- The document discusses Mr. Chagla's views on politics in India between 1922-1941 when he was actively involved before becoming a judge. He was deeply interested in promoting Hindu-Muslim unity, secularism, and democracy. - It outlines how Jinnah initially supported nationalist causes but later shifted towards promoting Muslim separatism and the two-nation theory, which Chagla strongly opposed. The reasons for Jinnah's change in viewpoints are debated. - Chagla disagreed with partition and believed it was a tragedy that solved no problems. He felt certain events in Uttar Pradesh contributed to the creation of Pakistan.

1. By- Abhay Singh Choudhary

2. Interest and his views on
politics
 In the period between 1922 and 1941, the year he went to
the Bench, Mr. Chagla divided his time and energy
between law and politics. He was deeply interested in
politics. Politics is a field that represents the interplay of
human interests, human ambitions, human aspirations. In
our country it also represents the conflicts and differences
between community and community and region and
region. One must have in politics ideas, principles, values
and aspirations.
 As far as I am concerned there are three things to which I
have always adhered. These principles are unity,
secularism and democracy.

3.  Hindus and Muslims have lived together as friends and
comrades from times immemorial. It was largely the
policy of the British that brought about a sort of separation
between the two communities.
 The only hope that the British had of continuing to govern
this country was by adopting the old policy which empires
in the past had always pursued—Divide et Impera. I think
one of the biggest blows that was dealt to national unity
came when separate electorates were created by the
British.

4. Nationality > Religion
 I think it is wrong to equate religion with nationality. A
nation has many more attributes than a religion has. The
fact of worshipping in the same place, or believing in the
same religious tenets, does not by itself go to create a
sense of nationhood. A nation must have a common
culture, a common past, a common heritage, and Hindus
and Muslims shared all these.
 Religion is a purely private and personal matter. It should
never be allowed to intrude into public affairs. Public
affairs are by definition affairs in which the public as a
whole are interested.

5.  Patriotism should always be territorial and not communal
or religious. One loves ones country, one loves one's
motherland, and that is the essence of patriotism. One may
love one's religion, but that cannot override the love that
one has for the land of one's birth. Of course, there is a
danger in India—and I am afraid, it is a grave danger—
that territorial patriotism is often confined to a particular
part or region of the country, and does not necessarily
embrace the whole of it.
 There is also a danger—and again a grave danger—of
linguistic patriotism.

6. Why he joined Muslim League?
 The question may well be asked why, if I was a
nationalist, I ever joined the Muslim League. When I left
India in 1919, Jinnah was the uncrowned King of
Bombay. He was the idol of the youth. His personality and
his sturdy independence attracted and appealed to the best
elements in the city. He was the President of the Home
Rule League, and had made stirring speeches in
Shantaram Chawl, which was then the venue of political
meetings.
 The Muslim League in those days believed in the cause of
Hindu-Muslim unity and was entirely a secular institution
except for the name. People like Jinnah and Mazrul Huq,
who belonged to the League, had no truck with the
fanatical Muslims whom the Khilafat movement had
thrown up.

7.  I have always felt that Gandhiji was wrong in trying to
bring about Hindu-Muslim unity by supporting the cause
of the Khilafat. Such unity was built on shifting sands. So
long as the religious cause survived, the unity was there;
but once that cause was removed the unity showed its
weakness. All the Khilafatists who had been attracted to
the Congress came out in their true colours, that is, as
more devoted to their religion than to their country.
 So long as Jinnah remained a nationalist and the Muslim
League continued its old policy, I remained with Jinnah
and also with the League. But as soon as Jinnah became
communal-minded and started his two nation theory, I
parted company both with him and with the League.

8. Why did Jinnah changed?
 The evolution of Jinnah from a national to a communal
leader remains an enigma. To me, it was inconceivable
that Jinnah should ever have come to be the main architect
of Pakistan. His nationalism was so genuine, so
instinctive, so abiding that to expect that he should swing
so violently from one direction to a diametrically opposite
direction, seemed to me to be contrary to ordinary
expectations about human nature.
 Why did Jinnah change? There could be many possible
explanations for this. Jinnah’s besetting fault was his
obsessive egoism.

9.  He had to be a leader, and the prime mover in whatever cause
he worked. With the emergence of Gandhiji in Indian politics,
Jinnah felt that his importance would gradually diminish.
Jinnah was the complete antithesis of Gandhiji. While Gandhiji
believed in religion, in abstract moral values, in non-violence,
Jinnah only believed in hard practical politics. Even sartorially
it was impossible for Jinnah to subscribe to Gandhi’s views. He
could not possibly give up his faultlessly tailored suits and his
high collars for the simple khadi which Gandhiji wanted.
 Unfortunately, Jinnah was also antipathetic to Jawaharlal
Nehru. These two were never, to use a cuirent phrase, on the
same wave length. Jawaharlal disliked Jinnah as a man because
he thought he was all arrogance and pomposity. He also
despised Jinnah as someone essentially uncultured, almost
illiterate.

10.  He thought Jinnah’s reading never extended beyond the
daily newspaper and that he had not a single intelligent or
enlightened idea in his head. Jinnah, on the other hand,
looked upon Jawaharlal as an impracticable visionary who
had no conception of what politics meant.
 After he was dropped from the Third Round Table
Conference, Jinnah became convinced that if he had to
have a place under the sun, he would have to stand on a
communal platform. Jinnah's transformation really began
when it seemed to him that he was beginning to be
considered as a man of little consequence—so much so
that he could not even find a place in the Third
Roundtable Conference.

11.  I must say a word about Mrs. Jinnah. She was a real
nationalist, and kept Jinnah on the right track so long as
she was alive. Mrs. Jinnah had also a sense of humour of
which Jinnah was completely innocent, and with her
humour she often brought down Jinnah a peg or two
whenever he showed a disposition to mount one of his
familial pontifical heights. After her death, Jinnah’s sole
companion at home was his sister, Fatima, who was even
more communal-minded, and partly responsible for the
transformation brought about in Jinnah subsequently.

12. Views on partition
 I have always taken the view that partition was a tragedy
and a calamity, and I also hold the view that it was not
unavoidable. Partition has solved no problems; on the
contrary, it has created more problems and very serious
ones too.
 To my mind, however, one of the most potent causes
which ultimately led to the creation of Pakistan was what
happened in Uttar Pradesh. If Jawaharlal Nehru had
agreed to a coalition ministry and not insisted on the
representative of the Muslim League signing the Congress
pledge, perhaps Pakistan would never have come about.

13.  As I am writing this, Bangladesh has come into existence.
The emergence of this new nation not only means a great
victory for democracy and the right of the people to
determine their own future, but it is also final and
conclusive proof that the evil doctrine of two nations was
false and had no relevance either to a rational conception
of citizenship or to any enlightened standards of public
life.

14. Press Conference at the U.S.
 I remember when I went to the United States as Ambassador,
when I was asked at my first Press Conference whether I was a
Muslim, I answered: "How is it any business of yours what my
religion is? That is purely my personal affair. All that you have
a right to know is that I am an Indian and proud to be an
Indian. When I meet an American I do not ask him , Are you a
Protestant or a Catholic or a Jew?’ To me he is a citizen of the
United States, and I treat him as an American. I do not
understand why you take this attitude when you are dealing
with the people of India.”I believe that religion should never be
allowed to intrude into public affairs. Every public question
must be judged from the point of view of national interest.

15. Uniform Civil Code
 Consider the attitude of the Government to the question of
a uniform civil code. Although the Directive Principles of
the State enjoins such a code, Government has refused to
do anything about it on the plea that the minorities will
resent any attempt at imposition. Unless they are
agreeable it would not be fair and proper to make the law
applicable to them. I wholly and emphatically disagree
with this view. The Constitution is binding on everyone,
majority and minority; and if the Constitution contains a
direction, that directive must be accepted and
implemented.
 I am horrified to find that in my country, while monogamy
has been made the law for the Hindus, Muslims can still
indulge in the luxury of polygamy. It is an insult to
womanhood; and Muslim women.

16. DPSP’s and Fundamental
Rights
 The fundamental freedoms are the cornerstone of our
Constitution. They have to be consistently upheld by the
judiciary, which has been constituted as the custodian of
these rights.
 The founding-fathers, in their wisdom, made it clear that
the Directive Principles are not mandatory, while the
Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct. The directives of a
State policy must be achieved by democratic means
without sacrificing individual liberty or the other liberties
guaranteed under the Constitution.

17. Personal history (1922-1941)
 Throughout my papers, I notice that the burden of my
song was Hindu-Muslim unity. In lectures, in articles, in
the letters I wrote in the talks that I had, the thing that was
uppermost in my mind was the question of unity.
 One of the first lectures I delivered after I returned from
Oxford was in Poona at the Fergusson College on
Separate Electorates. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu presided over
the lecture. She was a fine woman, perhaps the finest I had
ever met in any part of the world. She was a nationalist to
the core, and was wholly dedicated to the cause of Hindu-
Muslim unity.

18.  I attended a session of the Muslim League in Aligarh,
where also the Silver Jubilee of the Muslim Education
Conference was being celebrated. Sir Abdul Rahim
presided over the Muslim League meeting.
 On my return to Bombay, I made it clear that Sir Abdul
Rahim had made a rabid communal speech. In an article I
wrote in the Bombay Chronicle on July 1, 1926, I said: “A
solution must be found to our difficulties, and it will be
found all the sooner if every one of us realises that Hindus
and Musalmans are joined in a wedlock which admits of
no dissolution.

19. Joint Electorates
 Certain proposals were put forward in Delhi in 1927 by
the Muslims, which included the acceptance of joint
electorates, provided Sind was separated from the then
Bombay Presidency, and reforms were introduced in the
North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan.
 The Hindu communal parties accepted the proposal with
regard to joint electorates, but rejected the other two,
incredible though it might seem. It was a folly and a
blunder of the first magnitude. This was the first time that
Muslims had agreed to have joint electorates. It was the
chance of a lifetime, a rare unexpected opportunity for a
new start on a real national political life. Never after that
did the Muslims agree to joint electorates. As time passed,
the communal demands of the Muslims increased day by
day, resulting ultimately in a demand for partition.

20. Simon Commission
 The Simon Commission was announced in November 1927,
and after what seemed a long time, there appeared an almost
complete unanimity of opinion in the country that the
Commission should be boycotted. All parties and all
communities agreed to do so.
 We formed a committee in Bombay, of which I became
secretary and Jinnah chairman; and, I must say, Jinnah was as
firm as a rock as far as the question of the boycott of the
Commission was concerned. He said a boycott was a boycott,
and it must be total and complete. To meet the challenge of the
Simon Commission, an All-Parties Conference met in Delhi in
February 1928. and decided to appoint a committee
representing various parties to draft a Constitution for India.
This Committee later came to be called the “Nehru
Commission”.

21.  The Commission met at Lucknow to draft the Nehru
Report. I was also invited to be present and I participated
in the prolonged discussions which ultimately resulted in
the publication of the Nehru Report. I think my main
contribution to the Report was my steadfast adherence to
the belief in joint electorates.
 The draft Report came up before an All-Parties
Conference in Lucknow in August. I was there, and on
behalf of the Muslim League I accepted the Report. At
that time Jinnah was in England. Soon thereafter he
returned.

22.  He shouted at me: “What right did you have to accept the
Nehru Report on behalf of the Muslim League? Who
authorised you?” I told him that whatever I had done, I
had done according to my rights and in the best interests
of the community and the country.
 We had then the All-Parties Convention in Calcutta.
Jinnah was in favour of outright rejection I appealed to
him that we should not reject it outright, but instead
suggest amendments which might be accepted by the
Convention. We ultimately decided to accept the Nehru
Report with three important amendments. One was that
,separate electorates should remain, second, that there
should be reservation of one-third of the seats in the
Central Legislature, and third, residuary powers should be
vested in the Provinces, not in the centre.

23. Change in Jinnah’s mentality
 The amendments were not accepted, and the result was
that the All-Parties Convention ended in failure, which
was something of a tragedy.
 It has been said that this marked a turning-point in
Jinnah’s life. From a strongly nationalist position, he
gradually drifted to the communal camp, which then
consisted of men like Aga Khan and Sir Mahomed Shafi.
 It was in December 1930, when presiding over the
Muslim League at Allahabad, that Sir Mahomed Iqbal first
gave public expression to the idea of a North-West
Muslim State. It marked the subtle beginning of the
conception of Pakistan. I immediately condemned this
effusion of Sir Mahomed Iqbal.

24. Breach of ties with Jinnah
 My breach with Jinnah had been growing since the
rejection of the Nehru Report by the Muslim League and
my consequent resignation from that body. That breach
became complete, when eventually Jinnah accepted the
idea of Pakistan and the two nation theory. It was then
clear to me that the time had come when we should have a
political Muslim body which would counteract the vicious
propaganda that Jinnah and his colleagues were carrying
on in the country. With that idea in mind, we formed the
Muslim Nationalist Party in Bombay, of which Brelvi was
elected President.

25. Jinnah’s new party
 In view of the elections then impending, Mr. Jinnah
announced the formation of a Muslim League Party to
fight the election and followed this up by issuing an
election manifesto. I was asked to give my view's in an
interview to the Bombay Chronicle. I stated that with due
respect to Mr. Jinnah, I for one could not conceive of a
Muslim League party.
 In conclusion I said that I entirely agreed with Jinnah that
the Musalmans had got to be organised, but I did not like
to see them organised as a separate political unit. True,
they must be organised educationally and economically;
but politically, they must join hands with members of the
other communities.

26. Resolution for formation of new state
 Then came the notorious Pakistan resolution of 1940,
passed by the Muslim League. I said that Jinnah’s
presidential address to the All-India Muslim League and
the resolution passed by the League had created both
consternation and grief in the minds of all those Muslims
who looked upon India as their motherland, and who were
proud to be part and parcel of the great Indian nation.
 I further stated: “It is nothing less than a declaration of
political bankruptcy to suggest that Muslim rights can
only be safeguarded by the creation of a separate Muslim
State”. The whole of India is our homeland, and not just
any part of it.

27.  The strength of India lies in her unity and in the wonderful
natural frontiers a kind Providence has given her. Let us
not shatter that unity and make two States where God
intended there should be one.
 The prophecy I had made in 1940 unfortunately came true.
The creation of a homeland for Muslims in Pakistan, far
from bringing about amity and goodwill has led to three
wars, and a growing hatred on the part of Pakistan for
India and everything Indian.
 Jinnah solved neither the problem of Muslim majority
States nor the problem of the States where the Muslims
were in a minority. His only achievement lay, as I said, in
creating disunity and hatred and in the break-up of a great
country which could have developed into one of the most
progressive and prosperous countries in the world.

28. Civil Liberties Movement
 On April 22, 1936, I received a circular letter from
Jawaharlal Nehru which proposed the starting of a civil
liberties movement in the country. Jawaharlal went on to
say that the existence of civil liberties was generally
considered to be essential for the development of every
kind of national activity political, social, cultural,
economic.
 I had no hesitation in giving him my full support. I
remember we held a meeting in Bombay to inaugurate the
Bombay branch of the civil liberties movement. I presided
over the meeting and Jawaharlal Nehru inaugurated what
we had decided to call the Civil Liberties Union.

29. Communal Riots
 There were certain sad and tragic events which happened
during this period in Bombay, with regard to which I
played a fairly important role. These were the communal
riots, which tarnished the fair reputation of the city of
Bombay.
 I had an opportunity of studying these riots at close
quarters in Bombay, because as soon as the riots started
we set up a Peace Committee under the Mayor and I was a
member. This Peace Committee did its utmost to stop
these riots as quickly as it could.

30. Carter’s Case
 It was not merely a legal matter but one that had serious
political overtones. At the time of the Simon Commission
boycott, a procession of students was marching through
one of the streets of Bombay and a police Sergeant named
Carter assaulted two members of the procession—one of
whom was the well-known young nationalist and social
leader Yusuf Meherali. These two persons had Sergeant
Carter prosecuted for assault.
 Presidency Magistrate convicted Sergeant Carter and
passed sentence on him. Sergeant Carter came in revision
before Mr. Justice Mirza and Mr. Justice Patkar. This
revisional application should have been ordinarily
disposed of by Justice Mirza and Justice Patkar, but this
did not happen.

31.  Sir Amberson Marten, who was then the Chief Justice, had
taken what certainly was a most extraordinary step. He
withdrew the case from this bench constituted a special
bench consisting of himself and Mr. Justice Kemp, and
acquitted Sergeant Carter.
 I strongly condemned what Sir Amberson Marten had
done. I pointed out that, apart from an extraordinary action
on the part of the Chief Justice of Bombay in constituting
an English Bench, the Bench had done a number of things
which were contrary to the acceptable principles of
Criminal Law.

32. Government’s Pressure
 I remember Sir Amberson Marten once sending for me in
his chamber, and telling me that I was a young man who
was doing well, and that I had a great future. I should not
therefore involve myself in anti-government politics like
the boycott of the Simon Commission. I told him that I
felt flattered by his remarks about my future, but he,
having been at the Bar, would appreciate the fact that there
is nothing which a member of the Bar values more than
his independence and his right to express any views which
he might hold.
 The Chief Justice was not particularly pleased with my
attitude, and I must add that he took his revenge on me
later.

33. Marten’s revenge
 I had been professor at the Law College for three years, and the
Principal proposed an extension of one year on the ground that
I had done very well as professor. As I came to know later, Sir
Amberson Marten, who did not normally depart from the view
of the Law College Board which recommends names for
professorship, wrote a private letter to Hotson, who was Home
Member, asking him not to re-appoint me because of my
political views. And I received a letter from Hotson to the
effect that unless I gave an undertaking that I would abandon
political activities, I would not be re-appointed.
 I consulted Sir Chimanlal Setalvad and I told him that Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar, who was also a professor along with me at the Law
College and whose term was also recommended for extension,
was expected to be re-appointed, although he also took part in
politics as I did.

34.  But the difference was that Dr. Ambedkar's politics were
pro-Government and agreeable to its way of thinking;
mine, however, were anti-Government and hostile to its
policy. So I drafted a letter to Hotson, which was vetted by
Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, pointing out first that, as I was a
part time professor, I was not bound by the government
rules, and I had therefore every right to take part in
politics. I added that, if the Government took a contrary
view, the same principle should apply to Dr. Ambedkar. I
must say in fairness to Hotson that he did not re-appoint
me, but he also did not re-appoint Ambedkar. In a way I
was sorry that I was responsible for Ambedkar's losing his
job along with me.

35. Views on Ambedkar
 Dr. Ambedkar was, if I might put it that way, quite a
different proposition. We were called to the Bar on the
same day, and we practised together in the High Court. He
was wholly on the Appellate side, and had very little
work. He was an extremely able man, deeply read in
politics and political science, and knew the principles of
Constitution-making and also of good government. But he
had a chip on his shoulder, occasioned probably by the
fact that he never forgot that he was a Harijan. There was
no doubt in his mind that the whole community was
atrociously treated by the caste Hindus and he, in
particular, did not get what he deserved merely because he
was a Harijan. There was considerable justification for the
bitterness that he felt. I have always had strong views
about untouchability.

36.  I remember Ambedkar coming to me one day with the
proposition that the untouchables should embrace Islam
because they would never get justice at the hands of the
Hindus. I was shocked and surprised at the proposal. I told
him that I did not believe in conversion—neither forcible
conversion nor conversion for what may be called reasons
of convenience.
 The only conversion which I would countenance would
be one that is born out of spiritual compulsion, which
made one feel that one's proper place was in some other
religion. I told him that I did not personally believe in
religion myself but I thought that ordinarily one should
continue to remain in the religion in which one was born,
whether one believed in its tenets or not.

37. Thank You