Aakar Patel on Jinnah's 14 points

Aakar Patel is a director of Amnesty's Indian branch. With remarkable honesty, he advocates Jinnah's program in Outlook India 

Beginning two decades before Partition, Jinnah tried to reach an agreement with the Congress Party and failed. What were his demands? We should have a look at them because most Indians are not taught this in school.
The Muslim League asked for 14 points. These were:
1) India’s constitution should be federal, with some powers being given to the states.

Yes. The Centre would be weak. Thus, as happened during the War, food surplus states like Punjab would not help starving states like Bengal though the Premiers of both States were friends and supported the Pakistan Resolution.

Also, States could do ethnic cleansing while the Centre stood by impotently. Direct Action Day in Calcutta is an example. Ultimately each and every one of the 'States' that existed at the time split up because of linguistic, religious or other differences. In a Federal Government, the shape of States don't change. They have an abiding existence and well defined borders. In the Indian subcontinent, States have to be reorganized from time to to time.

Jinnah's vision of India would have been like the Arab League which was established in 1945- a mere talking shop unable to do anything to solve inter-Arab problems. There would have been famine in some states while other states had food surpluses. There would have been rampant ethnic cleansing on the basis of Religion, Language, and historical discrimination.

2) That all states must be given uniform autonomy.

So as to do ethnic cleansing.

3) All legislatures must have an adequate and effective representation of minorities in each state, without reducing the majority in any state to a minority.

Ceylon was given this, along with universal suffrage in 1930. But Sri Lanka has had terrible ethnic cleansing and Civil War. Why? Legislatures don't matter. Ethnic cleansing does. 

4) Muslims should have one-third representation in the Central legislature.

What about Dalits? Why should Hindus always be a minority where they are a majority? Did having disproportionate representation in Sindh enable them to escape ethnic cleansing? No. All of this was blindingly obvious by 1946.

5) There should be separate electorates for communities and it should be left to a community whether it wants to abandon this in favour of a joint electorate.

Separate electorates meant that the separatist Muslim League got elected in areas where Muslims were a minority. This was like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. A minority may elect nutters who think they can prevail in a Civil War. Then the community gets ethnically cleansed. Incidentally, J.N Mandal, the Namasudra leader, supported the Muslim League and helped Sylhet go to Bangladesh. He was made a Cabinet Minister by Jinnah. But his community got ethnically cleansed and he himself had to run away to India.

6) Any division of states made should not affect the existing majority of Muslims in that state.

What does this mean? If Muslims were a majority in undivided Punjab or Bengal, they must remain a majority in East Punjab and West Bengal. 

7) Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.

By whom? Did Jinnah's Pakistan grant this liberty to non-Muslims? Even Ahmadiyas, fanatical supporters of Pakistan, have received short shrift in that country.

8) No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourths of the members of any community in that particular body oppose it.

So the Legislature will be paralyzed. It will cease to matter- if it ever did. Meanwhile, ethnic cleansing will alter demographics. The Army may try a spot of genocide as the Pakistani Army did in the East Wing. Aakar Patel is not a young kid. He must know about the trajectory of Jinnah's Pakistan. 

9) Sindh should be separated from the Bombay Presidency.

And Gujarat. 

10) Reforms should be introduced in the North-West Frontier Province and Balochistan in the same way as in other provinces.

But they should not be allowed to go their own way. Jinnah soon put a stop to the antics of Badshah Khan. Balochistan has witnessed military sponsored genocide.

11) Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency.

Why stop there? Every caste group could demand the same. What about jobs in the private sector? They too should be subject to quotas. So should roles in films and positions on Sports teams. Women must have half of all jobs. Illiterate people are under-represented in Academia. Dead people are blatantly discriminated against.

12) The constitution should give adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institutions and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.

Then why not adequate safeguards for the protection of Hindu culture and Sikh culture and so forth? 

13) No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.

What happened when Liaquat Ali Khan became the Finance Minister? He stalemated everything Sardar Patel was trying to do as Home Minister. The result was administrative paralysis.

14) No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the States constituting the Indian Federation.

But the States split up on religious lines in any case. Ethnic cleansing occurs. Politicians are disintermediated. All talk of elections and Legislatures is dropped. Pakistan didn't have a proper general election till 1970- and then promptly split up in a sea of blood.

If the Congress had agreed to these points, Partition would not have happened.

Rubbish! There would have been massive ethnic cleansing and continuous internecine war between different religious and linguistic groups.

Look at Lebanon. It is a mess. Why? It had a Jinnah type power sharing Constitution. 

Looking at these points after all these years, I do not find anything wrong in them and in fact, I agree with all of them. Some of these, like numbers 7, 9 and 12 became a part of the Indian Constitution in any case. Others, like 1, 2, 10 and 14 are similarly not disputable.

But the Constitution can always be amended when it isn't simply disregarded

The sticking points were the ones guaranteeing Muslims political representation. This, Congress did not want to concede. Leaders like Nehru and Gandhi probably did not imagine that in the India of 2019, the ruling party would win more than 300 seats and not one would be Muslim.

Why not? Congress got very few Muslim votes. It was massively Hindu in its membership and vote-base.  It was only under Congress that Muslims fled to Pakistan. Even into the Sixties, the Custodian of Enemy Property was harassing Muslims till they decided to emigrate.

But that is what has happened. Jinnah knew it and would not be surprised like Gandhi would today because the former understood that the Indian was politically and culturally majoritarian and it is difficult to say he was wrong.

Patel says 'Indians are majoritarian'. This is not true. India was ruled by a small British minority which, however, was considered greatly superior to the majority of Indians. Only when propaganda was spread that the Brits were robbing India did the Indians become disaffected.

 Indians still spontaneously take Western models as mimetic targets- at least in those fields where they are clearly superior. They don't want to imitate Muslims or Dalits. Why? There is no advantage in being ruled by, or mimicking, a less successful and less developed people. 

Today Indians are again being forced into a situation where the political force which is dominant is exercising its majoritarian impulse and denying the others any space. We have learned no lessons from our history even when its teaching has been so clear and precise.

The lesson of history is indeed clear and precise. Jinnah's program led to ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. Pakistan did not progress into a model India should emulate. By contrast, China is a good model for India. It is wholly majoritarian. But, because learning English is a good thing, China encourages people to learn English. Why did China chose this path? The answer is that it decided to imitate its more successful neighbours. This meant becoming like South Korea or Taiwan, not imitating Pakistan.

Aakar Patel nicely illustrates the imbecility of the impotent Indian Liberal Left. Its main demand is that Hindus fuck themselves over because Jinnah wanted them to. If you don't do what your enemies want you to do then you are very naughty.

Why does Patel not simply convert to Islam and encourage others to do the same? That way he can reduce the Hindu majority. The answer, I think, is that being a Muslim involves more than writing stupid articles. You have to pray to God and give money to charity and live an upright life. Jinnah, no doubt, could have his bacon sandwiches and whiskey and soda- but more would be accepted of a Patel.