¹ Brass and Robinson agree, however, on a number of points, viz: that the colonial government encouraged the Muslims to organize as Muslims; that Hindu revivalism was a limiting factor for both Hindu and Muslim elites; that pre-existing communal and educational institutions facilitated effective political mobilization when ethnic appeals were made; and that there were insufficient objective differences between Hindus and Muslims to bring about a separatist movement. Brass, Paul R., Language, Religion and Politics in North India (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 118–19Google Scholar; Brass, P. R., ‘A Reply to Francis Robinson,’ Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, vol. XV (1977), pp. 231–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brass, P. R., ‘Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation and Ethnic Identity among the Muslims of South Asia’, in Taylor, D. and Yapp, M. (eds), Political Identity in South Asia (London, 1979), pp. 41–67Google Scholar; Robinson, Francis, ‘Nation Formation: the Brass Thesis and Muslim Separatism’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, vol. XV (1977), pp. 215–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, F., ‘Islam and Muslim Separatism’, in Taylor, and Yapp, (eds), Political Identity, pp. 79–107.Google Scholar

² See Robinson, F., Separatism among Indian Muslims (Cambridge, 1975), Chs 5–7Google Scholar; the Madhe Sahaba problem arose when Sunnis, from about 1906, began to chant the praises of the first three Caliphs during the Muhurram procession. This innovation offended the Shias. Anti Tabarra Association, Exposition of the Madhe Sahaba-Tabarra Question (Lucknow, 1939).Google Scholar

³ I am grateful to Dr John Hill for this interpretation of MacDonnell's perception of U.P. society.

⁴ Robinson, , Separatism, p. 39.Google Scholar

⁵ Khan, Hamid Ali, The Vernacular Controversy (Lucknow, 1900)Google Scholar; evidence of Sheo Prasad, 4 April 1913, Royal Commission on the Public Service in India 1913 [hereafter P.S.C.] 1913, P.P., 1914, vol. XXIII, p. 1083.Google ScholarRobinson, F., ‘Municipal Government and Muslim Separatism’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 7 (1973), pp. 87–8.Google Scholar

⁶ Minault, Gail and Lelyveld, David, ‘The Campaign for a Muslim University 1898–1920’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 8 (1974), p. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Brass, , Language, Religion and Politics, p. 156.Google Scholar

⁸ Khan, Shafa'at Ahmad, Explanatory note, Indian Statutory Commission, vol. III, Reports of the Committees appointed by the Provincial Legislative Councils to co-operate with the Indian Statutory Commission [hereafter Indian Statutory Commission, III, Provincial Reports] (London, 1930), p. 376.Google Scholar

⁹ Royal Commission on the Public Services in India, 1886, [hereafter P.S.C. 1886], P.P., 1888, XLVIII, p. 55Google Scholar; P.S.C. 1913Google Scholar, P.P., 1914, vol. XXIII, pp. 254, 305Google Scholar, and P.P., 1916, vol. VII, p. 604Google Scholar; Khan, Shafa'at Ahmad, A Representation of the Muslims of United Provinces (India) to the Indian Statutory Commission (Allahabad, 1928)Google Scholar, appendix; Address by the Honourable Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant, Premier, United Provinces, to the members of the United Provinces Press Consultative Committee [hereafter Pant Address], file 1–R/39, col. 1, Rajendra Prasad Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library [N.M.L.] New Delhi. The best source, the U.P. Civil Lists, was not, unfortunately, available to the author.

¹⁰ Census of India, 1911, vol. XV, pt II, pp. 550–1, 558–9.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a discussion of the importance of connection in the appointment of the clerical establishment, see Robinson, , Separatism, pp. 40–5.Google Scholar

¹² P.S.C. 1913, appendix VIII, P.P., 1916, vol. VII, p. 604.

¹³ P.S.C., 1886, P.P., 1888, vol. XLVIII, p. 55.

¹⁴ P.S.C. 1913, P.P., 1914, vol. XXIII, p. 1083.

¹⁵ India Office List, 1911, pp. 22, 62–4. The last nomination to the Statutory Civil Service had taken place in 1891.Google Scholar

¹⁶ India Office List, 1911, pp. 65–7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Report of the Administration of the Police of the U.P.for the Year ending 31 December 1910 (Allahabad 1911), Statement F.Google Scholar

¹⁸ India Office List, 1911, p. 61.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For an assessment of this problem, see Stokes, Eric, ‘The Structure of Landholding in Uttar Pradesh, 1860–1948’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. XII, 1975, passim.Google Scholar

²⁰ Census of India, 1911, vol. XV, Pt 2, pp. 550–1.Google Scholar

²¹ Proceedings of the U.P. Legislative Council [hereafter U.P.L.C.], 23 February 1926, vol. XXVII, pp. 391–2. Muslims amounted to 15.09% of landholders. The difference between the 1911 census figures and these arises mainly because the 1911 figures were for primary source of income.Google Scholar

²² Neale, Walter C., ‘Land is to Rule’, in Frykenberg, Robert E. (ed.), Land Control and Social Structure (Madison, 1969), p. 9Google Scholar; for the constraints on landowners in the management of their estates, see Musgrave, P. J., ‘Landlords and Lords of the Land: Estate Management and Social Control in Uttar Pradesh 1860–1920’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 6 (1972), pp. 257–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ The exceptions were the northern Doab, Agra, Bundelkland, Garhwal, and Jhansi. For the impact of the loss of patronage on one group of Muslims, see Heber, Reginald, Narrative of a Journey through the Upper Provinces of India (London, John Murray, 1844), vol. 2, p. 234.Google Scholar

²⁴ Brennan, L., Land Policy and Social Change in North India: Rohilkhand 1800–1911. Research Monograph, No. 1, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies (University of Western Australia, 1978), p. 25.Google Scholar

²⁵ See, for example, the case of Kanpur, 1801–50, in Metcalf, Thomas R., Land, Landlords and the British Raj (Delhi, 1979), pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

²⁶ Brennan, L., ‘Agrarian Policy and its Effects on Land-holders in Rohilkhand, 1833 to 1870’, University Studies in History, vol. V (1970), pp. 9–10, 15.Google Scholar

²⁷ U.P.L.C., 23 February 1926, vol. XXVII, pp. 391–2. The district gazetteers published in the first decade of this century contain Muslim landholding figures. Usually these were derived from the most recent settlement report, but occasionally a calculation was made especially for the gazetteer.Google Scholar

²⁸ See, for example, Settlement Report [hereafter S.R.] Bulandshahr, 1891, p. 16.Google Scholar

²⁹ Datta, K. L., Report on the Enquiry into the Rise of Prices in India, vol. 1 (Calcutta, 1915), pp. 30, 255–6Google Scholar; Neale, W. C., Economic Change in Rural India (New Haven, 1962), pp. 176–7Google Scholar; Matsui, Toru, Agricultural Prices in Northern India, 1861–1921 (Tokyo, 1977), vol. II, fig. I–1.Google Scholar

³⁰ For an analysis of the complex relationship between zamindar, tenant, money-lender and commodity agent (e.g. the khandsari), see Whitcombe, Elizabeth, Agrarian Conditions in Northern India, vol. 1 (Berkeley, 1972), pp. 161–204.Google Scholar

³¹ Neale, , Economic Change, p. 100Google Scholar; Report of the United Provinces Zamindari Abolition Committee [hereafter Z.A.C. Report], vol. II (Allahabad, 1948), p. 921; Metcalf, , Land, Landlords and the British Raj, pp. 222–5.Google Scholar

³² Nizam-ul-mulk, (Moradabad), 16 March 1900, in Reports on the Vernacular Newspapers in the N.W.P. and Oudh [hereafer V. N. R.], 1900, p. 125Google Scholar; for discussion of the economic and political significance of grain rents and their commutation, see Brennan, , Land Policy, pp. 94–6, 118–19.Google Scholar

³³ See Ali, Syed Ameer, Mahomedan Law, vol. II, 3rd edn (Calcutta, 1908), pp. 61–75Google Scholar; and Saksena, Kashi Prasad, Muslim Law as administered in British India (Allahabad, 1937), PP. 899–901.Google Scholar

³⁴ Evidence of K. B. Saiyid Ain-ud-din (U.P.P.C.S.). K. B. Saiyid Abu Muhammed (U.P.P.C.S.) also argued that the inheritance laws broke small estates into small ‘bits which are not worth keeping’. On the other hand, Hindus were more likely to maintain estates under one management. Report of the U.P. Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, vol. III (Allahabad, 1930), pp. 167–70.Google Scholar

³⁵ Naiyar-i-Azam (Moradabad), 23 January 1888, V.N.R., 1888, p. 77; ‘Memorial to Lord Curzon from the Mahomedan subjects of the Queen-Empress of India, 1899’, Calcutta Law Journal, vol. 2, 1905, p. 185nGoogle Scholar; C. M. King (Officiating Magistrate, Bareilly) to Chief Secty to Govt, U.P., 1 June 1911, Govt of India, Legislative Dept, A Proceedings, April 1913, no. 332, National Archives of India [N.A.I.], New Delhi.

³⁶ See Robinson, , Separatism, pp. 133–74Google Scholar; Robinson, , ‘Municipal Government’, passim.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Pandey, Gyanendra, The Ascendancy of the Congress in Uttar Pradesh, 1926–34 (Delhi, 1978), pp. 114–53.Google Scholar

³⁸ Minault, and Lelyveld, , ‘The Campaign for a Muslim University’, pp. 187–9.Google Scholar

³⁹ Khan, Shafa'at Ahmad, What are the Rights of the Muslim Minority in India? (Allahabad, 1928), pp. 70–1, 80–1Google Scholar; that Muslim literacy was improving faster than Hindu literacy (+40% compared with +30.7% between 1921 and 1931) also suggests the urgency of the drive for Muslim education, Brass, , Language, Religion and Politics, p. 149Google Scholar; makhtabs and Islamia schools were expected to follow the government curriculum if they were to be ‘recognized’ and therefore eligible for grants from the local boards. Although the development of the Islamia schools was a marked step forward in Muslim education, it is clear that they suffered from a number of problems. This suggests that the Muslim children being educated in them may not have been receiving an education as good as those attending the schools run by local governments. See Report of the Committee appointed to Inquire into and Report on the State of Primary Education of Boys of the Muslim Community and of Educationally Backward Communities in the U.P. [1925–26] (Allahabad, 1940), esp. Appendix G, pp. 33–5.Google Scholar See also U.P.L.C., 16 December 1925, vol. XXVI, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Beaglehole, T. H., ‘From Rulers to Servants: the ICS and the British Demission of Power in India’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 11 (1977), pp. 238–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Potter, David C., ‘Manpower Shortage and the End of Colonialism: The Case of the Indian Civil Service’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 7 (1973), pp. 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ For the system of communal proportions that developed in U.P. during the 1920s, see ‘Note’ by Sloan, T., 10 December 1928, in Indian Statutory Commission, Selections from Memoranda and Oral Evidence by Non-Officials, pt I (London, 1930), pp. 346–7.Google Scholar Muslims also held about half the positions of Deputy Superintendent, Circle Inspector and Sub-Inspector in the police force. U.P.L.C., 19 December 1925, vol. XXVI, p. 507.Google Scholar

⁴² Indian Statutory Commission, III, Provincial Reports, pp. 241.Google Scholar

⁴³ Aligarh S.R. 1943, p. 5Google Scholar; Bara Banki Muslims also lost considerably, but this is not apparent in the map because their holdings were so large, Bara Banki S.R., 1930, p. 2Google Scholar; the other districts with losses of 20 +% were Cawnpore and Dehra Dun. In the former this represented some 1.5% and in the latter about 0.4%, of the total area. For Cawnpore, see Assessment Report [hereafter A.R.] Tahsil Derapur, 1943, pp. 2–3Google Scholar; A.R. Tahsil Bilhaur, 1943 P. 4Google Scholar; Rent Rate Report [hereafter R.R.] Tahsil Cawnpore, 1942, in U.P. Gazette, 25 07 1942, pt VIII, p. 1240.Google Scholar For Dehra Dun (the valley region), see S.R. Tahsil Dehra, 1941, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For an insightful view of the situation during the Depression see Jawaharlal Nehru, On the Rent and Revenue Situation in U.P., 18 April 1931, All India Congress Committee Papers [hereafter A.I.C.C. Papers], file 4/1931 (pt 1), N.M.L.; wholesale prices dropped more sharply than the rents of ordinary tenants. See Pandey, , Ascendancy of the Congress, p. 160.Google Scholar Even allowing for a sharp reduction in collections there would have been no great shortfall in the absentee landlord's real income. See Neale, , Economic Change, p. 238; and Z.A.C., I, p. 349.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Neale, , Economic Change, p. 107. Other legislation further protected landlords by reducing interest rates and requiring moneylenders to keep records.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ By 1925 some eight major estates had been settled under the Agra Estates Act of 1920. Six of these were Hindu and two were Muslim. U.P.L.C., 19 August 1925, vol. XXV, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See, for examples, Mahomed Yusoof (pleader, High Court, Calcutta), to Viceroy, 7 June 1906, Govt of India, Home (Judicial) Dept, A Proceedings, July 1907, no. 82, N.A.I.; and note by Aziz Mirza (Hon. Secty, All India Muslim League) 7 March 1911, file 33, Muslim League Papers, Archives of the Freedom Movement, University of Karachi.

⁴⁸ Govt Resolution on the Revenue Administration of the U.P. [hereafter U.P.R.A.], 1920–30 (Allahabad, 1931), pp. 8–9, 17Google Scholar; Knox, K. W., Settlement Commissioner, U.P.L.C., 11 July 1930, vol. XLVIII, p. 178Google Scholar; S.R. Etah, 1944, p. 2; A.R. Kaimgunj, Farrukhabad district, p. 8; interview with Dr Moin ul Haq (Secretary of the Pakistan Historical Society), Karachi, 28 January 1979.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ U.P.R.A., 1929–30, pp. 8–9, 17.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Z.A.C., vol. I., pp. 416–17Google Scholar; Z.A.C., vol. II, pp. 48–9; 83–4.Google Scholar

⁵¹ When Hindu trusts are mentioned in reports they usually refer to trusts for temples and charitable institutions. For example, see Mainpuri S.R., 1944, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁵² The percentage is calculated by dividing the figure estimated for waqf-al-ul-aulad in 1947 by the Muslim share of the land revenue given in 1926. This may slightly decrease the percentage because in most districts Muslims would have lost land in the intervening years.

⁵³ In 1899 a N.W.P. zamindar and M.L.C., Nawab Faiyaz Ali Khan, congratulated the Oudh taluqdars on their good fortune in securing ‘the preservation of old and hereditary estates’, and hoped that ‘the precedent thus set in their case … may … mean that the days of our own salvation from the ruinous effects of alienation and even division of our own estates are not far off’, U.P.L.C., 2 April 1899, vol. I, p. 35.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Bundelkhand had a low incidence of private trusts, perhaps reflecting the success of the legislation protecting landholders in that region. See Neale, , Economic Change, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Interview, Dr Moin ul Haq, Karachi, 28 January 1979.

⁵⁶ For the political history of the period up to the Khilafat movement, see Robinson, , Separatism, passim, and ‘Municipal Government’, pp. 89–121.Google Scholar For the basis for Muslim views of their position under the 1935 Govt. of India Act, see the ‘Instrument of Instructions to the Governor of Madras issued under the Government of India Act, 1935, 8 March 1937’, in SirGwyer, Maurice and Appadorai, A., Speeches and Documents on Ihe Indian Constitution, 1921–47, vol. I (Bombay, 1957), p. 379.Google Scholar The ‘Instructions’ to the Governor of the U.P. followed a similar wording in enjoining the Governor to appoint to his ministry ‘in consultation with the person who in his judgement is most likely to command a stable majority in the Legislature, those persons (including so far as practicable members of important minority communities) who will best be in a position collectively to command the confidence of the Legislature’. Subsequent paragraphs contained instructions about safeguarding the legitimate interests of minorities, including an injunction to be guided by previously ‘accepted policy’ in relation to the due proportion of appointments in the services.

⁵⁷ Nehru to Rajendra Prasad, 21 July 1937, R. Prasad file, Nehru Papers, N.M.L.

⁵⁸ Nehru to Pant, 30 March 1937, file E/1/36, A.I.C.C. papers; Pant to Nehru, 2 April 1937, Pant file, Nehru Papers.

⁵⁹ The League's first choice as candidate had asked for more than the party could afford in the way of electoral expenses, but there seems to have been no last minute efforts to procure a replacement for a seat which had been won by a League candidate in the general election. Khaliquzzaman, Choudhry, Pathway to Pakistan (Lahore, 1961), pp. 154–8.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ S. N. A. Jafri (Deputy Director, Dept. Public Information, Govt. of India), Note regarding the Muslim parties in India, 7 December 1934, in Govt. of India, Home Dept., Political Branch, file 150/34, N.A.I.; Hasan, Mushirul, Nationalism and Communal Politics in India, 1916–28 (New Delhi, 1979), pp. 287–301Google Scholar; Khaliquzzaman, , Pathway, p. 98.Google Scholar It is difficult to agree with Mehrotra's view that the Congress had not asked a high price for the inclusion of Muslim League members in the ministry. The two points he identifies as the main conditions, the cessation of League activities in the legislature as a separate group, and the dissolution of the League's Parliamentary Board, would have prevented the relationship between the parties from being that of a ‘coalition’. The League could not have existed as an effective political force in the U.P. under these conditions. Mehrotra, S. R., ‘The Congress and the Partition of India’, in Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, M. D. (eds), The Partition of India (London, 1970), pp. 198–9.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Khaliquzzaman, , Pathway, pp. 157–8; Pant to Nehru, 20 July 1937, Pant file, Nehru Papers.Google Scholar

⁶² Mehrotra, ‘Congress and Partition’, p. 197.

⁶³ Leader, 31 July 1937, p. 9.Google Scholar For a discussion of the ‘husk’ culture see Low, D. A. (ed.), Soundings in Modern South Asian History (Canberra, 1968), pp. 5–11.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Sir Harry Haig (Gov. U.P.) to Lord Linlithgow (Viceroy), 16 and 23 October 1937, in Haig Papers, MSS Eur F 115/12, India Office Records, London.

⁶⁵ Leader, 13 December 1937, p. 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ C. W. Gwynne, Circular to all District Magistrates, 10 November 1937, Haig Papers, MSS Eur F 115/12.

⁶⁷ The Report of the Inquiry Committee appointed by the Council of the All-India Muslim League to Inquire into Muslim Grievances in Congress Provinces, 1938, pp. 73–4.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Hindustan Times, 24 09 1938, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Report of the Local Self-Government Committee, pt II (Allahabad, 1948), p. 4.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid., p. 42. The Muslim members also objected to the chairmen of local boards being elected separately from the other members (and therefore not subject to no-confidence motions), the loss of local control over primary education, and the diminution of the role of Urdu in local administration.

⁷¹ Statesman, 19 October 1938, p. 5.Google Scholar The Pant ministry had, in fact, attracted the ire of the U.P. Congress organization when in its first appointment, of the Advocate-General, a non-Congressman was selected. He appeared at the opening of the legislature, however, with a Congress flag in his lapel.

⁷² Hindustan Times, 13 November 1938, p. 4.

⁷³ Khan, Shafa'at Ahmad, Representation, Appendix, pp. 60–77Google Scholar; Pant Address, Appendix 1; U.P.L.C.. 21 August 1939, vol. 6, pp. 64–5.Google Scholar The increase of Muslims in the lower ranks of police officers may have been due to deliberate recruitment during the civil disobedience movement. Govt. of India, India in 1931–32 (Calcutta, 1933), p. 181Google Scholar; Gupta, Anandswarup, The Police in British India, 1861–1947 (New Delhi, 1979), pp. 468–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Of the 87 Muslims to enter the I.C.S. between 1922 and 1943, 29 were successful at the examinations, the remaining 58 had been unsuccessful but were nominated to the service to retain the communal balance. Potter, , ‘Manpower Shortage’, p. 56.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Das, Durga, India from Curzon to Nehru and After (New York, 1970), p. 186.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Abdus Sami (President, Bijnor Muslim league) complained that a Muslim Deputy Collector, who was suspected of Muslim League inclinations, was transferred from Bijnor against his wishes when there were two Hindu Deputy Collectors with more time in the post, who had had their transfers cancelled. Abdus Sami to M. A. Jinnah, 30 October 1939, file 578, Qaid-e-Azam Papers [hereafter Q.A.P.], National Archives of Pakistan, Islamabad; for an insight into the transfer system of the post-war Congress government, see Bonarjee, N., Under Two Masters (Calcutta, 1970), p. 233.Google Scholar Bonarjee was Chief Secretary at the time.

⁷⁷ Habibullah to Jinnah, 24 November 1937, file 270, Q.A.P.; cf. Pioneer, 27 August 1938, p. 1, and 28 August 1938, p. 8.

⁷⁸ Pant Address.

⁷⁹ Statesman, 24 October 1938, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Statesman, 5 October 1938, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Report of the first Acharya Narendra Dev Committee of 1939 [hereafter Dev Committee, 1939], Ch. XVI, pt V, no. 59g, in Report of the Secondary Education Reorganisation Committee, Uttar Pradesh, 1953 [hereafter Sec. Ed. Report, 1953] (Lucknow, 1953). Appendix I, p. 6A.Google Scholar

⁸² Dev Committee, 1939. ch. XIV, pt V, nos. 59b, d, e, 60, and pt IX, no. 73–4, in Sec. Ed. Report, 1953, Appendix I, pp. 6A, 9A.

⁸³ On their return to power in 1946, the Congress rapidly reorganized education in the U.P. on even more rigorous lines. Hindi became compulsory. Sec. Ed. Report, 1953, Appendix III, pp. 23a–24a.

⁸⁴ For an outline of a questionnaire the U.P.P.C.C. sent to local committees on agrarian questions, see Pioneer, 30 May 1936, pp. 1, 16: It raised the possibility of zamindari abolition and its political impact on the Congress.

⁸⁵ Leader, 31 July 1937, p. 9.Google Scholar Even before the opening of the legislature, Congress legislators had passed resolutions, in party meetings, pressing for a committee to investigate landlord-tenant relations. Leader, 29 July 1937, p. 10.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Pioneer, 6 November 1937, p. 8.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The clearest statement of the implications of the tenancy legislation of 1939 can be found in Neale, , Economic Change, pp. 107–20.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Das, Durga, Curzon to Nehru, p. 187.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ When the Nawab of Chhatari, the leading Muslim landlord-politician, offered to bring the Muslim landlord M.L.As. and M.L.Cs. into the League parliamentary party in mid-1937, Khaliquzzaman prevailed against the move. At this time he clearly wished to leave the way open for a subsequent coalition government with the Congress. Chhatari to Jinnah, 12 August 1937, file 242, Q.A.P.; see also Khaliquzzaman's comment at the opening of the legislature ‘that the Congress programme of works would meet with the approval of everyone in the House, though there might be differences here and there’, Leader, 2 August 1937, p. 9.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Hindustan Times, 12 November 1938, p. 7.Google Scholar Rafi Ahmad Kidwai exposed the League's tactics of obfuscating their land policies in a brilliant speech reported in the Leader, 12 November 1938, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See, for example, the conflicts over improvements and sub-letting of groves, Leader, 9 December 1938, p. 10.

⁹² SirHaig, Harry, ‘The United Provinces and the new constitution,’ The Asiatic Review, vol. 36, 1940, p. 430.Google Scholar

⁹³ Presidential address to the Annual Conference of the All India Kisan Sabha, Gaya, in Dev, Acharya Narendra, Socialism and the National Revolution (Bombay, 1946), pp. 52–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See for example Maulvi, K. B. HajiNisarullah's, Muhammad speech in U.P.L.C.,16 September 1939, vol. VI, p. 930.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Damodar Swarup Seth to Nehru, 18 April 1938, file P/20/38, A.I.C.C. Papers.

⁹⁶ Tomlinson, B. R., The Indian National Congress and the Raj, 1929–42 (London, 1977), p. 97.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ In early 1939 the U.P. Government Publicity Department published an Urdu pamphlet which claimed to show that the Congress government had been more than generous to the Muslims in respect of jobs in the services, in imposing no new restrictions on Muslim religious observations (while it had for Hindus), and in releasing from prosecution Muslims who had attacked Ministers. This raised a considerable furore among Hindus without, it seems, impressing the Muslim elite. These concessions, even if accurately reported, remained the largesse of Congress patronage. See Leader, 21 April 1939, P. 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Haig, , ‘U.P. and the new constitution,’ p. 427.Google Scholar