From: Shaikh Mohommad [mailto:shaikh@europe.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 6:16 PM
Subject: WHY PAKISTAN WAS FORMED? part two

Jinah's interview with Beverley Nichols

TAKEN FROM A BOOK Verdict on India by Beverley Nichols


The reasons adduced for joint economic collaboration between India and Pakistan are precisely those advanced against the Partition of the sub-continent. Arguments, decisively settled by Partition, have been resurrected. The objections of the Indian National Congress to a division of the sub-continent's economy and security forces had been overruled at the creation of Pakistan by the Muslim's decision to be 'separate and equal'. Many years ago, in a conversation between Mr. Jinnah and the British author Beverley Nichols, the economic and defence
consequences of Partition were discussed.



TAKEN FROM A BOOK Verdict on India by Beverley Nichols



Not since I left school.


Well, take a look at this. I found it by chance the other day.

He handed me the book. It was a faded old volume, The Speeches of John Bright, and the date of the page at which it was opened was June 4th, 1858. This is what the greatest orator in the House of Commons said on that occasion:

’How long does England propose to govern India? Nobody can answer this question. But be it 50 or 100 or 500 years, does any man with the smallest glimmering of common sense believe that so great a country, with its 20 different nationalities and its 20 different languages, can ever be bounded up and consolidated into one compact and enduring empire confine? I believe such a thing to be utterly impossible.'
I handed back the book.

What Bright said then is true today ... In fact, it's far more true&;though, of course, the emphasis is not so much on the 20 nationalities as on the 2 ... the Muslim and the Hindu. And why is it more true? Why hasn't time brought us together? Because the Muslims are awake . . . because they've learnt, through bitter experience, the sort of treatment they may expect from the Hindus in a 'United India'.  A 'United India' means a Hindu-dominated India. It means that and nothing else. Any other meaning you attempt to impose on it is mythical. 'India' is a British creation . . . it is merely a single administrative unit governed by a bureaucracy under the sanction of the sword. That is all. It is a paper creation, it has no basis in flesh and blood.


The ironical thing is that your critics say that Pakistan itself is a British creation ----that it is an example of our genius for applying the principle of 'divide and rule'.


(with some heat) The man who makes such a suggestion must have a very poor opinion of British intelligence, apart from his opinion of my own integrity.  The one thing which keeps the British in India is the false idea of a United India, as preached by Gandhi. A United India, I repeat, is a British creation - a myth, and a very dangerous myth, which will cause endless strife. As long as that strife exists, the British have an excuse for remaining. For once in a way, 'divide and rule' does not apply.


What you want is 'divide and quit'?


You have put it very neatly.


You realize that all this will come as something of a shock to the British electorate?


Truth is often shocking. But why this truth in particular?


Because the average, decent, liberal-minded voter, who wishes Britain to fulfill her pledges, and grant independence to India, has heard nothing but the Congress point of view. The Muslims have hardly a single spokesman in the West?


(bitterly) I am well aware of that. The Hindus have organized a powerful Press and Congress - Mahasabha are backed up by Hindu capitalists and industrialists with finance which we have not got.


As a result they believe that Congress is 'India', and since Congress never tires of repeating that India is one and indivisible, they imagine that any attempt to divide it is illiberal, reactionary, and generally sinister.  They seriously do believe this. I know that it is muddle-headed, but then a democracy such as ours, which has to make up its mind on an incredible number of complicated issues, usually is muddle-headed. What they have to learn is that the only liberal course, the only generous course, the only course compatible with a sincere intention to quit India and hand over the reins of government . . .

JINNAH:  And the only safe course, you might add, is ...

SELF          ]       

                   ]                  Pakistan!

JINNAH      ]





The essence of Pakistan - at least of its spirit -  is found in the foregoing dialogue. To give a complete exposition of the details of the plan, in a book of this size, would be quite impossible. It would need a sheaf of maps and pages of statistics, and it would carry us far a field, over the borders of India, and involve us in a great deal of unprofitable speculation.

It is fairly certain, however, that the reader who takes the trouble to go really deeply into the matter, with a mind unwrapped by prejudice, will come to the conclusion that Pakistan offers no insuperable difficulties, economic, ethnographic, political or strategic and is likely, indeed, to prove a good deal easier of attainment than a large number of similar problems which the world has successfully resolved in the past fifty years.  It is, of course, a major surgical operation, but unfortunately there are occasions in the lives of nations, as of individuals, when major surgical operations are not only desirable but vitally Pakistan! necessary. And this is one of those occasions. The constant friction between the Hindu and Muslim nations has produced something which strongly resembles a cancer in the body politic.  There is only one remedy for a cancer, in its advanced stages, and that is the knife. Gandhi's faith cures, British soothing syrup, the ingenious nostrums which are proffered by eager hands throughout the world—all these are useless.They only aggravate the patient's condition and make his ultimate cure more difficult. To the knife it will have to come in the end, and surely one knife, used swiftly and with precision, is better than a million knives, hacking in blind anarchy in the dark?

What is strange, in the whole Pakistan controversy, is not the support which it is slowly gaining among all realistic men but the opposition which it still evokes from sincere well-wishers of India. This is, of course, due to the strength and persistence of Congress propaganda, backed by Hindu big business. The Hindus have almost a monopoly of propaganda. By subtle and persistent suggestion they have managed to persuade the world that they are 'India' and that any attempt to divide 'India' is a wicked 'plot on the part of the British, acting on the well-established principle of divide and rule'.

Most liberals of the West have fallen for this propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Consequently, we have the extraordinary spectacle of 'advanced' British politicians rising to their feet in the House of Commons, and solemnly and sincerely pleading the cause of Indian 'Unity' in the joint cause of Indian independence—sublimely ignorant of the fact that their insistence on this so-called 'unity' is the one and only thing that keeps the British in the saddle!

"Unite and Rule

Divide and Quit "


Those words should be prominent on the desks of all those who offer their opinions on India and her problems.