Partitioning India

Print Friendly


Yasser LatifHamdani[1]


(Why is it important to study partition? The investigation into the political and human sides of partition can help us come to terms with our history as inhabitants of this subcontinent.  Neither the Pakistanis nor the Indians have fully come to terms with partition and have expressed what I like to call partition anxiety in very different ways. Pakistanis have imposed upon themselves, almost as a punishment, a super text of ideology which now impedes the very growth and stability of the state. The Indians have adopted the narrative that Pakistan is an artificial state as opposed to India’s “natural” state.[i] Both these views are extreme positions which have been at the root of our partition anxiety. – Author)

It is this author’s considered view that the partition of British India into India and Pakistan could have been achieved more peacefully and fairly.  One must state some points as the premises of my argument:

  1. That the natural state of the Indian subcontinent before the colonization of Britain was never a political unity.  The closest it got to a political unit was under AurangzaibAlamgir and even then there were autonomous and independent states in India. Even the political unity given to it by the British rulers was largely decentralized and devolved, with British India itself being divided into two parts: British India proper and Princely India. Even within proper British India there were regulation provinces as a separate category. The only political structure in common was the British yoke which had to be lifted sooner or later.
  1. That therefore India would have reverted to its natural state i.e. between 30 to 300 states big or small, then working out a broad based con-federal structure.
  1. That the reason why the Indian subcontinent has not been divided into 300 states but only 3 has to do with the politics of Congress and the Muslim League. By bringing up the ideas of one nation and two nations respectively, these centralized parties managed to paper over regional, ethnic and linguistic differences. Congress – paradoxically- needed the Muslim League to present a counterweight to Punjabi and Bengali parochialism which it did. Then just in time Congress used Muslim League’s own argument to carve up Punjab and Bengal.
  1. That it stands to reason that if India would not have been partitioned along communal lines in 1947, it would have been carved up and divided into several much smaller states, which may or may not have come together in some sort of regional arrangement.

Why did Muslims see themselves as a nation within British India?

History shows amply that religion alone has never been able to unite Muslims as a people.  This is leveled as a criticism of the idea of the so called two nation theory.  However, that is precisely the opposite of what Mohammad Ali Jinnah in 1940 had argued.  Jinnah had said that there were certain demarcating factors, other than religion, that served to define Muslims as a nation unto its own.[ii] In other words the Indo-Muslim Nationalism was based primarily on civilizational factors and common religious beliefs formed only one of these factors.  Therefore it was not as much a theological issue than it was a demarcation through which the Pan-Indian Muslim minority attempted to escape its minority status. [iii] Indeed if theological issues would have crept up, it would have meant that the Muslim League would have been torn asunder. It is for this reason that on 23 May 1944, Jinnah refused to bow down to demands by the orthodoxy to expel Ahmadis from the Muslim League. Instead he advised the Muslims not to raise sectarian questions. [iv]

There are two main underlying factors that are often ignored by historians when commenting on the development of Indian Muslim Nationalism. The first factor is that the modernist and reform movements amongst the Hindus were directed largely towards Hindus. From Ram Mohan Roy to Ranade, the Hindu reformers were interested in reforming the Hindu society never Indian society as a whole and it was not always their fault- Muslims kept themselves aloof from the major modernizing trends of the British rule till of course Sir Syed Ahmed Khan came into the picture.  The second factor is purely economic.  Hindus had developed a mercantile class long before British rule reached its zenith. Under the Mughals and even earlier, Hindus had excelled as traders, merchants and other professions that were arrogantly looked down upon by the Muslim inhabitants. Consequently by the time British rule came about, Muslims as a general rule were associated with agriculture or with soldiering.  There were notable exceptions of course and these included the GujuratiIsmaili community which was business oriented (and it was in this community that Mohammad Ali Jinnah was born in 1876). By and large though what would be termed as Muslim bourgeoisie was very small till the 1930s and was vastly outnumbered by the Hindu bourgeoisie. Nationalism always is the pass time of the bourgeoisie and because of this lopsided development Muslim nationalism developed in contradistinction to Indian – which was predominantly- Hindu Nationalism.

By the 1930s the Muslim salariat classes, [v] including professional classes such as lawyers, etc. had begun to assert themselves. Muslim Nationalism thus was an expression of the new found position of Muslim bourgeoisie and professional classes in 1930s. The exclusion of Muslim League in the UP in 1937 even after it emerged as the largest Muslim party was thus seen as a major affront to Muslim sensibilities.

Was Congress an Indian or a Hindu Party?

Congress was founded in 1885 to further the rights of all Indians. While Sir Syed Ahmed Khan persuaded the Muslims who followed him to stay aloof, some Muslims did join the Congress, including notably BadruddinTyabjee and Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself.  So long as the Congress believed in constitutional advancement and a top down approach to nation building, it remained an Indian party.  Gandhi changed the nature of the Congress Party by taking it to the grassroots. Contrary to allegations against Jinnah, Jinnah was not opposed to grassroots organization of the Congress but he was opposed to Gandhian rhetoric and use of religious symbols, both Hindu and Muslim, to mobilize the masses. Even after Jinnah left the Congress he did not – for a period of time- accuse the Congress of being a Hindu party. In fact he wrote a strongly worded letter to the Times of India repudiating this:

“Sir,—I wish again to correct the statement which is attributed to me and to which you have given currency more than once and now again repeated by your correspondent ‘Banker’ in the second column of your issue of the 1st October that I denounced the Congress as ‘a Hindu Institution’. I publicly corrected this misleading report of my speech in your columns soon after it appeared; but it did not find a place in the columns of your paper and so may I now request you to publish this and oblige. Yours sincerely, M A Jinnah”[vi]

Yet a party is known by the interests it represents.  It is clear that Jinnah’s view of the Congress transformed after the Congress ditched his original four amendments to the Nehru Report which would have resolved the communal problem. Most significantly, Jinnah had proposed that separate electorates be done away with in return for 33 percent reserved Muslim seats i.e. Muslim members elected through a mixed electorate of all communities. There are some unaware and uninformed commentators in India and Pakistan that level the scurrilous charge against Jinnah that he was a lifelong campaigner for separate electorates. In fact Jinnah had opposed separate electorates when they were first introduced, then accepted it as a temporary measure and had recommended the joint electorate with reservations to replace the separate electorate.  Indeed had Congress accepted that proposal, it would have won most of the Muslim reserved seats in any election under the Nehru report’s constitutional scheme. Jinnah had delivered the Muslims of India to the Congress on a platter and the Congress rejected him.

The reason for Congress’ refusal to accept Jinnah’s scheme are plain. Hindu Mahasabha had twisted the Congress’ arm and the party that has for the last 65 years harped against Hindu majoritarian communalism, had, in 1928, bent over backwards to accommodate Hindu nationalism, at the expense of Muslims exclusively.

By the 1930s, Jinnah did begin to accuse the Congress of being a Hindu Party.  He was not alone. The few Muslim congressmen who remained with Congress also accused Congress of appeasing the Hindu right within the movement.  Maulana Azad’s revelations regarding Syed Mahmud and Nariman in his book are an eye opener for those who claim that Congress was consistently opposed to Hindu majoritarianism.  Azad writes:

“That was the first occasion that Congress was taking up the responsibility of administration. It was thus a trial for the Congress and people watched how the organization would live up to its national character. The Muslim League’s main propaganda against Congress had been that it was national only in name. Not content with defamation of Congress in general terms, the League also gave out that the Congress Ministries were carrying out atrocities against the minorities. ….

Stories of atrocities circulated by the Muslim League was pure invention but two things happened at the time which left a bad impression about the attitude of the Provincial Congress Committees. I have to admit with regret that both in Bihar and Bombay, the Congress did not come out fully successful in its test of nationalism.”

“ The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where “the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus.”

“Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. … He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman’s appeal. … Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal’s attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee.”

“Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel’s communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end.”

“A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay.”

“These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority.” [vii]

Both the 1937 and 1946 elections show the Hindu character of the Congress. Despite everything Congress failed to win more than one Muslim seat in UP and very few elsewhere.  Muslim League in comparison won a majority of Muslim seats in UP and Bombay.

Muslim League’s claim that it spoke authoritatively for Muslims originally was based on the Lucknow Pact, where Congress had recognized the Muslim League as the authoritative representative party of the Muslims.  However when Nehru and the Congress effectively told the League that it was merely an important organization of Muslims and there were organizations like Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind  etc as well that had to be taken into account, Congress was playing the same divide and rule politics vis a vis the Muslims that the British had deployed throughout to deny constitutional advance. This finally convinced the Muslim League of the need of bringing Muslim majority provinces behind it and in order to do this, they had to have a formula imprecise enough to allow it to encompass the various centrifugal impulses under one broad name. Sir Sikandar Hayat signed up with Jinnah through the Sikandar-Jinnah pact.  Its terms were simple: Unionist Party would maintain its existing status but Muslim members would nominally become Muslim League members at the province.  On an all India level Unionists would back the Muslim League thereby clothing it in representative authority of Muslims of one of the largest Muslim provinces in British India.  A similar deal was rolled out and A K FazlulHaq jumped on it. Both these gentlemen became the two Muslim leaders who moved and seconded the Lahore Resolution on 23rd March 1940.

B R Ambedkar’s proposed Government of India Act

The Lahore Resolution has been discussed to death. Yet, not enough has been said about how ambiguous it was on certain issues and most importantly that it envisaged a medium term center before all powers could be transferred.  This is very important and to understand why, we have to consider the scheme for communal settlement proposed by arguably the most extraordinary political and legal thinker of the subcontinent, Dr.  B R Ambedkar. [viii] Dr. B R Ambedkar’s scheme essentially gave us a window into what it was that Jinnah wanted. Why does one state this? Jinnah in his correspondence with Gandhi in 1944 recommended Ambedkar’sbook [ix].  What Ambedkar basically asked for was a communal plebiscite which could then possibly result in creation of two constitutions for Pakistan and India, which could then for a certain time period come together as a Union. If the Union didn’t work, they could peaceably separate, or decide to stay together or even evolve a single constitution.  He wrote:

“The issue of Pakistan, being one of self-determination, must be decided by the wishes of the people. It is for this that I propose to take a poll of the Muslims and non-Muslims in the predominantly Muslim Provinces. If the majority of the Muslims are in favour of separation, and a majority of non-Muslims are against separation, steps must be taken to delimit the areas wherever it is possible by redrawing provincial boundaries on ethnic and cultural lines, by separating the Muslim majority districts from the districts in which the majority consists of non-Muslims. A Boundary Commission is necessary for this purpose. So a Boundary Commission is provided for in the Act. It would be better if the Boundary Commission could be international in its composition. The scheme of separate referenda of Muslims and non-Muslims is based on two principles which I regard as fundamental. The first is that a minority can demand safeguards for its protection against the tyranny of the majority. It can demand them as a condition precedent [=precondition]. But a minority has no right to put a veto on the right of the majority to decide on questions of ultimate destiny. This is the reason why I have confined the referendum on the establishment of Pakistan to Muslims only. The second is that a communal majority cannot claim [=compel] a communal minority to submit itself to its dictates. Only a political majority may be permitted to rule a political minority. This principle has been modified in India, where a communal minority is placed under a communal majority subject to certain safeguards. But this is as regards the ordinary question[s] of social, economic, and political importance. It has never been conceded, and can never be conceded, that a communal majority has a right to dictate to a communal minority on an issue which is of a constitutional character. That is the reason why I have provided a separate referendum of non-Muslims only, to decide whether they prefer to go in[to] Pakistan or come into Hindustan.”

Reference must be drawn to Jinnah’s demand that Gandhi agree to a plebiscite of Muslims only. It has been long a subject of needless controversy.  Jinnah had demanded a communal plebiscite and not a territorial one.  Cripps Offer and Rajagopalachari’s formula both provided for territorial self determination which, given the peculiar communal situation, was irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.  Where Ambedkar’s view gets interesting however is when he talks of possibilities:

“These are some of the possibilities I see. These possibilities should in my judgement be kept open for time and circumstances to have their effect. It seems to me to be wrong to say to the Musalmans, if you want to remain as part of India then you can never go out, or if you want to go then you can never come back. I have in my scheme kept the door open, and have provided for both the possibilities in the Act: (1) for union after a separation of ten years, (2) for separation for ten years and union thereafter. I personally prefer the second alternative, although I have no strong views either way. It would be much better that the Musalmans should have the experience of Pakistan. A union after an experience of Pakistan is bound to be stable and lasting. In case Pakistan comes into existence forthwith, it seems to me necessary that the separation should not altogether be a severance, sharp and complete. It is necessary to maintain live contact between Pakistan and Hindustan, so as to prevent any estrangement growing up and preventing the chances of reunion. A Council of India is accordingly provided for in the Act. It cannot be mistaken for a federation. It is not even a confederation. Its purpose is to do nothing more than to serve as a coupling to link Pakistan to Hindustan until they are united under a single constitution.” (Emphasis Added)

This in any event would have been the best solution because it would have allowed a link between India and Pakistan in the period of transfer of power.  All the practical problems and difficulties could then be resolved without creating two hostile nation states.  Pakistan may well have emerged but that would not have been as much a partition as an amicable divorce, by a simple dissolution of the proposed Council of India, with two machineries in place which would have smoothly transitioned.

All this was shot down by Lord Mountbatten’s haste.  Perhaps this is why Stanley Wolpert’s book the “Shameful Flight” is the most appropriately named book on partition.

[1] The author is a practicing lawyer based in Lahore.  He is also the author of the upcoming book “Jinnah; Myth and reality.” He can be contacted at (0300) 5552232 or at

[i] See for instance Justice M. Katju’s strong language condemning the creation of Pakistan as a conspiracy of the British and a “fake” country. This is an a-historical view not worth consideration except that even a secular minded Justice of the Indian Supreme Court has taken to mouthing such Akhand Bharat Hindutvist propaganda means that this myth is strongly rooted in the Indian psyche vis a vis partition.

[ii] See Jinnah’s article in the Time and Tide and his presidential speech on 23 March 1940.

[iii] Ayesha Jalal “Mr. Ravanna; Slay the Myth” Outlook India 2005

[iv] Jinnah’s speech 23 May 1944 at Srinagar (Jamiluddin Ahmed “Speeches and Statements of Quaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah” Volume I Page 148)

[v]See HamzaAlavi’s work “Pakistan and Islam, Ethnicity and Ideology” for reference.

[vi] Published in the Times of India,  3.05.1925

[vii] Pages 16 and 17,  India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman 2007 Reprint


This deserves to be produced in full.

Government of India (Preliminary Provisions) Act

Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows :—

I.—(1) If within six months from the date appointed in this behalf a majority of the Muslim members of the Legislatures of the Provinces of the North-West Frontier, the Punjab, Sind and Bengal pass a resolution that the predominantly Muslim areas be separated from British India, His Majesty shall cause a poll to be taken on that question of the Muslim and the non-Muslim electors of these Provinces and of Baluchistan in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) The question shall be submitted to the electors in these Provinces in the following form :—

(i) Are you in favour of separation from British India?

(ii) Are you against separation?

(3) The poll of Muslim and non-Muslim electors shall be taken separately.

II.—(1) If on a result of the poll, a majority of Muslim electors are found to be in favour of separation and a majority of non-Muslim electors against separation, His Majesty shall by proclamation appoint a Boundary Commission for the purpose of preparing a list of such districts and areas in these Provinces in which a majority of inhabitants are Muslims. Such districts and areas shall be called Scheduled Districts.

(2) The Scheduled Districts shall be collectively designated as Pakistan and the rest of British India as Hindustan. The Scheduled Districts lying in the North-west shall be called the State of Western Pakistan and those lying in the North-east shall be called Eastern Pakistan.

III.—(1) After the findings of the Boundary Commission have become final either by agreement or the award of an Arbitrator, His Majesty shall cause another poll to be taken of the electors of the Scheduled Districts.

(2) The following shall be the form of the questions submitted to the electors :—

(i) Are you in favour of separation forthwith?

(ii) Are you against separation forthwith?

IV.—(I ) If the majority is in favour of separation forthwith, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to make arrangements for the framing of two separate constitutions, one for Pakistan and the other for Hindustan.

(2) The New States of Pakistan and Hindustan shall commence to function as separate States on the day appointed by His Majesty by proclamation issued in that behalf.

(3) If the majority are against separation forthwith, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to make arrangements for the framing of a single constitution for British India as a whole.

V.— No motion for the separation of Pakistan if the poll under the last preceding section has been against separation forthwith, and no motion for incorporation of Pakistan into Hindustan if the poll under the last preceding section has been in favour of separation forthwith, shall be entertained until ten years have elapsed from the date appointed by His Majesty for putting into effect the new constitution for British India or the two separate constitutions for Pakistan and Hindustan.

VI.—(1) In the event of two separate constitutions coming into existence under Section Four it shall be lawful for His Majesty to establish as soon as may be after the appointed day, a Council of India with a view to the eventual establishment of a constitution for the whole of British India, and to bringing about harmonious action between the Legislatures and Governments of Pakistan and Hindustan, and to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of British India, and to providing for the administration of services which the two parliaments mutually agree should be administered uniformly throughout the whole of British India, or which by virtue of this Act are to be so administered.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of India shall consist of a President nominated in accordance with instructions from His Majesty and forty other persons, of whom twenty shall be members representing Pakistan and twenty shall be members representing Hindustan.

(3) The members of the Council of India shall be elected in each case by the members of the Lower Houses of the Parliament of Pakistan or Hindustan.

(4) The election of members of the Council of India shall be the first business of the Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan.

(5) A member of the Council shall, on ceasing to be a member of that House of the Legislature of Pakistan or Hindustan by which he was elected a member of the Council, cease to be a member of the Council: Provided that, on the dissolution of the Legislature of Pakistan or Hindustan, the persons who are members of the Council shall continue to hold office as members of the Council until a new election has taken place and shall then retire unless re-elected.

(6) The President of the Council shall preside at each meeting of the Council at which he is present, and shall be entitled to vote in case of an equality of votes, but not otherwise.

(7) The first meeting of the Council shall be held at such time and place as may be appointed by the President.

(8) The Council may act notwithstanding a deficiency in their number, and the quorum of the Council shall be fifteen.

(9) Subject as aforesaid, the Council may regulate their own procedure, including the delegation of powers to committees.

(10) The constitution of the Council of India may from time to time be varied by identical Acts passed by the Legislature of Pakistan and the Legislature of Hindustan, and the Acts may provide for all or any of the members of the Council of India being elected by parliamentary electors, and determine the constituencies by which the several elective members are to be returned and the number of the members to be returned by the several constituencies and the method of election.

VII.—(1) The Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan may, by identical Acts, delegate to the Council of India any of the powers of the Legislatures and Government of Pakistan and Hindustan, and such Acts may determine the manner in which the powers so delegated are to be exercisable by the Council.

(2) The powers of making laws with respect to railways and waterways shall, as from the day appointed for the operation of the new constitution, become the powers of the Council of India and not of Pakistan or Hindustan: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent the Legislature of Pakistan or Hindustan making laws authorising the construction, extension, or improvement of railways and waterways where the works to be constructed are situate wholly in Pakistan or Hindustan as the case may be.

(3) The Council may consider any questions which may appear in any way to bear on the welfare of both Pakistan and Hindustan, and may, by resolution, make suggestions in relation thereto as they may think proper, but suggestions so made shall have no legislative effect.

(4) It shall be lawful for the Council of India to make recommendations to the Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan as to the advisability of passing identical Acts delegating to the Council of India the administration of any all-India subject, with a view to avoiding the necessity of administering them separately in Pakistan or Hindustan.

(5) It shall be lawful for either Legislature at any time by Act to deprive the delegation to the Council of India of any powers which are in pursuance of such identical Acts as aforesaid for the time being delegated to the Council and thereupon the powers in question shall cease to be exercisable by the Council of India and shall become exercisable in parts of British India within their respective jurisdictions by the Legislatures and Governments of Pakistan and Hindustan and the Council shall take such steps as may be necessary to carry out the transfer, including adjustments of any funds in their hands or at their disposal.

VIII.—(1) If at the end of ten years after [the] coming into operation of a constitution for British India as prescribed by Section IV—(3) a petition is presented to His Majesty by a majority of the Muslim members representing the Scheduled Districts in the Provincial and Central Legislatures, demanding a poll to be taken with regard to the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan, His Majesty shall cause a poll to be taken. (2) The following shall be the form of the questions submitted to the electors —

(i) Are you in favour of [the] separation of Pakistan from Hindustan?

(ii) Are you against the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan?

IX.— If the result of the poll is in favour of separation, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to declare by an Order-in-Council that from a day appointed in that behalf Pakistan shall cease to be a part of British India, and [to] dissolve the Council of India.

X.—(1) Where two constitutions have come into existence under circumstances mentioned in Section IV, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to declare by an Order-in-Council that Pakistan shall cease to be a separate State and shall form part of Hindustan. Provided that no such order shall be made until ten years have elapsed from the commencement of the separate constitution for Pakistan. Provided also that no such declaration shall be made unless the Popular Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan have passed Constituent Acts as are provided for in Section X—(2).

(2) The popular Legislatures of Pakistan and Hindustan may, by identical Acts agreed to by an absolute majority of members at the third reading (hereinafter referred to as Constituent Acts), establish, in lieu of the Council of India, a Legislature for United India, and may determine the number of members thereof, and the manner in which the members are to be appointed or elected, and the constituencies for which the several elective members are to be returned, and the number of members to be returned by the several constituencies, and the method of appointment or election, and the relations of the two Houses (if provided for) to one another.

XI.—(1) On the date of the union of Pakistan and Hindustan, the Council of India shall cease to exist, and there shall be transferred to the Legislature and Government of India all powers then exercisable by the Council of India.

(2) There shall also be transferred to the Legislature and Government of British India all the powers and duties of the Legislatures and Government of Pakistan and Hindustan, including all powers as to taxation, and those Legislatures and Government shall cease to exist.

XII.—(1) A poll under this Act shall be taken by ballot in the same manner so far as possible as a poll of electors for the election of a member to serve in a Legislature, and His Majesty may make rules adopting the election laws for the purpose of the taking of the poll.

(2) An elector shall not vote more than once at the poll, although registered in more than one place.

(3) Elector means every adult male and female residing in the Provinces of North-West Frontier, the Punjab, Sind, and Bengal, and in Baluchistan.

XIII.— This Act may be called the Indian Constitution (Preliminary Provisions) Act, I94 .

[ix] See Jinnah’s letter to Gandhi dated September 17, 1944. See Page 120 of “Quaid’s Correspondence” compiled by SharifuddinPirzada and published by Services Book Club 1987.