Skip to content

pakistan resolution moved in sindh assembly

March 3, 2016

PAKISTAN RESOLUTION IS MOVED IN THE SINDH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

  • \On 3rd March 1943, G.M.Syed moved Resolution in the Sindh Legislative Assemly and a point of order was raised by Nihchaldas Vazirani. The text of debates of both is reproduced here for lovers of Sindh History.Mr. G.M. SAYED: Sir, I rise to move the following resolution:-

“This House recommends to Government to convey to His Majesty’s Government through His Excellency the Viceroy, the sentiments and wishes of the Muslims of this Province that whereas Muslims of India are a separate nation possessing religion, philosophy, social customs, literature, traditions, political and economic theories of their own, quite different from those of the Hindus, they are justly entitled to the right, as a single, separate nation, to have independent national states of their own, carved out in the zones where they are in majority in the sub-continent of India. “Therefore they emphatically declare that no constitution shall be acceptable to them that will place the Muslims under a Central Government dominated by another nation, as in order to be able to play their part freely on their own distinct lines in the order of things to come, it is necessary for them to have independent National States of their own and hence any attempt to subject the Muslims of India under one Central Government is bound to result in Civil War with grave unhappy consequences.”

Mr. NIHCHALDAS C. VAZIRANI:Sir, I rise to a point of order. I submit that in the first place under rule 9I sub-paras(a) and (d) this resolution is not admissible. I will read out the rule:- “Subject to the restrictions contained in the rules, a member may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest: Provided that no resolution shall be admissible which does not comply with the following conditions, namely:- (a)it shall be clearly and precisely expressed and shall raise one definite issue;” (b)and (c) are not relevant. I will read (d). ‘(d) it shall not relate to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the Provincial Government.” Sir, I will first deal with sub-para(d). With due respect, I submit that this point admits of absolutely no controversy or doubt. Let us read the resolution itself.

The resolution says:- “This House recommends to Government to convey to “His Majesty’s Government through His Excellency the Viceroy the sentiments and wishes of the Muslims of this province that whereas.”. Now comes the operative part- “Muslims of India are a separate nation possessing religion, philosophy, social customs, literature, traditions, political and economic theories of their own, quite different from those of the Hindus, they (Muslims of India) are justly entitled to the right, as a single, separate nation, to have independent National States of their own, carved out in the zones where they are in the majority in the sub-continent of India. Wherefore they emphatically declare that no constitution shall be acceptable to them(Mussalmans of India) that will place the Muslims under a Central Government (not a Provincial Government) dominated by another nation, as in order to be able to play their part freely on their own distinct lines in the order of things to come, it is necessary for them to have independent National States of their own and hence any attempt to subject the Muslims  of India.So, Sir, as I said before, under part (a) of the rule there should be only one definite issue in the resolution. Either this resolution contains one definite issue, or it is a jumble of issues. If it is going to be held that it contains only one definite issue, then that one definite issue must be the last one, viz that the Muslims of India should not be compelled to be under one Central Government and if so compelled, it is bound to lead to Civil war with grave and unhappy consequences. It, however it is held that there are a

number of issues, then on reading part (a) of the rule, it will be inadmissible under that rule. Therefore, if it is taken to mean that there is only one issue, viz: that the Muslims of India should not be compelled toremain under one Central Government, then I submit, Sir, ifyou read sub-paragraph (d) of rule (9I) which as I have pointed out is mandatory -and it says “provided that no resolution shall be admissible” the resolution will not be permissible. In fact this is not a case of ordinary discretion on the part of the Honourable the Speaker. He is bound to carry out the rule as it is made. The rule may be good, or it may be bad. But the rule, as it stands today before this House, has to be interpreted by the Honourable the Speaker according to the reasonable interpretation that can be placed on it. The rule is mandatory and is clear enough. By no stretch of imagination can these words “it shall not relate to a matter which is not the primary concern of the Provincial Government.” be interpreted differently. The resolution is very explicit, and it talks of a Central Government. It does not talk of the Provincial Government, and that is the issue in the case, viz: that the Muslims of India should not be compelled to remain under one Central Government because they have different religion, different traditions and so on. Therefore, I submit Sir, it cannot be said to be the concern of the Provincial Government. Even if it be said by some indirect method, by some sort of argument, “Oh, yes, it also relates to the Provincial Government. Oh, yes, our province is one of the

provinces to be affected,” Directly or indirectly, by no stretch of imagination can it be said to be a question which is primarily the concern of the Provincial Government. The point at issue is whether the issue is the primary concern of the Provincial Government. The wordings being so express, I do not think, the mandatory provisions of rule 9I(d) can be violated. I have made my point quite clear and it calls for no further argument from me. To allow such a resolution as this before the Provincial Legislature, which is not only not the primary concern of the Provincial Government, but is definitely and expressly shown to be the only concern of the Central Government, will be clearly out of order. If it is interpreted as containing one issue only, there are other points in it which will come up, viz: whether they are different nations, or whether they have different culture and soon. It also raises the question whether there should be separate provinces, or a separate Pakistan and so on. Then, Sir, not only will the objection under rule 9I(d) apply, but the objection under rule 9I(a) also will apply. Therefore, I think, Sir, the stand that may be taken by the mover of the resolution will be that it raises only one definite issue, and that definite issue, as I have submitted, is expressed in the concluding part of the resolution, viz: that the Muslims of India should not be compelled to remain under one Central Government, because they

have different religion, different traditions and so on. My point number two is this. You know it for a fact, Sir, that this is a contentious resolution, aboutwhich undoubtedly there is difference of opinion, not only in the whole of India……. The Honourable HAJI M. H. GAZDAR: I rise on a point of order, Sir. The Honourable Member is raising a debate on the merits of the resolution. He cannot discuss the merits of the resolution at this stage. Mr. NIHCHALDAS C. VAZIRANI: I am not discussing the merits. My Honourable friend should have patience. It is a contentious resolution, and therefore I submit, Sir………

The Honourable HAJI M.H. GAZDAR: … and therefore it cannot be legal? Is that a point of order Mr. NIHCHALDAS C. VAZIRANI: Therefore, I submit, Sir, at this time, when the other community, viz: the Hindu community has 50 percent,of its representatives in prison as security prisoners it is not fair to bring forward this resolution. No doubt, day before yesterday notice was given that it will be ante-dated. As a matter of fact the resolution had been fixed for the 5th.

Mr. G.M. SAYED: That is not a point of order, Sir.

Mr. NIHCHALDAS C. VAZIRANI: Let me conclude. Certain Members of the Muslim community who would have opposed this resolution, being nationally minded, are also absent today. There are thus two considerations. Firstly, whether it is right and proper to bring forward such a resolution at this stage, and whether it is not for the Honourable the Speaker to exercise his own discretion and not allow such a resolution to come forward, since it will amount to taking undue advantage of the present position of the minority communities. Such a precedent has taken place in the Assam Provincial Legislature, where the Honourable Speaker was bold enough totell the Government party that if any contentious bills were brought before the House when the minority community was not represented in the House, he shall have to exercise his powers and adjourn the House. That is a point for you to consider, Sir. That is a matter, however, of discretion, but first partis, according to me, mandatory.

LINK BY DR. DUR MUHAMMAD PATHAN ON LINKEDIN

 

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: