¹ For a classic exposition of the instrumental role of Islam see Brass, Paul, Language, Religion and Politics in North India (London, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1974).Google Scholar For arguments that categorically dismiss the explanatory power of ideology see, Gallagher, John et al. (eds), Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics, 1870–1947 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1973)Google Scholar and Seal, Anil and Jalal, A., ‘Alternative to Partition: Muslim Politics between the Wars’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 15, no. 3, 1981, pp. 415–54.Google Scholar The paramount importance of Islam as the principal catalyst of Muslim political action in colonial India is emphasized, amongst others, in Malik, Hafeez, Moslem Nationalism in India and Pakistan (Washington, Public Affairs Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Qureishi, I. H., The Struggle for Pakistan (Karachi, University of Karachi Publications, 1965)Google Scholar and Islam, Riazul, ‘The Religious Factor in the Pakistan Movement: A Study in Motivation’, Proceedings of the First Congress on the History and Culture of Pakistan, vol. 3 (Islamabad, National Commission on Historical and Cultural Research, 1976).Google Scholar

² Beer, Samuel, ‘The Representation of Interests in British Government: Historical Background’, American Political Science Review, vol. 51, no. 3, 09 1957, p. 630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a more provocative discussion of the question of individual autonomy and representation in the context of western liberalism see Dunn, John, Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar

³ Gardet, Louis, La Cité Musulmane: vie sociale et politique (Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1961), p. 57.Google Scholar See also, Grunebaum, G. E. von, Modern Islam: The Search for Cultural Identity (New York, Vintage Books, 1964), pp. 246–47.Google Scholar

⁴ The question of the centrality of the communal group in Islam has been extensively discussed in Rahman, Fazlur, Islam (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966)Google Scholar; Watt, Montgomery, Islamic Political Thought: The Basic Concepts (Edinburgh, The University Press, 1968)Google Scholar and Gardet, Louis, L'Islam: religion et communauté (Paris, Bibliotheque française de philosophie, 1967).Google Scholar

⁵ Shaikh, Farzana, Islam: Ideology or Instrument? Muslims and Political Representation in British India, 1860–1946 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁶ Sartori, Giovanni, ‘Representation: Representational Systems’ in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (London, Macmillan, 1968), pp. 468.Google Scholar See also, Birch, A. H., ‘The Theory and Practice of Representation’, 7th World Congress of the International Political Science Association (Brussels, 1967).Google Scholar

⁷ This is, of course, not unique to Islamic societies but may occur in any sharply divided society where politics is conducted on communal and ethnic lines, see Kearney, Robert, Communalism and Language in the Politics of Ceylon (Durham, North Carolina, Duke University Press, 1967)Google Scholar and Rabushka, Alvin and Shepsle, Kenneth, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability (Columbus, Ohio, Charles L. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972).Google Scholar What is unique to Islamic societies is the manner in which the organization of politics on communal lines is actively pursued in the name of a Divine Law which is seen to endorse it.

⁸ Sartori maintains ‘If representation is defined merely as an idemsentire, as the fact of ‘co-incidence in opinion with’, any method of selection or even no method at all might do. What matters is not the procedure … but the existence of such co-incidence’. Giovanni Sartori, ‘Representation’, p. 467.

⁹ See, Parekh, B. C., ‘India: A Case Study in the Ideology of Representation’, 7th World Congress of the International Political Science Association (Brussels, 1967)Google Scholar for an excellent interpretation of the way in which the League asserted its claim to be the sole authentic representative of the Muslim community in India.

¹⁰ The traditional justification for liberal majority rule was precisely that it avoided any permanent minorities. See, Lively, J., Democracy (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1973)Google Scholar and Dahl, Robert, Polyarchy (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1971).Google Scholar

¹¹ See, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. I (Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1913), pp. 958–9Google Scholar; Cragg, Kenneth, The House of Islam, 2nd edn (Encino, Calif., Dickinson Publishing Company, 1975), pp. 82–4Google Scholar, and Sarjeant, R. B., ‘The “Constitution of Medina”’, Islamic Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 1, 1964, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar

¹² Beard, C. and Lewis, J. D., ‘Representative Government in Evolution’, American Political Science Review, vol. 26, no. 2, 04 1932, p. 235.Google Scholar

¹³ Resolution of the Working Committee of the All India Muslim League on the War Crisis, 17–18 September 1939 in Gwyer, M. and Appadorai, A. (eds), Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution, 1921–1947, vol. II (London, Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 488–9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For evidence of these contradictory positions see Marquess, of Linlithgow, , Speeches and Statements, 1936–1943 (Simla, Government of India Press, 1945), p. 209Google Scholar and Zetland (Secretary of State for India) to the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow, 4 February 1940, Zetland Collection, MSS EUR E 609, India Office Library, no. 11.

¹⁵ See Linlithgow's Statement on ‘War Aims’ and ‘War Effort’, 18 October 1939, in Marquess of Linlithgow, Speeches and Statements, p. 210.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The League's position was coherently argued by Jinnah in his article entitled ‘On the Communal Question’, dated 1 March 1938, reprinted in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. I, pp. 407–10.Google Scholar See also, Pirzada, S. S. (ed.), Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's Correspondence (Karachi, Guild Publishing House, 1966, 2nd ed), 443–9.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, The Report of the Inquiry Committee appointed by the Council of the All India Muslim League to inquire into Muslim grievances in Congress Provinces, 15 November 1938 (Pirpur Report) in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. I, pp. 411, 412.Google Scholar

¹⁸ J. Nehru's presidential address to the All India National Convention of Congress Legislators, The Indian Annual Register (1937), vol. I, pp. 207–8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nehru-Jinnah Correspondence (Allahabad, All India Congress Committee, n.d.), pp. 61–73.Google Scholar

²⁰ Although the phrase itself was first used by Maulana Hasrat Mohani in the early 1920s, its notoriety clearly derives from Mohammad Iqbal's presidential address to the 21st session of the Muslim League in December 1930. See, Pirzada, S. S. (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan: All India Muslim League Documents 1906–1947, vol. II (Karachi, National Publishing House, n.d.), p. 159.Google Scholar

²¹ Mehrotra, S. R., ‘The Congress and the Partition of India’ in Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, M. D. (eds), The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935–1947 (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970), p. 202.Google Scholar

²² Jinnah's speech to the Muslim University Union, Aligarh, 6 March 1940 in Ahmed, Jamil-ud-din (ed.), Speeches and Writings of Mr Jinnah, vol. I (Lahore, Shaikh Muhammad Ashraf, 1960), p. 138.Google Scholar

²³ See Muhammad Iqbal's presidential address to the 21st session of the Muslim League in December 1930 in Pirzada, S. S. (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, p. 159Google Scholar and Iqbal to Jinnah, 28 May 1937 in Pirzada, (ed.), Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's Correspondence, pp. 159, 160.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ali, Chaudhri Rahmat, Pakistan: The Fatherland of the Pak Nation (Cambridge, Pakasia Literature, 3rd edition, 1947), pp. 213, 216.Google Scholar See also, Chaudhri Rahmat Ali to unidentified person, 8 July 1935 enclosed in Jayakar, M. R. Papers and cited in Uma Kaura, Muslims and Indian Nationalism: The Emergence of the Demand for the Partition of India, 1920–1940 (New Delhi, South Asia Books, 1977), p. 154.Google Scholar

²⁵ For details of these schemes see, Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, pp. 443–65.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Resolution I adopted by the 27th session of the Muslim League on 23 March 1940 in Pirzada, (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, p. 337.Google Scholar

²⁷ See the ‘Delhi Resolution’ passed by the Convention of League Legislators on 9 April 1946, ibid., vol. II, pp. 512–13.

²⁸ Linlithgow‘s Statement on ‘War Aims’ and the ‘War Effort’, October 18 1939 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, pp. 490–3.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Jinnah's tentative proposals for co-operation with the government, July 1 1940, ibid., vol. II, pp. 502–3.

³⁰ See Linlithgow's statement on the expansion of the Governor General's Executive Council and the establishment of a War Advisory Council, 8 August 1940, ibid., vol. II, pp. 504–5.

³¹ See, ‘Notes of a Conversation between Linlithgow and Jinnah, 14 and 24 August 1940, Linlithgow Collection, MSS EUR F 125, India Office Library and the Resolution of the Working Committee of the Muslim League, 28 September 1940 in Indian Annual Register (1940), vol. II, p. 251.Google Scholar

³² Resolution of the All India Congress Committee, 15–16 September 1940 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, pp. 505–6.Google Scholar

³³ Sir Winston Churchill's speech to the House of Commons, 11 March 1942, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1942, vol. 378, col. 1069.Google Scholar

³⁴ Draft Declaration for discussion with Indian leaders, Times of India, 30 March 1942.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Jinnah's presidential address to the Muslim League on 3 April 1942 in Pirzada, (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, p. 388.Google Scholar

³⁶ Resolution of the Working Committee of the Muslim League passed on 2 April 1942. Statesman, 11 April 1942.Google Scholar

³⁷ Resolution of the Working Committee of the All India National Congress, 2 April 1942, Ibid.

³⁸ Statement by L. S. Amery to the House of Commons, 14 June 1945 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, p. 559.Google Scholar

³⁹ Jinnah's statement on the new proposals made at a press conference in Simla on 29 June 1945 in Ahmed, Jamil-ud-din (ed.), Jinnah, vol. II, pp. 175–80.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Gandhi to Wavell, 17 June 1945. Indian Annual Register (1945), vol. I, p. 245.Google Scholar See also, Wavell, Archibold Percival, Wavell: The Viceroy's Journal, edited by Penderel Moon (London, Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 145.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See, Instructions issued by the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress to its representatives attending the Simla Conference,21–22 June 1945.Google ScholarIndian Annual Register (1945), vol. I, p. 224.Google Scholar

⁴² See Wavell's lengthy accounts of his interviews with Jinnah on 24 and 27 June in The Viceroy's Journal, pp. 146–7, 148–50.Google Scholar See also Wavell's letter to Jinnah on 9 July 1945 in the Indian Annual Register (1945), vol. I, p. 140.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Jinnah's speech to the Convention of League Legislators on 7 April 1946 in Pirzada, (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, p. 510.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See the ‘Delhi Resolution’ passed by the Convention of the League's Legislators on 9 April 1946, ibid., vol. II, pp. 512–13.

⁴⁵ See Lord Pethick-Lawrence to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and M. A. Jinnah, 27 April 1946 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, p. 572Google Scholar and Suggested Points of Agreement between the Congress and the League put forward by the Cabinet Mission Plan, 8 May 1946 in Papers Relating to the Cabinet Mission to India 1946 (Delhi, Manager of Publications), p. 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See, Terms offered by the Muslim League as a Basis of Agreement, 12 May 1946 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, pp. 20–1Google Scholar and Terms offered by Congress as a Basis of Agreement, 12 May 1946, ibid., pp. 22–3.

⁴⁷ See statement by the Cabinet Mission to India and the Viceroy, 16 May 1946, ibid., vol. II, pp. 577–84.

⁴⁸ See Jinnah's statement on the Cabinet Mission's Plan on 23 May 1946, in Ahmed, Jamil-ud-din (ed.), Jinnah, vol. II, pp. 291–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Resolution of the Muslim League Council on the Cabinet Mission‘s Plan on 6 June 1946 in Sherwani, L. A. (ed.), Pakistan Resolution to Pakistan: 1940–1947: A Selection of Documents presenting the Case for Pakistan (Karachi, National Publishing House, 1969).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Wavell, to Jinnah, , 4 June 1946Google Scholar in Pirzada, (ed.), Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's Correspondence, p. 320Google Scholar and Jinnah to Wavell, 8 June 1946, ibid., p. 321.

⁵¹ Wavell to Jinnah, 12 June 1946, ibid., p. 323.

⁵² See Statement by the Cabinet Delegation and the Viceroy on the formation of an Interim Government, 16 June 1946, Papers Relating to the Cabinet Mission to India 1346, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar

⁵³ The insinuation was, however, hotly resisted by.Cripps in his statement to the House of Commons in July 1946. See his speech in the House of Commons on 18 July 1946. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 1946, vol. 425, cols. 1394–416.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Jinnah, to Wavell, , 19 June 1946Google Scholar in Pirzada, (ed.), Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah's correspondence, p. 328Google Scholar and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to Wavell, 25 June 1946 in Gwyer, and Appadorai, (eds), Speeches, vol. II, p. 606.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See, Ali, Chaudhri Rahmat, Pakistan, as well as his, What Does the Pakistan National Movement stand for? (Cambridge, W. Heffer & Sons, 1st edn, 1933)Google Scholar and Iqbal's presidential address to the 21st session of the Muslim League in December 1930 in Pirzada, (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, pp. 157–63.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League in December 1930 in Pirzada, (ed.), Foundations of Pakistan, vol. II, p. 161.Google Scholar