Written By: Dr Shabir Choudhry
Although the term ‘third umpire’ was only used when politics of protests – dharnas started in Islamabad; and Imran Khan kept on saying that soon the Umpire’s finger will go up to dismiss the elected government. Many analysts believe this third umpire was the Pakistani establishment; or more appropriately some senior officers of secret agencies and some army Generals.
However, as more information comes to light and more research is completed, it becomes apparent that the creation of Pakistan was a British agenda. For this, the Third Umpire of the time was very active; and with his help different matters like religious, political and social matters were manoeuvred to achieve the agreed agenda of dividing Muslims and India.
Of course, in doing so, religious hatred and intolerance was promoted as a matter of policy; and this paved the way to divide India. Undivided India, with social and political stability could have been a big threat to the interests of the Britain and America.
Before we look at the Pakistan Resolution of 1940, it is pertinent to briefly look at results of 1937 elections to tell people how unpopular was Muslim League in areas of the present Pakistan. Punjab and Sindh which had the biggest support for the Muslim League and Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah in mid 1940s, did not vote for Muslim League in the elections of 1937. This was the result of the Muslim League in 1937 elections, which was held in the British India:
Out of total of 1585 seats,
Congress won 707 seats;
Muslim League won 106 seats; but Muslim League:
· Failed to win any seat in Sindh;
· Failed to win any seat in NWFP; but
· they managed to win 01 seat in Punjab. 1
The result of Punjab elections was as follows:
Unionist Party: 95 seats
Khalsa National Board: 11
Hindu Election Board: 11
Pakistani leaders claim that Mr Jinnah wanted to live within the united India, but because the Congress did not share government with the Muslim League after the 1937 elections; and that forced them to demand a separate homeland for Muslims.
It is not clear on what basis the Muslim League should have been offered Ministries? They had one seat in Punjab and not a single seat from Sindh and NWFP. In a democracy if a party with the largest party is able to form a government, then why on earth they should invite an opponent to sit on government benches? Details of Muslim League progress in other Provinces is as follows:
1. In Assam, out of total 108, Muslim League won 10 seats;
2. In Bengal: out of 250 seats League won 37;
3. In Bihar: out of 152 seats, League did not win any seat;
4. In Bombay: out of 175 seats, League won 18;
5. In Central Provinces: out of 112 seats, League won 5;
6. In Madras: out of 215 seats, League won 9;
7. In Orissa: out of 60, League did not win any seat. 2
Based on this result, how could Muslim League leaders and Mohammed Ali Jinnah demand a share in the governments of Provinces? Just because you head a party which is called Muslim League does not qualify you to form a government or be a partner in a government.
However, is it not interesting that out of 106 seats the Muslims League won in the 1937 elections, they had only 1 seat from the areas which form the present Pakistan. Of course, the Indian Punjab and the Pakistani Punjab were one at that time; and from that united Punjab the Muslim League managed to win only one seat.
Is it also not interesting that when the Muslim League decided to demand a separate homeland for Muslims, they held a Conference or Convention in Lahore, Punjab, from where they won only one seat; and not in the areas from where they won many seats. Why?
One possible answer is that planners of Pakistan or real creators of Pakistan wanted to establish the new country in this region, because they knew strategic importance of Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan. It was these areas which could help them to advance their agenda.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah was obviously very disappointed with these results. According to 1941 Census, Punjab had 53.2% Muslim majority, and some districts had overwhelming Muslim majority; Sindh had 72% Muslim majority. NWFP also had overwhelming Muslim majority with very low level of literacy rate. It was 15.5% in 1972. One can imagine what would be the literacy rate in NWFP in mid 1940s, when Mohammed Ali Jinnah visited the region and spoke to them in English. How many of them understood English at that time? And without understanding what he said why they were shouting slogans in his favour. Doesn’t this illustrate that power and influence of the ‘third umpire’ achieved the desired results?
In any case, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and his other leaders were really annoyed with the outcome of 1937 elections. He was more annoyed with people of Punjab. After the elections, he reportedly remarked:
“I shall never come to the Punjab again; it is such a hopeless place.” 3
One wonders what changed the situation, and how he became very popular leader in Punjab, Sindh and NWFP where traditionally, and even now votes are controlled by religious leaders –Peers and aristocrats. Ordinary people worked as peasants and they were, and to a large extent still are controlled by landed aristocrats.
Overwhelming majority of the people were illiterate as there were few schools and people didn’t have means to send their children to schools. Situation still is appalling and millions of school age children are out of schools due to poverty and lack of facilities.
It supports the view that once the British decided to relinquish their Raj in India they wanted to leave India divided, full of hatred; and that could only be achieved with help of Muslim League and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. To achieve that target, the ‘third umpire’ became active and promoted the Muslim League and their leader who could not even speak Urdu or any other local language to communicate with the people he wanted to ‘liberate’.
Question is how people understood him? It looks that Peers and aristocrats in the present Pakistan were told by the third umpire of the time to help Mr Jinnah; and they told their followers and peasants to attend public meetings and shout slogans and clap to express solidarity with the man and his mission.
Generally, Islam is in danger; and Hindus and Jews are conspiring against Islam are good slogans to win support of the Muslims. That is exactly what Mr Jinnah and Muslim League did – used name of Islam to advance their agenda. Soon after he got his Pakistan, on 11 August 1947, he said:
“You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan…. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”. 4
Doesn’t this suggest that he fooled people in name of religion, promoted religious hatred and intolerance. Once Muslims of the Indian Sub-Continent and India was divided, he reverted to his secularism. If Muslims and Hindus can be Pakistanis and could live in peace and harmony to serve the new country; then why Muslims and Hindus could not live in a country where they lived together for centuries.
All the above supports the view which was presented by Pir Pagara that it was the British who created Pakistan. He claimed that Sir Sikander Ayat met the British Prime Minister Churchill in Cairo and said for the sacrifices we Muslims have offered to the British Empire; the blood money should be a separate state for us. This matter was also confirmed by Sir Sikander Ayat’s son, Sardar Shaukat Ayat. 5
Pir Pagara said the Lahore Resolution or Pakistan Resolution of 1940 was passed on the instructions, and with approval of the British. He said this is the reality; but if you want to please people then that is a different matter. All the powerful people and landlords joined the Muslim League on the instructions of the British. 6
It is sad that wrong history has been taught to the people; and true history is mercilessly distorted, tampered and hidden. One Pakistani wrote a book called ‘Murder of History in Pakistan’. The book is not available anywhere now.
Writer is a political analyst, and author of many books and booklets. Also, he is Chairman South Asia Watch, London and Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.
3. Source: Ayesha Jalal, The Sole Spokesman, Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore, 2010, p. 22
4. (Source:Constituent Assembly of Pakistan Debates, vol 1 no 2, 11 August 1947, page 20)
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or referred to in this article do not necessarily represent those of WNTV or any of its staff or editors. WNTV’s aim is to provide, so far as possible, a platform for external contributors with limited editorial intervention . Accordingly, readers are asked to note that the publication of articles on this site is not in itself to be taken as WNTV’s endorsement of any reported third party position, policy or statement.