Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population?

[G.Subramaniam]

After the Boundary Commission has done its work of delimiting the areas, various possibilities can
arise. The Musalmans may stop with the delimitation of the boundaries of Pakistan. They may be
satisfied that after all the principle of Pakistan has been accepted—which is what delimitation
means. Assuming that the Musalmans are not satisfied with mere delimitation but want to move in
the direction of establishing Pakistan there are two courses open to them. They may want to
establish Pakistan forthwith or they may agree to live under a common Central Government for a
period of say ten years and put the Hindus on their trial. Hindus will have an opportunity to show
that the minorities can trust them. The Muslims will learn from experience how far their fears of
Hindu Raj are justified. There is another possibility also. The Musalmans of Pakistan having
decided to separate forthwith may after a period become so disgusted with Pakistan that they might
desire to come back and be incorporated in Hindustan and be one people subject to one single
constitution.
These are some of the possibilities I see. These possibilities should in my judgement be kept open
for time and circumstances to have their effect. It seems to me to be wrong to say to the Musalmans
if you want to remain as part of India then you can never go out or if you want to go then you can
never come back. I have in my scheme kept the door open and have provided for both the
possibilities in the Act (1) for union after a separation of ten years, (2) for separation for ten years
and union there after. I personally prefer the second alternative although I have no strong views
either way. It would be much better that the Musalmans should have the experience of Pakistan. A
union after an experience of Pakistan is bound to be stable and lasting. In case Pakistan comes into
existence forthwith, it seems to me necessary that the separation should not altogether be a
severance, sharp and complete. It is necessary to maintain live contact between Pakistan and
Hindustan so as to prevent any estrangement growing up and preventing the chances of reunion. A
Council of India is accordingly provided for in the Act. It cannot be mistaken for a federation. It is
not even a confederation. Its purpose is to do nothing more than to serve as a coupling to link
Pakistan to Hindustan until they are united under a single constitution.
Such is my scheme. It is based on a community-wise plebiscite. The scheme is flexible. It takes
account of the fact that the Hindu sentiment is against it. It also recognizes the fact that the Muslim
demand for Pakistan may only be a passing mood. The scheme is not a divorce. It is only a judicial
separation. It gives to the Hindus a term. They can use it to show that they can be trusted with
authority to rule justly. It gives the Musalmans a term to try out Pakistan.
It might be desirable to compare my proposals with those of Sir Stafford Cripps. The proposals
were given out as a serial story in parts. The draft Declaration issued on 29th March 1943 contained
only the following :—
" His Majesty's Government therefore make the following terms:—
(a) Immediately upon cessation of hostilities steps shall be taken to set up in India in manner
described hereafter an elected body charged with the task of framing a new constitution for India.
(B) Provision shall be made, as set out below, for participation of Indian States in the
constitution-making body.
© His Majesty's Government undertake to accept and implement forthwith the constitution so
framed subject only to:
(i) The right of any province of British India that is not prepared to accept the new constitution to
retain its present constitutional position, provision being made for its subsequent accession if it so
decides.
With such non-acceding provinces should they so desire. His Majesty's Government will be
prepared to agree upon a new constitution giving them the same full status as the Indian Union and
arrived at by a procedure analogous to that here laid down."
Particulars of accession and secession were given in his broadcast. They were in the following
terms :—
" That constitution-making body will have as its object the framing of a single constitution for the
whole of India—that is, of British India, together with such of the Indian States as may decide to
join in.
" But we realize this very simple fact. If you want to persuade a number of people who are inclined
to be antagonistic to enter the same room, it is unwise to tell them that once they go in there is no
way out, they are to be forever locked in together.
" It is much wiser to tell them they can go in and if they find they can't come to a common decision,
then there is nothing to prevent those who wish, from leaving again by another door. They are
much more likely all to go in if they have knowledge that they can by their free will go out again if
they cannot agree.
" Well, that is what we say to the provinces of India. Come together to frame a common
constitution—if you find after all your discussion and all the give and take of a constitution-making
assembly that you cannot overcome your differences and that some provinces are still not satisfied
with the constitution, then such provinces can go out and remain out if they wish and just the same
degree of self-government and freedom will be available for them as for the Union itself, that is to
say complete self-government."
To complete the picture further details were added at the Press Conference. Explaining the plan for
accession or secession of provinces Sir Stafford Cripps said :—
" If at the end of the Constituent Assembly proceedings, any province or provinces did not wish to
accept the new constitution and join the Union, it was free to keep out—provided the Provincial
Assembly of that province, by a substantial vote say not less than 60 per cent., decided against
accession. If it was less than 60 per cent, the minority could claim a plebiscite of the whole
province for ascertaining the will of the people. In the case of the plebiscite, a bare majority would
be enough. Sir Stafford explained that for completing accession there would have to be a positive
vote from the Provincial Assembly concerned. The non-acceding province could, if they wanted,
combine into a separate union through a separate Constituent Assembly, but in order to make such
a Union practicable they should be geographically contiguous."
The main difference between my plan and that of Sir Stafford Cripps is quite obvious. For deciding
the issue of accession or secession which is only another way of saying, will there be or will there
not be Pakistan, Sir Stafford Cripps took the Province as a deciding unit. I have taken community
as the deciding unit. I have no doubt that Sir Stafford adopted a wrong basis. The Province can be a
proper unit if the points of dispute were interprovincial. For instance, if the points of dispute related
to questions such as distribution of taxation, of water, etc., one could understand the Province as a
whole or a particular majority in that Province having the right to decide. But the dispute regarding
Pakistan is an inter-communal problem which has involved two communities in the same Province.
Further the issue in the dispute is not on what terms the two communities will agree to associate in
a common political life. The dispute goes deeper and raises the question whether the communities
are prepared at all to associate in a common political life. It is a communal difference in its essence
and can only be decided by a community-wise plebiscite.