Sep 012010
 

Preface

This booklet of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s (also known as Baacha Khan/ Badshah
Khan) speeches in legislative Assembly/parliament, in the formative phase of
Pakistan, reflects his piety, simplicity, wisdom, boldness and love for his
nation. It bears testimony to how true he was to his cause and his nation and
how he was mistreated and under taken by the ruling elite, who pushed a newly
born country from democracy, constitutionalism and purity to a dark labyrinth of
theocratic constitutionalism, Mullahism, feudalism, sectarian and conservatism
in its embryonic stage. It is an irony of fate that the colonial mindset of the
founding fathers of the country in the pre-partition period’s socio-political
scenario did not change even with the colossal human losses and mass migration
from one dominion to another in 1947.
The other reason for the conflicting approach between the new rulers of Pakistan
and the Pashtun leaders was that the Pashtun nationalist movement was secular
and pluralistic in its very nature while Muslim Leagueers for various reasons
were communalists and pro-West in their approach. So they naturally identified,
rightly or wrongly, the Pashtun nationalist movement with the Soviet
expansionism and pro-Indianism. All their actions whether political, social or
cultural were considered to be a conspiracy of the Bolsheviks in their struggle
to secure access to the ‘warm water’ or the design of Kabul regime for creating
Greater Pukhtoonistan. We hope that our leaders and parliamentarians would learn
a lot from these speeches of our great leader Baacha Khan.
We are extremely thankful to Miss Bushra Gohar (Member of the National Assembly)
of ANP who has been kind enough to spare her precious time for searching out
Baacha Khan Speeches (in the Legislative Assembly debates) from the library of
National Assembly of Pakistan, Islamabad. I am also thankful to the Baacha Khan
Research Center, Baacha Khan Markaz, Peshawar for composing and designing this
booklet

Dr. Fazal-ur-Rahim Marwat
Chairman Baacha Khan Research Centre

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (LEGISLATURE) OF PAKISTAN
DEBATES

Thursday, 16th December, 1948

Motion for Adjournment
Conviction of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta (East Bengal General): Mr. President, Sir, I give
notice of my intention to move an adjournment motion.
Mr. President: Is it your intention to ask for leave? If so, then first of all
the question of admissibility of the motion will have to be considered. Have you
anything to say on the question of admissibility?
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: The first question is whether it has your consent,
Sir?
Mr. President: Mr. Datta, you may be laboring under some misconception on
account of the difference in this respect between the procedures of the Bengal
legislative Assembly of which you are a Member and the procedure that is in
vogue here. You will have to follow the procedure under our rules for the
purpose of this motion. Here, the question of my consent and the admissibility
of the motion are inter-woven together and unless it is admissible you cannot
have my consent.
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: Mr. President, Sir, with regard to the admissibility
of this question I would refer to the relevant rules 11 and 12 on the subject.

Khan Sardar Bahadur Khan (N.W.F.P, Muslim): On a point of order, Sir. May I
suggest to the Honorable Member that before going into the legal implication of
the adjournment motion, he should kindly read out the adjournment motion so that
all the Honorable Members may know what is being discussed?
Mr. President: I would like to be satisfied on the admissibility of the motion
first.
Khan Sardar Bahdur Khan: Still I would respectfully submit, sir, that the
members would prefer to know the mater that is under discussion.
The Honorable Mr. Abdul Hamid (East Bengal): May I respectfully submit, Sir that
whether you are to give you consent to move the motion should be decided outside
this House. Only when you give your consent, this House will formally consider
whether they are to give leave to the Honorable Member to move the motion. We
are present in a difficult position, Sir. You are discussing along with us on
the matter of consent and we are not in a possession of copy of the motion. I
would respectfully submit that the question of consent should be decided before
the Assembly sits.

Mr. President: That will be taken into consideration. I have my own ideas about
the motion. If the Honorable Member wants to submit any thing to me, I would be
prepared to listen to that. Mr. Datta is trying to explain why he considers the
motion to be admissible and I think in the course of discussion it will be clear
to the House what the motion is and every member will be in a position to know
what the motion is about.
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: Mr. President, Sir, the motion relates to the
adjournment of the business of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent
public importance, namely, the arrest and incarceration in jail of Khan Abdul
Ghaffar Khan, a sitting member of this House. Mr. President, Sir, you are aware
that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan……

Mr. President: What has the Central Government to do with it that is the point
on which I went to be satisfied.

Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: Because, Sir, he is a member of this House and as far
as I know he was arrested under the Frontier Regulation of 1901. It was the
Central Regulation No. III of 1901. So, Sir, because he was arrested under that
regulation and also he is a member of this House. Therefore he was practically
arrested by the Central Government. And it is impossible to believe that a
Member of this House would be arrested without the consent and knowledge of the
Central Government. You are fully aware, Sir, there is constitution in some
country of the world that the Government cannot arrest a member of the House. I
refer to the constitution of the French. Can a Member of the French Parliament
be arrested without the consent and the knowledge of the Parliament itself? So,
Sir, as he is a Member of this House…

The Honorable Mr. Abdul Hamid: Sir, I raise to a point of order. Here the
question that we are considering is whether the Honorable Member ought to have
your consent to beg leave of the House to move the motion. He is entering into
the merits of the question. As regards the privilege of the Members of the
Constituent Assembly, we shall be very happy to discuss the matter if he
formally brings this matter before this house.

Mr. President: I think, Mr. Datta is in order.

Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: The only restrictions on power to make adjournment
motion is to be found in Rule 12 which says—
“The right to move an adjournment of the Assembly for the purpose of the
discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance shall be subject to the
fallowing restrictions namely:-
(I) not more than one such motion shall be made at the same sitting:
(II) not more than one matter can be discussed on the same motion, and the
motion must be restricted to a specific matter recent occurrence.”
Sir, it is a recent occurrence because the arrest and incarceration was made in
the month of June and it is for the first time that we are meeting. Hence the
adjournment motion is sought to be moved.
So, Sir, No. (III) of rule 12 says—
“the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed to
the same session; “
Then, sub-clause (IV)—
“(IV) the motion must not anticipate a matter which has been previously
appointed for consideration. In determining whether a discussion is out of order
on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the President to the
probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a
reasonable time.”
So, Sir, that is the only restriction that is put on the making of adjournment
motion. Evidently in clause 5 we shall have to refer to rule 23-Restriction on
subjects for discussion by a resolution-which says:-

(1) “Every resolution shall be in the form of declaration of opinion by the
Assembly,
(2) No resolution shall be moved on any matter which is under adjudication by a
Court of Law having jurisdiction in any part of Pakistan.”
So, Sir, my submission is that the arrest and incarceration in jail of Khan
Abdul Ghaffar Khan is not under adjudication now. So, Sir, it is not affected by
sub-clause (2) of Rule 23.
Then, Sir sub-rule (3) of Rule 23 lays down:-
“(3) The minister in charge of the Ministry to which a resolution relates may,
immediately before the resolution is moved, object to the resolution or any part
thereof on the ground that it cannot be discussed without detriment to the
public interest.”

I submit, Sir, that it is not covered by section (3) of rule 23. So, Sir, if you
refer to rule 12 and along with that you refer to rule 23, the adjournment
motion is not subject to any restrictions as mentioned in these rules. In this
connection, Sir, it is better to refer to the Standing Order. You will find as
page 13 and 14 of the Book Standing Orders Nos. 22, 23 and 24. Standing Order
No. 21 elates to the time limit for asking leave to put and Adjournment
Motion…..
Mr. President: All these things do not arise. The only question on which you
have to satisfy me s as to how does this matter at all come within the purview
of the Central Government.
Mr. Direndra Nath Datta: Sir, as it is not subject to any restriction, I submit
that I am entitled to move this adjournment motion especially because he is a
Member of this House and has been arrested under the Frontier Regulations.
The Honorable Khwaja Shahabuddin (Minister for Interior and Refugees and
Rehabilitation): I object to this motion being admitted because, Sir, its
subject-matter does not primarily concern the Central Government. Sir, I rely on
the same clause on which my friend dies i.e., Clause 12, but my friend being a
clever lawyer says that Clause 12 has got connection with Clause 23. Sir,
actually I am referring to the first portion of rule 22 and not 23. Sir, Rule 22
says—
“The President may within the period of notice disallow any resolution or any
part of the resolution on the ground that it relates to a matter which is not
the primary concern of the Government of Pakistan.”
As it is so, the motion may not allowed. Therefore, I submit that Rule 22 is
applicable here because this particular matter is not the primary concern of the
Central Government. The Frontier Government took action under certain law which
of course at that time, when the Province was under the Centre, was legislated
by the Central Government but at the same time that law is a Provincial law and
now it is administers by the Province and the Centre is not primarily concerned
with it. Therefore I submit that Rule 12 which says ‘The motion must not deal
with a matter on which a resolution could not be moved’ is governed by Rules 22
where it is stated that the President can disallow a motion which is not the
primary concern of the Centre. Therefore, this motion should not be admitted.

The Honorable Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan (Prime Minister and Minister for Defense):
May I just add one word to what has been said by the Honorable Minister for
Interior. The Honorable the Mover of this motion has advanced two reasons in
favor of his proposition. Firstly, that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is an Honorable
Member of this House. Well, Sir, as the Honorable Member is aware the Members of
this House commits an offense he is liable to be detained or punished under the
Law just like any other citizen of Pakistan. It would be a different proposition
if this House passes certain legislation giving certain privileges to the
Honorable Members of this House. So this argument of the Honorable Mover has
really no force. The other reason that he has given is that because this law
under which Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is detained was passed by the Central
Government, therefore it is the concern of the Central Government. My Honorable
friend should know that when this law was enacted, there was no Provincial
Government that was capable of legislating and therefore it had to be legislated
by the Central Government. As has been pointed out, the Provincial Government of
North-West Frontier could not possibly legislate any law at the time. As has
been pointed out this is a law which is administered by the Provincial
Government of the North-Frontier without any control of the Central Government.
This motion relates to the action that has been taken by the Government of the
Province. I therefore support what has been stated by my Honorable colleague
that this Government is not only primarily but is not at all concerned with this
matter which is sought to be moved before this Assembly.
Mr. Dhirendra Nath Datta: Sir, if this Adjournment Motion is sought to be moved
in the Provincial Assembly, the question will then arise that he is not a Member
of that Assembly. Therefore I want to move this Adjournment Motion on the ground
that he is a Member of this House. If it is not allowed here also, then Sir,
Where am I to go.

Mr. President: What Mr. Datta has submitted is hardly relevant for his purpose.
We are not considering here as to whether a motion like this would be admissible
in any legislature or not but if at all a question like this were before a
Provincial Legislature the main point for consideration would not be whether the
person concerned is a member of the provincial legislature or a member of the
Central Legislature or is not a member of any legislature at all. The matter
will have to be decided on other grounds. So far as the present motion is
concerned, it is clear that the Pakistan Government is not at all concerned with
the arrest or incarceration of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. That being so, I am
afraid a motion likes this cannot be moved in this legislature and I am
therefore unable to give my consent.

{mospagebreak}

Congratulations to the President

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: Mr. Deputy President, Sir, my purpose in moving this
cut motion is to say something before this Honorable House regarding Pakistan
administration. I do not mean by this motion to run down the Government of
Pakistan, nor to pick holes in it. In this connection, I desire also to thrown
some light on and remove the misunderstandings created against me and my group
by responsible men of this Government and other non-officials of Pakistan.
First of all it is alleged that I and my group are the enemies of Pakistan and
that we want to destroy it and cut it asunder. I do not want to argue, I may
only say so much in this connection that I have thrown enough light on this
point in my Province whenever I had as opportunity to speak. Still the
responsible men of Pakistan have their misgivings as to whether I am a friend or
a foe of Pakistan and that perhaps I wish to annihilate Pakistan. But they
cannot deny that I have tried now and then to remove such misunderstandings.
They are also aware that whenever I had an opportunity or was given one to
address the people in different parts of our Province. I told them clearly that
indeed I was of opinion and creed that India should not be divided because today
in India we have witnessed the game—thousands, nay, lakhs of the young, old and
children, men and women, were massacred and ruined. I admit that it was my
honest opinion that India should not be divided; India should not be
partitioned. But now that it is done, the dispute is over.
I delivered many speeches against the division of India, but the question is has
anybody listened to me? We said to the Muslim League Government in the Frontier,
‘We offer you a chance to carry on the Government.’ But the treatment meted out
to the Pathans by the Government was tolerated only with great difficulty.
People used to come to me to enquire about my future program and asked ‘What do
you intend to do, since we cannot bear this stare of affairs which has been
created by Pakistan? We are they, who fought against a powerful nation of the
World like that of the British who wanted to rob us.’ I explained to them that
the situation of the British rule does not arise, as the question is different
now. That was a foreign yoke and now the Muslims have their own Government. I
repeatedly told the Pakistan Government that we are prepared to let you govern.
Efforts were made to lead us to an internecine strife, because the ‘war mongers’
had hoped that as the struggle would proceed, the national and patriotic
sentiments would at once be diverted towards it and the constructive work of the
Government would stop. I realized the danger. You may hold any opinion about me
but I am not a man of destruction, but construction. I am not a theoretical but
a practical man. If you study the whole of my life, you will find that I have
devoted it for the welfare and progress of our country. I also add that the
Khudai Khidmatgars was a social movement and not political, but it is a long
story, consequently I do not want to repeat it. Who was responsible for
converting this social movement into a political one? The British. Who
associated us with the Congress? The British. It is not only here that I am
mentioning it, but I have done so to the high placed Britishers, as God has
blessed me with courage.
We were blamed that the Khudai Khidmatgars- the slaves to Hindu gold—do not
allow us to run the Government and work out the constructive program, for such a
program can only proceed when there is peace in the whole country. But our
attitude towards them was and we proclaimed that if the Government of Pakistan
would work for our people and our country, then the Khudai Khidmatgars would be
with them. I repeat that I am not for destruction of Pakistan. In destruction
lies no use for Hindus, Muslims, the Frontier, the Punjab, Bengal or even Sind.
Advantage, there is only in construction. I want to tell you a very plain thing
that I will not support any body in destruction. If any constructive programs
before you, if you want to do something constructive for our people, not in
theory but in practice, I declare it before this Honorable House that I and my
people are at your service.
For about seven months I have been watching the administration of Pakistan, but
I could not find any difference between this administration and that of the
British. I may be wrong, but it is the common view. I alone do not say so; if
you go and ask the poor, then my views will be confirmed. It may be that you
suppress their voice with force. But remember that force or power does not last
long. Force can merely save the purpose for time being. If you will oppress the
people, it will develop hatred against you in their hearts. Leave it aside. I
tell you that there is more corruption today than it was during British regime.
It is possible that you may doubt my intentions. But my speech is not
destructive. I have come here in the capacity of a friend please think over the
facts I am placing before you. If you find them useful for Pakistan, well and
good, otherwise throw them into the waste paper basket. Why did we fight against
the British? We fought to turn them out, so that the country our and we may rule
over it. Now we have taken over the country from British, but we find today more
Englishmen are being called from outside. Today unfortunately we observe the
same old policy, the same old method whether in the Frontier or the Tribal Area.
We don not see any change in it. I am very sorry to say that our Hindu brethren
have appointed Indian Governors in their Provinces and not even men but a woman
also can become a Governor there. Were there no Musalmans in Bengal or the
Punjab who could become our Governors? I have to say, that to our misfortune,
the British whom we had turned out have again been brought in and placed at our
heads. Is this Islamic Fraternity? Would we call it a brotherhood? This is
Islamic Pakistan! It is not the only evil in the administration, but there is
another, and that is, the same ordinance laws issued by the Government. That,
which gives me most pain, is to see that when any communiqué is issued by the
Frontier Government, it is in the same old way, the same old language and in the
same old spirit as was peculiar to the British Raj. If an Englishman told a lie,
he was a foreigner. He had not come here for our reform and betterment. He came
to achieve his own ends. But I have nothing to complain against the British.
Now, I have, indeed a complaint against Pakistan because they are our brothers
and that Government is our Government. We should now leave the old British
tactics. If we would follow the old methods, I may tell you that Pakistan, which
we have achieved through so many difficulties, would be lost to our hands. There
is another thing that I wish to tell you. That is, I have often been charged
with infusing among the Pathans a feeling of separate nationality and creating
provincialism. To us, the Pathans, these things are unknown. We do not know what
provincialism is? My own experience of provincialism is that it does not exist
among the Pathans. Take the case of Sind. Have we created provincialism in Sindh?
The problem is, how provincialism is created? It may be that you misguide the
people for some time in the name of Islam, but you cannot push this matter too
long. It will be a temporary thing-instable. I wish to put the question, ‘who
created theses conditions and why?’ In this world one thing is a cause, the
other is effect. It is the law of nature that nothing comes into existence
without a cause and consequently such circumstances did not develop, ipso facto.

The Honorable Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan (Prime Minister for Defense): They have been
created.
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: I wish to tell that the more you will pursue the
matter, the greater would be unpleasantness. I do not want to create bitterness.
You know my nature, I do not make speeches. I am doing so for the first time and
that too, with the object of acquainting you with my ideas, of which you were
ignorant till now. I do not want to go deep into the matter. Why is there
provincialism in Sind? Has it been created by the Pathans?
At the time of his visit to Peshawar, our Muslim League brothers also put before
our Prime Minister the same thing which we used to say. But he said that he
wants to unite all the Musalmans from Khyber to Chittagong. Who can deny this?
But our point is that on the one hand you want to unite all the Musalmans from
Khyber to Chittagong and on the other, what objection can you have against our
constituting a belt of all the Pathans who were disunited by the British and how
far is it against Islam? If you help us in this connection you unite us and make
a powerful state of ours and after the State is established, who strength it
would be?
The Honorable Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Minister for Refugees and Rehabilitation):
This is against Islam!
Malik Feroz Khan Noon (West Punjab): Muslim and you will join Afghanistan.
Abdul Ghaffar Khan: I wish to tell you frankly, that we can only join you and
not Afghanistan. You have greater claim on us than Afghanistan.
Different charges are brought against the Pathans. Sometimes it is said that
they are styled as Hindus and those who have no concern with Islam are now
declared as Musalmans!
What a calamity which seems unavoidable! There has been a tremendous revolution
within six months! There is a separate Hindu Government in Hindustan and a
distinct Government of the Musalmans in Pakistan. When it is possible that our
Bengali brothers living at a distance of two thousand miles from Khyber to
Chittagong, could be one with us, the Pathans and be our brothers then why
cannot our own brothers, the Pathans who are so near to us and whom the British
disrupted for their own purpose because the union of the Pathans would be a
source of danger to them. How can they be the cause of danger to you? The
British who came here with a view to rule created discord amongst us on their
own selfish motive. But you are our brothers why do you fear us?
The Honorable Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan: Please elucidate your point.
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: What does our Pathanistan mean, I will tell you just
now? You see that the people inhabiting the Province are called Sindhis and the
name of their country is Sind. Similarly the Punjab or Bengal is the land of the
Punjabis or Bengalis. In the same way there is the North West Frontier. We are
one people and ours is a land. Within Pakistan we also want that mere mentioning
of the name of the country should convey to the people that it is the land of
Pakhtoons. Is it a sin under the tents of Islam?
The Honorable Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan: Is Pathan the name of a country or that of
community?
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: Pathan is the name of community and we will name the
country as Pakhtoonistan. I may also explain that the people of India used to
call us Pathans and we are called Afghans by the Persians. Our real name is
Pakhtoon. We want Pakhtoonistan and want to see all the Pathans on this side of
the Durand Line joined and united together in Pakhtoonistan. You help us in
this. If you think it un-Islamic then I would say that it is just Islam. If you
argue that Pakistan would be weakened by it then I would say that it is not so.
Pakistan can never become weak by the creation of a separate political unit. On
the other hand it would become stronger. Most of the difficulties are begotten
by lack of confidence but when there is confidence the difficulties are
resolved. Government is run on good faith and not on mistrust.
Mr. Deputy President: Today being Friday and we are rising at 12-30. The
Honorable Member has taken more than his time but I am prepared to allow him
more time. Will the Honorable Member be able to finish his speech by 12-30?
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan: Yes Sir, I will finish within time.
The other thing is that people invite us to join the Muslim League. I think the
Muslim League has done its duty. Its work, its object and its function was to
get Pakistan. Pakistan has been created. I mean to say that now it has been
achieved there does not remain any need of Muslim League now. There should be
other parties in our country. A party should be organized here on economic basis
so that all may join together and there remains no opposition. Regarding this I
will say only this much that Parties on economic lines should be organized in
Pakistan to do away with the existing differences and then if there will be any
difference amongst us we will be able to remove by sitting together to discussed
them. Islam is a religion in which there is the greatest toleration and when we
will exchange our views then we would have to tolerate one another; not that I
should oppose any body if he disagrees with me.
As the time is short, I will point out one more thing and then finish my speech.
Pakistan is a poor country. The question is how to carry on the Government of
this poor country? If I am poor, what should I do? Should I live within my means
or otherwise? Or should I live like the rich? When it is admitted, that Pakistan
is a poor country then the system of its Government should not be like that of
the capitalists. There should be no aristocratic grandeur. You want to impose
taxes, do it please, but keep in view the condition of the poor. But again the
question is have we to live according to our means or according to the status of
the rich. We have to find out as how to run the state of Pakistan. We have
before us the traditions of our early predecessors. The way is there. We should
follow it. We should have the resolution to sacrifices, to tread the same path.
Our great religious heads who built the Islamic Empire were only three. Unless
we follow these leaders in their moral character, spirit sacrifice and feeling
of sympathy, we cannot help our State to grow great. The name of Hazrat Ali is
familiar to you. Whatever he did was for Islam and for the people. It was
according to some principle. It is said that once an opponent of Hazrat Ali let
him go, as taking his life then would have involved a personal grudge. This
should be the spirit. Now take the life of Hazrat Abu Bakr. Even before he was a
Caliph, whatever he did was for the Musalmans alone. He himself got a meager
allowance as a Caliph and fixed an equal amount for all other Musalmans. This is
a charge against Islam that there is no equality of treatment in it. He however
maintained that the necessities of life are the same for all. A man may be poor
or rich but still the necessities of life of the two are the same. All have
children. Therefore the necessities of all are similar not as you say that your
wants are greater and ours less. And you can not say that a poor man has no
prospects to become rich, while the rich has. These matters relate to cultural
and civilization and there should not be any differentiation in them as the
physical wants of all are alike., there allowances should also be equal. Similar
was the case with Hazrat Umar. The Muslim Empire which lasted so long was built
by these two men, Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar. You may be aware of the fact
that even if a poor man stood to criticize him, Hazrat Umar never threatened him
and was never angry with him. And when he had finished, then the Hazrat tried to
satisfy him by giving out true facts and also encouraged him. Under the
leadership and guidance of such a man, the Musalmans can never go astray. If you
develop the same morals then your Empire can also equally strong. When they were
elected Caliph and the question of their pay arose, they themselves gave the
decision by saying, ‘I am a servant of the Musalmans and I should be paid the
wages given to any laborer in Medina.’ That is why I say that if Pakistan if
Pakistan is poor, we should run it on such principle. Whose is Pakistan? It is
ours. If it is poor, we should run it like a poor country and when tomorrow,
Pakistan will be rich then we may run it in an isocratic way. I will say that
with its present ways or system of Government, Pakistan cannot become rich.
Therefore the old order should change and we should revert to the old Islamic
way of life. We oppose it, not simply because the British did it; but if it is
done in the name of Islam, it shall not have our approval. I will certainly
support the Government of Pakistan, if it is run on Islamic lines. My idea of
Pakistan is that it should be an Azad Pakistan. We do not want that Pakistan
should be for its entire people that it should be under influence of a
particular community or individual. We want that Pakistan should be for all its
people, that al should enjoy equally and that it should not be exploited by
handful of people. We want that the Government of Pakistan should be in the
hands of its people. As far as technical experts are concerned, Pakistan should
send for them from other countries like America and England. But as regards
administration, I cannot agree that Pakistan is devoid of capable men and all
are inefficient here. When Hindus could manage their affairs, cannot we do the
same? I like the idea of having the whole administration of Pakistan in the
hands of its people. I have heard that many Englishmen have been retained in
service here and fresh ones are coming in. I must say that this will not be for
the good of Pakistan.

Mr. Deputy President: The House stands adjourned till 11 A.M tomorrow, the 6th
instant.
The Assembly then adjourned till Eleven of Clock, on Saturday, the 6th March,
1948.

{mospagebreak}

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (LEGISLATURE) OF PAKISTAN
DEBATES

25th March, 1954

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (NWFP; Muslim):

Mr. President! I am not a man of many words, but just now a member has made
certain references to Pakhtoonistan which obliges me to say a few words about
it.
Sir, I feel that the Honorable Members either does not know anything about it,
or, if he does, he is deliberately trying to create a wrong impression about it.

Sir, you will remember that in this House Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan had once asked me
a question about it and I had then explained it to him. I shall once again
reiterate before you what I had then said to him. Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan had asked
what exactly I meant Pakhtoonistan. I had replied that you say we are five
brothers in Pakistan. There is Bengal, there is Punjab, there is Baluchistan,
there is Sindh and we ourselves make up fifth. Our four brothers have each a
name; their country has a name of Bengal knows that it is the land of the
Bengalis; whoever hears the name of the Punjab knows that it is the land of the
Punjabis; whoever hears the name Baluchistan knows that it is the land Baluchis;
whoever hears the name of Sindh knows that it is the land of the Sindhis. In the
same way we too have a country of our own but it has no name of its own. No one
can visualize our country, the country of Pathan, until it has an expressive
name of its own. I would therefore say that our country too should also have a
significant name by which it may be known that it is the land of the Pathans. It
is just this much and no more, but I am surprised to find that even such a
responsible person should make mountains of a mole-hill. You can well imagine
whether by discussing, misrepresenting and condemning a thing which you do not
understand, you will be winning our confidence or lose it.
I have said a score of times that you should trust us as you do the other four
brothers. If you do not trust us but go misrepresenting us, conditions will
continue to deteriorate. In my opinion those who talk in this strain, carry on
such propaganda, and issue such statements in the Press, are not to create bad
blood between over selves and our four brothers.
Sir, I would repeat again that our land should also bear a name. You should give
this point your serious consideration. Those who know nothing about this demand
of ours should come to us instead of holding forth on it in the House or issuing
statements to the Press. Likewise I would ask certain papers, which create
misunderstanding in the connection that they are our own Muslim brethren, and,
if they have any doubts in this matter, they can come and ask me what exactly I
mean by Pakhtoonistan. I am ever ready and willing to remove any doubts they may
happen to have on this subject. I repeat that you must have confidence in us. If
you trust us, you shall, in turn have our co-operation and love which will make
for the greater glory and strength of Pakistan. F, however you do not repose
confidence in us, the result can hardly be satisfactory.

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (LEGISLATURE) OF PAKISTAN
DEBATES

Friday, the 3rd September, 1954

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (N.W.F.P Muslim) : Sir, I have not stood up to make a
long speech on the subject as a lot has already been said on it. I have stood up
to say just what remedies we should adopt to meet these catastrophic flood and
how exactly we can help our flood stricken brethren in Bengal. We must take
practical steps to overcome it. For this I suggest that the People of West
Pakistan should help their brethren of East Pakistan in their hour of suffering
and need. It is often said that the people pf West and East Pakistan should be
brought nearer together and an effort is also made in this direction. If we come
out with help, I am sure we shall be able to achieve the desired goal. In this
connection I recall to mind a Persian verse:

Dost aan bashad keh geerad dast-e- dost
Dar parishan hali-o-darmandgi

This rendered into English means:
‘A friend in need is a friend indeed.’

As for myself, I would only say this much: you know that the Khudai Khidmatgars
have done much social service in the past. Even now we are anxious to serve our
Bengali brethren. We want to sent Doctors, volunteers and other social workers
there to render medical and other aid to our Bengali brethren, if the Government
would only allow us. I would add that we are competent to do this job too.

My second suggestion is this: in this House and outside it as well as in the
press people talk a lot about Islam, Islamic Government and Islamic Republic. I
would put only one example of Islamic Government before you. You must have read
in history that once a famine occurred in Medina and its surrounding areas.
Hazrat Omer was the Caliph at that time. He gave up eating and swore not to
touch food until his subjects whom he called his brothers had food. So I submit
this proposal to you. If we, our Governor-General, our ministers, members of the
constituent assembly and other high-placed officials can not go with out food,
we can at least eat sparingly and help our suffering Bengali brethren with the
money thus saved. If we try in this matter, it is just possible that we may be
bale to overcome this huge calamity which has overtaken us.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Das (East Bengal General): Mr. President, Sir, today we are
discussing the national calamity which has befallen out brethren of East Bengal.
Sir, it is a national calamity as it envelops more than half of the citizens of
Pakistan. No nation has ever faced such a calamity even those nations which have
faced a war. The damage, the misery and devastation which have been brought on
the people of East Bengal could not have been brought even by war. Sir, it is
impossible to give a description of the miseries under which the people of East
Bengal are suffering. It can not be imagined, nobody can even imagine not even
by stretch of one’s imagination can one picture the miseries and difficulties
under which 44 millions of the people of East Bengal are now passing their days.
Sir, as a matter of fact, the miseries and difficulties which have been brought
by flood have just started, but the worse is yet to come. When the water will
subside, you will see that the miseries of the people have been doubled, they
have increased twenty or fifty times more.
Sir, we are all admiring the resisting power of the people of East Bengal. We
are admiring that, but sir, there is a limit to resistance. How long people can
resist? How long can people fight against nature if they are not timely helped?
The East Bengal people now a days are now passing their time struggling with
life and death.. They are now really between life and death. Day and night they
are thinking of their properties, they are thinking of their children, they are
thinking of their cattle, they are thinking of their some daughters and cattle
that have been washed away. You imagine the position, imagine the condition of
expectant mothers or who have given birth to children, and imagine their
position. They are now living on the water and under the roof of the sky: below
is water and above is sky. That is their abode now. In view of this serious
state of affairs, just imagine that a sum of only Rs. 32 lacks or 35 lacks has
been donated by the central Government to the people of East Bengal. Is it
enough: is it good enough? It is not a good beginning. Crores of rupees have to
be spent to save the nation because if the nation is not saved, what is the good
of having the money in the Government treasury. More than half the nation is
facing this ordeal of misery and devastation: so, what is the necessity of
keeping money the Government Treasury? Sir, its pain me to know that up till now
the central government has sent only Rs 32 or 35 lakhs, that is all that has
been contributed by the central government. Sir, East Bengal is now centrally
administered and therefore the whole liability and responsibility of saving the
East Bengal lies on the shoulders of central government, the central government
is responsible for the protection, the safety and future of the people of East
Bengal. It is ridiculous that only Rs 35 lakhs have been sent by the central
government. I think that our Prime minister has failed to understand the
magnitude of the miseries that the East Bengal people are suffering.
Sir, we are discussing such a great national calamity and we find that the house
looks thin; it is a shame that the house looks thin like this while we are
discussing such a thing as this national calamity. We must realize that more
than half the population of Pakistan is now in danger. Look to the condition of
the people how they are passing their days? We have seen and we have also been
getting reports from the papers that the people of East Bengal could not for the
last seven years repair their houses because they could not get bamboo and other
material. Bamboos are abundantly grown outside the area of Pakistan but these
people can not procure them owing to custom difficulties. Besides 500 C.I sheets
I have noticed that India has already agreed to give some lakhs of bamboos but
this will not do, we want more bamboos and thatched grasses. They are grown in
Tippera state and in Assam abundantly. We should get more help from India. We
have to secure these entire things from India. America is helping us. Luxemburg
is helping us; Saudi Arabia is helping us, and also some of the others countries
which we welcomed so much gratefully. Still we require more and more help. We
require these things so that the poor people may be able to construct their
huts. All these things are not much available in East Bengal. There are people
who can not get iron sheets.

[suffusion-the-author]

[suffusion-the-author display='description']