• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population?
Ill
This, of course, is a very frank statement of the consequences which will flow from giving effect to the scheme of
Pakistan. But care must be taken to locate the source of these consequences. Do they flow from the scheme of
Pakistan itself or do they flow from particular boundaries that may be fixed for it. If the evils flow from the scheme
itself, i.e., if they are inherent in it, it is unnecessary for any Hindu to waste his time in considering it. He will be
justified in summarily dismissing it. On the other hand, if the evils are the result of the boundaries, the question of
Pakistan reduces itself to a mere question of changing the boundaries.
A study of the question amply supports the view that the evils of Pakistan are not inherent in it. If any evil results
follow from it they will have to be attributed to its boundaries. This becomes clear if one studies the distribution of
population. The reasons why these evils will be reproduced within Western and Eastern Pakistan is because, with
the present boundaries, they do not become single ethnic states. They remain mixed states, composed of a Muslim
majority and a Hindu minority as before. The evils are the evils which are inseparable from a mixed state. If
Pakistan is made a single unified ethnic state, the evils will automatically vanish. There will be no question of
separate electorates within Pakistan, because in such a homogeneous Pakistan, there will be no majorities to rule
and no minorities to be protected. Similarly, there will be no majority of one community to hold, in its possession, a
minority of an opposing community.
The question, therefore, is one of demarcation of boundaries and reduces itself to this : Is it possible for the
boundaries of Pakistan to be so fixed, that instead of producing a mixed state composed of majorities and
minorities, with all the evils attendant upon it, Pakistan will be an ethnic state composed of one homogeneous
community, namely Muslims ? The answer is that in a large part of the area affected by the project of the League, a
homogeneous state can be created by shifting merely the boundaries, and in the rest, homogeneity can be produced
by shifting only the population.
In this connection, I invite the reader to study carefully the figures given in the Appendices V, X, XI showing the
distribution of the population in the areas affected, and also the maps showing how new boundaries can create
homogeneous Muslim States. Taking the Punjab, two things will be noted :—
(i) There are certain districts in which the Musalmans predominate. There are certain districts in which the
Hindus predominate. There are very few in which the two are, more or less, evenly distributed; and
(ii) The districts in which Muslims predominate and the districts in which the Hindus predominate are not
interspersed. The two sets of districts form two separate areas.
For the formation of the Eastern Pakistan, one has to take into consideration the distribution of population in both
the Provinces of Bengal and Assam. A scrutiny of the population figures shows—
(i) In Bengal, there are some districts in which the Muslims predominate. In others, the Hindus
predominate.
(ii) In Assam also, there are some districts in which the Muslims predominate. In others, the Hindus
predominate.
(iii) Districts in which the Muslims predominate and those in which the Hindus predominate are not
interspersed. They form separate areas.
(iv) The districts of Bengal and Assam in which the Muslims predominate are contiguous.
Given these facts, it is perfectly possible to create homogeneous Muslim States out of the Punjab, Bengal and
Assam by drawing their boundaries in such a way that the areas which are predominantly Hindu shall be excluded.
That this is possible is shown by the maps given in the appendix.
In the North-West Frontier Province and Sind, the situation is rather hard. How the matter stands in the North-West
Frontier Province and Sind may be seen by an examination of the figures given in the appendices VI to IX. As may
be seen from the appendices, there are no districts in which the Hindus in the North-West Frontier Province and
Sind are concentrated. They are scattered and are to be found in almost every ^strict of the two provinces in small,
insignificant numbers. These appendices show quite unmistakably that the Hindus in Sind and the North-West
Frontier Province are mostly congregated in urban areas of the districts. In Sind, the Hindus outnumber the
Muslims in most of the towns, while the Muslims outnumber the Hindus in villages. In the North-West Frontier
Province, the Muslims outnumber the Hindus in towns as well as in villages.
The case of the North-West Frontier Province and Sind, therefore, differs totally from the case of the Punjab and
Bengal. In the Punjab and Bengal, owing to the natural segregation of the Hindus and Muslims in different areas, it
is possible to create a homogeneous State by merely altering their boundaries, involving the shifting of the
population in a very small degree. But in the North-West Frontier Province and Sind, owing to the scattered state of
the Hindu population, alteration of boundaries cannot suffice for creating a homogeneous State. There is only one
remedy and that is to shift the population.
Some scoff at the idea of the shifting and exchange of population. But those who scoff can hardly be aware of the
complications, which a minority problem gives rise to and the failures attendant upon almost all the efforts made to
protect them. The constitutions of the post-war states, as well as of the older states in Europe which had a minority
problem, proceeded on the assumption that constitutional safeguards for minorities should suffice for their
protection and so the constitutions of most of the new states with majorities and minorities were studded with long
lists of fundamental rights and safeguards to see that they were not violated by the majorities. What was the
experience ? Experience showed that safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience showed that even a ruthless
war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve it was for each to
exchange its alien minorities within its border, for its own which was without its border, with a view to bring about
homogeneous States. This is what happened in Turky, Greece and Bulgaria. Those, who scoff at the idea of transfer
of population, will do well to study the history of the minority problem, as it arose between Turky, Greece and
Bulgaria. If they do, they will find that these countries found that the only effective way of solving the minorities
problem lay in exchange of population. The task undertaken by the three countries was by no means a minor
operation. It involved the transfer of some 20 million people from one habitat to another. But undaunted, the three
shouldered the task and carried it to a successful end because they felt that the considerations of communal peace
must outweigh every other consideration.
That the transfer of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace is beyond doubt. If that is so, there is
no reason why the Hindus and the Muslims should keep on trading in safeguards which have proved so unsafe. If
small countries, with limited resources like Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria, were capable of such an undertaking,
there is no reason to suppose that what they did cannot be accomplished by Indians. After all, the population
involved is inconsiderable and because some obstacles require to be removed, it would be the height of folly to give
up so sure a way to communal peace.
There is one point of criticism to which no reference has been made so far. As it is likely to be urged, I propose to
deal with it here. It is sure to be asked, how will Pakistan affect the position of the Muslims that will be left in
Hindustan ? The question is natural because the scheme of Pakistan does seem to concern itself with the Muslim
majorities who do not need protection arid abandons the Muslim minorities who do. But the point is : who can raise
it ? Surely not the Hindus. Only the Muslims of Pakistan or the Muslims of Hindustan can raise it. The question
was put to Mr. Rehmat Ali, the protagonist of Pakistan and this is the answer given by him :—
"How will it affect the position of the forty five million Muslims in Hindustan proper ?
" The truth is that in this struggle their thought has been more than a wrench to me. They are the flesh of our flesh
and the soul of our soul. We can never forget them ; nor they, us. Their present position and future security is, and
shall ever be, a mailer of great importance to us. As things are at present, Pakistan will not adversely affect their
position in Hindustan. On the basis of population (one Muslim to four Hindus), they will still be entitled to the same
representation in legislative as well as administrative fields which they possess now. As to the future, the only
effective guarantee we can offer is that of reciprocity, and, therefore, we solemnly undertake to give all those
safeguards to non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan which will be conceded to our Muslim minority in Hindustan.
" But what sustains us most is the fact that they know we are proclaiming Pakistan in the highest interest of the'
Millet'. It is as much theirs as it is ours. While for us it is a national citadel, for them it will ever be a moral anchor.
So long as the anchor holds, everything is or can be made safe. But once it gives way, all will be lost ".
The answer given by the Muslims of Hindustan is equally clear. They say, " We are not weakened by the separation
of Muslims into Pakistan and Hindustan. We are better protected by the existence of separate Islamic States on the
Eastern and Western borders of Hindustan than we are by their submersion in Hindustan. " Who can say that they
are wrong ? Has it not been shown that Germany as an outside state was better able to protect the Sudeten Germans
in Czechoslovakia than the Sudetens were able to do themselves ? 41[f.41]
Be that as it may, the question does not concern the Hindus. The question that concerns the Hindus is : How far
does the creation of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan ? That is a very legitimate question
and must be considered. It must be admitted that by the creation of Pakistan, Hindustan is not freed of the
communal question. While Pakistan can be made a homogeneous state by redrawing its boundaries, Hindustan must
remain a composite state. The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan—though they are mostly congregated in
towns—and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to
make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that
even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will
continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.
  Reply


Messages In This Thread
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 08:10 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 08:34 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 08:51 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 08:58 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 01:07 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 01:20 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-14-2003, 01:44 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-16-2003, 02:21 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-17-2003, 08:39 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-18-2003, 09:25 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-19-2003, 05:42 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-20-2003, 12:54 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 08:58 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-22-2003, 09:32 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-23-2003, 12:01 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-23-2003, 03:42 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-24-2003, 04:27 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 11-24-2003, 05:06 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 05:58 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 10:12 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 10:16 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 10:40 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-25-2003, 01:52 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 02:42 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 03:46 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:01 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:06 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:26 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:31 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:34 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:37 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:45 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:51 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:55 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 04:59 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 05:00 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 07:14 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 07:45 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 09:21 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 11:08 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-01-2004, 09:38 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-01-2004, 09:33 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 06:44 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 09:04 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 10:13 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-15-2004, 11:43 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-16-2004, 01:02 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 09:12 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 09:48 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-21-2004, 09:52 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 08:59 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 10:49 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 11:43 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 11:54 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 12:25 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 11:45 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-22-2004, 11:50 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 02-02-2004, 10:40 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 02-03-2004, 12:27 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by G.Subramaniam - 04-10-2004, 11:23 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-11-2004, 09:51 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-30-2004, 08:39 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-30-2004, 08:52 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 03-02-2005, 11:51 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 08-25-2005, 07:54 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 04-03-2007, 04:18 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-17-2008, 07:48 PM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 12-31-2003, 07:55 AM
Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population? - by Guest - 01-02-2004, 10:53 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)