October 8, 2005

THE division of the south Asian subcontinent into different federating units has an old history. It was a British MP, John Bright, who immediately after the mutiny of 1857 suggested that the Indian empire be broken up into several smaller states with complete autonomy, ultimately becoming independent states, as mentioned by Patrick French in his book “Liberty or Death”.

This idea was later picked up by many Muslim political figures like Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan. John Bright, again in 1877, clearly said that after Britain’s withdrawal, India would have five or six great independent sovereign states similar to those of Europe (“Rehmat Ali” by K. K. Aziz, 1987).

It was for the first time that in a meeting at Allahabad on December 29, 1930, Dr Sir Muhammad Iqbal proposed the ‘two-nation theory’ in which he clearly said that the Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan should be amalgamated into a single state which will bring to India an internal balance of power. “The creation of autonomous states is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure for India”, he had said. There have been other political figures also from India and Britain who have been making similar proposals, which has a long history.

The idea proposed initially by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was published in a pamphlet in 1933 which was issued by following persons: Rehmat Ali Chaudhry, Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak, Sheikh Muhammad Siddiq and Inayatullah Khan (of Charsadah). This pamphlet was published by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali as Founder of Pakistan National Movement and circulated from 3, Humberstone Road, Cambridge, England on January, 28, 1933 to the members of Round Table Conference.

The text of the letter and pamphlet “Now or Never” have been reproduced by Mr. G. Allana in his compilation titled “Pakistan Movement: Historic Documents”. In this document, a map of India has also been published showing the subcontinent split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamistan, Hindoostan comprising of Rajistan, Khathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934 again but the idea was generally rejected by all Muslim leaders who regarded it as ‘only a students’ scheme’ and was considered as chimerical and impracticable as mentioned in “The Great Divide” by H. V. Hudson.

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali later changed his mind. He claimed that the destiny of whole ‘millat’ in the continent of “Dinia” (changed name of India) and its dependencies lies in the integration of Muslims into ten countries, Pakistan, Bangistan, Osmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muistan, Maplistan, Saristan, Nasarastan and then to be coordinated into a Pak commonwealth of nations.

Who was Chaudhry Rehmat Ali? There is only one biography of him available. It was written by a highly respected writer Mr. K.K. Aziz. It was published in 1987. Other information is available in his pamphlets which appeared in a collection form titled “Pakistan, the Fatherland of Pak Nation” in 1947. It was reproduced in Pakistan in 1978.

All we know about him is that he was the only son of one Shah Muhammad, a Gujjar by caste, from Hoshiarpur and had graduated from Islamia College, Lahore. He worked in “Pakistan Akhbar”, Lahore for some time and was later appointed a tutor to the Nawab of Bahawalpur (who is said to have at the age of five saluted King George V at Delhi Durbar.

Later, he became private secretary to Sardar Mir Dost Muhammad Khan, a Mazari Tamandar of Rohjhan. During this period he collected a couple of hundred thousand rupees and shifted to England. He was given many recommendatory letters by some elite figures for his admission to some educational institution. One such letter by Nawab Sir Uman Hayat Khan Tiwana, a member of India Council says his (Rehmat’s) record of services was creditable. During the second world war, he had acted as secretary of the recruitment committee for Punjab University, Double Company and also as secretary of One-Day Fund Committee of the same University.

We are not aware of any of his meetings with Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The record which we find shows that he wrote some letters to the Father of the Nation who in reply suggested to meet him whenever he visits India. The only other reference which I find is in “Amaal Nama” where Sir Yamin Khan mentions of an incident in which the Quaid is said to have approved the idea of Rehmat Ali’s scheme before March 23, 1940 Resolution was put at a general public meeting at Lahore.

The suggestion that the name of Pakistan was coined by Rehmat Ali is highly doubtful as ‘Karakal Pakistan’ existed as an autonomous region of the (now defunct) USSR. Reference of the same can be found out in the old editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica. According to a report published in a Lahore daily in 1987, the Quaid-Azam accepted the present division of Punjab and Bengal in June 3, 1947 plan. Many people were critical of this division but he defended the same in a speech at University Grounds, Lahore.

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali was extremely critical of the division and published another pamphlet titled “The Greatest Betrayal”. It is included in the book titled “Pakistan, the fatherland of the Pak Nation”. He described it as “the most shameful and most treacherous page in the channels of the Millat”. He tried to explain disastrous implication of Mr. Jinnah’s action and asked Muslims to reject the plan.

In this pamphlet, he called “Mister Jinnah” as the “Quisling-i-Azam” of Pakistan and Bangistan. He called it as a fraud and deception to Muslims. It was for this reason that Liaquat Ali Khan declared Rehmat Ali a persona non grata and issued an order in October, 1948 asking him to leave Pakistan.

Keeping in view Rehmat Ali’s political role the idea of bringing back his body for reburial in Pakistan, as suggested by Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, the PML-Q leader, only amounts to reopening the question — was the Quaid justified in accepting Pakistan, with a divided Punjab and Bengal, or was Rehmat Ali right? How will Musharraf government justify bringing back to Pakistan the body of person who had openly abused its founder? Such controversies can only divide the nation and not serve the purpose of disunity.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)