K of Pakistan
Dr Shabir Choudhry
As promised I have analysed the "K" of Pakistan. You are welcome to comment.
K of Pakistan
Shabir Choudhry Director, Institute of Kashmir Affairs
Two K's, in their own way, are very important to Pakistan, and both have caused enormous problems for Pakistan as well. One such "K" is of Karachi, and the other "K" is of Kashmir. In the following article I will only concentrate on the "K" of Kashmir. I will endeavour to explain and analyse the"K" of Pakistan, as many people think it is "K" of Kashmir, and its inclusion indicates that the founders of Pakistan wanted Kashmir to be part of Pakistan.
First of all there is no evidence that founders of Pakistan, including Allama Iqbal, before the creation of Pakistan ever demanded that Kashmir should be part of the proposed Muslim State - Pakistan. The idea of Muslim State was put forward by Allama Iqbal in his famous speech in Allahbad, which is known as "Khutba E Allahbad". In this there is no mention of Kashmir or any of the Princely States, Allama Iqbal said:
I would like to see provinces of Punjab, North-West Frontier, Sind and Balochistan merged together to form a country, either within the British Raj or out of it..
Source: translation from' Pakistan Naagzeer Tha' Pakistan 560, by Syed Qasim Riaz
It is clear that there is no mention of Kashmir here. Allama Iqbal is talking about provinces of the British India. It must be remembered here that the British Raj in India consisted of two units: British India which was directly ruled by the British, and the Princely States which were semi- autonomous, and had separate arrangements with the British through different treaties. The much- talked division on communal lines or Two Nations Theory was related to the British India only.
It was Choudhry Rehmat Ali who first coined the word Pakistan, not Allama Iqbal, as some people believe. Choudhry Rehmat Ali was a student in England at that time, and was very much influenced by the Pan Islamic Movement. As a young student he was not fully aware of the legal and constitutional position of Princely States and the British India.
Whereas Allama Iqbal was fully aware of this legal position and its implications if Kashmir had been included in the demand of a Muslim state. Similarly those who passed, (Muslim League and Mohammed Ali Jinnah) the "Pakistan Resolution" were aware of this legal position, and did not include Kashmir in their demand of a Muslim State. The Lahore Resolution, which at times is called Pakistan Resolution, reads:
"That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North - Western and Easter zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constitutional units shall be autonomous and sovereign".
This Resolution, as we all know, was passed in 1940, and Pakistan emerged as an independent State on 14 August 1947. No where between these two dates Mohammed Ali Jinnah, President of Muslim League or any other Muslim League leader demanded that Kashmir should be part of their demand for Pakistan. Between 1940 and August 1947, literally hundreds of speeches were made by different League leaders, and dozens of resolutions were passed by the Muslim League, and at no time they demanded that Kashmir should be part of their demand for Pakistan.
Even at time they knew Kashmir had Muslim majority and that it was adjacent to proposed Pakistan territory, with all its routes, but they did not demand for its inclusion in Pakistan. One wonders why? The answer is very simple. They all knew that it was the British India which was to be divided, and the Two Nations Theory was not applicable to the Princely States whether they had Muslim majority or not.
Mahatama Gandhi, clever as he was, realised the "K" of Pakistan, and its apparent ambiguity, wrote a letter to Mr Jinnah on 15 September 1944, and asked:
'Pakistan is not mentioned in the Lahore Resolution, does its structure equals its formation,ie, Punjab, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sind and Balochistan? He further asked: If your scheme of work is put in practice then what will happen to those Muslims who are subjects of Princely States?
To which Mohammed Ali Jinnah replied on 15 September 1944:
The word Pakistan is not mentioned in the Resolution, but this word is equal to that, and is used in place of Lahore Resolution. To the second question, he said:The Resolution deals with the British India only and does not apply to the Princely States.
Source: (translation) details of this could be seen in, "Letters of Qaaid E Azam' by Syed Qasim Mehmood; 'Manzil ba Manzil' by Sharif Ul Din Pirzada, and, 'Indo Pak Relations' page 44, by Siser Gupta
Mountbatten also spoke on the topic and said on 25 July 1947 in the Chamber of Princes:..
''The Indian Independence Act releases the States from all their obligations to the Crown. The States will have complete freedom - technically and legally they become independent".
Mr Jinnah in reply to a question regarding the status of Princely States said on 17 June 1947:..
''After the lapse of Paramountcy the Princely States would be constitutionally and legally sovereign states, and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is open to the States to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or decide to remain independent. In my opinion they are free to remain independent if they so desire".
In the presence of this formidable evidence there should be no need to provide any further explanation, but it is unfortunate that people have their own way of defining these statements. Their argument is that it may be the legal position, but Mr Jinnah only made a political statement, as he was fighting the British and the Hindus. His real aim was to include Kashmir in Pakistan.
May be that is what he wanted, but that is not what he said in his statements before the Partition of India. Even if he had desired that, it still does not change the legal and constitutional position of either Kashmir or demand for Pakistan. He desired Muslim and Hindu unity but it did not happen; he wanted whole of Punjab and whole of Bengal for Pakistan, and that did not happen either.
So why is that something for which he has not expressed clearly, must be included in Pakistan, because, according to some, Pakistan cannot survive without it. Whereas an area which was legal and constitutional part of Pakistan, East Pakistan, was lost, and Pakistan still survives, and apparently there seems to be no regret over its lost.
Let us go back to the formation of word Pakistan. It is claimed that
"P" is for Punjab;
"A" for Afghan;
"K" for Kashmir;
"S" Sind and
"Tan" from Balochistan (tan).
The "K" of Kashmir has been discussed above in detail, and we know that legally and constitutionally it could not have been part of the new state-Pakistan. Nor the founders of Pakistan demanded it.
Now we analyse some of the other letters. If "A" stands for Afghanistan- an independent country at that time, how could it become a part of this new proposed state? Some argue that it reflects Pathans of North - West Province. When we carefully look at this, even this does not make sense because this area has never been called Afghan; nor people of this area are known as Afghans, rather they are known as "Pukhtoons".
On the other hand, Bengal was part of demand for Pakistan, but it was not part of the formation of word Pakistan, as there is no "B" anywhere in the word Pakistan. What the above discussion means is that the word "Pakistan" did not reflect the areas to be included in the new state.
Rather Choudhry Rehmat Ali wanted to produce a name which rhymed with Hindustan, as India was known at that time. Another evidence to support the above view is the map which he produced for the future of the Sub- Continent. In his map, he had Hindustan, Pakistan, Usmanistan (for Hyderabad Daccan), Bangalistan (for Bengal) Rajistan, Guruistan for some other areas, and Kashmir and Afghanistan are shown separate.
The above debate makes more sense when you look at it in the background that fundamentalist Hindus called Muslims "Maleechh"-meaning impure; and demanded that either they convert to their original faith-Hinduism or go back to Arab. Many Muslims also thought of Hindus as impure, and in response to the above they proposed that Hindustan for Hindus - impure people; and Pakistan for "Pak people", meaning pure people.
The above discussion proves that Choudhry Rehmat Ali, when he proposed the name, did not care too much about the boundary of the new state. What he wanted was a state for Muslims, where "Pak people" (pure people) could live the way they want. Let us assume for a moment that Kashmir had another name, not Kashmir, I strongly believe that name of new country still would have been "Pakistan", because of the above reasons.
It is believed that people, because of their political and other agendas, manipulate the word "K" to deprive Kashmiris of their independence, and want to expand the borders of Pakistan to Kashmir in order to compensate the loss of East Pakistan.
Another view is that the Pakistani establishment needs a Kashmir issue for their survival, and they are using the "K" to manipulate people. And this manipulation has been so effective that people of Pakistan has forgotten the loss of East Pakistan, if ever they considered it as a loss, but they are emotional about Kashmir even though it is not part of Pakistan; nor it was part of the demand for Pakistan.