Sikhitihasਸਿੱਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ

Allahabad Unity Conference and the Sikh seats

ਇਲਾਹਾਬਾਦ ਯੂਨਿਟੀ ਕਾਨਫ਼ਰੰਸ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਸੀਟਾਂ

·Annexation to Partition

A conference of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians tried to replace the Communal Award; it fixed no final deal, but Sikh leaders later cited its figures for Sikh seats.


Who: Delegates of the Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Indian Christian communities, 121 in all, according to the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism: 63 Hindus, 39 Muslims, 11 Sikhs and eight Indian Christians. Madan Mohan Malaviya and Maulana Shaukat Ali convened it. The Sikh delegates the Encyclopaedia names are Sundar Singh Majithia, Giani Kartar Singh, Giani Sher Singh, Ujjal Singh, Jodh Singh and Teja Singh.

What: The conference opened on 3 November 1932 to draft an agreement to replace the Communal Award announced on 16 August 1932 (the Encyclopaedia's Unity Conference entry gives 17 August, its Communal Award entry 16 August). A unity committee produced an agreement on 17 November, and the All-India Muslim League and allied bodies rejected it on 20 November. An All-Parties Muslim Conference at Lucknow on 15 and 16 December reconsidered the agreement and drafted amendments, and a sub-committee's report went to the full conference on 24 December, which approved it in principle. No final agreement was reached because no formula for representation in Bengal satisfied every party.

For the Sikhs, the Encyclopaedia lists these demands: in the Punjab, at least one Sikh minister, 20 per cent of legislative seats and a Sikh on the Public Service Commission; at the Centre, 4.5 per cent of the legislature, a Sikh in the Cabinet for the first ten years and a Sikh on the Public Service Commission. It adds that the Sikhs accepted 51 per cent of Punjab seats for Muslims. Gurmit Singh's History of Sikh Struggles prints two of the resolutions as quoted in the Sikh memorandum to Cripps of 1942: Resolution 4 offered a Central Government seat to a Sikh for the first ten years, and Resolution 7 reserved 14 of 300 elected seats, or 4 2/3 per cent, in the Central Legislature for the Sikhs.

Where: Allahabad, with the Muslim conference at Lucknow in December.

Why it mattered: The Sikh memorandum to Cripps cited the decisions to argue that leading Indians of different communities had recognised the importance of the Sikh minority. It also complained that the Communal Award gave the Sikhs 18.8 per cent of Punjab seats for 13.5 per cent of the population (the Encyclopaedia's Communal Award entry gives 33 of 175 seats, 18.9 per cent, against 13 per cent), while Muslims in the United Provinces had 30 per cent for 14.8 per cent. In his dissent of 28 July 1947 to the Constituent Assembly's Minorities Sub-Committee, Ujjal Singh cited the conference again: it had agreed the Sikhs should have 20 per cent in the Punjab against a population of about 12 per cent, and nearly 5 per cent in the Central Legislature. The Encyclopaedia says that for the Sikhs the conference brought wider publicity, recognition of most of their claims and stronger solidarity across provinces. Because it never reached a final agreement, the figures remained proposals.

Read it on the timelineSee its threads

Sources

  1. Unity Conference (G. R. Thursby), Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, Punjabi University Patiala. eos.learnpunjabi.org
  2. History of Sikh Struggles, vol. I (Gurmit Singh), pp. 228-229 (Sikh memorandum to Cripps, 31 March 1942) and p. 299 (Ujjal Singh's letter, 28 July 1947), Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1989. archive.org
  3. Communal Award, The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism (ed. Harbans Singh), Punjabi University, Patiala. eos.learnpunjabi.org

I know how they're connected

Tell us how these two are connected and where it is written. The site's owner reviews every contribution before anything is published; nothing goes live on its own.

What you send is kept only to review the connection. Claims about living people and about 1984 always get the owner's own review.

Suggest a correction

Found something wrong? Tell us what should change, link a source that shows it, and say why that source is right.

What you send is kept only to review the correction. Your email is never published.