Revisiting Allahbad Address w r t extremism, terrorism, security & governance

Revisiting Allahbad Address w r t 

extremism, terrorism, security & governance 

It is important to deconstruct the narrative and compare it with the original. In 2009 when i started textbook analysis i found many errors in the Urdu translation of Allahbad address 1930. initially i thought it was an editorial error but later i understand why some over smart textbook writers did it. It was outcome of misleading narrative we opted especially after objective resolution. So here is the original speech and some comments in the blue. I will add it in near future. Just read and unlearn
Original Text: Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s 1930 Presidential Address to the 25th Session of the All-India Muslim League Allahabad, 29 December 1930

 It is significant that the Simon Report has given extraordinary importance to the question of India's land frontier, but has made only passing references to its naval position. India has doubtless had to face invasions from her land frontier; but it is obvious that her present masters took possession of her on account of her defenceless sea coast. A self-governing and free India will, in these days, have to take greater care of her sea coast than [of her] land frontiers
What was the coastal policy of colonial master? Why they created Karachi port and destroyed Lhori Dharo (port) that was linked with river channel since centuries. Still after 68 years what is the coastal policy of India and Pakistan, is a million dollar question. Iqbal pinpointed it in 1930 yet what we did after 1947 shows preferences of our elite and policy makers. 

The Punjab with 56 percent Muslim population supplies 54 percent of the total combatant troops in the Indian Army, and if the 19,000 Gurkhas recruited from the independent State of Nepal are excluded, the Punjab contingent amounts to 62 percent of the whole Indian Army. This percentage does not take into account nearly 6,000 combatants supplied to the Indian Army by the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. From this you can easily calculate the possibilities of North-West Indian Muslims in regard to the defence of India against foreign aggression.
It is to be remembered that in WW2 huge number of Punjabi Sikhs and Muslims joined Indian army and till the time of partition Punjabis were more then 75% in Indian army. It was essential for big foreign powers to destroy that army. Congress knew it and that is why they rejected Cabinet mission Plan and supported communal division of the Punjab. Big power interests and Congress were on same page. When Iqbal wrote 1930 speech he had already advised Nehru Committee to take care of this strength yet committee had no vision or they were not ready to acknowledge strengths of the Punjab. Communal division of that army effected the whole region and as par Raj Mohan Gandhi it was demanded by the Congress in March 1947. 

Misleading Lucknow Pact 
There were two pitfalls into which Muslim political leaders fell. The first was the repudiated Lucknow Pact, which originated in a false view of Indian nationalism and deprived the Muslims of India of chances of acquiring any political power in India. The second is the narrow-visioned sacrifice of Islamic solidarity, in the interests of what may be called Punjab ruralism, resulting in a proposal which virtually reduces the Punjab Muslims to a position of minority. It is the duty of the League to condemn both the Pact and the proposal.
....The Simon Report does great injustice to the Muslims in not recommending a statutory majority for the Punjab and Bengal. It would make the Muslims either stick to the Lucknow Pact or agree to a scheme of joint electorates. The despatch of the Government of India on the Simon Report admits that since the publication of that document the Muslim community has not expressed its willingness to accept any of the alternatives proposed by the Report. The despatch recognises that it may be a legitimate grievance to deprive the Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal of representation in the councils in proportion to their population merely because of weightage allowed to Muslim minorities elsewhere. But the despatch of the Government of India fails to correct the injustice of the Simon Report. In so far as the Punjab is concerned – and this is the most crucial point – it endorses the so-called "carefully balanced scheme" worked out by the official members of the Punjab Government which gives the Punjab Muslims a majority of two over Hindus and Sikhs combined, and a proportion of 49 percent of the House as a whole. It is obvious that the Punjab Muslims cannot be satisfied with less than a clear majority in the total House.

In 1916 Lucknow Pact was signed and later included in the Government of India act of 1919. As par the misleading pact a weightage formula was coined apparently for the support of minorities living in various provinces. At that time there were two Muslim majority provinces with less then 10% difference i-e Bengal & the Punjab. Sindh was under Bombay while NWFP had not complete provincial rights. So by using that misleading pact, Muslims lost majority in both Bengal and the Punjab because they had to withdrew 10% seats to fellow non-Muslim Punjabis. Hakim ajmal Khan, Mian Muhammad Shafi, Allama Iqbal and later C R Das were among those visionaries who opposed Lucknow Pact. In 1924 C R Das elected first native mayor of Calcutta and he rejected Lucknow Pact and gave 50% seats to Bengali Muslims. He opposed by Gandhi but he gave C R Formula that was based on respect of majorities yet he died in 1925. Both Subhas Chandar Bose and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy were his talented followers. Unlike Bengal, non-Muslim leaders leaders of the Punjab especially Lala Lajpit Ray did not show any vision. They were even against separation of Sindh from Bombay, giving full provincial rights to NWFP and formation of Baluchistan as a province.  Even Nehru Report failed to address it and did not reject Lucknow Pact. Due to that misleading policy majority leaders of Khilafat committee Punjab left Congress in 1930 when the party held its session at the bank of Ravi, in Lhore. It is to be remmbered that from 1916 till 1930 Punjabi Muslims protested against Lucknow Pact and in mid 1920s  they raised a movement of 56% rights (Chapan fesadi tahreek).  it had support from all sections of Muslims in the Punjab including Allama Iqbal, Mian Fazl e Hussain, Mollana zafar Ali Khan, Mollana Mazhar Ali Azhar, Ch Afzal Haq, Lal Din Qaiser etc. So in 1930 when Congress did not reject Lucknow Pact then a group of Punjabi Muslims left the show and formed a separate party under the title Ahrar. This back ground is essential to understand why Iqbal called Lucknow Pact a Pitfall. Interestingly in our textbooks their are lessons in praise of that misleading pact. If Allahbad address is guiding principal in Pakistan movement then we have to accept that Lucknow Pact was a smart clever move to mislead Muslims. Some important leaders including Jinnah, Mian Fazl e Hussain etc could not understand it at that movement but later they amended it. Similarly both Jinnah and Iqbal neither participated in misleading Khilafat movement and non-cooperation movement but in our textbook and official narrative those misleading movements are taught as heroic efforts.   

Thus it is clear that in view of India's infinite variety in climates, races, languages, creeds and social systems, the creation of autonomous States, based on the unity of language, race, history, religion and identity of economic interests, is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure in India.
Had congress left One nation theory things would be much different but ironically we themselves opted misleading one nation theory after creation of Pakistan
The statement of Iqbal is in clear support of federalism and linguistic diversity yet in Pakistan we tried to develop a centralist narrative based on one religion and sole national language that was just contrary to Allahbad address. 


Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states.

Opposition to religious rule or rule by clergy or theocratic state is there in this sentence. But how we ignored this is a proof of a deviation in this regard.  

The truth is that Islam is not a Church. It is a State conceived as a contractual organism long before Rousseau ever thought of such a thing, and animated by an ethical ideal which regards man not as an earth-rooted creature, defined by this or that portion of the earth, but as a spiritual being understood in terms of a social mechanism, and possessing rights and duties as a living factor in that mechanism.

If you read this with reference to above two extracts then in the presence of federalism and respect for diversity it is too an opposition of clergy rule.

 I therefore demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim State in the best interests of India and Islam. For India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power; for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.
His conceived Muslim State had nothing to do with jingoism in the region but had to work for peace and security especially with Indians. 
Opposition to centralizm and desire to rid  itself of the stamp of Arabian Imperialism as Muslim shows his reluctance. Iqbal had opposed Khilafat movement and called it a revivalist movement for a deteriorated Kingship. 
Interestingly in our official narratives we did not follow both things. 

The conception of federation underlying the Simon Report necessitates the abolition of the Central Legislative Assembly as a popular assembly, and makes it an assembly of the representatives of federal States. It further demands a redistribution of territory on the lines which I have indicated. And the Report does recommend both. I give my wholehearted support to this view of the matter, and venture to suggest that the redistribution recommended in the Simon Report must fulfill two conditions. It must precede the introduction of the new constitution, and must be so devised as to finally solve the communal problem. Proper redistribution will make the question of joint and separate electorates automatically disappear from the constitutional controversy of India. It is the present structure of the provinces that is largely responsible for this controversy.
Is it not enough to understand what was the vision of Iqbal regarding federalism, more close to confederation then centralism. Had we adopted that principal we would not only handled East Bengal issue but also resolved issues of provincial autonomy in West Pakistan too in 1960s. Interestingly founders of 1973 constitution in general and makers of 18th amendment followed those principals of Iqbal in letter and spirit.  It is a clear Stand in fever of federal system against unitary form of government.
To my mind a unitary form of government is simply unthinkable in a self-governing India. What is called "residuary powers" must be left entirely to self-governing States, the Central Federal State exercising only those powers which are expressly vested in it by the free consent of federal States. I would never advise the Muslims of India to agree to a system, whether of British or of Indian origin, which virtually negatives the principle of true federation, or fails to recognise them as a distinct political entity
It is enough to understand what Iqbal said and what we did in the first 23 years, till the breakage of Pakistan. We tried to form a unitary form of government. Even in West Pakistan we established infamous One-Unit and even ruined the spirit of federalism. we did not establish Baluchistan province neither converted FATA in the settle area. Our pre-1971 policies were largely revolved around tackling with the majority province i-e East Bengal that was part of the problem. Even that mindset still exists in Post 1971 Pakistan in many ways. Center, first Karachi then Islamabad, want to play with provincial infighting. 
Security Issue and Question of loyalty 
I have no doubt that if a Federal Government is established, Muslim federal States will willingly agree, for purposes of India's defence, to the creation of neutral Indian military and naval forces. Such a neutral military force for the defence of India was a reality in the days of Mughal rule. Indeed in the time of Akbar the Indian frontier was, on the whole, defended by armies officered by Hindu generals. I am perfectly sure that the scheme for a neutral Indian army, based on a federated India, will intensify Muslim patriotic feeling, and finally set at rest the suspicion, if any, of Indian Muslims joining Muslims from beyond the frontier in the event of an invasion.
Armed forces should play a neutral role under federation was the vision regarding security yet what we did in last 60 years was just the opposite. This extract also showed that Iqbal was not separatist but he wanted to resolve various issues related to Indian federation. Similarly when jinnah accepted Cabinet Mission Plan he proved that he was not a separatist but wanted business. But in Pakistan we developed a narrative in which separatism was key to success. We even propagated that Muslims had started thinking about a Muslim cum Islamic State right from Muhammad bin Qasim times. We also encouraged the narrative based on communal-ism. While developing that narrative we forgot that now we are a nation state and till 1971 that nation state had 22% non-Muslims too.  How a narrative based on separatism could help us in nation building?  If Muslim community had right to separate from India then why not other communities or nationalities had not? so promotion of separatism proves counterproductive in nation building in many ways. No nation state can run its business on the basis of separatism promotion.  In the absence of neutral army and presence of separatist narrative and naked borders no nation state can provide reasonable security. 

FURTHER READINGS

MAR 23 Question of Muslim Majorities and Politics : From Nehru report (1928) till 23rd March 1940 Lhore Resolution

Woodrow Wilson's 14 points & Allama Iqbal

Iqbal Response to Skill base Education & Education for Muslims 

Why Allama Iqbal opposed Khilafat movement..Read & Unlearn 

were Iqbal & Jinnah Pro-British?

Partition of Bengal Game Plan and Iqbal's timely intervention December 1911