Muslim alt to PAK       

Hindus believe that the Muslim proposal for PAK is only a bargaining maneveur put forth with the object of making additions to the communal gains already secured under the Communal Award. But the Muslims want PAK and nothing short of that.

What is the Muslim alternative to PAK? No one knows, the Muslims will not talk about it till the day when the rival parties meet to revise and settle the terms on which Hindus & Muslims are to associate with each other in the future. In the absence of the exact alternative one can only make a guess. My guess is that the Muslims will put forth their alternative - some such proposal as the following – (am reproducing the more important of the 14 points given in the book).

a) That the Muslims shall have 50% representation in the Legislature, Central & Provincial, through separate electorates.
b) That ½ of the Executive in the Centre & States shall consist of Muslims.
c) That in the Civil Service 50% of the post shall be assigned to Muslims.
d) That in the Fighting forces Muslims proportion shall be one half, both in the ranks and in the higher grades.
e) That is the Prime Minister be a Hindu the Deputy PM shall be a Muslim.
f) That no changes in the Provincial Boundaries shall be made except with the consent of 2/3rd of the Muslim members of the Legislature.
g) That the national language shall be Urdu.
h) That no action or treaty against a Muslim country & change in the Constitution shall be valid unless the consent of 2/3rd of the Muslim members of the legislature is obtained.

‘Friends the book contains a Hyderabad Scheme of Reforms and the proposal formulated by one Mir Akbar Ali Khan that I have not reproduced for the reason that there is nothing unique to them or they are not a type of scheme that would be acceptable to the Hindus. Next there was held at Delhi in April 1940 a conference of Muslims under the name The Azad Muslim Conference. They were opposed to the Muslim League and the nationalist Muslims because of which they were hailed by the Hindus as a conference of friends. But the resolutions passed by the Conference leave very little to choose between it and the League’.

In evaluating the above alternatives the Hindus should note certain important considerations. There is a difference between safeguards to allay apprehensions of the weak and contrivances to satisfy the ambition for power by the strong: there is a difference between providing safeguards and handing over the country. What may be conceded with safety to a community may not be conceded to a nation and what may be conceded with safety to the weak to be used as a weapon of defence may not be conceded to the strong who may use it as a weapon of attack.

These are important considerations and if the Hindus overlook them they will do so at their own peril. For the Muslim alternative is really a frightful and dangerous alternative.