of the struggle. With the introduction of the representative institutions in the early part of the twentieth Century, a situation arose in which the interests of Muslims in majority areas (where they stood to gain by the fullest extension of the representative principle on the basis of population) seemed to come in conflict with the requirements of the Muslims in the minority areas. The Muslim leaders tried-as at the time of the Lucknow Pact-to reconcile these conflicting claims, but basically it is true that the lead in the community’s revival was taken by the provinces where the Muslims were in a minority. This, however, does not mean that Pakistan could have come into being without the Muslims in the majority provinces playing their proper role orthat even the goal of an autonomous Muslim state formed by amalgamation of Muslim majority areas could have been decided upon without Muslims becoming politically dominant in the areas in which they were in a majority.
Pakistan came into being, under the Mountbatten Plan of
Emergence of the Muslim Majority Provinces [191
3 June 1947 on the basis of territorial self-determination. In lorder to know the process which paved the way for Pakistan by consolidation of the Muslim position in the provinces whose |votes were ultimately decisive, as also to understand the background of the areas which now constitute Pakistan, it is relevant to deal somewhat fully with the developments in these areas.
This study is of interest for another reason. The growing importance of the Muslim majority provinces was also accompanied by a marked shift in the community’s political objectives. As Professor I.H. Qureshi remarks, ”The earlier leadership had come from the areas where the Muslims were in a minority. They did not find it easy to break away from the notion of being a minority even though they had felt that the term did not quite fit them. When the Muslim majority areas also began to contribute to the leadership of the community, a change was bound to take place.”1 Hitherto Muslim emphasis had been on ”Safeguards for Minorities”. This basic plea remained unaltered, as Muslims continued to be a minority on an all-India basis and in most of the provinces, but now a new rider was added. In 1924, the demand for an effective representation of the minorities was made ”subject to the essential and overriding proviso that no majority shall be reduced to a minority or even an equality”. It was not a mere coincidence that this far-reaching modification of the political goal was sponsored by Muslim leaders from an area with a precarious Muslim majority.2
Dr Qureshi mentions Chaudhari Rahmat Ali’s approach as characteristic of the notions which were introduced ”when the Muslim majority areas began to contribute to the leadership of the community”. As stated above, this characteristic contribution had begun much earlier-in 1924-and this shift of emphasis had to be urged continuously and in the teeth of opposition of nonMuslims as well as the Nationalist Muslims.
Some early spokesmen of the Muslim majority areas-Mian Fazl-i-Husain, Iqbal, Chaudhari Rahmat Ali-came from the Punjab, but, curiously, it was this province which lagged behind all others in the last and the decisive round. Till less than six months before the inauguration of Pakistan, the Punjab was ruled by a Coalition Government, which did not include any

192 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

representative of the Muslim League and which was opposed to the creation of Pakistan!
In the final stages, the new province of Sind took the lead amongst the Muslim majority areas. The Sind Provincial Muslim League Conference passed a resolution on 10 October 1938 urging the right of ”political self-determination for the two nations known as Hindus and Muslims”. The Sind Assembly passed a resolution in support of Pakistan in March 1943, and Sind was the first province to decide in favour of Pakistan under the Plan of 3 June 1947.
Sind made its contribution, but even more valuable support to the League leadership came from the major province of Bengal. The expansion of the original concept of Pakistan beyond the north-western bloc was due to the leaders from Bengal, and the Muslim League could never have enjoyed half the influence it carried in the political sphere, without the powerful support of the Muslim League coalition government of Bengal. It is not without significance that Lahore Resolution as well as the resolution of the Muslim Legislators’ Convention in 1946-which really deserves to be called the Pakistan Resolution-was moved by Chief Ministers of Bengal, A.K. Fazal-ul-Haq and Husain Shaheed Suhrawardy, respectively.
The Punjab
The first majority province in which Muslims were able to make themselves heard was the Punjab. The reasons for this were simple. Till the Census of 1921 revealed another rapid increase in the Muslim population of Bengal, the Punjab had the largest percentage of Muslims, viz. 54’8% against 52’8% of Bengal according to the Census of 1911. Besides, the Muslims in the Punjab had not been subjected to the same systematic grinding, which had been the fate of the Bengali Muslims since the battle of Plassey. The Muslims, here, still counted in the life of the province. Although no seats were reserved for the Punjab Muslims under Minto-Morley Reforms, they were able to secure 25% seats, while Muslim share of elected seats in Bengal was only

1G’4%. The position of both provinces improved under the Lucknow Pact, but Muslims in the Punjab got 50% of the elected

Emergence >ofthe Muslim Majority Provinces [ 193
seats, while in Bengal, their share was only 40%.
Punjab under the British. When the British conquered the Punjab from the Sikhs in 1848, it also included the districts, •which were later formed into the North-West Frontier Province and from 1858 to 1911 included Delhi. The Sikh rule was marked by anarchy and maladministration. The Muslims, however, maintained their position in the educational sphere,3 as the Sikhs retained Persian as the court language. The British rule in the Punjab was also marked by autocracy of the ”non-regulated” provinces, which was bemoaned by Ghalib and Syed Ahmed Khan. In fact, Hali says4 that Syed Ahmed Khan gave up his residence in Delhi and selected Aligarh for his life-work, because he did not wish to be under the ”despotic” sway of the Punjab Government. He made this clear to Sir Donald McLeod, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, in 1866, and expressed the same sentiments in 1869 to Fitzpatrick, who had been Deputy Commissioner of Delhi, and later became Lieutenant-Governor of
the Punjab.
The autocracy of the individual officials or Europeans only reflected the government policy followed in administrative and constitutional matters. The way in which the Punjab had been kept behind other provinces in constitutional matters has been ably summed up by the biographer of Mian Fazl-i-Husain:
The Indian Councils Act, 1861, established Legislative Councils in Bombay and Madras, and authorized the establishment of similar councils in other provinces. In Bengal and the United Provinces Councils were constituted in 1863 and 1866, respectively, but in the Punjab a similar Council did not come into existence till 1887, thirty-six years after the Act which authorized its creation. The tndian Councils Act of 1892 authorized an increase in the membership of the Councils, and allowed reserved seats to be filled by indirect election from public associations and municipal and other bodies. Although every other province in India took advantage of these provisions, none of them were ever extended to the Punjab, where the strength of the Council, established in 1897, was fixed at nine, all of whom were nominated by the Lt.-Governor. The Morley-Minto Reforms maintained the traditional discrimination against the Punjab. The Punjab like Assam was allowed only thirty members in spite of the fact that population of the Punjab was twenty millions while that of Assam was only seven millions. Similarly, while the proportion

13

194 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

of elected members to the total strength was 53% in Bengal, 48% in Bombay, Madras and Eastern Bengal, 42% in U.P., the Punjab had only 19% elected members.5
Something of this autocracy continued till the end of the British rule, but the province gained under its new rulers, who established the rule of law and brought vast new areas under cultivation, through large-scale canal irrigation. The Victorian policy of the laissez-faire and the introduction of a new civil law in an area where different practices prevailed, resulted, however, in certain economic difficulties for the rural classes, whose agricultural lands, hitherto immune from attachment and sale, began to be sold under the strict British Law to the moneylenders. The previous position and the new changes have been ably summed up by an Indian scholar, in> the following words:
The Punjab peasant did not have any proprietary rights in land in the pre-British period. The community had been collectively the proprietary unit. It was difficult, therefore, to alienate land from the cultivator without the consent of the whole community. The terms like ”individual rights,” ”property,” the ”purchasing power of money,” ”attachment and sale” were beyond the cornprehension of the cultivator.6 Since there was no legal sanction behind the debts taken or to enable the money-lender to hold land, the cultivator could pay back to his creditor whenever he had surplus. There were no middlemen. The ”Bania” was quite ineffective due to the existence of (1) a vigorous village cornmunity, and (2) the apathy of the state towards recovery.7 The money-lender depended more on his personal influence than that of ”Kardar” (the local executive authority) for the recovery of his debt. But after annexation ”a bond of debt secured on the mortgage or conditional sale of land became a sacred instrument, to be construed according to its terms.”8 With the establishment of the Civil Law and the decline of the village community, the money-lender began to reign supreme in the village.9
Much damage was done, before some conscientious British administrators, amongst \\horn Thorburn, the author of the Mussulmans and the Money-lenders, was most prominent, realised the danger and in 1900 the Government enacted the Land Alienation Act, banning transfer of agricultural lands to non-agriculturists.