SAEED AHMED RID

Assistant Professor, National Institute of Pakistan Studies,

Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Ph.D. Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK.
Past Rotary World Peace Fellow at UC Berkeley, USA (2004-06)

E-Mail: saeedrid@[Link], saeed_rid@[Link].

FEDERALISM
AND THE PAKISTAN MOVEMENT
STUDYING HISTORY
THROUGH THE POLITICAL
SCIENCE LENS
Nationalism (K.K. Aziz, 1967, The Making
of Pakistan: A Study in Nationalism)

Federalism

Majoritarian Vs Consensus
(Consociationalism) model of democracy
(Arend Lijphart, 1999, The Patterns of
Democracy)
 WHAT IS FEDERALISM?
K.C. Wheare defined the federalism as “A method of dividing powers so that the general and regional
governments are each, within a sphere, coordinate and independent.”
Defining Characteristics
1- Dual Government (Federal + Federating units' government)
2- Constitutional Division/Distribution of powers
Supplementary Characteristics
1- Strong Bicameralism
2- Rigid Constitution
3- Supremacy of the Constitution
4-Independent Judiciary + Judicial Review
5-Minority Veto on matters of minority interests
 WHAT IS FEDERALISM?
K.C. Wheare defined federalism as a way of dividing power between a central government and regional governments (like
states or provinces), where each has its own responsibilities but can work together.
Main Features of Federalism:
Dual Government: There are two levels of government—the central government and regional governments—each with
separate powers
Division of Powers: The powers of each level of government are clearly laid out in the constitution.
Additional Features of Federalism:
• Bicameralism: A two-chamber legislature ensures both the central and regional governments are fairly represented.
• Rigid Constitution: The constitution is hard to change, which keeps the power division stable.
• Supremacy of the Constitution: The constitution is the highest law, and everything must follow it.
• Independent Judiciary: The courts can review laws to make sure they follow the constitution and respect the division of
powers.
• Minority Veto: Minority groups, like regional or ethnic minorities, can block decisions that harm their interests.
• These features ensure that both the central and regional governments have their own powers and can work together
smoothly within the rules set by the constitution.
WHY FEDERALISM?
The Westerminster Model of Democracy in essence is Majoritarian-Unitary model of
democracy where ‘democracy is government of the majority, by the majority and for the
majority’.
The Majoritarian-unitary model of democracy can not work in multi-ethnic, multi-
religious heterogeneous societies.
The consociational federalism provides an answer to this problem of democracy.
Instead of being satisfied with narrow decision-making majorities, ‘consociational
federal democracy’ model seeks to maximize the size of these majorities. Its rules
and institutions aim at broad participation in government and broad agreement
on the policies that the government should pursue.
Provides minorities self-rule at local level and larger share at the federal level.
 WHY FEDERALISM?
The Westminster Model of democracy works well when society is homogenous, but it can be a problem in
multi-ethnic or multi-religious societies. In such societies, a system where the majority rules can leave
minorities without a voice, leading to tension and instability
Consociational federalism offers a solution by focusing on inclusivity and compromise. Instead of just
letting the majority decide, this model seeks to include everyone, ensuring broad participation in
government decisions. It aims to get many different groups to agree on policies.
Key features of consociational federalism include:
Broad majorities: Decisions are made by a wider group, not just a narrow majority.
Power-sharing: Minority groups are included in decision-making and share power, both locally and at the
federal level.
Self-rule for minorities: Minorities have control over their own local affairs, but also a share in the larger
government.
This model works well in divided societies because it gives everyone a seat at the table, helping maintain
peace and stability. Countries like Belgium and Switszerland usesds consociational federalism
FEDERALISM AND DEMOCRACY
Complement each other
Federalism provides power-sharing mechanisms for addressing the concerns of
religious and ethnic minorities within a democratic framework while without
democracy federalism is hard to imagine because respect for regional diversity,
constitutionalism and rule of law are associated with democracy (Benz and
Sonnicksen, 2017).
Federalism Contradicts Majoritarian Democracy
Federalism calls for more representation to minorities in the parliament and
government than their size
Protects minorities against Majoritarian Democracy
MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY
(MAJORITIES SHOULD GOVERN
AND MINORITIES SHOULD
OPPOSE.)
Concentrates political power in the hands of a bare majority—and often
even merely a plurality instead of a majority.
The Westminster model (UK) is the classic example. (Modi’s India and
Trump’s America are the worst examples)
The majoritarian model of democracy is exclusive, competitive, and
adversarial (Government Vs Opposition)
Concentration of executive power in single-party majority cabinets
Two-Party System
Unitary (Centralised governance)
Flexible Constitution
Unicameralism and Disproportionate Representation (first-past-the-post
elections)
 MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY (MAJORITIES
SHOULD GOVERN AND MINORITIES
SHOULD OPPOSE.)
The majoritarian model of democracy gives power to the bare majority (or sometimes just the largest group,
not a full majority). The Westminster model (used in the UK) is a classic example, and Modi’s India and
Trump’s America are examples where this system has been criticized.
This model is:
Excludes minorities: It mainly focuses on the majority and ignores smaller groups.
Creates competition: There’s a constant struggle between the Government and the Opposition.
Concentrates power: The executive (government) is controlled by one party with a majority.
It usually uses a Two-Party System and a centralized government where the national government has most
of the control.
The Constitution is easy to change.
It often has one legislative house and unfair representation (where the results of elections don’t match the
number of votes, like in first-past-the-post elections)
 Instead of being satisfied with narrow decision-making majorities, it seeks to
maximize the size of these majorities. Its rules and institutions aim at broad
participation in government and broad agreement on the policies that the
government should pursue.
CONSENSUS Characterised by inclusiveness, bargaining, and compromise; for this reason,

MODEL OF consensus democracy could also be termed “negotiation democracy”.

DEMOCRACY Switzerland and Belgium are the classic examples.

Executive power-sharing in broad multiparty coalitions.

Multi-party system

Federalism (decentralization of power)

Rigid Constitutions (Minority-Veto principle)

Strong Bicameralism and Proportional Representation

 SIR SAYED AHMED KHAN AND
MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY
Sir Sayed opposed the introduction of the parliamentary institutions understanding Muslim’s minority status
with ratio of four to one against Hindus in democratic terms would mean as he said, “it is like a game of dice in
which one man had four dice and the other only one” (Burke and Qureshi, 1995, p.82)

So long as differences of race, and creed, and the distinctions of caste form an important element in the socio-
political life of India, and influence her inhabitants in matters connected with the administration and welfare of
the country at large, the system of election pure and simple cannot safely be adopted. The larger community
would totally override the interests of the smaller community, and the ignorant public would hold Government
responsible for introducing measures which might make the differences of race and creed more violent than
ever. (C.H. Phillips (ed.), 1962, The Evolution of India and Pakistan, 1858–1947: Select Documents, London, p.
185)
SIMLA DEPUTATION AND FORMATION
OF THE MUSLIM LEAGUE 1906
Muslims demanded the separate electorates for
Muslims in all levels of the government on the
grounds in joint franchise Muslims were the
biggest losers.
In United Provinces where Muslims constituted
14% percent of the population, they could not
secure a single seat in the legislative assembly
on joint electorate.
In Bengal alone Muslim’s share in the legislative
council declined from 50% to 13% between
1895 and 1906
 Pakistan movement was a reaction to the fear of the
majoritarian- unitary democracy model.

FEAR OF Muslim League feared such a model would mean a

MAJORITARIAN permanent centralised Congress (Hindu) rule over whole of

DEMOCRACY India

AND PAKISTAN Separate Electorates, Weightage and Federalism were

MOVEMENT
demanded on the basis of consensus model of democracy
(Consociationalism).

Congress wanted the majoritarian model of democracy while

Muslim League stood for the federal consensus model of
democracy.
LUKHNOW PACT 1916
(SEPARATE ELECTORATES
AND WEIGHTAGE)

Jinnah convinced Congress to

accept the separate
electorates and the principle
of weightage for Muslims in
minority provinces under in
return Muslim League
supported the Congress
demand of swaraj (home
rule).
 ENTRY OF FEDERALISM IN MUSLIM
LEAGUE DISCOURSE
The Resolution of the annual session of Muslim League 1924 in Lahore

“The existing Provinces of India Shall all be united under a common Government on a federal basis so that
each Province shall have full and complete Provincial Autonomy, the functions of the central government
being confined to such matters only as are of general and common concern.”

Moreover, in the same resolution ‘minority veto’ was also demanded,

“No bill or resolution or part thereof affecting any community, which question is to be determined by the
members of that community in the elected body concerned, shall be passed in any legislature or in any
other elected body, if three-fourths of the members of that community in that particular body oppose
 NEHRU REPORT 1928 (CONGRESS SCHEME
FOR FUTURE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

Congress rejected the principles of separate electorates and weightage agree in Lucknow pact

Nehru Report enshrined the majoritarian model with highly centralised federal structure— residuary
powers belonging to the centre and not provinces and provinces enjoying very little fiscal, administrative
and legislative autonomy.

Muslim Response —

All-India Muslim conference under the chairmanship of Aga Khan on January 1, 1929 demanded “the only
form of government suitable to Indian conditions was a federal system with complete autonomy and
residuary powers vested in the constituent states”.
 QUAID’S 14 POINTS 1929
(CONSENSUS MODEL)
In fourteen points Jinnah demanded safeguards for the Muslim minority on the basis of the principles of
consensus model.
Federalism—The future constitution should be federal with residuary powers going to the provinces
Executive power-sharing in broad multiparty coalitions—One third representation for Muslims in the
central legislature and all cabinets either central or provincial.
Minority Veto— “No bill or resolution or any part thereof should be passed in any legislature or any elected
body if three-fourths of the members of a community in that particular body opposed such a bill”.
Extra-ordinary rigid constitution “No change should be made in the constitution by the central legislature
except with the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation” .
 ALLAMA IQBAL ON FEDERALISM
In Allahabad address 1930 Allama Iqbal argued the solution of Indian national question lie not in declaring
India ‘one nation’ because “various caste units and religious units in India have shown no inclination to sink
their respective individualities in a larger whole.” (Asif, 2020, p.13).

Rather, he called for the acceptance of the realities of the caste units and the religious units and creations
of “autonomous states based on the unity of language, race, history, religion and identity of economic
interests, is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure in India” (Shamloo, 1948, p.15).

“The Muslims demand federation because it is pre-eminently a solution of India’s most difficult problem,
i.e. the communal problem”. Moreover, he wanted the maximum provincial autonomy for the federating
units, “What is called ‘residuary powers’ must be left entirely to self-governing states, the Central Federal
State exercising only those powers which are expressly vested in it by the free consent of Federal States”
(Shamloo, 1948, p.18).
 MUSLIM LEADERSHIP DEMANDING
FEDERALISM
Sir Mohammad Shafi in Round Table conference, “there is only one form of government, one
basis for the future constitution of India, which alone will suit the circumstances of the case — and
that is the federal system.
Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar, despite his close affiliations with Congress and Gandhi two
days before his death on January 1, 1931 wrote a letter to the Prime Minster of Great Britain in
which he echoed the Jinnah’s 14 points:
“The real problem before us is to give full power to Muslims in such provinces as those in which
they are in a majority, whether small or large, and protection to them in such provinces as those in
which they are in a minority……. The Muslims desire – and this is the crux of their 14 points and
not separate electorates— that there should be federal government so that the central unity
Government with a permanent Hindu majority should not override them everywhere”.
They all rejected the federal structure provided under the 1935 act because it provided for the
strong centre and weak provinces.
MUSLIM LEAGUE ENTERS MAJORITY
PROVINCES WITH THE PROMISE OF
PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY
Muslim leadership saw strong centre meant “an increase in Hindu strength” and they opposed the
central interference in criminal administration of the provinces because they thought Congress
could use it to “paralyse the administration of a Muslim province” .

This did happen under Congress ministries 1937-39 which convinced many Muslim leaders in
Muslim majority provinces to join the Muslim League bandwagon to compete with Congress and
preserve their provincial autonomy.

The Congress ministries helped Muslim League to enter the Muslim majority provinces as Muslim
League then stood for federalism and the maximum provincial autonomy which received traction in
Bengal, Sindh and Punjab.
 THE LAHORE RESOLUTION 1940
“Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no

constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to Muslims unless it is designed on
the following basic principle, namely, that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions
which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas
in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the North-Western and Eastern Zones of India,
should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be
autonomous and sovereign.”

Lahore resolution reference to “Independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous
and sovereign” clearly meant it was demanded that the Muslim majority provinces of North-Western
and Eastern zones of India must enjoy the maximum autonomy in their internal affairs.
 PAKISTAN CAME INTO BEING WITH
THE PROMISE OF FEDERALISM
From 1924 onwards federalism had remained on top of the agenda of the Muslim League.

Muslim League stood for federalism and the maximum provincial autonomy which received traction in Bengal,
Sindh, and Punjab.

On the other hand, Congress based on its One-Nation theory wanted the Westminster style majoritarian unitary
model to implement their policies in all parts of India.

Congress failed to see genuine Muslim concerns and rubbished them as part of the British divide and rule
conspiracy.

The failure of Congress to answer the federal question in united India ultimately resulted in the partition of India in
ONE-NATION THEORY VS TWO-
NATION THEORY
• Congress based on its One-Nation theory wanted the Westminster style
majoritarian unitary model to implement their policies in all parts of India.
• Two-Nation theory was the anti-thesis of one-nation theory and in a way
meant India was a multi-national state therefore needed a decentralised
federal system.
• The emergence of Pakistan on August 14, 1947 was a direct rejection of the
‘one-nation’ and the ‘unitary state’ thesis of the Indian Nationalists.
• Pakistan came into being in 1947 not because Hindus and Muslims are
different nations, rather it came into being because the Congress failed to
accept the multi-ethnic and multi-religious reality of India and wanted to
create overly centralised Hindu Raj in the name of One-Nation on the basis
of majoritarian democracy.
 CONCLUSION
This study clearly shows from 1924 onwards federalism had remained on top of the agenda of the
Muslim League.

On the other hand, Congress wanted the Westminster style majoritarian model to implement their
policies in all parts of India.

Congress failed to see genuine Muslim concerns and rubbished them as part of the British divide and rule
conspiracy.

The failure of Congress to answer the federal question in united India ultimately resulted in the partition
of India in 1947.
.

Thank You