May 1, 1947 - US officials visit Jinnah

May 1 1947 - At his Bombay residence, Jinnah met with Raymond Hare, US State Dept. Division of Middle Eastern and Indian Affairs, and Thomas Weil, second secretary at the US Embassy at New Delhi.  This meeting was described in "Secret Telegram from George R. Merrell, Charge de Affaires US Embassy New Delhi to Secretary of State George C. Marshall, May 2, 1947,  Foreign Relations of the United States 1947 Volume 3, :154-155."  Cited by Hussain Haqqani, Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding.




845.00/5-247 : Telegram

The Chargé in India (Merrell) to the Secretary of State

SECRET                                                                     NEW DELHI, May 2, 1947—10 a. m.

299. In hour and half conversation with Hare and Weil [1] yesterday, Jinnah said Congress demand for partition Bengal and Punjab would not "frighten" him into joining union center; that even if "driven into Sind desert" he would refuse to join union.  He said establishment Pakistan essential to prevent "Hindu imperialism" spreading into Middle East;  Muslim countries would stand together against possible Russian aggression and would look to US for assistance.   Reminded of Dawn's [2] frequent jibes re US economic imperialism and dollar diplomacy, he said Dawn editors simply reflected attitude of Indian Muslims in general towards US and added jokingly "they had to make a living".  He said while he realized US Govt probably open-minded re Pakistan, most Indian Muslims felt Americans were against them (a) because most Americans seemed opposed to Pakistan and (b) US Govt and people backed Jews against Arabs in Palestine.

[1] Raymond A. Hare of the Division of Middle Eastern and Indian Affairs, and Thomas E. Weil, Second Secretary of Embassy at New Delhi.
[2] Daily newspaper published in New Delhi; official organ of the Muslim League.

Jinnah said he thought if Calcutta area were included in Pakistan, Hindus would adjust selves to situation but if they didn't they would have to be brought under control and he thought this would "not take very long".  Apropos Punjab, he said Sikhs would be fairly treated and would have as many representatives in Pakistan Parliament as Sind or NWFP.   Said he thought announcement HMG's decision on Pakistan would clear atmosphere and reduce communal tension.

Jinnah's manner was calm and gracious and he showed none of nervousness or effects of illness noted by Jones of New York Times on April 19 (mitel280, April 21 [3])

Difficult to believe eventual announcement HMG's decision on Pakistan with or without partition of Bengal or Punjab will clear communal atmosphere.  Force will undoubtedly have to be employed to control rebellious elements in Bengal and Punjab no matter who receives power from HMG in those areas.

Please repeat London.

MERRELL

[3] Not printed.

Interview: Maya Tudor : The Promise of Power

 From the Indian Express

 Unlike the Congress, the Muslim League failed to create a social and economic programme, or rural-urban alliances’

Maya Tudor, a lecturer in government and public policy at Oxford University, recently published ‘The Promise of Power’, investigating the origins of India and Pakistan’s regime divergence in the aftermath of independence. In Delhi for a lecture tour, she spoke to Yamini Lohia. Excerpts {of excerpts}

In your book, you identified the leading political parties, the Congress and the Muslim League, as the major difference between India and Pakistan at the time of Partition. How do you think their leadership contributed to the divergent paths?
 
I wouldn’t say it was leadership. ....... But the parties were more than their leaders, at least in India, and that was the difference. It was just leaders in the case of Pakistan. There wasn’t much of a party organisation in terms of real representation in rural areas and a real programme. So on issues like what kind of programme of economic governance India was going to pursue, what kind of social programme and what the ideology of citizenship was — what made the Indian citizen an Indian citizen — on all these questions, India’s nationalist movement did more to develop a clear programme. They weren’t addressed in Pakistan until much later. India also built a movement that had substantial support in the countryside. That’s what made a difference.