¹ Jalal, A., The Sole Spokesman Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge, Cambridge UP [University Press], South Asian Studies No. 31, 1985) [henceforth Jinnah].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Wolpert, S., Jinnah of Pakistan (New York, Oxford UP, 1984).Google Scholar

³ Azad, M. A. K., India Wins Freedom (Calcutta, Orient Longmans, 1957).Google Scholar

⁴ The Statesman Weekly (Calcutta & New Delhi), 29 10 1988, pp. 3, 7.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., ‘The Maulana's Lament’, Editorials, 12 November 1988, p. 9.

⁶ Ibid., 5 November 1988, p. 6. For a further discussion, see below.

⁷ ‘…there is universal agreement that Mahomed Ali Jinnah was central to the Muslim League's emergence after 1937 as the voice of a Muslim nation; to its articulation in March 1940 of the Pakistan Demand for separate statehood for the Muslim majority provinces of north-western and eastern India; and to its achievement in August 1947…’ Moore, R. J., ‘Jinnah and the Pakistan Demand’ Modern Asian Studies XVII, 4 (1983), p. 529. Cf. also: ‘In August 1947, the Muslim League was the only party to achieve what it wanted.’CrossRefGoogle ScholarSingh, A. I., The Origins of the Partition of India (Delhi, Oxford UP, 1987), p. 252.Google Scholar See also Roy, A., ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah in South Asia X, 1 (06 1987), p. 101.Google Scholar

⁸ The most valuable recent edition of the documentary sources on the transfer of power in India is undoubtedly N. Mansergh [ed-in-chief], Lumby, E. W. R. and Moon, P. (eds), Constitutional Relations Between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power 1942–1947, [henceforth TP Documents], 12 vols (London, 1970–1983).Google ScholarIn addition, the Quaid-i Azam Papers, All-India Muslim League Papers, and the ‘Partition Papers'—all rendered accessible in the National Archives of Pakistan, Islamabad, together with a variety of private papers and other documentary material made available in the Indian National Archives and the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, form a substantive corpus of new material on the politics of partition.Google Scholar

⁹ Pirzada, S. S. (ed.), Foundation of Pakistan. All-India Muslim League Documents: 1906–1947, II (Karachi/Dacca, National Publishing House, 1970), p. 321.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Kaura, U., Muslims and Indian Nationalism. The Emergence of the Demand for India's Partition 1928–1940 (New Delhi, South Asia Books, 1977).Google Scholar

¹¹ Moore, R. J., ‘Jinnah and Pakistan’, pp. 529–61.Google Scholar

¹² Singh, A. I., Origins of the Partition.Google Scholar

¹³ Pirzada, , Muslim League Documents, II, p. 269; alsoGoogle ScholarAhmad, J. (ed.), Speeches and Writings of Mr Jinnah, I (Lahore, S. M. Ashraf, 7th edn, 1968), p. 32.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Wolpert, Jinnah, p. 182.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Robinson, F., ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah, in Modern Asian Studies XX, 3 (07 1986), p. 613.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Wolpert, S., A New History of India (New York, Oxford UP, 1982), p. 325.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Jalal, Jinnah, p. 4; Roy, ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Jalal, Ibid., p. 241. Jinnah's vision perhaps anticipated the contemporary Canadian situation in relation to Quebec. French Quebec decided against separation in 1980. In accordance with the arrangements of the new Accord signed between the Canadian Federal Government and the Provinces, Quebec's power in the Centre has been substantially reinforced without compromising its right to contract out of Federal Programmes.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 57.

²⁰ Pirzada, , Muslim League Documents, II, p. 425.Google Scholar

²¹ Jalal, Jinnah, p. 2.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., p. 4.

²³ Ibid., p. 3.

²⁴ Wolpert, , New History, p. 335.Google Scholar

²⁵ Masselos, J., Indian Nationalism: An History (New Delhi, Sterling Publishers, 1985), p. 206.Google Scholar

²⁶ Robinson, , ‘Review’ of Jalal' Jinnah, p. 617.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India (Bombay, Thacker, 3rd edn, 1946), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ Coupland, R., Indian Politics 1936–1942. Report on the Constitutional Problem of India (London, Oxford UP, 1944), p. 206.Google Scholar

²⁹ Moon, P., Divide and Quit (London, Chatto & Windus, 1961), p. 21.Google Scholar

³⁰ Tinker, H., Experiment with Freedom: India and Pakistan 1947 (London, Oxford UP, 1967), p. 24; alsoGoogle ScholarHardy, P., The Muslims of British India (Cambridge, Cambridge UP, South Asian Studies No. 13, 1972), p. 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Hodson, H. V., The Great Divide: Britain. India. Pakistan (London: Hutchinson, 1969), p. 69.Google Scholar

³² Quoted, Jalal, Jinnah, p. 70.Google Scholar

³³ See above p. 392.

³⁴ See above, note 8.

³⁵ Roy, , ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah, p. 101.Google Scholar

³⁶ Robinson, , ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah, p. 617.Google Scholar

³⁷ Pirzada, , Muslim League Documents, II, p. 426.Google Scholar ‘We wanted a word and it was foisted on us, and we found it convenient to use it as a synonym for the Lahore Resolution.’ (Ibid.)

³⁸ Jalal, , Jinnah, p. 76.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mansergh, , TP Documents, VII, Doc. No. 469, Enclosure, L/P & J/5/337: PP 418–20, p. 837.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Jalal, , Jinnah, p. 202.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Mansergh, , TP Documents, VII, Doc. No. 469, Enclosure, p. 838.Google Scholar

⁴² Pirzada, Ibid., II, p. 509.

⁴³ Jalal, , Jinnah, p. 208.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Kochanek, S. A., The Congress Party of India. The Dynamics of One-Party Democracy (Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton UP, 1968);CrossRefGoogle ScholarKothari, R., ‘The Congress “System” in India,’ in Party System and Election Studies, Occasional Papers of the Centre for Developing Societies, No. I (Bombay, Allied Publishers, 1967), pp. 1–18Google Scholar; also G. Krishna, ‘One Party Dominance—Developments and Trends’ in Ibid., pp. 19–98.

⁴⁵ Menon, V. P., The Transfer of Power in India (Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton UP, 1957), p. 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 360.

⁴⁷ See above p. 385.

⁴⁸ Azad, , India Wins Freedom, p. 165.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Mosley, L., Last Days of the British Raj (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1961), p. 97.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Tendulkar, D. G., Mahatma (Bombay, Jhaveri & Tendulkar, 1952), V, pp. 333–4.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid., pp. 336–7.

⁵² Leader, 15 April 1940, quoted Mehrotra, S. R., ‘The Congress and the Partition of India’, in Philips, C. H. & Wainwright, M. D. (eds), The Partition of India. Policies and Perspectives 1935–1947 (London, Allen & Unwin, 1970), p. 210.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., 16 April 1940, quoted in Ibid..

⁵⁴ Nehru, J., The Discovery of India (Bombay, Asia Publishing House, reprint, 1969), p. 526.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 15 January 1946;Google ScholarMansergh, , TP Documents, VI, Doc. No. 357, L/PO/10/23, p. 796.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Nehru to Cripps, 27 January 1946; Ibid., Doc. No. 384, L/P & J/10/59: ff. 42–4, pp. 855–6.

⁵⁷ Note by Duckworth, 4 April 1946; Ibid., VII, Doc. No. 54, L/P & J/8/636: ff. 3–6, p. 136.

⁵⁸ Mosley, , British Raj, p. 248.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid..

⁶⁰ Gwyer, M. and Appadorai, A. (eds), Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921–1947 (London, Oxford UP, 1957), II, p. 682.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Leader, 16 June 1947, quoted Mehrotra, ‘Congress and Partition’, p. 220.Google Scholar

⁶² Quoted in Menon, Transfer of Power, p. 132.Google Scholar

⁶³ Tahmankar, D. V., Sardar Patel (London, Allen & Unwin, 1970), p. 191.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Mansergh, , TP Documents, X, Doc. No. 375, L/P & J/10/ 79: f. 248, p. 717.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Tahmankar, , Patel, p. 272.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Azad, , India Wins Freedom, pp. 135, 138.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Mansergh, , TP Documents, Mountbatten Papers, Viceroy's Interview No. 14, 27 March 1947, X, Doc. No. 27, p. 34.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The Statesman Weekly, 5 November 1988, p. 6;Google Scholar also above, notes 3–6. It was reported that Rabindranath Roy, who was additional private secretary to Humayun Kabir, the co-author of the book, and who also typed out the manuscript, affirmed that the sealed pages contained ‘no adverse comments on Jawaharlal Nehru or members of his family.’ This statement was immediately contradicated by the publishers of the book, Orient Longmans saying that the excised pages ‘do make critical references to Jawaharlal Nehru…, Ibid., 29 October 1988, pp. 3, 7.

⁶⁹ Jalal, , Jinnah, pp. 243 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Robinson, , ‘Review’ of Jalal's Jinnah, p. 617.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See above p. 396 also note 32.

⁷² Mansergh, , TP Documents, Viceroys Personal Report No. 3, 17 April 1947, X, Doc. No. 165, L/PO/6/123: ff. 42–9, p. 301.Google Scholar