Abdullah
Haroon and ‘Two-Nation’ Theory
By Prof Sharif al Mujahid
Most anniversary articles
on Abdullah Haroon focus on his success as a business
magnate, an entrepreneur, a committee man and an
organizer, and on his being a philanthropist, founder
of several educational, religious and social institutions
and a leader of outstanding merit.
His contribution in channeling the course of Muslim
politics in late 1930s and in crystallizing the
two-nation theory has, however, not received the
kind of attention it deserves. This article is meant
to fill in this gap.
Of all the Muslim leaders of Sindh, Abdullah Haroon
was the foremost to make an impact on the all-India
mainstream Muslim politics; (Bhurguri was, of course,
in all-India politics before him, but he died rather
prematurely, in 1924). The most remarkable thing
about Abdullah Haroon was that he had the vision
to see the problems of Sindhi Muslims in an all-India
context and to establish linkages between the Sindhi
component and the pan-Indian Muslim community. The
only other Sindhi leader who shared this honor with
him was Sheikh Abdul Majid. Not only in the provincial
context but also in the regional context, Abdullah
Haroon’s impact on all-India politics was
impressive.
Haroon’s most important role in channeling
the course of Muslim politics came in late 1930s.
He organized the First Sindh Provincial Muslim League
Conference in October 1938, presided over by Mr.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah and attended by a galaxy of
top-notch Muslim leaders. Thus, except for its nomenclature,
it was an all-India moot, indeed a notch higher
than the Lucknow League (1937) in terms of defining
the League’s ultimate goal.
Haroon’s welcome address set the tone for
the conference: it was radical and militant; it
commended an ideological goal. Unless adequate safeguards
and protection for the minorities were duly provided,
he declared, the Muslims would have no alternative
but “to seek their salvation in their own
way in an independent federation of Muslim states”.
He drew a parallel with Czechoslovakia which had
been partitioned to provide safeguards to Sudetan
Germans, and warned that the same might happen in
India should the majority community persist in its
“present course”. “We have nearly
arrived at the parting of the ways and until and
unless this problem is solved to the satisfaction
of all, it will be impossible to save India from
being divided into Hindu India and Muslim India,
both placed under separate federation,” he
added.
This was indeed a radical stuff. No one had spoken
from the League’s platform in such a strain
before. In contrast, Jinnah, who spoke next, was
characteristically mild and moderate. Yet he could
not help getting infected by Haroon’s tone
and tenor. At two different places, he made somewhat
vague references to the Sudetan German case, and
to the Congress trying to create “a serious
situation which will break India vertically and
horizontally”, warning the Congress to “mark,
learn and inwardly digest” the lessons provided
by Sudetan Germans. Maulvi Fazlul Haq and Sir Sikander
Hayat Khan, who followed Jinnah, also made fighting
speeches.
In a more pronounced way was the main resolution
at the conference cast in the Abdullah Haroon’s
mould. Though formulated by Haroon, he allowed it
to be moved by the unpredictable Shaikh Abdul Majid
because of the latter’s threat to walk out
on the conference if he was denied the privilege.
Though diluted in the subjects committee deliberations
at the insistence of Jinnah himself who was characteristically
not too keen to show his hand prematurely before
the Muslims were fully organized and public opinion
galvanized behind the ideological goal, the resolution
yet retained enough of its clout to become a trend-setter
and to warrant attention.
For one thing, it put forth a common position by
Muslim leadership in the majority and minority provinces.
In Lucknow (1937) the League had lambasted the Congress
for its totalitarianism, for exclusion of Muslims
from the portals of power in the Hindu majority
provinces, and for its blatant Hindu bias in administration,
in its educational, social, cultural and linguistic
policies, but it was silent on the Congress’
machinations in the Muslim majority provinces. This
the Sindh Conference focused on, along with the
Congress’ conduct in the Hindu provinces.
Thus, inter alia, the resolution charged that the
Congress “has in open defiance of the democratic
principles persistently endeavored to render the
power of the Muslim majority ineffective and impotent
in the North-Western Provinces, Bengal, Punjab and
Sindh by trying to bring into power or by supporting
coalition ministries not enjoying the confidence
of the majority of Muslim members and the Muslim
masses of these provinces”.
This conjunction of interests of the Muslim majority
and minority provinces represents a milestone in
evolving a common goal for the entire Muslim community
and in enunciating the concept of Muslim nationhood.
The resolution argued the case of a separate Muslim
nationhood, not merely in terms of transient factors
such as “the caste-ridden mentality and anti-Muslim
policy of the majority community”, but, more
importantly, in terms of durable factors such as
“the acute differences of religion, language,
script, culture, social laws and outlook on the
life of the two major communities and even of race
in certain parts”.
Thus, the concept of a separate Muslim nationhood
was spelled out not merely in political and immediate
terms, but on an intellectual plane. This was also
the first time that the Hindus and Muslims were
officially pronounced by the Muslim League as two
distinct “nations”.
The operative part of the resolution said, inter
alia: “This conference considers it absolutely
essential in the interests of an abiding peace of
the vast Indian continent and in the interests of
unhampered cultural development, the economic and
social betterment, and political self-determination
of the two nations known as Hindus and Muslims,
to recommend to All-India Muslim League to review
and revise the entire question of what should be
the suitable constitution for India which will secure
honorable and legitimate status due to them, and
that this Conference recommends to the All-India
Muslim League to devise a scheme of Constitution
under which Muslims may attain full independence.
In the historical perspective, this resolution became
the precursor of the Lahore Resolution of 1940.
Between this conference and the Lahore sessions,
Abdullah Haroon made by far the most significant
contribution in popularizing the ideal of a separate
state for the Muslims. He chaired the foreign and
domestic sub-committee of the All-India Muslim League,
which produced working papers and literature, and
corresponded extensively with prominent Muslim leaders
throughout the subcontinent.
In order to give a big push in that direction and
to prepare the intelligentsia for the partition
proposal, he got Dr Syed Abdul Latif’s book
on The Muslim Problem In India (1939) published
and circulated. In his “Foreword”, he
shunned the circumlocutory language of the Karachi
resolution for a categorical enunciation of the
still evolving Muslim goal.
To quote R. Coupland, who studied the constitutional
problem in India in the early 1940s, Abdullah Haroon
was “the only Muslim politician of any standing
who had so far taken a public part in the constitutional
discussion”; he was also clear in his mind
as to the solution. Finally, the subcommittee which
he headed prepared a comprehensive report which
became the basis of the Lahore Resolution.
In thus advancing the cause of a Muslim homeland
at a critical stage, Abdullah Haroon carved for
himself a niche as one of the founding fathers of
Pakistan, although he did not live long enough to
see his dream materialize in 1947.
The writer was founder-director of the Quaid-i-Azam
Academy.
