On 30th December 1906, 118 years ago, a pivotal historical event transpired that ultimately led to a profound tragedy, resulting in the division of a nation along religious lines. Today, the All India Muslim League was established as a political alternative to the Indian National Congress for Muslims, during the annual Muhammadan Educational Conference in Dhaka. It claimed to advocate for the interests of Indian Muslims within a predominantly Hindu society.
However, the organization’s ulterior motives soon became evident as their communal aspirations began to surface in the name of minority rights. Notably, the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah who had previously been affiliated with the Congress, was elected as the party’s president in 1916. At the time of its formation, it was contended that Muslims in British India needed political participation, particularly in response to the significant Hindu resistance to the partition of Bengal in 1905, which was endorsed by the Indian National Congress.
The British decision to partition Bengal had profound and lasting consequences. It exacerbated communal tensions and gave an excuse to Islamists to pursue a political platform under the pretext of articulating their grievances. Although the decision was annulled in 1911, it created enduring divisions between both Hindus and Muslims.
Muslim League, which initially claimed to look after the welfare of Muslims, soon positioned itself as a collaborative partner with the British authorities, motivated largely by personal benefits. Its initial resolutions aimed at obtaining separate electorates and enhanced political representation for Muslims for which it joined hands with the British to secure political concessions. The introduction of separate electorates for Muslims was conceded as early as 1906 to facilitate their ability to elect representatives that could shape the political framework to their liking.
It also signed the landmark Lucknow Pact in 1916 with the Congress, emphasizing collective efforts and supporting shared constitutional reforms that were rooted in promoting a temporary alliance between Hindus and Muslims, creating a united front against colonial rule. During the 1930s, the league demanded increased autonomy and reforms, mirroring its rising political ambitions of the time. It also backed self-governance and the protection of Muslim interests within a unified India. However, the party began to unveil its true colours soon after.
Anti-Hindu poet Muhammad Iqbal, popularly known as Allama Iqbal, announced the idea of a separate state for Muslim-majority provinces in India in his presidential address at the 1930 annual session of the All-India Muslim League in Allahabad. The Muslim League suffered a major setback which further fueled its divisive agenda as the party was unable to form a government in any province, including the Muslim-majority regions of Punjab and Bengal, after the implementation of the Government of India Act of 1935 as the Indian National Congress achieved success in seven provinces.
The Lahore Resolution, later known as the Pakistan Resolution of 1940, called for the creation of an independent Muslim state in the northwestern and eastern parts of the country, which laid the groundwork for the eventual formation of Pakistan. It was passed by the largest congregation of league delegates a mere day after Jinnah articulated to his supporters that “the problem of India is not of an inter-communal but manifestly of an international character.”
Therefore, it decided that any future British constitutional plan for India would not be “acceptable to the Muslims” unless it was created in a way that would group the Muslim-majority “areas” of India’s “North-Western and Eastern Zones” to constitute ‘independent states’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.” The idea was repeatedly amplified by the Muslim leaders and gained popularity among their co-religionists across India. Afterwards, the provincial elections conducted in British India in January 1946 to members of the legislative councils of the Indian provinces further reinforced the prevailing sentiment.
Similar to the 1937 elections, the Congress party won 90% of the general non-Muslim seats, while the league dominated the Muslim seats with a significant 87% in the provinces. Among the 1,585 seats, the Congress party claimed 923, while the Muslim League captured 425 seats including Punjab and Sindh, after contesting 429 Muslim constituencies. The latter secured 113 of the 119 Muslim seats in Bengal’s 250-seat assembly. Six more Muslim lawmakers from other parties were also elected.
The election outcome substantiated the All India Muslim League’s claim to represent all Muslims in India, paving the way for the foundation of a separate country which culminated in the birth of Pakistan in 1947 after multiple deadlocks, negotiations and unbridled violence, with tacit support of the British.
Direct Action Day: Bloodshed perpetrated by Muslim League
The provincial elections in India in 1946 represented a significant turning point in the country’s history. These elections took place in the aftermath of World War II and just before the partition of India in 1947. The electoral process was governed by a system of separate electorates, which effectively segregated the voting constituencies for Muslims and Hindus. It intensified the religious conflicts that already existed among Indians, especially those inspired by Islam’s exclusivity.
Husyen Shaheed Suhrawardy of the Muslim League was appointed Bengal’s prime minister on 23rd April 1946 and violence broke out against Hindus in Bengal on 16th August of the same year. Muslims held him in high regard, but Hindus detested him and even partially blamed him for the 1943 Bengal famine, which killed an estimated three million people (he was the Minister for Civil Supply at the time). He was also notorious for making incendiary remarks.
The massacre, which was supported by the state, unfolded over three to four days and neither Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi nor Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru took the initiative to visit the city to console the suffering Hindus or to address the appalling crimes inflicted upon them during this calamitous pogrom. Notably, the unrest was not abruptly triggered. The Muslim League’s electoral manifesto, which was released prior to the actual voting, was essentially a declaration of war. It was titled, “Let Us Go To War” and even disregarded the notion of one India and denigrated “Akhanad Bharat.”
“Pakistan means complete independence. They are fools, dreamers, visionaries or hypocrites who think that Pakistan can be achieved without the greatest imaginable struggle and sacrifice. It must be known clearly to every soldier of Pakistan that the way to Pakistan is harder than the way to the cavalry. Our poets and literators, artists and artisans, youths and students, landlords and peasants, ulama and laymen must answer the clarion call of the great leader of Muslim India, sink all their differences, forget the past, and pull all their resources for the winter struggle, the general election of Legislatures,” the manifesto read.
Furthermore, the Muslim League did not view Congress as a powerful political rival, as unbelievable as that may appear. It dismissed it as merely another opponent claiming to speak for all Indians, including Muslims. However, the Muslim League’s manifesto made reference to dealing with Imperial British Power shortly following the elections since it was so confident that Muslims would be united on religious lines.
The victory of the league instigated an unparalleled reign of terror known as the “Direct Acton Day” against the Hindu community in Bengal, given that a state governed by Muslims accommodates no infidels. It resulted in over 4000 deaths and at least 100,000 people became homeless in Kolkata within 72 hours. The book “1946: The Great Calcutta Killings and Noakhali Genocide” by Dinesh Chandra Sinha and Ashok Dasgupta offers a detailed exploration of this matter. It disclosed:
The League leaders, intoxicated by the victory at the polls, now became openly bellicose. At the convention of the league legislators, “Ismail Chundrigar of Bombay said the British had no right to hand over the Muslims to a subject people over whom they had ruled for 500 years. Mohammed Ismail of Madras declared that the Muslims of India had waged a Jihad, a holy war. Shaukat Hayat Khan (a Minister in Khizr Hayat Khan’s war-time Cabinet, later dismissed) said if Muslims were ‘given a chance’, they would ‘show a rehearsal now when the British army is still there.’ Sir Feroze Khan Noon thundered that if they were driven to fight a central government or Hindu raj, then the havoc which the Muslims would play would put to shame what Chengiz Khan or Halaku did.”
Importantly, on 29th July 1946, the “Direct Action Day” resolution was approved by the All-India Muslim League after the cabinet mission was subtly rejected by Congress. It declared:
“Whereas the League has today resolved to reject the proposal embodied in the statement of the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy of May 16, 1946, due to the intransigence of the Congress on the one hand and with the breach of faith with the Muslims by the British Government on the other; and whereas Muslim India has exhausted without success all efforts to find a peaceful solution of the Indian problems by compromise and constitutional means; whereas the Congress is bent upon setting up a caste Hindu Raj in India with the connivance of the British; and whereas recent events have shown that power politics and not justice and fair play are the deciding factors in Indian affairs; whereas it has become abundantly clear that the Muslims of India would not sit content with anything less than the immediate establishment of an independent and full sovereign State of Pakistan and would resist any attempt to impose any constitution, long terms or short term, of the setting up of an Indian Government at the Centre without the approval and consent of the Muslim League, the Council of the All-India Muslim League is convinced that the time has now come for the Muslim Nation to resort to direct action to achieve Pakistan and assert their just rights and to vindicate their honour and to get rid of the present slavery under the British and the contemplated future of caste Hindu domination. The Council calls upon the Muslim nation to stand as a man behind their sole representative organisation, the All-India Muslim League and be ready for every sacrifice.”
The legacy of the All India Muslim League continues to plague India
Not every individual who aspired to establish a presence in Pakistan ultimately relocated to the country, thereby realizing the Muslim League’s slogan, “Lad ke liya hai Pakistan. Hans ke lenge Hindustan (We took Pakistan with a fight. We will take Hindustan with a smile). Their descendants, both ideological and otherwise have since perpetuated this divisive ideology, which continues to unfold to this day.
The Islamists and Urban Naxals, commonly known as the Tukde Tukde Gang, have been promoting a specific narrative over the past several years, that India has never existed as a unified entity, but rather as a conglomeration of various nations under one umbrella. Unfortunately, the same has even been propagated by Rahul Gandhi. The presence of Jinnah’s portrait on the walls of the Students Union office at Aligarh Muslim University, along with the determination to maintain its display, conveys a similar tale.
Moreover, the strong advocacy for the rights of Rohingya Muslims and the riots protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) stem from the same ideology that perceives India merely as a territory to exploit and dominate, rather than as a homeland. Likewise, Islamists in India find it difficult to accept that Hindutva is a mainstream political ideology today. Consequently, they consistently assert their victimhood over even the slightest inconveniences, including slogans such as “Bharat Mata ki Jai” and “Vande Mataram,” which they deem to be in violations of their faith.
The desire to balkanise India to sever its strategic corridor (chicken neck), alongside calls for the ‘liberation’ of Kashmir, and the intent to instigate widespread violence during President Donald Trump’s visit to the national capital to undermine the nation’s global stature, serve as additional manifestations of a concealed and persistent effort that frequently manifests in violence against Hindus and anti-India activities.
The assaults on religious Hindu processions, chants of “Sar Tan Se Juda” in response to any perceived act of blasphemy and the subsequent demonstrations in a blatant exhibition of street and authority are also a product of the same. The refusal to allow Hindus to reclaim their religious places, along with the unauthorized occupation of government and other properties, constitutes an effort to position Hindus as second-class citizens while asserting an audacious sense of superiority over them.
“15-minute ke liye police hata do (remove police for 15 minutes and we will kill all Hindus),” “humne tumpe hazar saal hukumat ki hai (we have ruled over Hindus for thousands of years)” and similar statements by Muslim leaders and politicians insulting Hinduism and its adherents have become a common feature of political discourse in the country. On the other hand, beheadings and issuing death threats to those who dare to retaliate have also become a norm. The case of former Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokesperson Nupur Sharma serves as a prime example.
Additionally, attributing all achievements, from architectural marvels to food dishes such as biryani to the Mughals, as if they had brought wealth and resources from their own countries instead of exploiting India to maintain their opulence and authority, is another Islamist tactic to erode the self-worth of Hindus, suggesting that their ancestors made no contributions and they have merely thrived on the benevolence of Muslim rulers.
The Muslim League garnered 86.7% of the Muslim votes in the Muslim constituencies of that era, many of which remain part of present-day India. Akin to present extremists in India, Muslims in undivided India were unwilling to coexist in a Hindu-majority and Hindu-dominated nation following the end of British rule.
A significant portion of Muslims who remained in the country after partition did so either due to an inability to mobilize effectively or to pursue an unfulfilled agenda, all while benefiting from the advantages of a functioning democratic system. More importantly, Pakistan does not only represent a geographical location but also a mindset that embraces Muslim separatism and animosity towards Hindus coupled with a deep disregard for the motherland and values associated with it.
This also elucidates why certain regions in India are perceived as “Muslim areas,” where entering is similar to unlawfully crossing into Pakistan and even the authorities must implement stringent precautions and deploy substantial security forces when accessing these neighbourhoods to carry out court orders or taken action on illegal activities there.
There is a deep-seated resistance to the progress of India and Hindus as a unified entity, advancing with a millennia-old pluralistic civilizational identity that promotes harmony and rejects hatred, while also refusing to tolerate any vested interests that threaten its society.
