Most of the speeches in the Constituent Assembly made a regular mention of separate electorates and the reservation of seats in the elected bodies for the Muslims on the religious grounds which finally lead to the partition of the county and indescribable human miseries for the people of India. Regions and families got divided in such a way that even after 60 years of the partition there is no peace in the country. It may be mentioned here that the country was divided precisely for the sake of peace and prosperity of both Hindus and Muslims. This is not the place to look at what has gone wrong and what mental framework is at work which is not allowing the peace to have a respectable place in India. We shall have a close look at what actually lead to the partition of the country; what the two-nation theory is; what is this communal award and reservation of seats on the religious grounds for the Muslims in the electoral bodies; and where does its origin lie.

Seeds of Two-Nation Theory

It is undisputed fact and Demand for Reservations that, if we leave the medieval history of about 1200 years and come straight to the modern period politics, then, the idea of Hindu-Muslim separatism can be traced back to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in early 1860s itself, on the Hindi-Urdu question. But the fact is that it can be seen in his writings right after the failure of the war of independence in 1857. Analysing the causes for the up-rising Sir Syed wrote:

"The blood of Mohammedan conquerors and that of the people of the country was not the same, their manners and customs not the same, that in their hearts people did not like them."1

Explaining further and exhorting Muslims to make a clear choice of friendship with British, Sir Syed, in his famous Meerut speech, delivered on March 16, 1888 said:

"Now suppose that British are not in India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India. Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations - the Mohammedans and the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and inconceivable. At the same time you must remember that although the number of Mohammedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or week. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans would come out as a swarm of locust from their mountain valleys, and make the rivers of blood to flow from their frontiers on the north to the extreme end of Bengal. This thing - who after the departure of English would be conquerors - would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient peace cannot reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it…"2

Sir Syed was straight in announcing that Muslims are a separate nation. He had said:

"Long before the idea of founding of the Indian National Congress was mooted I had given thought to the matter whether representative government is suited to the conditions of India… In a form of government which depends for its function upon majorities, it is necessary that the people should have no differences in the matter of nationality, religion, ways of living, customs, mores, culture, and historical traditions. These things should be common among a people to enable them to run a representative government properly; only when such homogeneity is present can representative government work or prove beneficial… I consider the experiment which Indian National Congress wants to make is fraught with dangers and suffering for all the nationalities of India, especially for Muslims."3

Sir Syed was well acquainted with the Semitic religions and cultures and also had sympathies of the Raj. But he does not seem to have acquired even a passing acquaintance with Hindu thoughts and philosophies. His interest in extending modern education was commendable, but his approach to it was curiously parochial. He insisted that Muslim children must be educated separately from the children of other communities. He considered schools and colleges run by other communities "wholly unsuitable because the presence of non-Muslim students curbed the national feelings of the Muslims."21

Further light is thrown on the political ideas of Sir Syed and the Muslim League which was founded in August 1906, by Nawab Wiqar-ul-Mulk. In a speech delivered, about three months after the Dacca meeting, to a gathering of the students of the Mohammedan-Anglo Oriental College, Aligarh, he said:

"God forbid, if the British rule disappears from India, Hindus will lord over it, and we will be in constant danger of our life, property and honour. The only way for the Muslims to escape this danger is to help in the continuance of the British rule.4

In the very same year i.e. 1906 a delegation of Muslim Zamindars and elites was arranged by some British officers and there a demand was made by the delegation for the reservation of seats for the Muslims in all electoral bodies. The acceptance of Shimla delegation of Muslim elite under the leadership of Aga Khan and also the acceptance of their demands for separate electorate had two far-reaching consequences - one of immediate and the other in distant future. Of the immediate consequence was the fact that a small group of loyal Muslims came to be recognized as the sole spokespersons of the Muslim community. It may not be forgotten that this small group of Muslim comprised mostly of aristocratic class which was more worried about its perks and privileges. Of the far-reaching consequence was the recognition that Muslims were 'a nation within nation' and thus sowed seeds of partition of the country at some future date. Aga Khan writes in his autobiography:

"Lord Minto's acceptance of our demands was the foundation of all future constitutional proposals made for India by successive British Governments, and its final inevitable consequence was the partition of India and the emergence of Pakistan."5

Lucknow Pact: Two-Nation Theory Becomes Official
When the end of World War I was very much in sight, the British Government again started exploring the possibilities of introducing the elective principle for the legislature. Muslim League again demanded separate electorate, and this time, in the larger interest of the people and peace in the country, Congress not only accepted the League's demand for separate electorate but also conceded excess number of seats that was normally due to Muslims as per the percentage of their population. For example, in Bihar Muslim were 13% of the population, but were allotted 25% of the seats in the provincial legislative; Bombay had 20% Muslims, but got 33% of seats; Central Provinces had 4% Muslims, but got 10% of seats; in Madras, against a population of 7%, they got 15% seats; in United Provinces, their population was 14%, but they got 30% seats. Over all Muslims got 34.16% more seats than they were entitled for in proportion to their population.

Congress, since its founding in 1884 had been giving confusing signals to Muslim communalism, and, in fact, Tilak was constantly criticizing Ranade and Gokhale for not standing up against Muslim communalism. The very same Tilak now took the lead from the side of Congress and showed great generosity in allotting far more seats than the principle of proportional population would have given them. Explaining his position and change of heart Tilak said that by this generous gesture the Congress was able to put an end to the Muslim fears and suspicions. Tilak further felt that by this generosity if the Congress was able to win over the Muslims and replace their extra-territorial patriotism with Indian nationalism, the price was worth paying.

But the response of Jinnah, the then President of Muslim League was very different regarding the Lucknow Pact. He said:

"Our constitutional battle may be said to have been half won already..."6

Lucknow Pact Dumped
Lucknow Pact was forgotten by the Muslim League even before the ink on the pact had dried. At the time of its annual session at Calcutta in December, 1917, the scope of communal demands was widened. The 'Pact' presumed to have been settled, re-opened. Resolutions were passed demanding extension of the principle of separate representation for Muslims to local bodies, to public services and even to the universities in the same proportion of the representation accorded in the legislature and not in proportion of their population.7 What is most remarkable is that the very same people in the Muslim League who were responsible for Lucknow Pact - the Raja of Mahmoodabad, Mazhar-ul-Haq and M.A Jinnah - made these demands. The utterances of Muslim League leaders became alarming. Presiding over the Annual Session of the Muslim League in Delhi in 1918 Fazl-ul-Haq said:

"To me the future of Islam in India seems to be wrapped in gloom and anxiety. Every instance of a collapse of Muslim powers of the world is bound to have an adverse influence on the political importance of our community in India."8

Thus the whole euphoria built up by the Lucknow Pact evaporated in thin air within a few months it came into existence.

Meanwhile, Mahatma Gandhi came on the scene; for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity he decided to support Khilafat movement which collapsed within three years when Turkey and British signed the treaty abolishing the institute of Caliphate altogether. With this the need for Gandhiji's help was no longer needed and it did not take much time for Mohammed Ali to forget all about Mahatma Gandhi and the Hindu Muslim unity. His prime concerns now were the preservation of Islam which was "presumably in danger" and carving out a "separate country for his brethren Muslims". Following the lead from Iqbal's Presidential address of Muslim League, Maulana wrote a long letter on January 1, 1931 to the British Prime minister underlining his agenda. It must be mentioned here that his letter was written just two days after Iqbal had delivered his Presidential speech in the annual session of the Muslim league in Allahabad on 29 December 1930. Echoing Iqbal, Mohammed Ali wrote:

"The real problem before us is to give full power to Muslims in such provinces as those in which they are in majority, whether small or large, and protection to them in such provinces as those in which they are in a minority." 9

After writing about various other matters and re-organisation of states in such a way that Assam and Sind become Muslim majority states, as was suggested by Iqbal, Maulana writes:

"Unless in these few provinces Muslims majorities are established by new constitution, I submit, not as a threat but as a very humble and friendly warning, there will be civil war in India. Let there be no mistake about it", (italics in original). 10

He further stated that Indian Muslims would reject any unitary form of government; only a federation would do. They would also want an assurance of the Muslim rule in Muslim majority provinces because:

"This gives us our safeguard for we demand hostage as we have willingly given hostage to Hindus in other provinces where they form huge majority."11

Incidently Sir Ross Masud, once Vice-chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, had written on December 3, 1929, to the Governor of the United Provinces, almost one year before Iqbal's Presidential Address to the Muslim League and Maulana's letter to the British Prime Minister. Masud wrote;

"The differences of the Muslims with Hindus are deep seated and Muslims feel that they would be swamped in a self governing India. Their minds are turning more and more to the idea of federation between modernized Afghanistan with Persia in the background and with the allies in the frontier independent territories. The Punjab Muslims have long been talking among themselves of a union of northern Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and Afghanistan."12

Iqbal and Rahmat Ali
Let us now have a look at Iqbal's thesis of two-nation theory. Iqbal was born in 1877 in Sialkot. His ancestors were Kashmiri brahmin and had migrated to Sialkot from the valley. In his several poems Iqbal mentions of his lineage, Kashmir and his brahmin ancestors:

"I am a rose from the paradise of Kashmir"
"Look at me, for in India you will never find again,
A son of brahmin familiar with the mystical knowledge of Maulana Rumi and Shams-i-Tabrej"
"My ancestors were all worshippers of idols like Lot of Manat."

Iqbal has often been quoted as a nationalist poet by citing his poem:

"Religion does not teach animosity towards each-other,
We are all Indians, India is our country.'

However, such poetic sentiments for the love of country and for the communal harmony were expressed by the poet long before his discovery of Islamic spirit i.e. before his departure to Europe in 1905. He came to dislike the whole concept of nationalism on political, cultural and geographical grounds. For him the concept of nationalism was contrary to the very spirit of Islam. He found that nationalism worked against the spirit of brotherhood i.e. ummah. Also he did not see any difference between the Islam as a religion and a state. He said:

"The truth is that Islam is not a Church. It is a state conceived as a contractual organism long before Rousseau ever thought of such a thing, and animated an ethical ideal which regards man not as earth-rooted creature, defined by this or that portion of earth, but as a spiritual being understood in terms of a social mechanism, and possessing rights and duties as a living factor in that mechanism."13

Iqbal addressed Muslim League's Annual Session on December 29, 1930 as its President. It was for the first time that he gave a detail exposition of his political ideas vis-a-vis Hindu-Muslim unity. In his long and winding speech Iqbal talked about the various ideal features of Islam, Islamic society, ummah etc. with reference to his study of Islam and Quran. It was only after half of his speech he came to the various political issues and the Hindu-Muslim concern, very much on the line of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan:

"I have given best part of my life to a careful study of Islam, its law and polity, its culture, its history and its literature. This constant contact with the spirit of Islam, as it unfolds itself in time, has, I think, given me as a kind of insight into its significance as a world-fact…. It cannot be denied that Islam [is] regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity….In the world of Islam, we have universal polity whose fundamentals are believed to have been revealed but whose structure, owing to our legists' want to contact with modern world, stands today in need of renewed power by fresh adjustments…. To address this session of All-India Muslim League you have selected a man who is not despaired of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from its geographical limitations, who believes religion is a power of utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as states, and finally who believes that Islam is a destiny…. You are a Muslim Assembly and I suppose, anxious to remain true to the spirit and ideals of Islam. My sole desire, therefore, is to tell you frankly what I honestly believe to be the truth about the present situation. In this way alone it is possible for me to illuminate, according to my light, the avenues of your political action.
What then is the problem and its implications? Is religion a private affair? Would you like to see Islam, as moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam, as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and reject it as a polity in favour of national polities, in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part? This question becomes of special importance in India where the Muslims happens to be in minority…. The construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim. This is the matter which at the present moment directly concerns the Muslims of India….
"The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognizing the fact of the communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a 'Muslim India' within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole, which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have not doubt that this house will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution. Personally I would go further than the demands embodies in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self government within the British empire or without the British empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State, appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India", (emphasis in original).
The Hindus think that separate electorates are contrary to the spirit of nationalism, because he understands the word 'nation' to mean a kind of universal amalgamation in which no communal entity ought to retain its private individuality. Such a state of things, however, does not exist. India is a land of racial and religious diversity…. The Muslims of India can have no objection to purely territorial electorates if Provinces are so demarcated as to secure comparatively homogenous communities, possessing linguistic, racial, cultural and religious unity….
I would never advise the Muslims of India to agree to a system, whether of British or Indian origin, which virtually negatives the principles true federation, or fails to recognize them as a distinct political entity.
To base a constitution on the concept of homogenous India or to apply to India principles dictated by British democratic sentiments is unwittingly to prepare them for civil war….
Great interests are at stake. We are 70 millions, and far more homogenous than any other people in India. Indeed the Muslims of India are the only Indian people who can fitly be described as a 'nation' in the modern sense of the world….
Rise above sectional interests and private ambitions, and learn to determine the value of your individual and collective actions, however directed on material ends, in the light of ideal which you are supposed to represent. Pass from the matter to spirit. Matte is diversity; spirit is light, life and unity. One lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims. At critical moments in their history it is Islam that has saved Muslims and not vice-versa. If today you focus your vision on Islam and seek inspiration from the ever-vitalizing idea embodied in it, you will be only reassembling your scattered forces, regaining your lost integrity, and thereby saving yourself from total destruction."14

Allama Iqbal repeated his religion vs. polity aspect in Islam in his Presidential address to the League at Lahore also, delivered on 21st March, 1932 i.e. just a year after Allahabad speech. He said:

"Politics have their roots in the spiritual life of man. It is my belief that Islam is not a matter of private opinion. It is a society, or if you like, a civic Church…. I am opposed to nationalism…. I am opposed to it because I see in it the germs of anti-theistic materialism, which I look upon as the greatest danger to modern humanity. Patriotism is a perfectly natured virtue and has a place in the moral life of a man. Yet that which really matters is a man's faith, his culture, his historical traditions. These are the things which, in my eyes. Are worth living far and dying far, and not the place of earth with which the spirit of man happens to be temporarily associated."15

Thus, it can be seen that Iqbal was proposing a Muslim State (with capital 'S') comprising of Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan within the British Empire or without the British Empire. Iqbal, thus, gave support not just for the two-nation theory but also for the first time delineated the geographical area for the new nation. Since the Allahabad address till his death Iqbal relentlessly pursued his dream of a Muslim nation. It was Iqbal who persuaded Jinnah to return to India from England, where he had settled down, and lead the Indian Muslim. Between March and August 1937, Iqbal wrote a series of letters to Jinnah in which he laid bare his scheme of Pakistan. For the first time a detail exposition of the things is made in his letter of May 28, 1937 to Jinnah. Iqbal wrote:

"I have no doubt that you fully realize the gravity of the situation as far as Muslim India is concerned. The League will have to finally decide whether it will remain a body of representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim masses who have so for, with good reasons, taken no interest in it…. The problem of bread is becoming more and more acute…. The question therefore is: how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty…. Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam [the Shariat] and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at least, the right of subsistence is secured to everybody. But the enforcement and the development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim State or States. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this is to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for the Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India. If such a thing is impossible in India the only other alternative is a civil war which as a matter of fact has been going on for some time in the shape of Hindu-Muslim riots. But as I have said above in order to make it possible for Muslim India to solve these problems it is necessary to redistribute the country and to provide one or more Muslim states with absolute majorities. Don't you think that the time for such a demand has already arrived…. Muslim India hopes that at this serious juncture your genius will discover some way out of our present difficulties."16

Among all the heroes of Pakistan, Rahmat Ali is the least known and still least honoured name. But it goes to the credit of Rahmat Ali who not only argued for the partition of the country in the strongest and clearest terms but also gave a name to the new country. And that name for the Muslim State was 'Pakistan'.

On January 28, 1933 Rahmat Ali issued a pamphlet entitled Now or Never: Are We to Live or Perish For Ever. Through this pamphlet Rahmat Ali straightway asked for the partition of the country and defined the new country as Pakistan "by which we mean the five northern units of India viz. Punjab, North-west Frontier Province (Afghan province), Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan." He argued that India was neither a country nor a nation. Its heterogeneity was a proven fact and the Muslims were a separate nation. He declared:

"Our religion, culture, history, tradition, economic system, laws of inheritance, succession and marriage are basically and fundamentally different from those of the people living in rest of the India. We do not inter-dine, we do not inter-marry. Our national customs and calendar, even our diet and dress are different."17

After dealing briefly with various other things like population, geographical area etc. he said that Muslims:

"deserve and must demand the recognition of a separate national status by the grant of a separate Federal Constitution from the rest of India."18

Lahore Resolution and Jinnah
Jinnah dilated upon Sir Syed's 'Muslim nation theory'; Mohammad Ali's 'hostage theory'; Iqbal's 'ideal Islamic State' and Rahmat Ali's dreamland 'Pakistan' and came up with his "two nation theory" which touched upon not only the religion but the whole range of social, economic, educational and cultural life of Muslims, talked by all his predecessors. In March 1940, this "two nation theory" was adopted by the Muslim League, which declared that "no constitutional plan for India would be workable or acceptable to Muslims unless it was based on a demarcation of Muslim-majority areas in the north-west and the east as independent states. Pakistan, which Muslim spokesmen had dismissed during the Round Table Conference as a 'Students' scheme had now become the goal of Muslim League."19

However, the adoption as well as the wordings of the Lahore resolution was not sudden. Almost about two months before the Lahore session, Jinnah had made his future plan clear in an article in Time and Tide, published from London:

"India is inhabited by many races, often as distinct from one another in origin, tradition and manner of life as are nations in Europe. Two-thirds of its inhabitants profess Hinduism in one form or another as their religion, over seventy millions are followers of Islam: and the difference between the two is not only of religion but also of law and culture. They may be said indeed to represent two distinct separate civilizations."20

Jinnah continued:

"A constitution must be evolved that recognizes that there are in India two nations who both must share the governance of the common motherland."21

In the Meeting of the Council of the Muslim League held on February 25, 1940, Jinnah said:

"Great Britain wants to rule India. Mr. Gandhi and the Congress want to rule India and Musalmans. We may say that we will not let either the British or Mr. Gandhi rule the Musalmans. We want to be free."22

Jinnah's article in Time and Tide and the speech in the Council of the League, before the general session in March, 1940, not only made his future plans clear but also set the tone of the Lahore Session. Therefore, the resolution passed in the general session should not have surprised anybody.

Jinnah's opening Presidential speech on 22nd March, 1940, repeating the ideas and words of Sir Syed, Iqbal and Rahmat Ali, deserves to be considered here in some detail. On that occasion Jinnah said:

"As far as our internal position is concerned, we have also been examining it; and, you know, there are several schemes which have been sent by various well-informed constitutionalists and others who take interest in the problem of India's future Constitution, and we have also appointed a sub-committee to examine the details of the schemes that have come in so far. But one thing is clear. It has always been taken for granted mistakenly that Musalmans are a minority, and of course we have got used to it for such a long time that these settled notions sometimes are very difficult to remove. The Musalmans are not a minority. The Muslamans are a nation by any definition….
We find that even according to the British map of India, we occupy large parts of this country where the Musalmans are in a majority - such as Bengal, Punjab, N.W.F.P., Sind and Baluchistan.
Now the question is what is the best solution of this problem between the Hindus and the Musalmans? We have been considering - and as I have already said, a committee has been appointed to consider the various proposals. But whatever the final scheme for a Constitution, I will present to you my views….
I should like to put before you my views on the subject, as it strikes me, taking everything into consideration at the present moment. The British Government and Parliament, and more so the British nation, have been, for many decades past, brought up and nurtured with settled notions about India's future, based on developments in their country which have built up the British constitution, functioning now through the Houses of Parliament and the Cabinet system. Their concept of party-government, functioning on political plains, has become the ideal with them as the best form of government for every country; and the one sided and powerful propaganda which naturally appeals to the British has led them into serious blunder, in producing a constitution envisaged in the Government of India Act of 1935. We find that the leading statesmen of Great Britain, saturated with these notions, have in their pronouncements seriously asserted and expressed hope that the passage of time will harmonize the inconsistent elements of India….
The problem in India is not of inter-communal but manifestly of an international character, and it must as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realized, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Musalmans, but also to the British and Hindus. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure the peace and happiness of the people of this Sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands, by dividing India into 'autonomous national States'….
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders. It is a dream that Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone for beyond the limits, and it is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notion in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects of life and on life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single State, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a State…"
Musalmans are not a minority, as it is commonly known and understood…. Musalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory and their State. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way we think best, and in the consequence with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people…. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us to achieve the goal we have set in front of us"23 (italics supplied).

Thus, it can be seen that there was nothing new in the Lahore Resolution or Jinnah's speech. Everything had been said earlier by the leading lights of the League but had not been adopted as a political agenda by the party.

Notes and References:

1. As quoted in K.K. Aziz, 1987, The History of the idea of Pakistan, Vol.I, Lahore, p.21.
2. Syed Ahmad Khan, 18868, The Present State of Indian Politics, Allahabad, pp. 196-97; See also Shan Mohammad (ed.), 1972, Writings and Speeches of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Nachiketa, New Delhi, pp. 184-85.
3. As quoted in W.T. Bery, 1958, Sources of Indian Tradition, New York, pp. 746-47.
4. Aligarh Gazette, 1906.
5. Aga Khan, Memoirs, p. 95.
6. M.A. Jinnah, An Ambassador of Unity, His Speeches and Writings, 1912-1917, Madras 1918, pp.47-48.
7. Syed Sharfuddin Pirzada (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, All India Muslim League Documents, vol I, Karachi, pp. 437-9.
8. Fazl-ul-Haq, Presidential Address, published in Sayeed Khalid Bin, 1960, Pakistan the Formative Phase, Lahore, p. 46
9. As quoted in Afzal Iqbal, 1949, Selected Writings and Speeches of Maulana Mohammad Ali, Lahore, p. 479 (for the full text of letter see pp. 473-85).
10. ibid., p. 379
11. ibid. pp. 379-82
12. As quoted in Sharfuddin Pirzada (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, All India Muslim League Documents, Vol.II, p.xiv, Karachi.
13. Presidential Address of Mohammad Iqbal at the Annual Session of the Muslim League Conference held at Allahabad in 1931.
14. ibid.
15. Presidential address to the Muslim League at the Annual Session held at Lahore, on 21st March, 1932
16. Letter of 28 May, 1937 in Letters to Jinnah: A Collection of Iqbal's Letter to Quaid-i-Azam Lahore, n.d., pp. 14-18.
17. Rahmat Ali, Now or Never: Are We to Live or Perish For Ever, p.2
18. ibid.
19. B.R. Nanda. 1999. The Making of A Nation, New Delhi, p.273.
20. Time and Tide, 19th January, 1940, London.
21. Ibid.
22. Muslim League Council's Minutes.
23. Jinnah's speech at Lahore Session of the Muslim League Conference in March 1940.