Preface to the second edition

175. Written in June 1965.

\
(p. 453) NAWABZAPA LIAQL’AT AL1 KHAN

Chapter 15
LIAQUAT ALI KHAN (1896-1951)
NAWABZADA Liaquat All Khan was born in 1896 in Karnal District of East Punjab. He was the second son of a wealthy land-owning family, which came from Iran about five hundred years ago, and claims descent from the famous Iranian king, Nausheerwan the Just. The family owned landed estate in the Punjab and United Provinces, and young Liaquat spent his formative years in U.P., which was at that time the home of Muslim culture. He graduated in 1918 from Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh, and left a year later for higher studies in England. He joined Exeter College at Oxford and also kept terms for the Bar. He took his degree in Law in

1921 and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1922. During his stay at Oxford, Liaquat AH Khan took active part in political debates for which the Indian Majlis at Oxford has always been known and was the treasurer of that organisation for some time.

No proper study of Liaquat Ali Khan, particularly relating to the period preceding his appointment as Finance Minister in the Government of India, has been made and one turns with gratitude to such information as is incidentally available in the accounts of others. He seems to have had a sociable personality, with a large number of friends in all communities. K. S. P. Menon, who became Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations in India, was his contemporary at Oxford, and calls him ”a good sportsman and a good friend”. Elsewhere Menon says in his autobiography, Many Worlds, about

454 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

his residence in Delhi: ”A frequent visitor to our home at this time was Liaquat Ali Khan, who was destined to become the first Prime Minister of Pakistan. After our parting at Oxford we had met seldom. Now both of us had acquired wives, and they too struck up a friendship. . . . Liaquat was already a rising star in the Muslim League, but that did not interfere with our
friendship.”1
Nawab Ahmed Saeed Khan of Chhatari has also a few informative paragraphs regarding Liaquat in his autobiography, Yad-i-Ayyam. Chhatari visited Karnal on 12 February 1929, and was a guest of Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan. He writes that in those days Liaquat had a large Zamindari in the districts of Karnal and Muzaffarnagar. He was a member of the [U.P.] Legislative Council, of which he became Deputy President. Chhatari praises Liaquat’s sound common sense, strong sense of selfrespect and generous hospitality, and continues to say, ”He had a separate group in the Council, but often supported me. In those days he was opposed to Separate Electorates, etc. He delivered a well-argued speech in support of Joint Electorates, while speaking in the Legislative Council on the question of elections to the Town Committees. In the course of his speech he said, ’Interest of no minority can be truly safeguarded through Separate Electorates. In my opinion they are harmful for a minority. In Separate Electorates everybody is interested only in his own group. The Hindu stands for the Hindus, the Muslim for the Muslims, the Christian for the Christians and the Sikh for the Sikhs.”2
After his return to India, Liaquat Ali Khan settled down at Muzaffarnagar in U.P. In 1926 he was elected to the U.P. Legislative Council where he sat for fourteen years, six of them as Deputy President and leader of the Democratic Party.
In 1923 he joined the All-India Muslim League and attended its annual session at Lahore in May 1924. When, in 1927 the League split into two groups-one led by M. A. Jinnah and the other by Sir Muhammad Shaft-on the question of the co-operation with the Simon Commission, Liaquat sided with the group headed by Jinnah. He was a member of the Muslim League
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 455
delegation which attended the National Convention held at Calcutta to discuss the Nehru Report in December 1928.
Like the leader of his group, Liaquat fervently believed in Hindu-Muslim unity and worked for it. In his presidential address delivered at the Provincial Muslim Educational Conference in

1932 he expressed the view that the Muslims had ”distinct culture of their own” and had the right to preserve it. ”But,” he also added, ”days of rabid communalism in this country are numbered and we shall witness ere long the united HinduMuslim India anxious to preserve and maintain all that rich and valuable heritage which the contact of the two great cultures has bequeathed us. We all believe in the great destiny of our common motherland to achieve which common assets are but invaluable.”3

In 1933 he married again. His second wife was a well-known educationist and was originally a Christian. The couple went to Europe in the same year. The Nawabzada maintained his connections with the Muslim League but at that time the League did not have a Parliamentary wing. The Nawabzada, who had organised a Democratic Party in U.P., made a close study of the organisation of the political parties in England. On 26 April 1936 he was elected Honorary Secretary of the All-India Muslim League in place of Sir Muhammad Yaqub in its Bombay Session and held this office, with a brief gap, right up to the time when the All-India Muslim League was wound up after the establishment of Pakistan. There is some confusion about Liaquat’s position from July 1936 to early 1938, and the safest course seems to be to quote from the editor’s introduction to the Speeches and Statements of Quaid-i-Millat Liaquat Ali Khan-1941-51. ”He resigned from the Muslim League Parliamentary Board in July
1936 due to differences with the provincial members of the Board and because the parliamentary leaders dominating the Board were, in the words of Liaquat, ’regarded with suspicion by the majority of Muslims as having a veiled kinship with the Congress’. Liaquat joined the newly organised National Agriculturist Party of Nawab of Chhattari. He, however, did not contest the
1937 elections on any party’s ticket. . . . Liaquat Ali Khan was again elected as Honorary Secretary of the Muslim League

456 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

in 1938.”<
In 1940 Liaquat Ali Khan was elected to the Central Legislative Assembly, where he immediately became the Deputy Leader of the Muslim League Party under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam. Perhaps even more important was his election as Secretary of the All-India Muslim League, which office he occupied for the first time in 1937. Being by nature more suited to quiet, constructive work and shunning limelight, his great qualities were not known to many but the great Quaid who had seen him closely at work knew his worth and described him as his ”right hand” in a public speech. The first volume of Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah (p. 574) contains the following item regarding his re-election as Honorary Secretary of the All-India Muslim League at the Karachi session on 26 December 1943 :
In putting the proposition to vote Mr. M.A. Jinnah described Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan as ”my right hand”. He, the Nawabzada, had ”worked and served” day and night, and none could possibly have an idea of the great burden he shouldered. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, Mr. Jinnah continued, commanded the universal respect and confidence of the Musalmans. Though a Nawabzada, he was a thorough proletarian, and he hoped other Nawabs in the country would follow his example. Mr. Jinnah paid a tribute to the General Secretary for the services he had rendered to the League during the last seven years and wished him a long life of service to the community.
The great opportunity of Liaquat Ali Khan’s life came in

1946, when he was appointed to the Viceroy’s Executive Council and became Finance Member in the Indian Interim Government, which preceded the Partition. This was an office which called for solid, constructive work rather than the histrionic exuberance of the average Indian politician, and here Liaquat was in his element. After twenty years of parliamentary experience in Lucknow and Delhi, he was of course a master of the parliamentarian technique, effective in speeches and quick in repartees. With his dignity and courtesy of the old Muslim aristocracy, he was bound to be popular with all sections of Indian society, but what surprised everybody was his great success as Member in charge of a portfolio which was not supposed to be the special domain either

Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 457
of Muslims or of old aristocracy. He not only quickly mastered the routine of work in the Finance Department but introduced changes which were noteworthy for their soundness, originality and benefits to the under-dog. His memorable budget which made ”many a multimillionaire turn grey overnight” extorted grudging approval even from the Congress opponents and was widely acclaimed as ”a poor man’s budget”. Some people in Bombay and Ahmedabadjthought that the budget was dictated by political motives but this was not so. In spite of his high birth and the general style of his living those who knew the Nawabzada intimately say that he had a marked streak of ”the other-worldliness” and his love for the under-dog was deep and sincere. Presumably the Quaid was referring to this when he said that ”though a Nawabzada, he was a thorough proletarian,” and it was this love which was responsible for his ”poor man’s budget”. Liaquat Ali Khan was the leader of the Muslim League Party in the Indian Interim Government and his appointment as Premier of Pakistan followed almost automatically. This meant a great increase in his responsibilities and opportunities. Of course, so long as the Quaid was alive, the ultimau icsponsibility for matters of highest national importance continued to be his but the Prime Minister was responsible for carrying out all decisions and in most cases for taking them with the help of his Cabinet. After the Quaid’s death, Liaquat’s responsibilities increased a hundredfold. Although there was no change in his office, he became, by common consent, the Quaid’s successor. He was the Quaid’s chief lieutenant during his lifetime and so he stepped into his shoes after his death but it was not an easy task to fill the void created by the death of the father of the nation. The Quaid had led the people to their goal and had, therefore, all those advantages which national heroes can command. Liaquat took over Quaid’s responsibilities without the advantages which the Quaid had. He had to work hard to display all his qualities of leadership, sound judgment and constructive statesmanship before he could earn the confidence of the people. Outside Pakistan the number of those who doubted his-and in fact any Pakistani’s-ability to fill the void left by the Quaid was much larger. As a matter of

458 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

fact, many newspapers in England and America openly stated that with the builder’s death ”the house that Jinnah built” would collapse. The fact that the Quaid’s death coincided with the downfall of Hyderabad greatly added to the prevailing gloom and increased Liaquat’s difficulties. The way he mastered these •difficulties and discharged his onerous responsibilities could be seen by reference to the pages of the same foreign newspapers. A leftist critic, while comparing Liaquat Ali Khan with Pandit Nehru and the Quaid-i-Azam said that ”although he lacks their public appeal, his abilities as an administrator and political boss are superior to either of them”. The Manchester Guardian in a leading article summed up the position by saying about Nawab Liaquat Ali Khan, ”. . . for nearly three years he has been building up his present commanding position. Courage, humanity, practical idealism, and skill in handling his political colleagues are the qualities which equipped him for his task in Pakistan. His patient work is now beginning to earn recognition from the -world. He is passing from the status of a national statesman to an international one. He belongs to the small group of world figures by whom international destinies are decided. The best testimony to him is the condition of Pakistan today” [italics ours].
Not only was Pakistan able to adjust herself to the death of the Quaid without any political or administrative dislocation, but under the wise statesmanship of his successor, Pakistan maintained a continuous record of progress and consolidation. Her economic strength was put to a severe test when after the devaluation of the pound, almost all countries in the sterling area devalued their currencies and only Pakistan stood out. Very few outside Pakistan thought that she would be able to maintain this attitude for long. It was felt that economic forces would prove too strong, and she would have to reconsider her decision. India, on which Pakistan depended for supply of coal and other necessities, and for sale of her major commercial crops like jute and cotton, was so put out by Pakistan’s decision that she refused to recognise the new •exchange rate of Pakistani rupee and a trade war started between the two dominions. India with her vast economic resources and ability to hold on was sure of victory. She allowed her mills at
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 459
Ahmedabad and Calcutta to be closed and thousands of labourers kept out of work for want of cotton and jute rather than purchase these commodities from Pakistan. She refused to supply coal, •without which, it was thought, Pakistan’s communications would be halted. This economic war lasted for more than a year, and of course involved great efforts and sacrifices on the part of Pakistan. It was not only a struggle against a powerful neighbour. Behind India were ranged, in the distant background, the forces of other countries of the sterling area, which were adversely affected by Pakistan’s decision. For a good while not only the jute magnates of Calcutta but also of Dundee kept off the East Bengal market. Indian newspapers freely talked of ”DundeeCalcutta Axis”. But Pakistan proved equal to the task. She found new markets for her produce and was similarly able to purchase •elsewhere the coal and other stuff for which she depended on India. Ultimately, on 25 January 1951, India had to accept the par value of Pakistani rupee, and the seventeen-month-old trade •deadlock was resolved. If Pakistan attained political independence in 1947, it attained full commercial independence three and a half years later and though the two countries, in their mutual interest, resumed a well-regulated trade, Pakistan emerged stronger and economically more independent on account of the ”cold war”. The problems arising out of the economic war with India were tackled by the Ministry of Commerce-particularly the Jute Board-and the Ministry of Finance, but the Prime Minister, who had overall responsibility for major national policies, must share with them the credit for economic consolidation of Pakistan.
Same sturdy independence was displayed in the sphere of foreign relations. Since the day of Sir Syed, the relations between Indian Muslims and British officers in India have been usually smooth and marked by understanding and goodwill. A large majority of Indian soldiers, who bled for the Empire in the two World Wars consisted of Muslims from the areas which are now a part of Pakistan. These relations, however, became severely strained on account of the policy followed by the Labour Government during the last stages of British connection with India. There was intense and widespread bitterness against the part

460 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

played by Lord Mountbatten, Sir Evan Jenkins and Sir Cyril Radcliffin ”the final phase” but Pakistani authorities kept their heads cool. Not only their attitude towards British Commonwealth was less equivocal than that of India, but they employed a large number of British officers in positions of trust and power. It, however, became obvious that this policy was not being properly appreciated in London. It was being attributed, it was felt, to Pakistan’s weaknesses rather than to a desire to maintain a policy, which bad been of advantage not only to Muslim India but to Great Britain. It was left to Liaquat Ali Khan to dispel these illusions. While in London in April 1949, in connection with a Commonwealth Conference, he met the representatives, of the press, and gave a warning that Pakistan ”could not be taken for granted”. On his way home he received and accepted an invitation to visit Moscow as the guest of U.S.S.R. Government. This visit did not materialise but it underlined the fact that Pakistan was not to be ”taken for granted”
In the field of Indo-Pakistan relations Liaquat Ali Khan’s personal contribution was even more striking. Bharat and Pakistan came into existence, as a result of a scheme which was accepted and publicly endorsed by the representatives of the two organisations, now controlling the Governments in the two countriesthe Congress and the League. To secure the concurrence of the Congress to its scheme of Pakistan, the League made a huge sacrifice-by accepting the proposal to partition Muslim-majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab. Not only was the general scheme of Partition mutually agreed-and basically fair-but the interests of the two countries require that they should work in close harmony. But a major operation like the partitioning of a subcontinent must leave ”loose ends” which can be tied up only in an atmosphere of goodwill, understanding and constructive statesmanship. Unluckily, owing to the events before and after the Partition this atmosphere has usually been lacking. Relations between India and Pakistan have been generally bad, and often they have been on the brink of war. Situation was particularly grim in the spring of 1950, when India had lined up her mechanised brigade and other troops on the borders of East
Liaquat Ali Khan
[ 461
Pakistan and the war-polls conducted by the newspapers in Bombay and Calcutta showed avast majority of readers in favour of war with Pakistan. These were the conditions when Liaquat Ali Khan agreed to pay his first visit to New Delhi since the Partition to discuss things with the Prime Minister of India. Not a few in Karachi were critical of this decision. Newspapers made veiled and unveiled references to the treatment meted out by India to her liberator-Mahatma Gandhi. But Liaquat Ali Khan carried out his peace mission boldly, and Nehru-Liaquat Pact was signed, under which the war between the two countries was averted and a vigorous positive effort was made to improve the situation.
The significance of Liaquat’s contribution at this juncture can be realised from the fact that not only was he able to come to terms with Prime Minister Nehru but impressed Sardar Patel with his ”earnestness and visible sincerity”. At that time opinion in the Indian Cabinet was sharply divided over the desirability of coming to a settlement with Pakistan. Two ministers-Shyama Prashad Mukcrji and K.C. Neog>-resigned in protest against Nehru-Liaquat Pact. Patel, also, was of two minds, but Liaquat was able to persuade.him to make this effort to bring the two countries closer. In a broadcast from Calcutta on 21 April 1950, Patel said:
I also know that my West Bengal friends are definitely worried about the concept qf an Islamic State and the consequences which, in the light of history, such a concept is taken to entail. In the face of a clear acceptance of fundamental principles of democracy by the Prime Minister of Pakistan we have no alternative but to mark time and to put it to the test. The one thing that made a profound impression on me in accepting Prime Minister’s assurances at their face value was the earnestness and visible sincerity with which he laid stress on the need of bringing the two countries closer in our lifetime. We have at least the background of previous associations and of past friendship and goodwill; the new generation will grow under the full belief and faith in absolute separation.5
With regard to Nehru-Liaquat Pact, N.V. Gadgil who was a minister in Nehru’s cabinet, but belonged to Patel’s party, has

462 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

made some important revelations. In his account of his experiences as a minister of Government of India, Gadgil says that originally Nehru-Liaquat Pact contained two paragraphs accepting the ”principle of reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population in all the services and representative bodies in the coustituent states of India. Similar provisions were suggested for the Central Government also.”6
The present writer, who was one of the officials attached to the Pakistan Delegation at the time of Nehru-Liaquat Pact, knows it to be a fact that provisions for similar safeguards for the Hindus in East Pakistan, etc., also had been made. Gadgil does not bring this out, but points out that when the draft agreement was brought before the Indian Cabinet, he strongly objected to the relevant paragraphs and said, ”These two paragraphs must go lock, stock and barrel. . . .”7 Nehru pointed out that he had already ”agreed to this with Liaquat AH Khan.”8 Gadgil was, in due course, supported by Patel and the relevant paragraphs were dropped. Curiously enough, Gadgil has based his opposition to safeguards for minorities on the basis of secularism! He told Patel, ”We have decided upon a secular Government. This agreement destroys this conception”9-as if secularism is opposed to ensuring for the minorities their due share in administration and political life! The incident is another illustration of the manner in which efforts of the Pakistan Government-and noncommunal Hindus-to obtain a fair deal for minorities were thwarted. Gadgil makes no secret of the fact that he was opposed to the very principles of the Liaquat-Nehru Pact and there were others in the Indian Cabinet-like Shyama Prashad Mukerjiwho shared his views. He says, ”Pakistan was encouraged in its policies by this Pact. Communal Muslims in India get a strong shot in the arm because of it. I felt at the time that it was injurious to the security of the country and I still feel so.”10 With people in key positions in India holding these views, it is hardly a matter for surprise that the efforts of Nehru and Liaquat had only temporary and limited results.
Nehru-Liaquat Pact did not bring about all the results that were expected. They were, indeed, impossible of achievement
Liaquat All Khan
[ 46?
without India’s sincerity in carrying out her commitments regarding Kashmir, but an ugly situation in both countries was avoided. In internal matters Liaquat AH Khan followed an equally sound policy. Under his guidance every effort was made to run the administration on sound, healthy and progressive lines. There is not a small danger of an atmosphere of ”palace” or ”court” intrigues developing round seats of authority in Eastern countries. Adventurers are not lacking amongst politicians-and even civil servants!-who for short-sighted gain might encourage the development of such an atmosphere. Pakistan has, of course, been lucky in this as the Quaid-i-Azam set up very high traditions. He was all-powerful in the state which he brought into existence but he exercised his power in a constitutional, well-regulated and conscientious manner, worthy of the most progressive and advanced countries. Liaquat AH Khan maintained the high traditions he inherited from the Quaid. There was nobody who was more anxious to uphold the independence and prestige of the Pakistan Public Service Commission than the Prime Minister and his actions were directed towards seeing that Government should be run on well-recognised and sound principles rather than according to the personal idiosyncrasy of any Minister or himself.
The Quaid was very keen to raise the standard of political life in Pakistan. He had no hesitation in dismissing an all-powerful provincial Premier because allegations of maladministration and1 nepotism were received against him. One of the measures whichhe brought on the Statute Book within the first year of trieinception of Pakistan was the Anti-Corruption Act and he took immediate steps to set up a machinery for enforcing the Act. Liaquat AH Khan more than maintained Quaid’s policy in this respect. At least, in the beginning, his position was not as strong as that of the Quaid in dealing with powerful politicians, who allowed serious abuses to creep into their administration. As a matter of fact, in the opinion of some shrewd observers, he did himself some damage and made powerful enemies for himself when he insisted on the Quaid’s policy being followed with regard to certain politicians in the Punjab and Bengal. But it is greatly to his credit that he ignored these considerations and did his best

464 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan