By S. Razi Wasti
Quaid-i-Azam
Mohammad Ali Jinnah became Governor General of Pakistan on 14 August
1947, but he had worked for the betterment of the Muslim world
throughout his political life. In order to understand his views and
policy about the Muslim world, a reference to the policy of Muslim
India, before the birth of Pakistan, would be pertinent.
Many Muslims believed that India, became dar-ul-harb,
after the Battle Plassey in 1757. According to them it was obvious that
the British now possessed power to interfere with the religious
observances of their Muslim subjects. It was, therefore, incumbent upon
them to wage a holy war (Jihad) against the British to reconvert the country into dar-ul-Islam. Another school represented by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan declared that Jihad against the British was not desirable for the reasons that Muslims enjoyed peace and religious freedom under the British rule.
It was the former conception that provided the inspiration for the Mujahideen
Movement, which was the first significant effort aimed at expelling the
British from India. Syed Ahmed Barelvi died on the battlefield at
Balakot in 1831 but he left behind a well established organisation and
his followers stubbornly continued the fight. The War of Independence
(1857) was also fought under a Muslim flag. Far from restoring the full
power of the Mughal Emperor, the rising of 1857 resulted in his
banishment and the complete British sovereignty over India. Until the
close of the nineteenth century the Muslims of the Indo-Pakistan
subcontinent evinced no keen interest in the politics of India.
At
the opening of the twentieth century events outside India added to the
concern of the Muslims. During Russo-Turkish War of 1877 the Indian
Muslims for the first time demonstrated their sympathy for the Turks on a
wider scale. All Turkish causes i.e. the 1897 war with Greece, the 1911
war with Italy and Balken War of 1912 evoked agitation in India. The
situation became still more difficult when a few months after the
outbreak of World War in 1914, it ended in Turkey’s defeat.
The British Foreign Policy towards Muslims States, especially Turkey,
continued to add to anxieties of Indian Muslims. In 1907 British signed a
Convention with Russia – the traditional enemy of Turkey. This greatly
threatened the Independence of Iran as well. In 1911 Italy attacked and
occupied Tripoli. Consequently, war broke out between Italy and Turkey.
The war expanded, and in October 1912, the Balkan States also declared
war on Turkey. As a result almost all of her European possessions except
Thrace, Constantinople and the Straits, were lost to Turkey. These
developments soon attracted the attention of the Indian Muslims. The
Sultan of Turkey “was the Khalifa or Successor of the Prophet and
Amir-ul-Momineen or Chief of the Faithful”.1 The plight of Turkey
naturally caused tremendous amount of anxiety to the Indian Muslims. The
news of inhuman atrocities perpetrated on the innocent Turks
irrespective of sex or age by the Italians, the conquest and desecration
fo the Holy Places of Islam, the French occupation of Morocco and the
Russian hangings of Meshhad ‘ulama, deeply grieved the Indian Muslims.
They attributed all those sufferings to Europens, especially the
British, who in their opinion were out to destroy Islam everywhere in
the world.2 A fire seemed to have swept over the entire country. Orators
of great repute like Shaukat Ali, Muhammad Ali, Abul Kalam Azad and
Shibli Nu’mani condemned in unequivocal terms the brutalities
perpetrated on the Turks by the aggressors. They also severely denounced
the British Government for the support it was lending to the
belligerents. A number of papers critical of the British Imperial policy
and in favour of the Pan-Islamic Movement began to appear. The most
popular and vocal among these were the al-Hilal started by Abul Kalam Azad from Calcutta, Muhammad Ali’s Comrade and Hamdard and Zafar Ali Khan’s Zamindar.
The Aga Khan and Syed Ameer Ali, Presidents of the All India Muslim
League and the London Branch of the League respectively, conducted a
similar campaign in favour of the Turkish brethren. They made earnest
appeals to the British Government and public to effect that every
possible effort be made to save Turkey from total disintegration. They
also appealed to the Indian Muslims to sacrifice their all for the
support of the wounded, sick and starving Turks, to form national
help-committees, to pray for the success of the Turks and contribute Hilal-i-Ahmar Fund3.
The
cumulative effect of all these campaigns was that huge funds were
raised for the support of the Turks; branches of the Red Crescent were
formed throughout the country; a Medical Mission was organized and
dispatched to the scene of War under the leadership of Dr Mukhtar Ahmad
Ansari. An association under the name of Anjuman-i-Khuddam-i-Ka’bah
was formed by Mushir Hussain Qidwai in collaboration with Shaukat Ali
and others. The association was to unite the Musalmans of every section
maintaining in violate the sanctity of the three Harams of Islam at
Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.4 These were the beginnings of the Khilafat
Movement which was to acquire unprecedented dimensions after World War
I.
Ever since the change in British policy, the maintenance of
the territorial integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire had
become the primary concern of the Indian Muslims. They apprehended that
if Turkey too lost her independence, then the Muslims, like the Jews,
would be reduced to a mere religious sect without any Government of
their own.
The Muslims of India were deeply anxious that after
the war the status of the Sultan both territorial and spiritual should
remain undisturbed. Between 1912 when the first Balkan war began and
1922 when Turkey made peace with the European powers the Indian Muslims
were completely absorbed in the fate of Turkey and Arabia.
With
the abolition of the Khilafat, the Muslims of India lost the overseas
rallying point for Muslim resurgence and increasingly began to feel
that, as the most substantial body of believers in the world, it was
more incumbent upon themselves than upon others to strive for the
solidarity of Islam.
The Muslim League had been founded in
1906, but for many years it remained comparatively a small conservative
organization, consisting of mainly upper class professionals and landed
Muslims. It was not very active during the Khilafat Movement. On 24-25
May, 1924 the League met at Lahore under the Presidentship of
Quaid-i-Azam. In 1925 suspecting that Iraq was about to be handed over
the Britain as a mandatory power, the League passed a resolution,
declaring that Iraq was a part of Jazirat ul Arab and as such
should not be left under the control of a non-Muslim mandatory power.
The League protested against the Mosul decision of Council of the League
of Nations as a glaring injustice to Turkey and hoped that Britain
would recognize the right of Turkey to the Mosul Vilayat and settle the
question by peaceful negotiation.5 At the Delhi session in November 1933
the League placed on record its emphatic protest against the policy of
the British Government in trying to make Palestine the national home of
the Jews. The Muslim League depicted the views of Muslims India over
matter concerned with Muslims outside India.6
Quaid-i-Azam was elected as the permanent President of the Muslim
League in 1934. He was now able to direct the League’s action within and
without the country according to his genius. In 1937 in his
Presidential address he stated, “May I now turn and refer to the
question of Palestine? It has moved the Musalmans all over India most
deeply. The whole policy of the British Government has been a betrayal
of the Arabs, from its very inception. Fullest advantage has been taken
of their trusting nature. Great Britain has dishonoured her proclamation
to the Arabs, which had guaranteed them complete independence for the
Arab homelands, and the formation of an Arab Confederation under the
stress of the Great War. After having utilized them, by giving them
false promises, they installed themselves as the Mandatory Power with
that in famous Balfour Declaration, which was obviously irreconcilable
and incapable of simultaneous execution. Then, having pursued the policy
to find a national home for the Jews, Great Britain now proposes to
partition Palestine, and the Royal Commission’s recommendation completes
the tragedy. If given effect to , it must necessarily lead to the
complete ruination and destruction of every legitimate aspiration of the
Arabs in their homeland – and now we are asked to look at the
realities: But who created this situation? It has been the handiwork of,
and brought about sedulously by, the British statesmen. The League of
Nations has, it seems, and let us hope, not approved of the Royal
Commissions’ scheme, and a fresh examination may take place. But is it a
real effort intended to give the Arabs their due? May I point out to
Great Britian that this question of Palestine, if not fairly and
squarely met, boldly and courageously decided, is going to be the
turning point in the history of the British Empire. I am sure I am
speaking not only the Musalmans of India but of the world, and all
sections of thinking and fair-minded people will agree, when I say that
Great Britain will be digging its grave if she fails to honour her
original proclamation, premises and intentions – pre-war and even
post-war – which were so unequivocally expressed to the Arabs and the
world at large. I find that a very tense feeling of excitement has been
created and the British Government, out of sheer desperation are
resorting to repressive measures, and ruthlessly dealing with the public
opinion of the Arabs in Palestine. The Muslims of India will stand
solidly and will help the Arabs in every way they can in the brave and
just struggle that they are carrying on against all odds. May I send
them a message on behalf of the All India Muslim League – of cheer,
courage and determination in their just cause and struggle, and that I
am sure they will win through?”7
In 1937 the League passed five
resolutions and demanded the annulment of the British mandate in
Palestine and warned the British Government that if it failed to alter
its pro-Jewish policy in Palestine ‘the Mussalmans of India in
consonance with the rest of the Islamic world will look upon the British
as the enemy of Islam and shall be forced to adopt all necessary
measures according to the dictates of their faith’.8
Again in
his presidential address to the 26th session of the League held at Patna
in December 1938, the Quaid stated, “Among the immediate issues we have
to grapple with, which may come upon before the Subjects Committee, is
the question of Palestine. I know how deeply Muslim feelings have been
stirred over the issue of Palestine. I know Muslims will not shirk from
any sacrifice if required to help the Arabs who are engaged in the fight
for their national freedom. You know the Arabs have been treated
shamelessly – men who, fighting for the freedom of their country, have
been described as gangsters, and subjected to all forms of repression.
For defending their home-lands, they are being put down at the point of
the bayonet, and with the help of martial laws. But no nation, no people
who are worth living as a nation, can achieve anything great without
making great sacrifices, such as the Arabs of Palestine are making. All
our sympathies are with those valiant martyrs who are fighting the
battle of freedom against usurpers. They are being subjected to
monstrous injustices which are being propped up by British Imperialism
with the ulterior motive of placating the international jewry which
commands the money bags. That question we will have to consider.”9
The
League called for observance of ‘Palestine Day’, holding of protest
meetings and for the offering of prayers.10 A deputation consisting of
four leaders was sent abroad to promote the Arab cause. It remained
overseas for nine months visiting Cairo, London, Geneva, Rome and
Bairut.
In December 1938 the Muslim League passed a resolution
that “the unjust Balfour Declaration and the subsequent policy of
repression adopted by the British Government in Palestine aim at making
their sympathy for the Jews a pretext for incorporating that country
into the British Empire with a view to strengthen British Imperialism
and to frustrate the idea of Federation of Arab States and its possible
Union with the Muslim States”.11 Next year in 1939 the Palestine Fund
was opened.
After the outbreak of World War II in September
1939, the League Council “resolved that in view of the repeated reports
that have reached India recently that there is a probability of war
flames spreading and aggression by foreign powers against the
independence and sovereignty of the Muslim countries such as Egypt,
Palestine, Syria and Turkey, the President is hereby authorized to fix a
day for the purpose of expressing and demonstrating deep sympathy and
concern of Muslim India with Muslim countries and also conveying to
those who have any such design that in the event of an attack upon
Muslim countries, Muslim India will be forced to stand by them and give
all the support it can.”
In the course of his Presidential
address at the historic Lahore session of the League in March, 1940,
Quaid-i-Azam said that the Muslim wanted “that the British Government
should in fact and actually meet the demands of the Arabs in
Palestine”.12 It urged the British Government and its allies to declare
unequivocally that the sovereignty and independence of those Muslim
States would be restored as soon as circumstances permitted.
Addressing
the Aligarh Muslim University Union on 9 March, 1944, Quaid-i-Azam
warned that “if President Roosevelt, under the pressure of the powerful
World Jewry, commits the blunder of forcing the British Government to do
injustice to the Arabs in Palestine, this would set the whole Muslim
World ablaze from one end to another”. He hoped that “the U.S. will
revise their attitude toward Palestine.”13
In December, 1943,
the League urged Britain and allied powers not to hand back to the
Italian Government the territories recently released from the control of
Italy namely Cyreneca, Libya and Tripoli but to constitute them as
independent sovereign states. At the same time League demanded the
abolition of the vicious system of mandates and the restoration of
Palestine, Syria and Lebanon to the peoples of those countries and to
enable them to set up their own sovereign governments. Finally in the
same resolution the League demanded that the Allied powers press France
to liberate Morocco, Algeria and Tunis.14 When the Netherlands landed
fresh troops in Indonesia, the League in April 1946 resolution noted
with regret that the right of the Indonesian people to independence had
not been recognized, condemned delay in the withdrawal of British troops
from Indonesia and sent a message of greetings and congratulation to
the Indonesian people for their struggle for freedom against heavy odds
and assured them of their sincerest sympathy and support of the Muslim
nation of India for their just and patriotic cause.”15
In 1945
in a telegram to Prime Minister Attlee, the Quaid said, “President
Truman’s reported Palestine immigration proposal is unwarranted,
encroaching upon another country, monstrous and highly unjust. Any
departure from the White Paper and Britain’s pledge will not only be a
sacrilege and a breach of faith with Muslim India but an acid test of
British honour. It is my duty to inform you that any surrender to
appease Jewry at the sacrifice of Arabs would be deeply resented and
vehemently resisted by Muslim world and Muslim India and its
consequences will be most disastrous.”16
In a speech at a
meeting held under the auspices of Baluchistan Muslim League at Quetta,
on 10 October 195, the Quaid talked about the Palestine affairs and
Indonesian struggle for freedom and said, “Jews are also suffering from
the same disease as the Congress. Over half a million Jews have already
been accommodated in Jerusalem gainst the wishes of the people. May I
know which other country has accommodated them? I have great sympathy
for them and have no ill-will against the Jews but the question is that
they have entered Palestine with a set motive to reconquer Jerusalem
(which they lost 2,000 years ago) with the help of British and American
forces. I hope the Jews will not succeed in their nefarious designs and I
wish Great Britain and America should keep their hands off from them,
and then I will see how the Jews conquer Jerusalem. Every man and the
women of Muslim world will die before Jewry seizes Jerusalem. Slave and a
subject race as we are, still our hearts and souls go in sympathy with
those who are struggling for their freedom and let us hope that the
people of Palestine and Indonesia will survive their ordeals.
Subjugation and exploitation, if carried now, there will be no peace and
end of wars. And if such exploitation of small nations is to continue
even after this bloody war then let us pray to God to send some more
destructive force than the atomic bomb to do the work and job of this
world.”17
Muslim causes other than the Palestine question
equally evoked the League’s solicitude under the guidance and the Quaid.
The Muslim League characterized the war time occupation of Iran by
British and Soviet troops as “unprovoked aggression”, which would
“alienate the sympathies of the Muslims of India and create bitterness
in their hearts resulting in the withdrawal of every help by them to the
Allied cause.” (1941)
In August 1947 the new State of Pakistan
emerged on the map of the world. Now the Muslims of this State were to
have foreign policy of their own. A country’s foreign policy is
subservient to a number of factors. It is dependent, to a considerable
extent, upon its defence requirements, history and geographical
location, ideological consideration and exigencies of moment sway its
orientation. There are only permanent interest in foreign affairs and no
permanent friends. A country’s relation with others nations at a
particular time reflect its economic and strategic needs. The results of
a particular policy depend upon a country’s own importance in world
affairs. Its size, economic strength, strategic position, industrial
potentialities and of late its scientific achievements, all determine
the weight it can exert to tip the scales.
Facts of the
geography cannot be altered. They have to be accepted along with all
permanents problems they raise. Geographical facts are great ingredients
in shaping the habits and character of the people and the foreign
policy of a nation is greatly moulded by its geographical environment.
Pakistan at the time of Partition had a unique geographical position. It
consisted of two wings separated from each other by Indian territory
about a thousand miles. It had a common front of two thousand miles with
India. West Pakistan consisted of West Punjab, North West Frontier
Province, Baluchistan, Sind and the small States of Bahawalpur,
Khairpur, Chitral, Kalat, Las Bela, Swat, Dir and some minor ones. West
Pakistan was bordered on the East by India on the West by Afghanisstan
and Iran, on the north China, and territory less than a score of miles
with Russia and Kashmir, on its south lay the Arabian Sea. East Pakistan
comprised of East Bengal and the fertile district of former Assam, it
was bordered on the East, West and North by India with the Bay of Bengal
in its South. Such a queer geographical position affected the foreign
policy of Pakistan.
Besides economic and defence consideration,
there is another fundamental principle which had influenced Pakistan
largely in the determination of her foreign policy, that is her Muslim
ideology. The very foundation of our country is based upon Islamic
Ideology. Muslims of undivided India were determined to have a separate
sovereign State of their own where they might be able to order their
lives according to the tenets of Islam and could preserve their safety
and tranquility, their religion, their culture, their way of life, and
could ensure the advancement of their people. It were their ideological
feelings which made mullions of Muslims in India to leave their homes
and migrate to Pakistan.
During her early months Pakistan ‘s
foreign policy amounted to little more than the will of her leaders and
people that she should survive, Quaid-i-Azam’s statements about it were
studiously platitudinous. Goodwill was professed for all countries,
belief in international honesty and fair play, readiness to contribute
towards peace and so on. Nevertheless certain learnings or attitude as
contrasted with solid formulations of policy soon became discernible.
One was warmth for Muslim countries.
Quaid-i-Azam expressing
his views on Pakistan’s foreign policy said, “As a new born State,
Pakistan desires nothing so ardently as the goodwill of the world. Its
people are determined to work with heart and soul in the task
consolidating their new liberty and while so engaged in this great task
they will be deeply conscious of the help and co-operation extended to
them by the other States of the world, particularly at this moment.”18
Quaid-i-Azam wanted to establish a strong and affective bloc consisting
of all Muslim States of the world, to see that they were united with
the banner of Islam as an efficient bulwark against the aggressive and
evil design of their enemies. He vehemently opposed the Partition of
Palestine and condemned the establishment of Israel as a dagger in the
heart of the Arab world. He said “I do still hope that Partition plan
will be rejected, otherwise there is bound to be the gravest disaster
and unprecedented conflict….The entire Muslim World will revolt against
such a decision…Pakistan will have no other course left but to give its
fullest support to the Arabs and will do whatever lies in its power to
prevent what in my opinion is an outrage.”
In an interview to
Mr. Robert Stimson, B.B.C. correspondent on 19 December 1947, the Quaid
said, “…our sense of justice obliges us to help the Arab cause in
Palestine in every way that is open to us.”19 He expressed feelings of
thanks in his telegram on December 24, 1947 to the King of Yemen, Imam
Yahya in reply to his telegram of thanks for Pakistan’s support to Arabs
on Palestine issue. He stated, “I once more assure you and our Arab
brethren that Pakistan will stand by them and do all that is possible to
help and support them in their opposition on the U.N.O. decision which
is inherently unjust outrageous.”20
In reply to the speech by
Muhammad Pasha el Shuraiki, Jordonian Minister Plenipotentary, the Quaid
emphatically stated “Islam is to us the source of our very life and
existence and it has linked our cultural and traditional past so closely
with the Arab world that there need to be doubt whatsoever about our
fullest sympathy for the Arab cause.”21
In an Eid message
Quaid-i-Azam said “My Eid message to our brethren Muslim States is one
of friendship and goodwill. We are all passing through perillous times.
The drama of power politics that is being staged in Palestine, India and
Kashmir should serve an eye opener to us. It is only by putting up a
United Front that we can make our voice felt in the Councils of the
world.”22
Quaid-i-Azam gave open support to North African Arabs
in their struggle to throw off the Fench yoke. He considered the Dutch
attack upon Indonesia as an attack on Pakistan itself and refused
transit facilities to Dutch ships and place, carrying war materials to
Indonesia. He played an important role in the struggle of Muslim
countries. He, therefore, provided all possible diplomatic and material
assistance to the liberation movement in Indonesia, Malaya, Sudan,
Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria and Algeria.
Pakistan’s
relation with brotherly Muslim States of Jordan, specially Turkey and
Iran, were most cordial and friendly. They contributed to the
Quaid-i-Azam’s Relief Fund and exchanged missions and diplomatic
representatives.
Thus under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam, Pakistan took an active part to bring Muslim world together.
S. Razi Wasti is the Professor and Head, Department of History, Dean, Faculty of Arts, Government College, Lahore. References
- Muhammad Ali, My Life: A Fragment, edited by Afzal Iqbal, Lahore, 1946, P. 57.
- See Vakil, Amritsar, 8 November 1911, Punjab Native Newspaper Reports, 25 November 1911, P. 1177; also Al-Hilal, Calcutta, 26 February 1913.
- Ameer Ali’s telegram to the daily Paisa Akhbar, Lahore, dated 22 October, published on 29 October, 1912.
- Muhammad Ali, op. cit., P. 67; see also al-Hilal Calcutta, 20 May, p. 67.
- Syed Sharif-uddin Pirzada; Foundations of Pakistan Vol II, 1970, p. 71.
- Ibid., P. 223, See Presidential address and pp. 225 and 226 Resolution, No. VII.
- Ibid., P. 272.
- Ibid., P. 278.
- Ibid., P. 307.
- Ibid., PP. 315-317.
- Ibid., P. 315.
- Jamil uddin Ahmad, Speeches and Writing of Mr. Jinnah, Lahore, 1960, vol. I, PP. 154-155.
- Ibid., 1964, Vol. II, P. 14.
- S.S. Pirzada, Op. cit., Vol. II, PP. 479-480.
- Ibid., PP. 525-527.
- Ibid., Vol. II. P. 214.
- Ibid., 1964 Vol. II, PP. 220-221.
- Reply to the speech made by the Afghan Ambassador at the time of presenting his credentials on 8 May 1948. Jamil uddin Ahmad, Vol. II, op. cit., PP. 554-555.
- M. Rafique Afzal – Selected Speeches and Statesman of the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Lahore 1966, P. 452.
- Ibid., P. 453.
- Ibid., P. 454.
- Message to the Nation on the occasion of Eidul Fitar, August 27, 1948, Jamil uddin Ahmad, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 569.
