The Session of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Speech / Part One

(The second part of this article will present the proceedings of the Assembly from March 6, 1948, regarding the speech under discussion.)

The complete Urdu text of the Assembly’s relevant proceedings is being published on our website: https://urdu.murasla.pk.

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (LEGISLATURE) Friday the 5th March. 1948

The Constituent Assembly (Legislature) met in the Assembly Chamber, Karachi, at ten of the clock, Mr. Deputy President (Mr. Tamizuddin Khan) in the Chair. (Discussion on general administration)

*Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (N.W.F.P.):

Sir, I move: “That the demand under the head ‘Cabinet’ be reduced by Rs. 100.”

Mr. Deputy President, Sir, my purpose in moving this cut motion is to say something before this Honourable House regarding Pakistan administration. I do not mean by this motion to run down the Government of Pakistan, nor to pick holes in it. In this connection, I desire also to throw some light on and remove the misunderstandings created against me and my group by responsible men of this Government and other non-officials of Pakistan.

First of all it is alleged that I and my group are the enemies of Pakistan and that we want to destroy it and cut it asunder. I do not want to argue, I may only say so much in this connection that I have thrown enough light on this point in my Province whenever I had an opportunity to speak. Still the responsible then of Pakistan have their misgivings as to whether I am a friend or a foe of Pakistan and that perhaps I wish to annihilate Pakistan. But they cannot deny that 1 have tried now and then to remove such misunderstandings.

They are also aware that whenever I had an opportunity or was given one to address the people in different parts of Our Province, I told them clearly that indeed I was of opinion and creed, that India should not be divided because today in India we have witnessed the game — thousands, nay, lakhs of the young, old and children, men and women, were massacred and ruined.

I admit that it was my honest opinion that India should not be divided; India should not be partitioned. But now that it is done, the dispute is over. I delivered many speeches against the division of India, but the question is, has anybody listened to me? We said to the Muslim League Government in the Frontier, “we offer you a chance to carry on the Government”. But the treatment meted out to the Pathans by the Government was tolerated only with great difficulty. People used to Come to me to enquire about my future programme and asked, “What do you intend to do, since we cannot bear this state of affairs which has been created oy Pakistan? We are they, who fought against a powerful nation of the World like that of the British who wanted to rob us”. I explained to them that the situation of the British rule does not arise, as the question is different now. That was a foreign yoke and now the Muslims have their own Government. I repeatedly told the Pakistan Government that we are prepared to let you govern.

Efforts were mace to lead US to an internecine strife, because the “war-mongers” had hoped that as the struggle would proceed, the national and patriotic sentiments would at once be diverted towards it and the constructive work of the Government would stop. I realized the danger. You may hold any opinion about me but I am, not a man of destruction, but of construction. I am not a theoretical but a practical man. If you study the whole of my life, you will find that l have devoted it for the welfare and progress of our country. I also add that the Khudai Khidmatgars as a social movement and not political, but it is a long story, consequently I do not want to repeat it. Who was responsible for converting this social movement into a political one? The British. Who associated us with the Congress? The British. It is not only here that I am mentioning it, but I have done so to the high-placed Britishers, as God has blessed me with courage.

We were blamed that He Khudai Khidmatgars the slaves to Hindu gold, do not allow us to run the Government and work out the constructive programme, for such a programme can only proceed when there is peace in the whole country. But our attitude towards them was, and we proclaimed, that if the Government of Pakistan would work for our people and our country, then the Khudai Khidmatgar would be with them. I repeat that I am not for destruction of Pakistan. In destruction lies no use for Hindus, Muslims, the Frontier, the Punjab, Bengal or even Sind. Advantage, thane is only in construction. I want to tell you a very plain thing that I will not support any body in destruction. If any constructive programme is before you, if you want to do something constructive for our people, not in theory but in practice, I declare it before this Honouraole House that I and my people are at your service. (Cheers).

For about seven months I have been watching the administration of Pakistan, but I could not find any difference between this administration and that of the British. I may be wrong, but it is the common view. I, alone, do not say so; if you go and ask the poor, then my views will be confirmed. It may be that you suppress their voice with force. But remember that force or power does not last long. Force can merely serve the purpose for the time being. If you will oppress the people. It will develop hatred against you in their hearts. Leave it aside, I tell you that there is more corruption today than it was during the British rule, and now there is more unrest than it was in the British regime. It is possible that you may doubt my intentions. But my speech is not destructive. I have come here in the capacity of a friend; please think over the facts I am placing before you. If you find them useful for Pakistan, well and good, otherwise throw them into the waste paper basket.

Why did we fight against the British? We fought to turn them out, so that the country be ours and we may rule over it. Now we have taken over the country from the British, but we find today more Englishmen than they were under the old regime; rather more Englishmen are being called in from outside. To lay unfortunately we observe the same old policy, the same old method whether in the Frontier or the Tribal Area. We do not see any change in it. I am very sorry to say that our Hindu brethren have appointed Indian Governors in their Provinces and not even men but a woman also can become a Governor there. Were there no Musalmans in Bengal or the Punjab who could become our Governors? I have to say, that to our misfortune, the British whom we had turned out have again been brought in and placed-at our heads. Is this Islamic Fraternity? Would we call it a brotherhood? This is Islamic Pakistan!

It is not the only evil in the administration, but there is another, and that is, the same ordinance laws issued by the Government. That, which gives me most pain, is to see that when any communique is issued by the Frontier Government, it is in the same old way, the same old language and in the same old spirit as was peculiar to the British Raj. If an Englishman told a lie, he was a foreigner. He had not come here for our reform and betterment. He came to exploit us. He came to achieve his own ends.  But I have nothing to complain against the British. Now I have indeed a complaint against Pakistan, because they are our brothers and that Government is our Government. We should now leave the old British tactics. If we would follow the old methods, I may tell you that Pakistan, which we have achieved through so many difficulties, would be lost to our hands. There is another thing that I wish to tell you. That is, I have often been charged with infusing among the Pathans a feeling of separate nationality and creating provincialism. In reality, if you see, you will find that you are the creators of this provincialism. To us, the Pathans, these things are unknown. We do not know what provincialism is? My own experience of provincialism is that it does not exist among the Pathans. Take the Case of Sind. Have we created provincialism in Sind? The problem is, how provincialism is created?

It may be that you misguide the people for some time in the name of Islam, but you cannot push this matter too long. It will be a temporary thing, instable. I wish to put the question, “who created these conditions and why?” In this, world one thing is a cause, the other is effect. It is the law of nature that nothing comes into existence without a cause and consequently such circumstances did not develop, ipso facto.

*The Honourable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan (Prime Minister and Minister for Defence):

They have been created.

٭Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan:

I wish to tell that the more you will pursue the matter, the greater would be unpleasantness. I do not want to create bitterness. You know my nature. I do not make speeches. I am doing so for the first time and that too, with the object of acquainting you with my ideas, of which you were ignorant till now. I do not want to go deep into the matter. Why is there provincialism in Sind? Has it been created by the Pathans? At the time of his visit to Peshawar, our Muslim League brothers also put before our Prime Minister the same thing which we used to say. But he said that he wants to unite all the Mussalmans from Khyber to Chittagong. Who can deny this? But our point is that on the one hand you want to unite all the Mussalmans from Khyber to Chittagong, and on the other, what objection can you have against our constituting a belt of all the Pathans who were disunited by the British and how far is it against Islam? If you help us in this connection, you unite us and make a powerful Slate of ours and after this state is established, whose strength it would be?

*The Honourable Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Minister for Refugees and Rehabilitation):

This is against Islam.

*Malik Mohammad Firoz Khan Noon (West Punjab):

And you will join Afghanistan.

*Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan:

I wish to tell you frankly, that we can only join you and not Afghanistan. You have greater claim on us than Afghanistan.Different charges are brought against the Pathans. Sometimes it is said _that they are not true Muslims. It is strange that those, who are passing an Islamic life, they are styled as Hindus and those who have no concern with Islam are now declared as Musalmans.

What a calamity, which seems unavoidable. There has been a tremendous revolution within six months. There is a, separate Hindu Government in Hindustan and a distinct Government of the Musalmans in Pakistan. When it is possible that our Bengalee brothers living at a distance of two thousand miles from Khyber to Chittagong, could be one with us, join Pakistan and be our brothers, then why cannot our own brothers, the Pathans, who are so near to us and whom the British disrupted for their own purpose because the union of the Pathans would be a source of danger to them. How can they be the cause of danger to you? The British, who carne here with a view to rule, created discord amongst us on their own selfish motive. But you are our brothers, why do you fear us?

*The Honourable Mr. Liaquat All Khan:

Please elucidate your point.

*Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan:

What does our Pathanistan mean; I will tell you just now? You see, that the people inhabiting this Province are called Sindhis and the name of their country is Sind. Similarly, the Punjab or Bengal is the land of the Punjabees or Bengalees. In the same way there is the North West Frontier. We are one people and ours is a land. Within Pakistan we also, want that the mere mentioning of the name of the country should convey to the people that it is the land of Pakhtoon. Is it a sin under the tenets of Islam?

*The Honourable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan:

Is Pathan the name of a country or that of a community?

*Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan:

Pathan is the name of the community and we will name the country as Pakhtoonistan. I may also explain that the people of India used to call us Pathans and we are called Afghans by the Persians. Our real name is Pakhtoon. We want Pakhtoonistan, and want to see all the Pathans on this side of the Durand Line joined and united together in Pakhtoonistan. You help us in this. If you think it un-Islamic, then I would Say that it is just Islam. If you argue, that Pakistan would be weakened by it, then I would say that it is not so. Pakistan can never become weak ty the creation of a separate political unit. On the other hand, it would become stronger. Most of the difficulties are begotten by lack of confidence, but when there is confidence the difficulties are resolved, Governments are run on good faith and not on mistrust.

The other thing is that people invite us to join the Muslim League. I think the Muslim League has done 1ts duty. Its work, its object and its function was to get Pakistan. Pakistan has been created. I mean to say that now it has been achieved, there does not remain any need of Muslim League now. There should be other parties in our country. A party should be organised here on economic basis, so that all may join together and there remains no opposition. Regarding this I will say only this much that Parties on economic line should be organised in Pakistan to do away with the existing differences and then if there will be any differences amongst us, we will be able to remove by sitting together to discuss them. Islam is a religion, in which there is the greatest toleration and when we will exchange our views then we would have to tolerate one another; not that I should oppose any body if he disagrees with me.

As the time is short, I will point out one more thing and then finish my speech. Pakistan is a poor country. The question is how to carry on the Government of this poor country? If I am, poor what should I do?  Should I live within my means or otherwise?

Or should I live like the rich? When it is admitted, that Pakistan is a poor country, then the system of its Government should not be like that of the capitalists. There should be no aristocratic grandeur. You want to impose taxes, do it please, but keep in view the condition of the poor. But again the question is, have we to live according to our means or according to the status of the rich. We have to find out as to how to run the State of Pakistan. We have before us the traditions of our early predecessors. The way is there. We should follow it. We should have the resolution to sacrifice, to tread the same path. Our great religious heads who built the Islamic Empire were only three. Unless we follow these leaders in their moral character, spirit of sacrifice and feelings of sympathy, we cannot help our State to grow great. The name of Hazrat Ali is familiar to you. Whatever he did, was for Islam and the people. It was according to some principle. It is said that once an opponent of Hazrat Ali, on being unarmed by him, spat at his face. At once Hazrat Ali let him go, as taking his life then would have involved a personal grudge. This should be the spirit. Now, take the life of Hazrat Abu Bakr. Even before he was a Caliph, whatever he did was for the Musalmans alone. He himself got a meagre allowance as a Caliph and fixed an equal amount for all other Musalmans. There is a charge against Islam that there is no equality of treatment in it. He however maintained that the necessities of life are the same for all. A man may be poor or rich but still the necessities of life of the two are the same. All have children. Therefore the necessities of all are similar. Not as you say, that your wants are greater and ours less. And you cannot say that a poor man has no prospects to become rich, while the rich has. These matters relate to culture and civilization, and there should not be any differentiation in them as the physical wants of all are alike, their allowances should also be equal. Similar was the case with Hazrat Umar. The Muslim Empire which lasted so long was built by these two men, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar. You may be aware of the fact that even if a poor man stood to criticise him, Hazrat Umar never threatened him and was never angry with him. And when he had finished, then the Hazrat tried to satisfy him by giving out true facts and also encouraged him. Under the leadership aid guidance of such men, the Musalmans can never go astray. If you develop the same morals, then your empire can also become equally strong. When they were elected Caliphs and the question of their pays arose, they themselves gave the decision by saying, “I am a servant of the Musalmans and I should be paid the wages given to any labour in Medina”. That is why I say that if Pakistan is poor, we should run it on such principle. Whose is Pakistan?

It is ours. If it is poor, we should run it like a poor country and when tomorrow, Pakistan will be rich then we may run it in an aristocratic way. I can say that with its present ways or system of Government, Pakistan cannot become rich. Therefore the old order should change and we should revert to the old Islamic way of life.

We oppose it, not simply because the British did it; but if it is done here in the name of Islam, it shall not have our approval. I will certainly support the Government of Pakistan, if it is run on Islamic lines. My idea of Pakistan is, that it should be an Azad Pakistan. We do not want that it should be under influence of a particular community or individual. We want that Pakistan should be for all its people that all should enjoy equally and that it should not be exploited by a handful of people. We want that the Government of Pakistan should be in the hands of its people. As far as technical experts are concerned, Pakistan should send for them from other countries like America and England. But as regards administration, I cannot agree that Pakistan is devoid of capable men and all are inefficient here. When Hindus could manage their affairs, cannot we do the same? I like the idea of having the whole administration of Pakistan in the hands of its people. I have heard that many Englishmen have been retained in service here and fresh ones are coming in. I must say that this will not be for the good of Pakistan.

• Issues of East Pakistan: Transfer of Sales Tax From Provinces to Centre Part I
• Sir Sikandar Hayat’s Policy Statement on Constitutional Structure of India and All India Muslim League’s Lahore Resolution 1940 / 1st Part
• Address of G. M. Sayed delivered on 31st Session of AIML in Karachi-1943
• Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence: Jaswant Singh