This document represents a self-criticism of the policies of the CPI on the question of Pakistan and national unity. Despite its centrality to this question it has been unavailable to the movement. In its second congress in 1948, the CPI declared the earlier position as a ‘reformist’ one and rejected it.

With acknowledgements to George Gruenthal and Rakesh Ankit.

From: Labour History Archive and Study Centre, Manchester, CP/IND/DUTT/11/09

Note on

"A Serious Deviation in the Application of Our General Line on Self-Determination to the Concrete Problem of Building Hindu-Muslim Unity in the Period of War."

1. Results and experience of the Elections have sharply unmasked two things: our acute isolation from the Congress-minded masses on the question of Pakistan and League and our tailism to the separatist League leadership with which we sought to conceal our equally great isolation from the League-minded Muslim masses. In other words, the Election experience has sharply brought to the forefront the weakness of our Party, as a proletarian Party, in fighting Hindu Chauvinism of the Congress leadership on the one hand and separatist Muslim chauvinism on the other. At a time when the rising intense anti-British upsurge of the people is being canalised into two warring camps by the compromising leadership of the Congress and the League at a time when vested interest entrenched behind the Congress leadership is making a desperate bid to smash in isolation the Communist vanguard of the workers and peasants masses – at such a time this weakness is great danger to our very existence.

2. The resolution of the Central Committee Session of August-September 1945 which worked out the main slogans of the Election platform and of the programme of the Party in the new period had sounded a warning against this deviation:

"The present polarisation in our political life will become sharper and sharper still and lead to a headlong conflict between the Congress and the League rousing the worst chauvinistic and sectarian sentiments in both the camps.

"The Party faces a far worse situation than in August 1942. Then it stood between the foreign government and the people, on the side of the Congress though slandered by Congressmen themselves. During the elections it will stand between two major parties and be attacked by both as a disruptive force for not toeing their disruptive line and for refusing to merge itself with either.

"The Party must play an independent role during the elections. It will be the first decisive test of its political strength and worth as the party of the proletariat, the first test of the capacity to fulfil the great and historic mission of its class and come forward as the Party of Unity to warn against and resist the prospect of civil war and to show the only and true path for Indian freedom by explaining the just demands of the Congress and the League to the masses of each organisation and by exposing the disruptive policies of their leaderships."…...

"We must ceaselessly explain Pakistan as the freedom demand of the Muslims and essentially just, and expose the anti-League stand leading to surrender to the Hindu chauvinistic ideas of the Mahasabha and embodying fake democracy.

“The League leadership will attack the Party as disrupter of Muslim solidarity.

“We must expose Mr. Jinnah’s separatism as leading to nothing else but collaboration with the British Government and  leading to greater and greater revival of theocratic outlook to fight Hindu chauvinism and greater and greater reliance on Muslim feudal reactionaries and opportunists to fight the non-League Muslims and contest the elections.”

These warnings proved ineffective. The P.B. failed to work them out into clear and unambiguous directives for agitation.

The central slogan issued by the Central Committee in its December session, namely, final struggle to achieve independence from the British, through a sovereign Constituent Assembly based on adult suffrage and a full guarantee of self-determination to all nationalities was a correct weapon to fight against chauvinist demagogy of both Congress and League leaders, especially in conjunction with our slogans of land to the peasants and jobs for all.

All the same, the required turn could not be made. This cannot he explained merely by saying that the P.B. failed to issue clear directives to implement the slogans issued in September or December 1945 or that the ranks failed to put across the slogans correctly. To understand this failure we must go back to a detailed re-examination of how the C.C. and the P.B. applied the slogan self-determination of nationalities raised first by the Party in September 1942 was applied by the C.C. and P.B. to the developments during the last 4 years.

Self-Determination Resolution of September, 1942: Main Features

3. The resolution adopted by the C.C. meeting of September 1942 and the report made thereupon gave the Party correct general slogans on the Hindu-Muslim question, though in a general and abstract form. The main theses of these documents were as follows:

(a) Hindu-Muslim question was one of growing nationalities and not one of just uniting two religious communities who formed part of a single nationality.

(b) India is a multi-national country – Programme of UNF to bring together people of all nationalities and communities must ensure complete equality and self-determination to every nationality and complete protection of cultural rights to minorities in an independent India.

(c) This declaration, it was pointed out, can be the basis of a lasting solution of Hindu-Muslim question – and of Congress-League agreement. For it gives the border nationalities, the bulk of whose population is of Moslem faith e.g. Baluchis, Sindhis, Pathans and Western Punjabis, the guarantee that in free India they would be free to order their life as they please. The Bengali nationality was to get self-determination, the question Hindu-Muslim Bengals to be solved within its borders.

(d) What is the key to achieving the unity of the people of all communities and nationalities? Resolution and report says unequivocally – the united front and united fight of all for freedom and democracy i.e. for independence of the country from imperialism and feudalism (Princes), abolition of landlordism and 8 hours day etc. To dispel distrust and to unite each nationality within itself our programme assures full protection of the rights of minorities and complete annulment by law of all caste discrimination and the equality of all nationalities and communities.

(e) The recognition of the right of each nationality to form its own sovereign state is unconditional and unequivocal. Self-determination means the right of political secession. This means if the Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans and Western Punjabis forming their separate states were each of them to decide to join together to form a separate federation they would be free to do so. Even the Bengali state would be free by its majority decision to join such a federation. In other words, the recognition of the right of self-determination to nationalities makes a concession to Pakistan idea of the Muslim League, which is that contiguous territory in which Muslims are in majority should be allowed to form their sovereign and independent state or states.

What is the attitude of the C.P.I. to this Pakistan idea of the Muslim League?

The answer to this question is given in clear and unequivocal terms in the resolution. It is this: While our resolution "concedes the just essence of the Pakistan demand and has nothing in common with the separatist theory of dividing India into two nations on the basis of religion".

(f) The position of the resolution is quite clear. The CPI does not make any concession to the principle that Moslems as such, because they are in a majority in a particular contiguous territory have therefore a right to form a sovereign state or states. The CPI recognises that the bulk of the Moslems are today stirred deeply by the Pakistan idea. They are united behind it. But as a Marxist-revolutionary Party we have to see what is the real and unifying growing urge behind this and reject what is wrong, disruptive and declining. The real and unifying urge is that of a nationality like Sindhi, Baluchi etc. to be free in its homeland, just as the Marathas, Tamils and Telugus want to be free in their homeland. Sindhi Muslim wants Sindh to be free, wants landlords to go, wants education for his children in Sindhi, wants freedom to practise his religion. Sindhi Hindu could join him in ±his. He too wants all this. Slogan of freedom and equality of all nationalities – unifies people of each nationality within itself –  and brings the peoples of all of them together for winning independence. It dispels the fear that in independent India strong and numerous nationalities would dominate over the weak and the less numerous. For each would be free to join or not join a future Central Government. They would join together on the basis of equality to form a strong Central Government for defending the hard-won independence and democracy.

But to say that all Muslims, irrespective of the language they speak, the national homeland they belong, should join together to form a state is to make a concession to a disruptive sentiment. It would divide Hindu from Muslim in each nationality and Hindu from Muslim on an all-India plane. Pakistan idea based on Muslims a nation could not be the basis of uniting Hindus and Muslims against their common oppressors for freedom and democracy.

Resolution asks us to recognise the sound core of the Pakistan demand and to fight for the self-determination of nationalities as the basis of forging Hindu-Muslim unity.

But it also enjoins us to fight against the disruptive aspect of the Pakistan demand -

"We must at the same time direct a sharp edge against those who use the existing inequalities to rally the masses under the banner of Pakistan, to pander to reactionary Pan-Islamic sentiment under the cover of old prejudices, to turn the masses away from the common freedom movement."

Our original report stated: “To the Muslim masses, our explanation must be such as to  disillusion them about Pakistan”…

"The urge for Pakistan in the religious sense is unreal. Only as long as his real democratic right is not conceded, only so long will he cling to Pakistan, not out of religious urge, but in the hope that Pakistan would give him his real democratic right. The concrete democratic right, the concrete democratic essence should be explained to him.”

Self-Determination of Nationalities Vs. Pakistan

4. In other words, our solution as given in this resolution and report of September 1942 conceded the democratic content and essence of Pakistan demand but rejected its undemocratic and separatist form. Pakistan slogan as raised by the Muslim League was a demand for the partition of the country and that too on a wrong basis, which divided the Hindu from the Muslim and split the freedom movement. The Muslim League says, the Musselmans are in a vast majority in the North-West and Eastern regions of India. Recognise their right to form their independent sovereign state or states in these regions. This would have been a justified demand if the Muslims of these regions were a homogeneous nationality having all the same language, same historical tradition, same psychological make-up end common economic life. In fact, the Muslim League backs its demand by the claim that Muslims are a nation.

What are the facts? Muslims even in those areas where they form the majority population are not a nationality. But Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, Western Punjabis, are distinct nationalities, having their separate languages, history, homelands and common economic life and a common psychological make-up. The overwhelming majority of the people of these nationalities have Muslim faith. In each of these nationalities, there is a small minority who follow Hindu religion, but are one with the rest of the people of that nationality in that they have a common language, history, race, homeland and economic life.

Self-determination of nationalities is the correct and the just way of granting Muslim peoples what they really want. It creates the basis for unity of Hindus and Muslims in every nationality area and over entire India and to unite the peoples of all nationalities to wrest Independence from the British. Why? The goal of freedom and self-determination of nationalities, enables us to unite the common people of each nationality speaking one language, having one homeland and common historical tradition, common economic life, in single movement for land, people’s government and for the freedom of the entire country. It will enable us to unite the common people of that nationality irrespective of caste and religion against landlords and feudal princes, the main stooges of the British rulers. Independence of India visualised as freedom for people of every nationality in their homeland area united peoples of all nationalities in common front against imperialism.

Self-determination to areas in which Muslims are in majority – or the principle of Pakistan or of the Lahore Resolution is a wrong and an unjust way of expressing the Muslim demand. Its basis is Muslim majority rule in Muslim majority area and Hindu majority rule in the rest of India and no common centre. On what principle is the area to be demarcated? Present arbitrary British province? This leads to injustice to Hindu as well as Muslim minorities. Hindus and Sikhs of Central and Eastern Punjab, Hindus of Western Bengal and of Assam and the Muslims of North West Frontier Province could be cited as cases.

If Muslim plebiscite or even a single separate constitution-making body based on adult suffrage is conceded to tbs Muslim majority areas to decide the question of forming a separate state, it would mean the above-mentioned injustice. Muslim majority in an arbitrarily demarcated area would nullify the self-determination of large homogeneous areas with dominant non-Muslim population. Instead of solving the Hindu-Muslim conflict it would aggravate the same self-determination principle applied on the wrong basis of Muslims a nation solves no problem, does not bring Hindus and Muslims nor nationalities together for winning independence from the British but divides them.

To the Muslim masses we had to explain that Pakistan demand really meant the freedom for the Baluchi, Sindhi, Pathan and Western Punjabi in his homeland. Freedom means freedom from the British our common enslavers as well as freedom from the landlords and feudal prince who occupy all the land and treat kisans and mazdoors as slaves. For this purpose the common people of Baluchistan, Sindh, Frontier Province, Western Punjab, of Central Punjab, of Hindustan, Bengal, Behar, Rajasthan etc. both Hindus and Muslims have to unite in their own territories and on an all-India plane.

We had not only to explain and bring out the democratic just and rational kernel of the Pakistan demand but also to expose and explain that the form in which Muslim League leadership was putting up the demand – a right of Mussalmans to form a state in their majority areas, as a demand of Muslim freedom as against Hindu domination, was not a correct or helpful way of winning the essence of the demand. We had not only to criticise the undemocratic way in which the Pakistan demand was put forth by the League leadership but that the undemocratic way arose because of the form of the demand as a Muslim state.

We had to show how both the position of the Congress as well as that of League leadership led to intensifying Hindu-Muslim antagonism instead of bringing the Hindu and Muslim common people in a joint front for freedom and democracy for the end of imperialist-feudal rule, for land and bread.

Congress position visualises independence of united India, with Central Government and full autonomy to provinces. Though it talks of independent India as a willing union of units it does not concede complete self-determination to the point of political secession to national units like Sindh, Baluchistan, Frontier Province, Western Punjab as a matter of right. It is afraid this would play into the hands of the League leadership and it would run away with the Muslim majority of these units end set up its separate Pakistan. It opposes Pakistan but does not recognise behind it the freedom urge of the nationalities the bulk of whom are Muslim by faith. By taking a completely negative attitude towards Pakistan and the Muslim League and by refusing to see that unconditional recognition of self- determination of nationalities coupled with a democratic programme must ultimately bring Hindus and Muslims together. The Congress leadership only strengthens the anti-Hindu and anti-Congress prejudices of the Muslims and of the rank and file Muslim Leaguers. Failure to win the Muslims or the rank and file Muslim Leaguers drives the Congress leadership straight into the hands of imperialists and it seeks to get a one-sided compromise.

Muslim League visualises Independence as of divided India-Muslim India and Hindu India formed by two constitution-making bodies. It gives a distorted and separatist form to the justified freedom demand of the Muslims and to their suspicions that in a free India they would be under the domination of a Hindu majority. By raising the wrong slogan Muslim rule in Muslim majority areas, it divides the Hindus from Muslims and rallies the Muslims in a hostile camp against the Hindus. Freedom urge of oppressed and backward nationalities is converted into a separatist consolidation based on Muslim League does not religious communal sentiment, which throws the struggle for democracy in the background. The demand so formulated does not lead to the unity of Hindus and Muslims for common freedom and democracy but opportunist pressure politics and to compromise with imperialism at the cost of disrupting the common struggle.

Communist Party cannot play its role as builder of revolutionary unity of the masses which must be the content of the Congress-League joint front for freedom, without exposing both Congress and League leaderships. Above all, it must expose the separatist aspect of the Pakistan demand in the eyes of the Muslim masses. Against the vague and disruptive slogan of self-determination of Muslims in their homelands we must put forward the concrete and unifying slogan – self-determination of Baluchis, Sindhis, Pathans and of Western Punjabis. To the objection Muslim League does not want this but a Muslim State in an area where Muslims are in a majority, we answer, a Muslim in his majority area in the concrete is either Sindhi, Baluchi, Pathan. or Western Punjabi and what he wants is freedom in his homeland where his language is spoken, where forefathers of his stock lived and so on. Slogan of Muslim state in Muslim majority area divides him from his Hindu common man his brother in the struggle for freedom and democracy. It would make Hindu fight Muslim and would not enable the Muslims really to win freedom in their majority areas such as Sindh, Baluchistan etc. and to win Indian independence.

Revolutionary Content of Self-Determination Slogan

5. The main point is this that the 1942 resolution and report laid down a revolutionary policy of building Hindu-Muslim unity in the context of the new situation when Pakistan demand was rising in popularity, when the Muslims were rallying in ever increasing number round a movement whose content was freedom but whose form was separatism. The main tasks outlined to achieve this unity were -

(1) Bringing together Hindus, Muslims, Untouchables and Caste Hindus in their common class organisations, Trade Unions and Kisan Sabhas – to unite them with the democratic mass under the leadership of CPI as the core and vanguard of building the broad UNF of our people for winning Independence, self- determination to all nationalities, complete democracy and people's well-being.

(2) To expose and fight against Hindu chauvinism which denies to dominantly-Muslim peoples such as Baluchi, Sindhi, Pathan, Western Punjabi, their just right of unconditional self-determination and thus perpetuates the rift between Hindus and Muslims.

(3) To expose and fight against Muslim chauvinism and its slogan of Muslim State in its Muslim majority area – as a slogan not of winning real freedom and democracy to Muslim peoples but of dividing the struggle for freedom and democracy of both Hindus and Muslims.

(4) In the earlier period the slogan of UNF on the basis of the Congress did not mean just making Congress leadership accept on paper the demands of UNF but building the revolutionary unity of the masses prepared to fight for those demands by isolating the influence of the reformist leadership of the Congress.

So also in the present period the slogan of Congress-League unity as the broadened form of the UNF did not mean just making the Congress leadership accept League demand of Pakistan nor did not mean just getting the League leaders accept the slogan of provincial autonomy with residuary powers. In fact both the tasks were impossible. The task was to build the revolutionary unity of the masses on the basis of the programme of the UNF, Independence, self-determination to national areas, abolition of landlordism, equality and guarantee of decent living to every citizen. How? Build the class organisations of workers and peasants, build the CPI, use every means to work inside the Congress, League and S.C.F. to win the masses for the programme of the UNF to isolate the masses from the influence of their reformist and disruptive policies.

Subsequent Deviation – Its Rout

6. This policy was implicit in the resolution and report of September 1942. It. was formulated therein generally and in terms of abstract principles. The resolution was adopted at a period when the country is plunged in a national crisis – Its concrete application to problems as they arise takes place in a most difficult period and it is the course of this application that we drift into formulations and deviation which meant tailism to League leadership and concession to its separatist slogans. This intensified our growing isolation from the Congress masses in the post-August period. Examples of tailist deviations towards League leadership which we are cataloguing in the course of our discussion on the election results must be tracked down to their true roots.

In November 1942 the Party starts mass campaigning for unity and release of national leaders and for national government based on Congress-League understanding and in February 1943 we start mass campaign to build unity to get Gandhi released and fight the coming famine, In this period we popularise self-determination of nationalities as basis for Congress-League and Hindu-Muslim unity. We explain how Congress and League positions are coming nearer to what we are advocating. But we are not explaining how neither the Congress nor League position can give us Hindu-Muslim unity. The report is not at once rewritten in a form which at least the Party members could understand it. Party slogan and Party policy are one of the key slogans of the UNF of the new period is not explained to the Party ranks in a clear document demarcating the same from the Congress and the League stand and showing how it alone can be the basis of building revolutionary unity of Hindus and Muslims. The result was that the sharp demarcation of our slogan of self-determination of nationalities from the separatist slogan of Pakistan was never properly explained to the ranks. How insufficiently we ourselves understood the question can be seen from this that in an article in P.W. (30.8.42). It was written “Muslims in certain areas do form a distinct nationality bound together by common culture, history and tradition.” In this article it was stated that “to expect the League to give up Pakistan was to demand unity on its own terms” and the demand of Muslim plebiscite was more or less supported. In a subsequent issue this was not corrected but explained through a question and answer again wrongly. (Both articles by B.T.R. “We can and we must unite” and “National unity and the League”).

August 1943 C.C. Meeting

7. In August 1943 the C.C. meeting took up the question of popularizing our slogan of self-determination among the League Muslim masses in order to build Congress-League unity. We find that we are not cutting much ice in bringing Congress end League together for unity, we are not making much sense either to Leaguers or to Nationalist Muslims. We are attempting to formulate concrete measures to develop a progressive democratic trend inside the League which would be a force working for Congress-League unity inside the League.

As a starting point for formulating our task we make a wrong formulation: League is moving towards becoming a national organisation of the Muslims representing the freedom urge of mainly the Muslims in the majority areas. League leadership is hindering this development and we have to strengthen and speed the development by working to create a progressive democratic trend.

The document which I put before the Central Committee then was the most confused and wobbly document imaginable. At that time a number of comrades raised doubts and pointed out discrepancies. They were not properly answered. The formulations made in this document, shorn of meaningless reservations, amount to this:

– Muslim League is the national organisation of the Muslims just as Congress is the national organisation of the Indians as a whole.

– We must strengthen the Muslim League to act better as a national organisation of the Muslims by getting our "militant working class and kisan elements” to work inside it.

In an introduction to this report when it was printed in the Party letter (d. 16.10.43) Com. Zaheer wrote:

– Unite all the Muslims in the Muslim League to win their democratic demands.

– Unite all the Muslims in the Muslim league to win self-determination in areas where they have their homeland – the just and democratic essence of Pakistan – by unity with the Congress.

– Unite all Muslims in the Muslim League for independence of India as a whole... in unity with the Congress

Is Muslim League the National Organisation of the Muslims?

8. What is basically wrong in all this? Not the fact that we got to work inside the Muslim League by some means or other. Not that it is the freedom and anti-imperialist sentiment, in the given situation of the national movement, that has drawn the common Muslim inside the Muslim League. But this is not all we are saying. We are doing something which a Marxist-Leninist must never do – namely argue a 'policy out by analogy. Stalin has always warned against this, Analogies may often be useful. But only the concrete and objective understanding of the given situation in a given place and setting alone is the true basis for applying Marxism to it. The analogy of the Muslim League to the Congress has been made by us the basis for deducing certain policies. In the case of the Congress we attempted to build the UNF in a particular way. We apply the same methods in the case of the League by analogy. I argued for it in a round and round way in 1943. It was accepted. In 1946 Jehania holds the mirror to my face. The horrible resolution, he put before the Muslim League in the Punjab, calling for s civil disobedience movement and a parallel government is a direct and logical conclusion of the policy as laid down in the report to C.C. meeting in August 1943.

Muslim League is on expression of the freedom sentiment of the Muslims and the goal of the organisation. Pakistan represents their freedom urge. But this is only one aspect of the reality and not the whole reality. To only see this aspect end then argue further basing yourself on the analogy with the Congress is to act like an opportunist and not a Marxist. It is to forget, the reformist and separatist leadership of the League and its reactionary and loyalist links with imperialism. It is to forget the separatist and wrong basis of Pakistan demand. It is to forget the religious-community basis of the Muslim League organisation. To take into account only the freedom organisation aspect of the League and the freedom urge aspect of the Pakistan demand and forget its religious-community basis, its separatist aspect leads straight to tailism to the separatist League leadership and not to its exposure in the eyes of the Muslim masses, leads to acquiescing in the separatist form of the Pakistan demand not to fighting separatism.

To accept the thesis Muslim League is the national organisation of the Muslims as basis for work among the Muslims is to accept the thesis that Muslims are a nation and their Pakistan demand, that Muslims as such in their majority areas have a right to form a sovereign and separate State. It is no good saying that this was not meant. In phrases we tried to escape that position by saying:

“Peoples of Muslim Nationalities see in the League an instrument of winning self-determination, of safeguarding their rights in free India.” (italics mine).
(Party Letter Vol. III, No. 27, 16-10-43.)

We may very much like to imagine that the Muslim League is dominantly the freedom organisation of the people of Nationalities, the majority of whose people have Muslim faith, but it is not so in reality. It is not so according to the claims of the leaders or according to its Constitution – nor do the masses of the Muslim peoples who follow it look upon it a such.

True, bulk of the freedom-loving Muslims, who want the Independence of India and who want freedom in the homelands, e.g. Sindh, Baluchistan, Pathanland, Western Punjab, Bengal, etc. which they have in common with the Hindus of the same nationality, are in the League. But the organizational basis, and the political goal of the Muslim League gives distorted form to this freedom consciousness. Both the organisational basis and the political goal of the League are such as divide the common Muslim from the common Hindu.

They are important weapons in the hands of the bourgeois leadership of the Muslim League to pursue its compromising and anti-revolutionary policy. Separatism based on religion is the weapon which the Muslim League leadership uses to give a distorted turn to the freedom and anti-imperia1ist Muslim masses in the league. This separatist grip which the Muslim League leadership gets over the Muslim masses by this utilising their freedom sentiment is used by it for its oppositional bargaining politics both against British imperialism as well as against the Congress.

Consequences of the Formulation.

The formulation that the Muslim League isa National organisation of the Muslims led to toning down of our task of illumining the masses of the Muslim people about the separatist aspect of their Pakistan demand. Muslim League – a National organisation of the Muslims – Pakistan – the National demand of the Muslims – this led us to formulate our task vis-a-vis the Muslim masses thus – build a progressive democratic trend inside the League.

– win Leaguers to understand the just democratic essence of Pakistan – i.e. self-determination of Muslims. Nationalities in their majority areas.

– Pakistan, a democratic state.

– To understand that this demand can be won only in unity with the Congress.

This formulation led us naturally to play down the fight against the separatist slogan “self-determination of Muslims in their majority areas.” The sharp distinction between the slogans “self-determination of all Nationalities, especially of those the bulk of whose people have Muslim faith” – and the slogan of Pakistan — which is "self-determination of Muslims in their majority areas” was blunted. The phrase, "Muslim Nationalities” was introduced to bridge the difference and to assuage the Marxist conscience. What do we tell the League-minded Muslims? – You cannot get Pakistan without fighting the British – without joining the Congress in the common struggle for independence. For this purpose we tell him: You must press your leadership to define the boundaries of Pakistan in a just manner and to declare that Pakistan would be democratic state guaranteeing equal rights to all communities within Pakistan, and to agree to agreement between Pakistan and the rest of India for joint defence and co-operation for economic reconstruction. If this is all what we have to tell the Muslim Leaguer then we are not counteracting separatism but making a concession to it. You cannot win the League-minded Muslims away from the anti-Congress and anti-Hindu stand unless you make him see how the separatist form of Pakistan demand was undemocratic and could never win him the support of the Hindus or Congress masses. Unless you make him see that the slogan of self-determination of Nationalities to the point of secession, will give the common Muslim of Sind, Baluchistan, Pathanland, Western Punjab, Central Punjab, Bengal etc. the complete freedom he wants as well as win for him the alliance of his Hindu brother in these Nationalities as well as over the whole of India.

In that report we set ourselves the task of creating a pro-unity progressive democratic trend inside the League, but pave the initialers of that trend a policy of tailism towards the League leadership – of acquiescing in the separatism of the Pakistan demand.

We lay stress on our work among the Muslim workers in industrial areas, on our task of bringing them in larger numbers in common class organisations – Trade Unions and kisan sabhas. But we do not see the importance of equipping the militant Muslim worker with the correct and democratic understanding of the slogan of self-determination of Nationalities – as the key to uniting Hindus and Muslims, for freedom struggle and equipping him to fight the separatist aspect of Pakistan slogan. We send Muslim Communists in the League without this understanding. No wonder, they follow a policy of tailism to separatist and anti-Unity League leadership.

The wrong formulations and understanding of the C. C. meeting of August 1943, results in our whole agitation from now onwards using slogans and approach, which makes our party appear as the protagonist of the League leadership and its separatist slogan of Pakistan and leads to our growing isolation from the Congress rank and file on this issue. The C. C. meeting had directed that two pamphlets be produced – one on the Muslim League, and one on Pakistan.

“Pakistan and National Unity" – First Indian Edition.

10. In February 1944 the Indian Edition of Pakistan, National Unity was brought out. How does this differ from the original report at the C. C. meeting of September 1942?

It must be clearly admitted that this edition of my original report is a revision of the policy laid down earlier.

This edition only talks of the democratic core of Pakistan and says nothing at all about its separatist aspect. Pakistan resolution is based on the theory of partitioning India into nations on the basis of religion. This fact is glossed over.

Our Party Resolution had stated that our stand on self-determination of Nationalities “has nothing in common with the separatist theory of dividing India into two Nations on the basis of religion,

Our Report of September 1942 had stated we have to disillusion the Muslim masses of Pakistan.

In “Pakistan and National Unity” the stress on the separatist aspect of Pakistan demand, on the fight against separatist and disruptive policy of the League leadership disappears completely. On the other hand, an artificial effort is made to show that the demand in Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League is ss near as possible to our slogan of self-determination to Nationalities by referring to nationalities in which the bulk of the people are Muslim by faith as “Muslim Nationalities.” Instead of emphasising that separatism as based on religion is one of the main weapons of the Muslim League leadership in its politics of division and bargain, it glosses over the difficulties and says: “Muslim peoples and their leaders (italics mine) are not bent on separation.”

Are They “Muslim Nationalities”?

11. How to lump together all Nationalities like, Sindhis, Baluchis, Pathans, Western Punjabis, Kashmiris and Bengalis, in which the bulk of the people of varying percentages are of Muslim faith, under the general label of “Muslim Nationalities” is not only wrong but opportunist. This was done to blur the differences between our stand and that of the Pakistan resolution. On page 47 after quotation of the Pakistan Resolution, it reads:

“Our solution concedes to the 'Constituent Units’ of the zones specified (implied) in this resolution – namely Sind, N.W.F. Provinces, (Western) Punjab, and Eastern districts of Bengal the right of self-determination to the point of secession.... The National Congress must recognise this right of these Muslim Nationalities as of other nationalities of which India is composed.

So the Muslim League formulation is that Muslims are one Nation while ours is that they are many Nations! Not the Muslim majority as a whole in the zones of their majority areas is a single nation, but its constituent parts of ‘Muslim Nationalities’. As soon as this is so formulation, the question arises – are the Hindus of Sindh, Frontier, Western Punjab and Eastern Bengal members of the same nationality or an alien minority? The question is not answered in the pamphlet. But the use of the phrase “Muslim Nationality” must necessarily 1ead to this question. It is not an academic question. It is one which makes all the difference between the League idea of self-determination to Muslims as a Nation and ours of self-determination to the entire people of each homogeneous Nationality irrespective of its religion.

The key point in our solution is that the Pushto-speaking Pathan both Hindu and Muslim

The Punjabi-speaking Western Punjabi both Hindu and Muslim,

The Sindhi speaking Sindhi                     “    “    “    “

The Kashmir speaking Kashmiri             “    “    “    “

The Bengali speaking Bengali    “    “    “    constitute five different nationalities and each of them has a right of self-determination. Thus in our solution, the right of self-determination accrues to the entire people of each of these Nationalities – and the Hindus and Muslims alike are to be united in demanding it and realising it. The common people of each nationality – both Hindu and Muslim, can win the right of self-determination – the right to shape their own destiny only when they stand together, within each Nationality and in an all-India plan. This is the basis of our slogan. It unites the common Hindu and Muslim. The theory Muslims are a Nation or its opportunist version – that there are “Muslim Nationalities” –  divides Hindus from the Muslims, breeds separatism. To make concessions to this separatist theory of two Nations, Hindus and Muslims, in this way is to lay the basis for renouncing the struggle against separatism – renouncing the struggle against the disruptive policy of the League leadership.

Repudiating Struggle Against Separatism

12. The main deviation in Pakistan And National Unity is that it talks of ’the progressive essence of the ‘Pakistan demand', but NOT explain its separatist disruptive aspect and does call for a struggle against the same. By talking of ’Muslim Nationalities’ it creates a ‘theoretical’ basis for repudiating this struggle –  which is essential for building the unity of Hindu and Muslim masses in the revolutionary struggle for independence of the country and for self-determination of Nationalities.

Hindu-Muslim differences – a heritage from the feudal past – kept alive by present inequalities – should dominate the present and disrupt the common struggle for freedom – this is the logical conclusion of the League slogan of Pakistan as based on the theory of Muslims – a Nation.

Unity of Hindu and Muslim masses in the common struggle for independence, the unity of the exploited masses of each nationality both Hindu and Muslim in the struggle against Landlordism, vested interest – this is the revolutionary logic of the slogan of self-determination of nationalities.

Anything that blurs the difference between the two must lead the Communist Party to follow the line of bourgeois reformist disruptionists, to bring grist to the mills of Muslim and Hindu chauvinists.

In Zaheer’s article of January 1944 – entitled Muslim League and Indian Freedom – Landmarks in the Growth of Hindu-Muslim Unity – the same theory of “Muslim Nationalities” is used to show that Pakistan demand is the culmination of the growing urge of "Muslim Nationalism” to self-determination. This is followed by another article in March 1944 – “Pakistan – a just demand”. The theory of “Muslim Nationalities” having created the basis for equating the League demand for Pakistan with the "Communist" stand for self-determination of "Muslim Nationalities” – this article naively argues with the "misguided Congressman” to give up the principle of ’Akhand Hindusthan’ and ’take’ the next logical step of the acceptance of the principle of Pakistan – i.e. the concrete application of the principle of self-determination to the Muslim peoples of India?

Congressman is told, “Pakistan must be thought of as a child of Independence Resolution passed in 1929 by the Congress." Congress is asked to welcome it end recognise this just democratic demand!

The whole tone of articles printed in the collection, "A Case for Congress-League Unity” is one of an apologia for the League and its demand of Pakistan. The unjust demand of six provinces made by Leaguers is not sharply criticised (p. 33) the question of Congress-League Unity is posed as one of restoring mutual confidence among Congress and League leaders! (page 30), rejection of the struggle against separatism of the Pakistan Resolution lead to appeasing League leaders and to the illusion that Congress-League unity could be achieved not by conducting a ceaseless struggle among the masses against the Muslim-chauvinist separatism and Hindu-chauvinist denial of self-determination simultaneously. Tailism to League leadership, and growing isolation of the Party from Congressman was the direct consequence of this policy.

We Become Protagonists of Separatism on the Basis of Religion

13. Two deviations made us the easy victims of bourgeois reformist illusions of achieving Congress-League unity on the basis of top negotiations. When after the release of Gandhiji (in May 1944) the Rajaji Formula was published and correspondence for bringing about Gandhi-Jinnah meeting began, we became easy victims of the illusion that Congress-League unity could be forged on the basis of Rajaji formula and Pakistan demand. We gave up the sound revolutionary principles on the basis of which alone Hindu-Muslim unity and a Congress-League understanding could be achieved and began the impossible task of squaring the Rajaji formula with the Pakistan demand. Not only this we placed ourselves on the basis of these two wrong and separatist formulations.

Rajaji formula is wrong for the same reason that Pakistan demand as formulated by the League. The basis of both is that the people of areas in which Muslims are in a majority should have self-determination – the right to form a separate state.

Rajaji formula defines the areas as “of absolute majority” which the Pakistan resolution defined them as having “a majority.”

Rajaji formula required "a plebiscite of all the adult population in the absolute majority areas demarcated by a Boundary Commission".

Mr, Jinnah had earlier agreed to submit to a Muslim plebiscite (and now after the elections claims that the verdict of the plebiscite is already known).

In making our proposals for the basis of Congress—League agreement on the eve of the Gandhi-Jinnah meeting, we accept "the principle" which is common to both Rajaji formula and Pakistan resolution. We give up our own basis – the self-determination of nationalities which is the correct revolutionary and democratic basis for forging unity of the Hindu and Muslim masses within each nationality against landlordism, and on an all-India plane for struggle against independence. We give up the fight against the religious-separatist aspect of the Pakistan demand. These are the two basic deviations which enter into our agitation and work since the C.C. meeting of August 1943 and find their crassest expression in our proposals for Gandhi-Jinnah meeting, in our illusions on which they were based.

Separate state on the basis of Muslim religion is the basis of both Rajaji formula and the Pakistan resolution. The difference between the two was only how much and how? Instead of exposing and rejecting the wrong and disruptive principle which was common to both the positions and basing our proposals for unity on the basis of the unifying principle of self-determination of nationalities and democracy and clearly coming out for the idea of a single union of sovereign units, we ourselves took the position of separation based on religion.

What do we want Congress and League leaders to accept?

(1) Accept "the aim of the League" as given in its own constitution.

(2) Accept that "a Muslim independent State" will be set up through a Constituent Assembly on the basis of adult and universal franchise to all the inhabitants of the Muslim majority zones.

Our Stand on "Gandhi-Jinnah Meeting"

14. This is what we called "a consistent application of the principle of self-determination". It was supposed to "make Pakistan an integral part of Indian independence and democracy the bedrock of Pakistan".

Self-determination could not go any further. Instead of coming forward as the champions of a principle and a solution on which alone the unity of Hindu and Muslim masses could be based, we come forward as the champions of the separatist demand of the League leadership.

Our only quarrel with Rajaji’s formula is that "it accepts Muslim right to Pakistan but not Pakistan itself".

And this was an amazing distinction. In fact Rajaji's formula had conceded sovereignty to the people of the Muslim majority areas when it conceded to the people the right to decide by majority whether they form a sovereign and separate state or not. We make the strange and meaningless quibble that sovereignty is vested with the people is not put to vote. We state the amazing proposition

"Pakistan is as much the inalienable right of the Muslims as Swaraj is the right of us all."

Swaraj means all Indians frame the constitution of their state by free adult vote. Does Pakistan mean that Muslims frame the constitution of a state in the majority zones by only adult Muslim vote? Otherwise what is the meaning of the phrase "Pakistan the inalienable right of the Muslims" and its analogy to Indian Swaraj?

It is not just a confused expression – the policy behind it is the unprincipled appeasement of Muslim separatism. Similar phrases appear in the article again and again:

"Once Pakistan is accepted as the sovereign right to Muslim homelands, demarcation of the boundary of Pakistan is only a question of facts and figures.

"The Muslims can claim as of right all the areas where they are a majority but they cannot cast their eyes on one foot of extra territory." (p. 32).

Does all this mean that we are recognising the League theory that Muslims are a nation? Are we making out a case for Muslim plebiscite? No, but the following formulations are made:

– Sind with 71% Muslim population, Baluchistan with 87.5%, North-West Frontier with 92%... are Muslim homelands and must belong to them (Muslim). (p. 32).

– Punjab excluding Ambala division and Kangra with 67% Muslim population... makes a good Muslim homeland... but the six non-Muslim majority districts of the Punjab will have to face a plebiscite to decide whether they go into Muslim Punjab or not.

– In the whole contiguous territory (of Eastern districts of Bengal with Sylhet) which is their homeland, the Bengali Muslims have a. right to form a separate state – their Pakistan state. A united Bengal as a common homeland of Hindus and Muslims is suggested to be achieved by agreement between the Congress and the League!

Acceptance of Modified Form of the Theory of “Muslims a Nation”

15. What does this all amount to? It amounts to the theory – which is a modified form of the theory that Muslims are a nation. According to these formulations – Muslims are not a single nation but a number of nationalities, e.g. Sindhi Muslims, Baluchi Muslims, Pathan Muslims, Punjabi Muslims, and Bengali Muslims. In other words, we are revising our truly democratic slogan of self-determination of nationalities, which alone could give us the revolutionary unity of the Hindu and Muslim masses in each nationality and throughout India, in order to provide rationale for the top negotiations of the Congress and League leaders.

In doing so we become thinly veiled protagonist of Pakistan and of "Muslims a nation" theory. To oppose the League leadership we told them:

"The Indian Muslims will become masters of the biggest Muslim State in the world...

"Acceptance of Pakistan, of course, implies a radical revision of our traditional concept of a united India" (p. 38).

On the other hand we are redressing the League's Pakistan demand and "Muslims a nation" theory in a suitable democratic garb to make it acceptable to the Congress leaders; and in doing so we are throwing overboard the only principle which alone can bring Hindus and Muslims of all nationalities together in the common struggle and front.

Correct Slogans for “Gandhi-Jinnah Meeting"?

16. On the eve of Gandhi-Jinnah meeting, we said "They must not fail". In fact, it is they who succeeded in deepening Hindu-Muslim and Congress-League conflict, which could not but be the outcome of negotiations based on wrong and disruptive principles. It is we who failed because we did not come out with the correct and democratic basis for real unity. What we have suggested in our memorandum to the Cabinet Mission ought to have been our proposals for Congress—League agreement at the time of Gandhi-Jinnah meeting.

– We ought to have rejected both Rajaji formula as well as Pakistan resolution as the basis for agreement.

– We ought to have shown the insoluble contradiction between India a nation and Muslims a nation and shown how both were wrong. One led to the denial of the right of self-determination of nationalities and the other led to a division in the ranks of freedom struggle on the basis of religion.

– We ought to have told the leaders: Your positions are conflicting and the test of your patriotism should be that you both agree to put the issues of conflict to the people after the British are ousted, in a just and democratic manner and join hands on the basis of such agreement to wrest the power from the British. Let your demand to the British be one sovereign Constituent Assembly based on adult franchise. Among ourselves let us agree that the Constituent Assembly would be based on the right of the people of every national unit with a common language, historical tradition, culture, etc. to self-determination. We could have shown how on this basis each would have been able to put his idea to people's verdict. Communist Party could have explained its idea of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity of the common man and declared its faith in the ideal of a single voluntary Indian union of sovereign units.

– This would have enabled our cadres to take their stand equally sharply against League's religious separatism as well as the denial of freedom urge of real nationalities by the Congress leaders. We would have shown our ranks that the Marxist slogan of self-determination of nationalities is a weapon in the hands of the proletariat of building democratic unity of the masses for winning freedom for all and independence of the country from imperialism. It is not a weapon to juggle out justifications for the separatist ambitions of bourgeois leaderships which result in splitting the front of freedom and democracy.

Slogans of "They Must Meet Again"

17. The failure of Gandhi-Jinnah meeting and the sharpening of the Hindu-Muslim and Congress-League conflict did not shatter our illusions. We did not wake up to the fact that as a result of our revising our basic slogan of self-determination of nationalities, as a result of our virtually accepting the League slogan of Pakistan in our writings, our Party was rapidly becoming a train-bearer, of the League leadership. In March 1944 our Party held meetings in several places on the Pakistan day. In September 1944, slogans of Pakistan Zindabad were raised in the provincial Kissan Conference in Jandiala (Punjab – Jullundur). Quami Jang as well as P.W. was acting as an apologist of League demand and League leadership. It was never sharply exposing the undemocratic acts end utterances of the League leaders and the reactionary policies of the League Ministries.

In the latter part of 1944, the middle leadership of the Congress began to come out of jail and anti-Communist barrage of propaganda began against our Party. Main counts of attack against us were "betrayers of August struggle" and "agents" of the League –  supporter of Pakistan". Our writings and campaigns mentioned above only served to harden the prejudices among Congress ranks on the issue of our being uncritical League supporters. Our line appeared to them as identical with that of the League.

If they got the impression it was not wrong. We must admit that even after the break down of Gandhi-Jinnah meeting we continued to propagate and elaborate the line laid down in "They Must Not Fail”. In our article "They Must Meet Again" wo formulated the unity platform on the basis of Pakistan:

"Unqualified recognition of the right of Muslim nationalities to establish independent sovereign states in Muslim homelands in terms of Lahore resolution of the League.” (p. 10).

In this article we had finally and; completely given up the Stalinist slogan of self-determination of nationalities and also the proletarian fight against separatism. We no longer stood for achieving an Indian Union of sovereign national units.

* "We accepted the unjust League principle that the Muslims have the right to form their state in their majority areas".

* We took for granted that India has to be divided into two independent states Hindustan and Pakistan (p. 11).

It is a horrible thing for a Communist Party to accept these slogans. We knew that the leadership of the League is over-weighted with reactionary landlords and toadies. We knew that worker-peasant movement is practically non-existent in Sind, Baluchistan, N.W.F.P. and in the Western Punjab, League influence over the Muslim masses is giving a distorted form to their anti-imperialist slogans, which amount to refusal to fight religious anti-Hindu separatism of the League leadership, which amount to refusal to build Hindu-Muslim unity on the basis of the self-determination of nationalities, were nothing short of giving the green light to the reactionary pro-imperialist forces to create a British-sponsored Ulster in the North-West Pakistan.

C.C. Meeting., October 1944 — G.A’s Report

18. In October 1944, I made another report to the C.C. on Pakistan and National Unity after the breakdown of Gandhi-Jinnah talks. The report covered the same ground as the articles of P.C.J. on Gandhi-Jinnah meeting. The report as a whole was rejected. Its main defect was nailed down as being pro—League. The history of the evolution of the League demand it gave was a justification and an apologia for the same. The rest of it was nothing more than making explicit what was implied in the articles "They Must Meet Again”. Only one part of the report was new and striking and that was the exposure of the probable nature of the imperialist way out of the communal deadlock. Subsequent events have proved that forecase to be absolutely correct. That imperialism should think in terms of using the two main weak spots of the Indian freedom movement, as the main pillars on which to base its new plans of stabilising its tottering imperial rule is not at all surprising. These two weap spots were: (i) The weakness of the movement of States peoples for freedom and the possibility of using the Princes as props of the new form in which imperialist rule was to survive in India.

(ii) The sharp division in the Indian freedom movement caused by the emergence of the Muslim League rallying the bulk of the Muslims behind the demand for partitioning India by creating a separate sovereign Pakistan state in North-West and Eastern border regions of India where Muslims were in majority. Imperialist plan is based on these two great fissures in the Indian freedom movement, (a) great lag between the States’ peoples’    movement and the Indian freedom movement led by the Congress and (b) the conflict between the latter and the League movement. The two wedges imperialism proposed to use to widen these fissures and thus ensure its own domination over the heads of a divided movement were (a) the retention of the Princes (b) conceding the partition demand of the Muslim League in some form or other. The imperialist game was to win Congress support to the retention of princes by promising them a firm line against partition demand of the League. On the other hand it canvassed for the League support for the same by promising to concede its Pakistan demand in some form or other. Thus imperialism proposed to use Congress-League differences on the issue of Pakistan and united India to put into operation its own plan of take "Indian Independence” based on the tripartition of India into Hindustan, Pakistan and Princistan. Exposure of the Coupland Plan made in November 1944 (P.W. article) was a correct forecast and the present negotiations of the Cabinet Mission have proved it so. But all the same the report did not draw the correct conclusion from the same.

The end of the war was in sight. The issue of independence of India and its solution in a revolutionary way would soon be on the agenda at the end of the war. Imperialism had already a plan to sabotage the same by utilising the grave fissure in the Indian freedom movement between the Congress and the League. The failure of the Gandhi-Jinnah meeting had proved the bankruptcy of the rival bourgeois leaderships of the Congress and the League to find a common basis for unifying the two mass movements in a single front for wresting power from the British. The task before the Communist Party was not to seek a via media between the facilitate their agreement on the basis on which they were negotiating so that unity of leaders may lead to the unify of the respective masses that follow them, but to subject their basis itself to the test: can it be the platform of building revolutionary unity of the masses for winning independence and democracy.

What the October 1944 Report did was to accept the basis of the negotiations – which the Lahore resolution of the League as the democratic and just basis for a united front of the masses. What we did was to find reasons for its justification in Marxist phrases. What we did was to give it a democratic garb.

– The October 1944 C.C. Report accepted the principle of the League Resolution of Pakistan and gave it the "Marxist garb" of self-determination of Muslim nationalities.

– It explained the slogan "Muslims a nation" by saying it represented the spirit of "the common national movement of the Muslim nationalities".

– The slogan of India – a voluntary union of democratic states – was replaced by the separatist slogan of India – an alliance of independent democratic states.

The October 1944 report worked out to its logical conclusion the principle already applied in They Must Meet Again. That principle was as stated and quoted above was the "principle" that Muslims have right to form their sovereign state in their majority areas –  the principle of Pakistan Resolution! Is it any wonder then that the history of the development of the Muslim League, its goal and its relations with Congress became an apologia for the Muslim League leadership? This latter defect of the report was caught out and the report was not circulated. But the root cause of the defect as stated above was never understood.

With the end of the war and after the failure of the Simla Conference, we instinctively swung over to the slogan of Constituent Assembly based on adult suffrage and the self-determination of national units. But in the AICC Session (September 1945) we moved an amendment to the official resolution granting a separate Constituent Assembly to the Muslim majority areas. It was in the C.C. meeting of September l945 when we began working out the line for the post-war situation that we came out with the correct proletarian slogan that the Congress and League differences on Pakistan and united India must be solved by being put to the people in a just democratic way on the basis of the principle that the people of every homogeneous nationality, having common language, historical tradition, homeland etc. The Communist Party itself stood for a single Indian Union of sovereign units each having the right of secession. This was clearly declared. Thus the Communist Party had untied itself from the advocacy of the Pakistan slogan and now stood four-square on its own ground of self-determination of nationalities and the unity of India in form of willing union of sovereign units.

But this is all yet for the most part on paper. Tailism to the League is yet the dominant deviation, inside the Party. This was sharply revealed in the election campaign. The slogan has been changed on paper but the understanding of the ranks and of ourselves yet remains on the old rails. The final manifesto of the Party for the Assembly elections issued in January 1946 and better still the memorandum to the Cabinet Mission has given us the correct form of the slogans evolved in the C.C. meeting of September 1946 [1945]. But the point now is to advance from correct slogans to correct campaigning, agitation and practice.

The purpose of this note was not to work these out but to clear the ground for them by getting a correct understanding of the nature of the deviation and the ideological root of our Tailism to the League.

Click here to return to the April 2025 index.