A large number of books have been written on the events leading to the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Choudhry Khaliquzzaman was a prominent Muslim leader from the United Provinces who played an important role in the movement for the creation of a separate homeland for the Indian ummah. After the death of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah he became the President of the Muslim League. The write-up that follows is based on his work "Pathway To Pakistan" published by Longmans, Karachi, Pakistan. 

Historical background
The Muslim period started under the full glare of written record, and amongst a people spiritually and culturally united to look upon the invaders as foreigners. Unity of faith between these two completely divergent spiritual systems and beliefs was not possible. Compromise in matters of belief between the Aryans and Dasyus had been achieved by the inclusion of Dravidian Gods in the Brahmanic Pantheon or by substituting the names of older ones; but a similar solution in the case of Islam and Hinduism was out of the question. They had therefore to live and exist in close proximity to each other, retaining their own beliefs and practices which for both of them covered the whole pattern of their lives. Hinduism is more a code of life from birth to death than a set of basic beliefs, while Islam is rooted in a clear-cut faith which finds its expression in the mode of life of its adherents. In such a situation only a certain measure of cultural unity could be secured between the two peoples with all their spiritual differences.

Congress/Muslim League Session 1916
The main question before the Congress and the League was in regard to separate electorates and weightage for Muslim minority provinces. According to the Congress-League Agreement, the Muslim representation was reduced by 13 per cent in Bengal and 5 per cent in Punjab and in return they got 33 per cent in Bombay, with a population of 14 per cent; 29 per cent for Bihar for a population of 13 per cent; 15 per cent for Madras for a population of 7 per cent and 15 per cent in Central Provinces for a population of 4 per cent. 

The seeds of partition of India were thus duly laid there in Lucknow when due to their inexperience the Muslims agreed to have equality in the Punjab and a minority in Bengal and other provinces. If a straightforward course had been adopted and representation on a population basis had been agreed upon, the Muslims would have started with a majority in the Governments of Punjab and Bengal and all the questions which poisoned the relationships between the two communities in the years following 1924 would not have arisen. Whether the Hindus agreed to this self-denying ordinance of the Muslims from a baser motive or from a real desire on their part to settle the differences that existed between the two communities can only be guessed. However, this led ultimately to Pakistan's losing large portions of Bengal and the Punjab at Partition.

Separation NOT Minority Status
In the Lucknow session, I had pinned my faith on the establishment in India of complete Independence in the form of free democratic states in which the rights and interests of the Muslims and other minorities are adequately and effectively safeguarded. But within a year the trend of political development in the country made me very doubtful whether that creed would give any guarantee for the safeguarding of Muslim people's rights in a free India. What was to be done now - 1932 - that was the question? Would the Muslims ever agree to a minority status with their history in the land, with their enormous numbers, with their geographical position and with their majority areas? And then what about Islam; would it not become poorer by a hundred million Muslims, were they cut adrift from the Islamic polity for ever, being only a territorial minority?

If the British could use Muslim armies for the conquest of Palestine and the disruption of the Khilafat why would not the Indian government a century later suitably use Punjabi and Pathan soldiers for the conquest of Middle East countries if they chose to do so? Should we be able to say at that time, as the Ali Brothers had in the Karachi trial, that it is sinful for Muslims to fight as soldiers of non-Muslim countries? Obviously not so, as by that time, our progeny might have become Indianized and nationalized.

Democracy is the creature of numbers and the Muslims in India had both numbers and geographical advantages. So far as I could see they would never be prepared to accept that status - minority - and would fight to the last to avert it. The consequences would be perpetual bitterness, disturbances and fights within India. Then why should we not separate? I could see that the Hindus would never agree to that, while so far as the British were concerned they might or they might not. Finally, I came to the conclusion that separation would perhaps be the best remedy for both the Hindus and the Muslims. But, I had to wait for some proper opportunity to take up the matter in right earnest.

Khaliquzzaman's Interview with Professor Coupland in 1942
Professor Coupland had been awarded a scholarship by the Nuffield Trust and had been sent to India to study the Indian constitutional documents of the past, survey the conditions of the present and the further constitution and report the reasons of his inquiry. On one occasion during the talk he asked, if Hindu-Muslim relations were so acute and unbridgeable, why then had the demand for Partition come so late in the year 1940 while the British had laid the foundation of their administrative system of democracy ever since the Mutiny. I replied that in all fairness to the Muslims they could not be held responsible for the lethargic and indolent mentality of the British people who had lived from day to day deciding matters as they came before them, without taking into account the effect of these decisions a decade or two later.

Role of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan
Having accepted Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan as the leader of Muslim India and having nominated him as such to represent the community in the Viceroy's Council they should have taken a more serious note of what he had said in his speech on 16 January 1883 only, twenty three years after the establishment of British rule in India. It should not surprise him if I said that the two main contentions, firstly regarding a geographical term being used in the political sense that India is a continent or sub-continent and secondly that India had more than one qaum or people, were not the creation of Jinnah or anyone of us in the Muslim League but had been urged by that great man, Sir Sayed, while defending the nomination of a certain number of Muslims, Municipal representatives as against the Hindu proposal of total representation by election. If the British had failed to take notice of such a clear pronouncement on the subject of Hindu-Muslim relations they could not now turn round and tell us that the demand for Partition had come very late in the day. 

Besides, following the policy of his leader, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, his successor in office, Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, on the occasion of the Simla Delegation to the Viceroy, Lord Minto in October 1906, had claimed separate electorates and weightage for Muslims, and these had been conceded in 1909 by no less liberal a politician than Lord Morley and were subsequently also accepted by Congress in the Hindu-Muslim pact of 1916 which formed the basis of the 1919 Constitution.

Was it not for the British to see then where the Muslims were leading them to and why had they not realized the significance of separate electorates which was unknown in a democratic constitution?

Jinnah's Fourteen Points
After the failure of the Simon Commission, the Congress and the League were asked by the British rulers to submit their version of constitutional reforms. The report of the Committee set up under Motilal Nehru was rejected by the League. At the Muslim All Parties Conference at Delhi on 31st December, 1928 the following 14 points were declared :

1. The Government of India should be federal.
2. Residuary powers to vest in Provinces and States.
3. Bill opposed by three-fourth members of any community shall not be proceeded with.
4. Right of separate electorates of Muslims to remain in tact.
5. One-third representation of Muslims in central legislation.
6. Retention of present basis of representation of Muslims where they are in minority.
7. No majority to be converted into minority or equality.
8. Reforms to be introduced in Balochistan and NWFP.
9. Separation of Sindh.
10. Reservation for Muslims in the services. 
11. Protection of Muslim culture, language, religion and education, personal laws and wakfs.
12. Proper presentation of Muslims in education departments.
13. No change in Constitution of India without the consent of Provinces.
14. No change in Constitution of India without the consent of States.

Democracy is like a creeper, which, if allowed to grow uncontrolled, in time envelops every branch of political life, and had once joint electorate, brought into the constitution, it would have been impossible for the Muslims to secure Pakistan.

One can understand H.H. the Aga Khan's attachment to separate electorates, for it was under his leadership that the Muslim deputation to the Viceroy in October 1906 had claimed that right under the advice of Nawab Mohsinul Mulk, and finally won acceptance by the British government. The Muslim League session was held in the last week of March 1929 under the Presidentship of Mr. Jinnah. The fourteen points were accepted by the Muslim League. These points were later described by the Hindu Press as Mr. Jinnah's fourteen points.

Khaliquzzaman's Interview with Lord Zetland, Secretary of State, London, March 1939.
Thereafter, I said : 'Now you are transferring more power to India, you are doing it in such a manner that one hundred million Muslims might find themselves as slaves of the majority when you have completed the task'. At this stage, he interrupted and made the same remark which was made by the Under Secretary, namely, "But you do not suggest any alternative?" It did not require any searching of my brain for I had already suggested the alternative to Col. Muirhead. Therefore, as soon as Lord Zetland raised the question of an alternative I immediately replied, You may partition the Muslim areas from the rest of India and proceed with your scheme of federation of the Indian Provinces without including the Muslim areas which should be independent from the rest.

Jinnah's leadership
There are, however, some people who have not liked the news of the proposed publication of my book, lest it might not give due credit to Mr. Jinnah's personality; as if a strong and living Pakistan is not evidence enough of his solid achievement, and the title of Quaid-e-Azam conferred on him by the people is not a merited tribute to commemorate him! They would perhaps be content with stories, rather than a connected, factual picture of his life, of his failures, reverses, pain and sorrows, his ultimate success and the achievement of his objective; and that written by one who, having had to follow the course of his life often in opposition, in the final analysis accepted his lead. When on 8 February 1936, after a talk with him I agreed to rejoin the League on certain terms, I was not too blind to see that ultimately it would mean the winding up of the Muslim Unity Board, an organization which I had nursed with great labour and sacrifice and which had for the first time fought elections on a party ticket and won a good number of Muslim seats, and that it also implied, as a natural consequence, acceptance of Mr. Jinnah's leadership. In spite of that I was the first amongst the five public leaders of considerable experience and reputation, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Husain Ahmad, Maulana Ahmad Said, Mufti Kifayatullah and myself, all members of the Muslim Unity Board, to welcome Mr. Jinnah's proposal, which gave the Muslim League a large body of tried mass workers and public platform speakers. 

Pakistan Resolution, 1940
Since then whatever differences I had with Mr. Jinnah had not been of a material character and I continued to follow his lead, even though sometimes I could not bring myself round to agree with him, in particular regarding the clause in the Lahore Resolution reading, 'with such territorial re-adjustment as may be necessary.' This was, in my opinion, wholly uncalled for, even though we might have ultimately had to agree to the partitioning of the provinces. But to put it as a clause in the Resolution when there was no demand for it from any side-British or Congress was absolutely unnecessary.

War Policy of the Muslim League
I differed from Mr. Jinnah on the question of the war policy of the Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah was good enough to modify his attitude. But when, on the advice of Sir Francis Mudie, I met the Viceroy I strongly supported his policy in my own moderate language and amiable approach. For people to think that in the Muslim League there were all nonentities who had no opinions of their own would show a pathetic state of affairs. And so far as history is concerned we know that even the caliphs did not remain immune from criticism by one section or the other. What the public will have to judge is how far the criticism is honest and sincere and based on logical conclusions. That Mr. Jinnah was a great man no one can doubt and when he took up the Pakistan cause he never swerved from it. 

Migration to Pakistan
After my family arrived at Karachi from India I left for Larkana in Sind to avoid meddling in politics. While I was there, Sardar Patel made a speech in my old city, Lucknow, on 6 January 1948, in the presence of a gathering of thousands in the Aminuddaulah Park, in which he said *: 
The man who got Pakistan established belonged to this city. Thank God he has left (for Pakistan) and we are happy.' 

Suhrawardy's Letter

40, Theatre Road, Calcutta, 
The 10th September, 1947. 

My dear Khaliquzzaman Sahib, 

We are now all thinking very hard as to what should be the position of the minorities, particularly of the minority Muslims, in the Hindu-majority provinces. We had not thought about it earlier, as we did not expect Bengal to be partitioned and Muslims being reduced to a minority in any part of Bengal. I think that your move and your speech regarding the flag was a very' wise one, as any hesitation in accepting it would have created indelible suspicion in the minds of the Hindus regarding our loyalty and bona fides. The good feeling between Hindus and Muslims at present existing here, and let us hope that this will be permanent, is largely due to the whole-hearted acceptance of the Indian Union flag by the Muslims and their adoption of the cry of Jai Hind. At the same time, we have got to think what should be the policy of the Muslims for the future. And the whole question turns on this, can we rely upon the Hindu Governments to look after the interests of the Muslims or shall we be let down at a crucial moment? We appear to have the following alternatives: 

1. Continue to live as Muslims in the best Islamic tradition connected with the Muslim League and holding fast to the two nation theory. In this alternative we shall have to be very strong and disciplined and must be ready to undergo sacrifices and must look to Pakistan for support and protection. We shall certainly get the respect of the Hindus, but equally their indignation. They will see to it that we do not become strong and I doubt very much whether Pakistan can come to our rescue and support. The theory of hostages has broken down. The fear of reprisal does not prevent a 'Hindu from killing us although he may be endangering his brother Hindus in Pakistan, but when a person gets mad and becomes insane then he does not think of the consequences to his co-religionists in other parts of the country. Further, in spite of the best efforts of the authorities, the rank and file of the law and order force are intensely communal. They are adopting an anti-Muslim complex and will not move an inch to prevent a Muslim being murdered or his shop looted or his property destroyed. I am, therefore, not in favour of adopting an attitude of aloofness dependent upon the two-nation theory. 

2. Be a good Muslim and remain on friendly terms with your Hindu neighbours on the basis of common citizenship of the Indian Union. This obviously is the best position to take up but the snags are the following: 

(a) Will the Hindu accept you as an equal and as a common citizen or will he try and assert superiority in every way and humiliate the Muslims? . 

(b) Will he treat you with cordiality? What attracts me most to Mahatma Gandhi's mission is his insistence that the majority must not feel a sense of superiority or of domination and the minorities must not be made to feel any sense of subservience. He says that the minorities have rights for which they must fight unto death. They must not adopt an attitude of giving up rights in order to purchase the goodwill of the majorities. In order to bring the majority Hindus to a proper frame of mind it is necessary to have continuous propaganda amongst them and it is going to take time. What I fear is, will they have respect for you if you have not strength, that is to say if you give up your particular group solidarity? At the same time, any attempt to acquire solidarity and strength will raise suspicion in their minds as regards bona fides. Here the question what should be our attitude towards the Hindus is very important. Shall we treat with them as League treating the Congress or shall we create a political party of Hindus and Muslims? They may refuse to accept you as the League treating with the Congress and in a system of joint electorate will support the breed known as the Nationalist Muslims. 

(c) Complete subservience and submergence in some places as in Bihar. This is the attitude of Hindus towards the Muslims. In order to prevent this there are three alternatives: 

(i) The Muslims should form themselves into strong pockets.In my opinion. this should be done even with the best co-operation in the world with the Hindus. It is politically desirable as well as necessary for survival and also culturally desirable. 

(ii) Transfer of population while the going is good. Although we have had a bad lesson in the Punjab I still think that transfer of population is an impossibility. It is doubtful how many of those who have been transferred from one side to the other will survive. I think we have to take the risk and stand fast to where we live. 

(iii) Annihilation. This is too awful to contemplate not from the personal point of view but from the point of vie-w of Hindus and Muslims as a whole because nothing can then stop a general carnage. So now the question is what are we going to do next. You must have thought over these problems because these problems have been with you for a much longer time than with us. I would like to have some guidance from you. Personally I think that Pakistan has provided a homeland for Muslims living in those majority areas, but not a homeland for the Muslims of India. The Muslims in the Indian Union have been left high and dry and must shape their own destiny and the question arises what should be our future organization. The fact that there is a Pakistan Government of course does give a certain amount of reflected prestige to the Muslims of India but at the same time makes them a target for antagonism, and we have to choose between the two. I think that the Muslims of the minority provinces will have to chalk out their own plan. The Quaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League in general are too busy with doing nothing in Pakistan. I think the solution lies in finding some ways and means to induce all Governments whether they are Pakistan or Hindustan to accept the minorities as their own and . to destroy the complex -of superiority in the majority population. For this purpose an all-round effort should be made and we are extremely lucky in having Mahatma Gandhi as the spearhead of this movement, for herein lies peace with dignity and honour and also the dictates of humanity. What do you think, first of all, of a few of us meeting together and then possibly a convention of the Muslim legislators of the minority provinces and their conventions of Muslim leading men in each province? 

As I said above I look to you for guidance. 

Yours sincerely, 
Shaheed Suhrawardy