Vol. 8 · pages 331–335

306 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a resolution* urging the establishment of a national pact to ensure unity and harmony among the various communities and sects in India and appointed a committee to collaborate with committees to be appointed by other organizations. The Indian National Congress in its special session held in September 1923 at Delhi under the presidentship of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad passed a resolution reciprocating the sentiments expressed by the League. The Congress resolved to appoint two committees (1) to revise the constitution and (2) to prepare a draft of a national pact. The report† of the committee on the Indian National Pact was signed by Dr. Ansari and Lala Lajpat Rai and was presented at the session of the Congress held at Coconada in 1923. Side by side with the making of the terms of the Indian National Pact there was forged the Bengal Pact‡ by the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee with the Bengal Muslims under the inspiration of Mr. C. R. Das. Both the Indian National Pact and the Bengal Pact came up for discussion§ in the Subjects Committee of the Congress. The Bengal Pact was rejected by 678 votes against 458. With regard to the National Pact, the Congress resolved¶ that the Committee do call for further opinions on the draft of the Pact prepared by them and submit their report by 31st March 1924 to the A. I. C. C. for its consideration. The Committee, however, did not proceed any further in the matter. This was because the feeling among the Hindus against the Bengal Pact was so strong that according to Lala Lajpat Rai# it was not considered opportune to proceed with the Committee’s labours. Moreover, Mr. Gandhi was then released from jail and it was thought that he would take up the question. Dr. Ansari, therefore, contented himself with handing over to the A. I. C. C. the material he had collected. Mr. Gandhi took up the threads as soon as he came out of the gaol. In November 1924 informal discussions were held in * For the full text of the resolution of the League, see Indian Annual Register, 1923, Vol. I, pp. 395-96. † For the terms of the Bengal Pact, see Ibid., p. 127. ‡ For the report and the draft terms of the Pact, see Ibid, 1923, Vol. II, supplement, pp. 104-108. § For the debate on these two Pacts, see Ibid., pp. 121-127. ¶ For the resolution, see Ibid., p. 122. #See his statement on the All-Parties Conference held in 1925 in the Indian Quarterly Register, 1925, Vol. I, p. 70.

307 PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION Bombay. As a result of these discussions, an All-Parties Conference was constituted and a committee was appointed to deal with the question of bringing about unity. The Conference was truly an All-Parties Conference inasmuch as the representatives were drawn from the Congress, the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Justice Party, Liberal Federation, Indian Christians, Muslim League, etc. On the 23rd January 1925, a meeting of the committee* appointed by the All-Parties Conference was held in Delhi at the Western Hotel. Mr. Gandhi presided. On the 24th January the committee appointed a representative sub-committee consisting of 40 members (a) to frame such recommendations as would enable all parties to join the Congress, (b) to frame a scheme for the representation of all communities, races and sub-divisions on the legislative and other elective bodies under Swaraj and recommended the best method of securing a just and proper representation of the communities in the services without detriment to efficiency, and (c) to frame a scheme of Swaraj that will meet the present needs of the country. The committee was instructed to report on or before the 15th February. In the interest of expediting the work some members formed themselves into a smaller committee for drawing up a scheme of Swaraj leaving the work of framing the scheme of communal representation to the main committee. The Swaraj sub-committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Besant succeeded in framing its report on the constitution and submitted the same to the general committee of the All-Parties Conference. But the sub-committee appointed to frame a scheme of communal representation met at Delhi on the 1st March and adjourned sine die without coming to any conclusion. This was due to the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai and other representatives of the Hindus would not attend the meeting of the sub-committee. Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru issued the following statement†:— “Lala Lajpat Rai had asked for a postponement by reason of the inability of Messrs. Jayakar, Srinivas Iyengar and Jai Ram Das to attend. We were unable to postpone the meeting on our own * For the proceedings of the committee, see the Indian Quarterly Register, 1925, Vol. I, pp. 66-77. † For the proceedings of the committee, see the Indian Quarterly Register, 1925, Vol.1, p. 77.

308 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES responsibility. We, therefore, informed Lala Lajpat Rai that the question of postponement be placed before the meeting. This was consequently done but apart from the absence of Lala Lajpat Rai and of the gentlemen named by him the attendance was otherwise also too meagre for coming to any decision. In our opinion there was moreover no material for coming to any definite conclusions nor is there likelihood of any being reached in the near future……” There is no doubt that this statement truly summed up the state of mind of the parties concerned. The late Lala Lajpat Rai, the spokesman of the Hindus on the committee, had already said in an article in the Leader of Allahabad that there was no immediate hurry for a fresh pact and that he declined to accept the view that a Hindu majority in some provinces and a Muslim majority in others was the only way to Hindu-Muslim unity. The question of Hindu-Muslim unity was again taken up in 1927. This attempt was made just prior to the Simon Commission inquiry, in the hope that it would be successful as the attempt made prior to the Montagu-Chelmsford inquiry in 1916 and which had fructified in the Lucknow Pact. As a preliminary, a conference of leading Muslims was held in Delhi on the 20th March 1927 at which certain proposals* for safeguarding the interest of the Muslims were considered. These proposals, which were known as the Delhi proposals, were considered by the Congress at its session held in Madras in December 1927. At the same time, the Congress passed a resolution† authorizing its Working Committee to confer with similar committees to be appointed by other organizations to draft a Swaraj constitution for India. The Liberal Federation and the Muslim League passed similar resolutions appointing their representatives to join in the deliberations. Other organizations were also invited by the Congress Working Committee to send their spokesmen. The All-Parties Conference,‡ as the committee came to be called, met on 12th February 1928 and appointed a sub-committee to frame a constitution. The committee prepared a report with a draft of the constitution—which * These proposals will be found in the Indian Quarterly Register, 1927, Vol.1, p. 33. These proposals subsequently became the basis of Mr. Jinnah’s 14 points. † For the resolution of the Congress on these proposals, see Ibid., 1927, Vol. II, pp. 397-98. ‡ For the origin, history and composition of the All-Parties Convention and for the text of the report, Ibid., 1928, Vol. I, pp. 1-142.

309 PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION is known as the Nehru Report. The report was placed before the All-Parties Convention which met under the presidentship of Dr. Ansari on 22nd December 1928 at Calcutta just prior to the Congress session. On the 1st January 1929 the Convention adjourned sine die without coming to any agreement, on any question, not even on the communal question. This is rather surprising because the points of difference between the Muslim proposals and the proposals made in the Nehru Committee report were not substantial. This is quite obvious from the speech* of Mr. Jinnah in the All-Parties Convention in support of his amendments. Mr. Jinnah wanted four amendments to be made in the report of the Nehru Committee. Speaking on his first amendment relating to the Muslim demand for 33 13 per cent. representation in the Central Legislature, Mr. Jinnah said :— “ The Nehru Report has stated that according to the scheme which they propose the Muslims are likely to get one-third in the Central Legislature and perhaps more, and it is argued that the Punjab and Bengal will get much more than their population proportion. What we feel is this. If one- third is going to be obtained by Muslims, then the method which you have adopted is not quite fair to the provinces where the Muslims are in a minority because the Punjab and Bengal will obtain more than their population basis in the Central Legislature. You are going to give to the rich more and keeping the poor according to population. It may be sound reasoning but it is not wisdom…… “Therefore, if the Muslims are, as the Nehru Report suggest, to get one-third, or more, they cannot give the Punjab or Bengal more, but let six or seven extra seats be distributed among provinces which are already in a very small minority, such as, Madras and Bombay, because, remember, if Sind is separated, the Bombay Province will be reduced to something like 8 per cent. There are other provinces where we have small minorities. This is the reason why we say, fix one-third and let it be distributed among Muslims according to our own adjustment.” His second amendment related to the reservation of seats on population basis in the Punjab and in the Bengal, i.e., the claim to a statutory majority. On this Mr. Jinnah said :— “You remember that originally proposals emanated from certain Muslim leaders in March 1927 known as the ‘Delhi Proposals.’ They were dealt with by the A. I. C. C. in Bombay and at the Madras Congress and the Muslim League in Calcutta last year substantially endorsed at least * See the Indian Quarterly Register, 1928, Vol. I, pp. 123-24.

310 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES this part of the proposal. I am not going into the detailed arguments. It really reduces itself into one proposition, that the voting strength of Mahomedans in the Punjab and Bengal, although they are in a majority, is not in proportion to their population. That was one of the reasons. The Nehru Report has now found a substitute and they say that if adult franchise is established then there is no need for reservation, but in the event of its not being established we want to have no doubt that in that case there should be reservation for Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal, according to their population, but they shall not be entitled to additional seats.” His third amendment was in regard to residuary powers which the Nehru Committee had vested in the Central Government. In moving his amendment that they should be lodged in the Provincial Government Mr. Jinnah pleaded :— “Gentlemen, this is purely a constitutional question and has nothing to do with the communal aspect. We strongly hold—I know Hindus will say Muslims are carried away by communal consideration—we strongly hold the view that, if you examine this question carefully, we submit that the residuary powers should rest with the province. ” His fourth amendment was concerned with the separation of Sind. The Nehru Committee had agreed to the separation of Sind but had subjected it to one proviso, namely, that the separation should come “only on the establishment of the system of government outlined in the report”. Mr. Jinnah in moving for the deletion of the proviso said :— “We feel this difficulty…..Suppose the Government choose, within the next six months, or a year or two years, to separate Sind before the establishment of a government under this constitution, are the Mahomedans to say, ‘we do not want it’….. So long as this clause stands its meaning is that Mahomedans should oppose its separation until simultaneously a government is established under this constitution. We say delete these words and I am supporting my argument by the fact that you do not make such a remark about the N.-W. F. Province……..The Committee says it cannot accept it as the resolution records an agreement arrived at by parties who signed at Lucknow. With the utmost deference to the members of the Committee I venture to say that that is not valid ground……..Are we bound, in this Convention, bound because a particular resolution was passed by an agreement between certain persons ? ” These amendments show that the gulf between the Hindus and Muslims was not in any way a wide one. Yet there was no desire to bridge the same. It was left to the British Government to do what the Hindus and the Muslims failed to do and it did it by the Communal Award.