Vol. 8 · pages 276–280

251PAKISTAN : COMMUNAL AGGRESSION nor did the Act give the Muslim community a right to claim a fixed number of seats. All that it did was to give the Muslims the right to separate representation. Though, to start with, the suggestion of separate representation came from the British, the Muslims did not fail to appreciate the social value of separate political rights with the result that when in 1909 the Muslims came to know that the next step in the reform of the Legislative Councils was contemplated, they waited of their own accord in deputation* upon the Viveroy, Lord Minto, and placed before him the following demands:— (i) Communal representation in accordance with their numerical strength, social position and local influence, on district and municipal boards. (ii) An assurance of Muhammadan representation on the governing bodies of Universities. (iii) Communal representation on provincial councils, election being by special electoral colleges composed of Muhammadan landlords, lawyers, merchants, and representatives of other important interests, University graduates of a certain standing and members of district and municipal boards. (iv) The number of Muhammadan representatives in the Imperial Legislative Council should not depend on their numerical strength, and Muhammadans should never be in an ineffective minority. They should be elected as far as possible (as opposed to being nominated), election being by special Muhammadan colleges composed of landowners, lawyers, merchants, members of provincial councils, Fellows of Universities, etc. These demands were granted and given effect to in the Act of 1909. Under this Act the Muhammadans were given (1) the right to elect their representatives, (2) the right to elect their representatives by separate electorates, (3) the right to vote in the general electorates as well, and (4) the right to weightage in representation. The following table shows the proportion of representation, secured to the Muslims in the Legislatures by the Act of 1909 and the Regulations made thereunder:— * Mr. Mahomed Ali in his speech as the President of the Congress said that this deputation was a “command performance.”

252 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Composition of Legislative Councils under the Act of 1909 showing Communal Proportion between Hindus and Muslims Province Maximum member of Additional mem- bers prescribed by the Act of 1909. Maximum member of Additional Members allowed by Regulations columns 5 and 12 Ex-officio members Strength of the Council under the Regulations Total strength columns 4, 5, 12 Elected Members. Nominated Members. Total Non- Muslims Muslims Officials Non- officials Experts TotalLaw officers Others* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 India ... ... 60 60 8 27 22 5 ... 28 5 ... 33 63 Madras ... ... 50 45 4 21 19 2 1 16 5 2 24 49 Bombay ... ... 50 45 4 21 17 4 1 14 7 2 24 49 Bengal ... ... 50 50 4 28 23 5 ... 16 4 2 22 54 Bihar ... ... 50 41 4 21 17 4 ... 15 4 1 20 45 U.P. ... ... 50 49 1 21 17 4 ... 20 6 2 28 50 Punjab ... ... 30 26 1 8 8 none. ... 10 6 2 18 27 Burma ... ... 30 17 1 1 1 none. ... 6 8 2 16 18 Assam ... ... 30 25 1 11 9 2 ... 9 4 1 14 25 *The numbers in column 9 represent the maximum of Official Members permitted under the Regulations.

253PAKISTAN : COMMUNAL AGGRESSION The provisions were applied to all Provinces except the Punjab and the C. P. It was not applied to the Punjab bacause such special protection was considered unnecessary for the Musalmans of the Punjab and it was not applied to the C. P. because it had no Legislative Council at the time.* In October 1916, 19 members of the Imperial Legislative Council presented the Viceroy (Lord Chelmsford) a memorandum demanding a reform of the Constitution. Immediately the Muslims came forward with a number of demands on behalf of the Muslim community. These were :— (i) The extension of the principle of separate representation to the Punjab and the C. P. (ii) Fixing the numerical strength of the Muslim representatives in the Provincial and Imperial Legislative Councils. (iii) Safeguards against legislation affecting Muslims, their religion and religious usages. The negotiations following upon these demands resulted in agreement between the Hindus and the Muslims which is known as the Lucknow Pact. It may be said to contain two clauses. One related to legislation, under which it was agreed that:— “No Bill, nor any clause thereof, nor a resolution introduced by a non-official affecting one or other community (which question is to be determined by the members of that community in the Legislative Council concerned) shall be proceeded with, if three-fourths of the members of that community in the particular Council, Imperial and Provincial, oppose the Bill or any clause thereof or the resolution.” The other clause related to the proportion of Muslim representation. With regard to the Imperial Legislative Council the Pact provided :— “That one-third of the Indian elected members should be Muhammadans, elected by separate electorates in the several Provinces, in the proportion, as nearly as might be, in which they were represented on the provincial legislative councils by separate Muhammadan electorates.” * The C. P. legislative Council was established in 1914.

254 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES In the matter of Muslim representation in the Provincial Legislative Councils it was agreed that the proportion of Muslim representation should be as follows* :— Percentage of elected Indian Members to the Provincial Legislature Punjab ... ... ... 50 United Provinces ... ... 30 Bengal ... ... ... 40 Bihar and Orissa ... ... 25 Central Provinces ... ... 15 Madras ... ... ... 15 Bombay ... ... ... 33 While allowing this proportion of seats to the Muslims, the right to second vote in the general electorates which they had under the arrangement of 1909 was taken away. The Lucknow Pact was adversely criticized by the Montagu Chelmsford Report. But being an agreement between the parties Government did not like to reject it and to substitute in its place its own decision. Both clauses of the agreement were accepted by Government and embodied in the Government of India Act of 1919. The clause relating to legislation was given effect to but in a different form. Instead of leaving it to the members of the Legislature to oppose it, it was provided† that legislation affecting the religion or religious rites and usages of any class of British subjects in India shall not be introduced at any meeting of either Chamber of the Indian Legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. The clause relating to representation was accepted by the Government, though in the opinion of the Government the Punjab and Bengal Muslims were not fairly treated. The effect of these concessions can be seen by reference to the composition of the Legislatures constituted under the Government of India Act, 1919, which was as follows:— * For some reason the Pact did not settle the proportion of Muslim representation in Assam. † Government of India Act, 1919, section 67(2)(b) .

255PAKISTAN : COMMUNAL AGGRESSION Composition of the Legislatures Statutory Minimum Elected Members Nominated Members Actual TotalTotal Muslims Non- Muslims Officials Non- Offi- cials (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Legislative Assembly 145 104 52 52 26 15 145 Council of State 60 33 11 22 17 10 60 Madras Provincial Council 118 98 13 85 11 23 132 Bombay Provincial Council 111 86 27 59 19 9 114 Bengal Provincial Council 125 114 39 75 16 10 140 U. P. Provincial Council 118 110 29 71 17 6 123 Punjab Provincial Council 83 71 32 39 15 8 94 Bihar Provincial Council 98 76 18 58 15 12 103 C. P. Provincial Council 70 55 7 48 10 8 73 Assam Provincial Council 53 39 12 27 7 7 53 The extent of representation secured by the Muslims by the Lucknow Pact can be seen from the following table* :— Legislative Body Percentage of Muslims to total population of the electoral area (1921 Census) Percentage of Muslim Members to total No. of Members Percentage of elected Muslim Members to total No. of elected Indian Members† Percentage of Muslim Members to total Members in seats filled by election from Indian general (communal) consti- tuencies Lucknow Pact Percentage (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Punjab ... 55.2 40 48.5 50 50 United Provinces 14.3 25 30 32.5 30 Bengal ... 54.6 30 40.5 46 40 Bihar and Orissa 10.9 18.5 25 27 25 Central Provinces 4.4 9.5 13 14.5 15 Madras ... 6.7 10.5 14 16.5 15 Bombay ... 19.8 25.5 35 37 33.3 Assam ... 32.2 30 35.5 37.5 No. provi- sion Legislative Assembly 24.0 26 34 38 33.3 *Statutory Commission, 1929, Report, Vol. I, p. 189. †Column 3 includes Indians elected by special constituencies, e.g. Commerce, whose communal proportions may of course vary slightly from time to time. Similarly column 2, including also officials and nominated non-officials, will show slightly different results at different periods.