Notes CHAPTER I I. For a contemporary British account see, W. W. Hunter, Dur Indian MusaI­ mans: Are They Bound in Conscience to Rebel against the Queen? (London, 1871); also Ram Gopal, Indian Muslims: A Political History (1858-1947) (Lahore, 1947) and S. M. Ikram, Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan (Lahore, 1970). K. M. Panikkar believed that the nineteenth century was a 'period of extreme Muslim depression' when they witnessed the complete annihilation of their Sharia and their political power. 'The alliance of Hindu merchants with the Company wh ich gave Bengal to the British, still continued as the Hindus had not yet come to be identified with seditionists. Placed on a footing of equality, Hinduism had already begun to show signs of a great revival. Islam had to find a new policy or perish.' K. M. Panikkar, A Survey of Indian History (Bombay, 1956) pp. 227-8. In the post-1857 era, the British viewed the Muslims with suspicion and fear, believing that the former rulers of South Asia would never accept the loss of their political power and particularly the Muslim aristocracy which was then considered to be the most depraved segment in the society. 'The most bitter and widespread hostility was reserved for the Muslim com­ munity. Almost universally they were regarded as the fomenters of the revolt and its chief beneficiaries ... In the British view, it was Muslim intrigue and Muslim leadership that converted a sepoy mutiny into a political conspiracy aimed at the extinction of the British Raj. The British were also convinced that the Muslim community, though fewer in num­ bers, was far more hostile throughout the course of uprising.' Thomas R. Metcalf, The Aftermath of Revolt. India, 1857-1870 (Princeton, 1964) p. 298. 2. See G. F. I. Graham, The Lift and Work of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (Karachi, 1974); Muhammad Yusuf Abbasi, Muslim Politics and Leadership in South Asia 1876-92 (Islamabad, 1981) and K. K. Aziz (ed.), Ameer Ali: His Life and Work (Lahore, 1968). 3. For a detailed study of the All-India Muslim League see A. B. Rajput, Muslim League: Yesterday and Today (Lahore, 1948) and Lai Bahadur, The Muslim League (Agra, 1954). 4. On the early career of the Quaid-i-Azam see Riaz Ahmad, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: The Formative Years, 1892-1920 (Islamabad, 1986), and Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan (Los Angeles, 1984). 5. The original tide ofthe report is Report ofthe Inquiry Committee appointed by the Council of the All India Muslim League to inquire into Muslim Grievances in Congress Provinces (Lucknow, 1938). 6. Report of the Inquiry Committee appointed by the Working Committee of the Bihar Provincial Muslim League to inquire into some grievances of Muslims in Bihar (Patna, 1939). 7. Muslim SuiJerings Under Congress Rule (Calcutta, 1939). 265 266 Notes 8. Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad (ed.), Some Recent Speeches anti Writings of Mr. Jinnah, vol. I (Lahore, 1952) p. 96. 9. A. H. Dani, A Short History of Pakistan (Karachi, 1984). 10. To pursue the argument further see, I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle For Pakistan (Karachi, 1982) pp. 1-21. 11. I. H. Qureshi, The Muslim Communiry of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-continent (The Hague, 1962) p. 61. For a very convincing intellectual work see, Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Lahore, 1964) and Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan (Lahore, 1967). 12. It was suggested first by Allama Iqbal at Allahabad Session ofthe Muslim League in his presidential address in 1930, and was further propounded by a number of young Muslim intellectuals both in the subcontinent and Britain. Shamloo, Speeches anti Statements of Iqbal (Lahore, 1948); C. Rahmat Ali, Now or Never (Cambridge, 1933) and The Millat and Menace of 'Indianism' (Cambridge, 1940); and Sarfaraz Hussain Mirza (ed.), Tasawwur-i­ Pakistan Say Qarardad-i-Pakistan Tak (Lahore, 1983). 13. Norman G. Barrier, The Punjab Alienation of Land Bill of 1900 (Durham, 1900); Malcolm Darling, The Pu,yab Peasant in Prosperiry anti Debt (Lahore, 1925); and P. M. H. van Dungen, The Pu,yab Tradition (Lahore, 1972). 14. For arecent work on the Unionist Party see, Iftikhar H. Malik, Sikandar Hayat Khan: A Political Biography (Islamabad, 1985) and 'The Punjab Politics and the Ascendancy of the Unionist Party: 1924-1936', Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Islamabad (July-December, 1980) pp. 102-121. 15. This is a rather new but intriguing thesis. See Paul Brass, Language, Religion and Politics in North Intiia (London, 1974). 16. Harijan, 6 April 1940; also D. G. Tendulkar, Mahatma (Delhi, 1962) pp. 269-70. 17. B. R. Ambedkar, Thoughts on Pakistan (Bombay, 1941) pp. 242-3. 18. Civil and Military Ga~ette, Lahore, 12 April 1941. 19. See I. H. Qureshi, The Strugglefor Pakistan, pp. 138-315; also Waheed-uz­ Zaman, Towards Pakistan (Lahore, 1964). 20. The Pakistan movement has not yet been thoroughly researched either inside or outside Pakistan - indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that by and large it is still a semi-explored realm. The steady decline ofthe social sciences together with a stereotypic approach to the humanities has meant that studies of the movement have been deficient in quality and quantity. Soon after independence in South Asia, the pioneering interpret­ ations of pre-1947 his tory started to appear, mostly responding to the socio-psychological needs of the inhabitants of the young countries. The intransigence of the Hindu-dominated Congress and the imperialist poli­ cies ofthe rulers were presented as the main forces in the evolution ofwhat was then defined as 'Muslim Separation in India'. Dr Ishtiaq H. Qureshi's well-known explanation of the Muslim political consciousness in the post-1857 era became a focal point for an entire generation of Pakistani writers. The Struggle for Pakistan became the representative of this particular school of Pakistani historiography. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's Aligarh movement, Muslim League policies and the eventual summarisation ofthe entire Muslim experience in South Asia until 1947 on the basis of the two-nation theory became an easily Notes 267 comprehensible, yet somehow too simplistic interpretation of the freedom movement. Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad took pains to enhance the scope of the movement, dating it from the time of Ibn-e-Qasim, while S. M. Ikram very efficiently depicted the contributions of a number of personalities in the emergence of Muslim political consciousness. Professor Ahmad Hasan Dani dwelt on the cultural historicity of 'Pakistan' relating it to the Indus valley civilisation, while Aziz Ahmad analysed the intellectual and cul­ tural heritage ofthe Muslims through their thousand years ofhistory in the subcontinent to prove that despite being a different nation, they had made valuable additions to the splendour and glory of India. Khalid B. Sayeed, Abdul Hamid, K. K. Aziz, Waheed-uz-Zaman and other his tori ans of the 1960s and 1970s further elaborated the Pakistan movement in the light of the Hindu-Muslim conflict. Left-wing historians or writers on Pakistan - a very small minority indeed - never felt comfortable with the above explanation of the movement. According to them, economic factors, class­ conflict, Congress politicking and the imperial designs of the ruling hier­ archy were the major causes for the great divide. Likewise, Indian historiography presented very simplistic generalisa­ tions on the leadership of the Pakistan movement, and the 'separation' or 'partition' or 'two-nation concept' appeared enigmatic to several Indian historians. The Congress was given almost total credit for independence to the extent that the contributions of the League were either completely denied or relegated to a very inferior status. Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose and Maulana Azad were portrayed as the only luminaries while the Quaid-i-Azam, Allama Iqbal and many other veteran Leaguers were looked down upon. Indian hostility towards Pakistan was reflected in the historical writings on the Pakistan movement. Recently, however, Indian historiography seems to be flourishing in a diversified way, with regional and ethnic studies and an implied recognition of the Muslim struggle in South Asia now receiving some attention. Many, however, still attribute post-1947 problems and political debiicles inside Pakistan to the League's demand for an independent state in the I 940s. In western historiography, Gallaghar, David Page, Anil Seal and their associates have been digging up 'alternative' explanations of pre-1947 South Asian politics to add to the existing interpretations ofSmith, Hardy, Jones, Tinker and other British writers related to the School of Oriental and African Studies and the London School of Economics. In the United States, the traditional Indic studies of pre-partition days at the U niversity of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and the University of California included individual courses on Sanskrit or Indian culture. In the 1960s more comprehensive research on contemporary South Asia resulted in well-coordinated programmes at Harvard, or the universities in Chicago, Michigan, Utah and Carolina. Norman Brown and Palmer, two pioneer historians from the 1930s, were joined by a new generation - Ainslee Embree, Howard Wriggins, Ralph Braibanti, Thomas Metcalf, Wayne Wilcox, Lawrence Ziring, Ted Wright, Louis Depree, Leonard Binder, Craig Baxter and many others. Due to its size, political stability and cultural complexity, India has generally received more interest, though the University ofChicago and the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley showed 268 Notes considerable interest in Urdu programmes too. A new generation of historians like Barbara Metcalf, David Lelyweld and Emily Brown, along with Pakistani political seientists and authors settled in the USA or Canada, have been involved on an individual basis in new sub-disciplines regarding South Asia. 21. K. K. Aziz, Tht Making 01 Pakistan: A Stu4;> in Nationalism (Islamabad, 1977) p.