The Six-Point Charter of Liberation, along with the accompanying speech delivered on 18 March 1966, is presented here for your convenience.
Speech:
I have presented the Six-Point Programme as a demand for the survival of the people of East Pakistan, for the consideration of the nation and those in power. Instead of engaging in a calm and reasoned discussion, agents of vested interests have launched a campaign of slander against me. The people of this country are well acquainted with the true faces and foul language of these enemies of the masses.
Whenever the people of East Pakistan have raised demands that are simple and just, these same agents have reacted with hysteria. Whether it was the demand to recognise our mother tongue as the state language, the historic Twenty-One-Point Charter for the liberation of the people of East Pakistan, the demand for direct elections, or the right of students and youth to access affordable education, or even the call to introduce Bangla as the medium of instruction—every single one of these rightful demands has been met with allegations of conspiracies to destroy Islam and Pakistan.
Now, in response to my Six-Point demands, these same quarters claim I harbour plans to divide Pakistan. I have no doubt that the Six-Point Programme I have proposed echoes the heartfelt aspirations of the 55 million oppressed souls of East Pakistan. In newspaper articles, news reports, and the summaries of public meetings and assemblies, in the statements made by respected individuals from all walks of life, I have observed an enthusiastic response from the people of the country. This has instilled in me great courage and strength.
Above all, the Awami League—the national institution of the people of East Pakistan—has approved the Six-Point Programme. Consequently, the Six Points have now become the national demand of the people of East Pakistan. I am confident that the propaganda of vested interest groups will not mislead the public.
Yet I am not unaware that the enemies of the people are immensely powerful. They are immensely wealthy, have abundant resources, and possess many voices and countless ways of expression. They wear many faces. In the name of faith, unity and solidarity, they are embedded within the ruling party. Simultaneously, invoking Islam and democracy, they are also in the opposition. However, when it comes to enmity with the people of East Pakistan, they all unite. They will attempt various tricks to confuse the public. Indeed, they have already begun their campaign. They claim to have emerged to serve the people of East Pakistan selflessly. But despite all their efforts, I am certain that our rights-conscious countrymen will not be swayed.
Nevertheless, it is the duty of all democrats—especially members of the Awami League—to explain the significance and necessity of the Six Points to the people. I trust they will soon spread out across the country to clarify each of the Six Points. For the benefit of our workers, and to make these demands easily comprehensible to the general public, I have published this booklet containing simple and concise explanations of each of the Six Points, with accompanying reasoning. The Awami League will also publish more booklets and pamphlets on this subject. I hope that, in addition to all democrats in general, especially members of the Awami League, every educated East Pakistani will make full use of these materials.
Point No. 1
This point states that a constitution must be framed on the basis of the historic Lahore Resolution, turning Pakistan into a true federation. There shall be a parliamentary system of government. All elections shall be conducted through direct voting by universal adult suffrage. The legislatures shall enjoy full sovereignty.
What objection could there possibly be to this? The Lahore Resolution was an electoral promise made to the people of Pakistan by all leaders, including Quaid-e-Azam. The general elections of 1946 were held on the basis of that Resolution. The Muslim people of Bengal unanimously voted in favour of Pakistan for that very reason. In the 1954 general elections, 97.5% of Muslim seats in East Bengal were won by those who supported the Twenty-One Point demands—one of the chief among them being the formulation of a constitution based on the Lahore Resolution.
At that time, the Muslim League was in power both at the centre and in the province. Using all their governmental strength, they opposed the Resolution. Even then, they argued that voting in favour of this proposal would endanger Islam and lead to the destruction of Pakistan. Nevertheless, the voters of East Bengal supported the Twenty-One Points, including the Lahore Resolution.
Therefore, when one speaks for the people of East Pakistan, it is clear that this matter has already been democratically resolved. Thus, in demanding a constitution based on the Lahore Resolution, I am making no new demand. I am merely reiterating an old and longstanding demand of East Pakistan. Still, those who panic at the very mention of the Lahore Resolution were either not part of the Pakistan movement, or they now wish to harm Pakistan by opposing the demands of the people of East Pakistan and serving the vested interests.
In this point, the demands for a parliamentary form of government, direct elections through universal suffrage, and the sovereignty of the legislature—what objection could there be to any of this? Is my proposal preferable, or is it better to have a presidential system, indirect elections, and a powerless legislature? Shouldn’t that decision be left to the people? Then why do these so-called guardians of Pakistan’s unity and solidarity refuse to propose a referendum on this issue and instead resort to hurling abuses at me? If they are truly confident in their stance, let them agree to a public referendum on the matter.
2nd Clause
In this clause, I have proposed that the federal government’s authority should be limited to only two matters: national defense and foreign affairs. All other matters, which were previously referred to as provinces, should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.
It is due to this proposal that the opportunists have become the most offended by me. They accuse me of having proposed to divide Pakistan into two and destroy it. Their narrow self-interest has blinded them so much that they have even forgotten the basic principles of political science. They fail to realize that the British Cabinet Mission’s “Plan” of 1946, which was accepted by both the Congress and the Muslim League, stated that the central government would have control only over defense, foreign affairs, and communication systems. All other matters were to be in the hands of the provinces.
This clearly proves that the British government, Congress, and the Muslim League were all in agreement that the central government could operate with just these three subjects under its control. The plan was abandoned only because Congress violated the agreement. Otherwise, this would have been followed. Although I have excluded the communication system in my proposal, there is a rational reason for it. Under undivided India, the communication system was also undivided. The fundamental principle of forming a federation is that only those matters which are indivisible and common to all federating states should be given to the federal government.
According to this principle, under undivided India, the communication system was indivisible. Trains could run from Peshawar to Chittagong on the same track. But in Pakistan, this is not the case. The communication system between the two regions is neither indivisible nor even linked. Rather, it is entirely separate. The railway system has been transferred to the provincial governments, and the current government has accepted this. The same applies to telephone, telegraph, and postal services, where this truth must also be acknowledged.
Now, one may ask why, in the Twenty-One Points, when the central government was proposed to handle three subjects, I have reduced it to only two subjects in my current proposal. I have addressed this question in the explanation of the third point, so I will not repeat it here.
Another misunderstanding may arise. In my proposal, I have referred to the federating units as “provinces” and not as “states.” The vested interests may deceive the public by claiming that by “state,” I mean “independent state” or a sovereign nation. But this is not true. In all major federations around the world, the federating units are referred to as “states,” not as “provinces.” The central government is referred to as a “federation” or “union.”
In the United States, the Soviet Union, Federal Germany, and even in neighboring India, their provinces are called “states” and the central government is called the “Union” or “Federation.” Assam and West Bengal, which are not referred to as provinces, but as “states” in India, are called “states” despite being part of the Indian Union. So, if these regions can be referred to as “states” within the Indian Union, why should there be any objection to giving this much dignity to East Pakistan?
Clause 3:
In this clause, I have proposed alternatives regarding currency. Either of the following two proposals can be accepted:
a. There should be the circulation of two separate but easily exchangeable currencies for East and West Pakistan. According to this arrangement, the currency will not be controlled by the central government, but by the regional governments. There will be two distinct ‘State Banks’ for both regions.
b. There should be a single currency for both regions. In this system, the currency will remain under the control of the center. However, the constitution must have specific provisions to ensure that the currency of Pakistan does not flow from West Pakistan to East Pakistan. There will be a Federal Reserve Bank in Pakistan, and two separate Reserve Banks in the two regions.
In both of these alternatives, it can be seen that I have not proposed bringing the currency directly from the center to the provinces. If my second alternative is accepted, the currency will remain under the control of the center. It cannot be said that I am recommending anything against the 21-point proposal in this case.
If my Western Pakistani brothers do not accept this proposal, then only the first alternative, which brings the currency from the center to the provinces, will have to be adopted. I firmly believe that if misunderstandings are resolved through discussions, my Western Pakistani brothers will accept this proposal for the betterment of both regions. We have accepted parity instead of majority for their sake; will they not do this for our sake?
Even if the situation requires bringing the currency to the provinces, it will not weaken the center or harm Pakistan. In the Cabinet Plan, the currency was not a central issue. By presenting this proposal, the British government and both Congress and the Muslim League accepted that the center could function without making currency a central issue. This is true. This arrangement is recognized in state economics. Keeping the economy in the provinces rather than the center and having separate reserve banks in different regions is an example even in the world’s most powerful countries.
Even in the United States, the economy is run through a federal reserve system with separate state banks. This has not led to the collapse of the United States, nor has it harmed its financial foundations. The powerful Soviet Union also did not have a central finance minister or finance department. Only provincial governments, i.e., the state republics, had finance ministers and departments. The financial needs of the central government were met through these provincial ministers and departments. Similarly, countries like South Africa have long operated with separate and distinct reserve banks for regional advantages.
The essence of my proposal is that if the second of the two alternatives is accepted, the currency will remain under the supervision of the center. In that case, the same design of currency will remain as it is now. The only difference will be that the required currency for East Pakistan will be issued by the Reserve Bank of East Pakistan, and it will be labeled ‘East Pakistan’ or ‘Dhaka’. The required currency for West Pakistan will be issued by the Reserve Bank of West Pakistan, and it will be labeled ‘West Pakistan’ or ‘Hore’. On the other hand, even if the first alternative is adopted instead of the second, the currency of the same design will be circulated with the cooperation of both regional governments.
Upon further reflection, it will be understood that there is no other way to save East Pakistan from certain economic destruction other than accepting one of these two systems. Since there is only one currency for the entire Pakistan and there is no distinguishing mark between the currencies of the two regions, there are no restrictions or accurate accounts regarding the circulation of currency and the economy in the regions. With the currency and economy under the central government’s control, the income of East Pakistan is easily flowing into West Pakistan.
Since the headquarters of government, private institutions, industries, businesses, banks, insurance companies, and foreign missions are all located in West Pakistan, this process of economic flow is happening at a rapid pace every minute. Everyone knows that the headquarters of all banks, including the State Bank and National Bank, are in West Pakistan. This is only a recent exception with the establishment of a few small banks. The deposits, share money, security money, industrial and business income, profits, and all financial transactions from East Pakistan are flowing like water into the headquarters in West Pakistan, leaving East Pakistan as a barren land.
If water is needed in a barren land, it has to be extracted from the ground through a tube well. Similarly, East Pakistan’s required funds must be brought from West Pakistan through checks and tube wells. The surplus savings are also stored in West Pakistan. This is why capital formation has not been possible in East Pakistan. All capital formation has been happening in the West. If the current situation continues, there will never be any capital formation in East Pakistan because savings mean capital formation.
Not only the flight of capital or currency smuggling but also inflation is responsible for the high prices of essential goods and the suffering of the people, particularly the jute farmers, in East Pakistan. I have discussed this in more detail in Clause 5. Here, I only want to mention that without stopping this capital flight, the people of East Pakistan will never make any progress in industries and commerce. Because in this situation, capital cannot be created.
In this clause, I have proposed that all powers to levy and collect taxes will be vested in the regional governments. The central government will not have such powers. The determined share of the revenue collected by the regional government will automatically be deposited into the federal treasury. There will be a mandatory constitutional provision for this in the reserve banks. The money accumulated in this way will belong to the federal government’s treasury.
This proposal has shocked the vested interests and profiteers who are exploiting and oppressing the people of East Pakistan. They argue that if the central government does not have the power to levy taxes, how will it run? They claim that the central government will become a charity organization, unable to defend the country or maintain foreign policy. Without contributions, the central government will starve.
These vested interests say such things, but the truth is that they are motivated by their own personal and class interests—interests that allow them to freely exploit and plunder the people of East Pakistan. They know that even without the power to levy taxes, sufficient funds will be arranged for the central government through my proposal. I have suggested constitutional provisions for this arrangement. This is the most foolproof, reliable, and safest way for the central treasury.
They also know that even without the power to levy taxes, the federation can continue as recognized in state science. They are aware that in the Cabinet Mission Plan, which was accepted by both the British government and the Congress and Muslim League, the power to levy taxes was given to the provinces, not to the center.
In my explanation of Clause 3, I have shown that many federations in the world run without a finance minister or finance department at the center. Among them is the mighty Soviet Union. Has the Soviet Union collapsed due to a lack of a finance minister? No, it has not.
Even if my proposal is implemented, the defense mechanism of Pakistan will not be weakened. I have proposed constitutional provisions to ensure the security of the central treasury. In that case, there will be a provision in the constitution that whatever taxes the regional governments levy and collect, the determined share of those taxes will be deposited into the central treasury via the reserve banks. The regional government will have no control over this money. This arrangement will offer many benefits.
Firstly, the central government will not have to deal with the hassle of tax collection. Secondly, there will be no need to maintain a department or staff for tax collection. Thirdly, there will be no duplication in tax levies and collections for the regions and the center, leading to the prevention of wasteful expenditure. The funds saved in this way can be used for constructive and developmental work. The staff can be employed in more productive work. Fourthly, the unification of tax levying and collection will be made easier. It is well-known that economists are increasingly being attracted to the concept of single taxation. Making single taxation a part of the provincial jurisdiction could be seen as the first step towards adopting the best and final financial policy.
Clause 5
In this clause, I have recommended the following constitutional provisions regarding foreign trade:
-
Separate accounts must be maintained for foreign currency earnings for the two regions.
-
The foreign currency earned by East Pakistan will remain under the jurisdiction of East Pakistan, and the foreign currency earned by West Pakistan will remain under the jurisdiction of West Pakistan.
-
The necessary foreign currency for the Federation will be collected equally from both regions or according to the rates determined by the constitution.
-
Domestic products will be imported and exported between the two regions without tariffs.
-
The authority to sign trade agreements with foreign countries, establish trade missions abroad, and conduct import and export activities must be vested in the regional governments through constitutional provisions. To protect East Pakistan from economic ruin, this provision is as essential as clause 3. If we observe the financial history of Pakistan over the years, we can see the following:
a. The foreign currency earned by East Pakistan has been and continues to be used for developing Pakistan’s industries. These industries’ earnings in foreign currency are being treated as foreign currency earned by West Pakistan.
b. Due to the lack of capital formation in East Pakistan, the foreign currency earned by East Pakistan is being spent in West Pakistan, under the pretext that East Pakistan does not have the capacity to use it. This has prevented East Pakistan from becoming industrialized.
c. East Pakistan cannot spend the amount of foreign currency it earns. Everyone knows that East Pakistan’s exports are generally less than half of its imports. As a result, according to the immutable laws of economics, inflation or currency depreciation is rampant in East Pakistan, much like malaria fever. Consequently, the prices of essential goods are so high. If we compare the prices of the same imported goods between East and West Pakistan, this disparity is evident. The central government holding the responsibility for distributing foreign currency and all other economic powers is the root cause of our misery.
d. Two-thirds of Pakistan’s foreign currency is earned from jute. However, jute farmers are not even given a fair price for their crops, let alone a fair wage for cultivation. As a result, jute farmers’ fate has become a plaything for industrialists and traders. The government of East Pakistan controls jute cultivation but cannot provide a fair price to the farmers. There is no such strange economy anywhere else in the world. As long as jute remains in the farmer’s house, its price stays at fifteen or twenty rupees. As soon as it enters the traders’ warehouses, its price rises to fifty rupees. This game has been watched by the poor jute farmers for ages. Unless jute trade is nationalized and jute exports are brought under government control, there is no remedy for this issue, as we have said many times before. To this end, we had formed the Jute Marketing Corporation during the Awami League’s ministry. Later, with the help of the central government, the capitalists thwarted our efforts.
e. Not only is the foreign currency earned by East Pakistan being spent in West Pakistan, but also, the massive foreign loans and grants that are coming due to our earned foreign currency are being spent in West Pakistan. However, East Pakistan alone has to bear the interest of these loans. To remedy this situation, to provide jute farmers with a fair price for their crops, to balance imports and exports, to provide the public with essential goods at affordable prices, and above all, to industrialize East Pakistan using its earned foreign currency, there is no alternative to my proposed solution.
Clause 6
In this clause, I have recommended the formation of a militia or paramilitary force in East Pakistan. This demand is neither unjust nor new. In the Twenty-One Points, we had demanded the transformation of the Ansar Force into a uniformed armed force. However, that has not been done, and moreover, the East Pakistan Rifles (EPR) under the control of the East Pakistan government has now been brought under the control of the central government.
The demand for establishing arms factories and the headquarters of the navy in East Pakistan, thus making the region self-reliant for defense, is a demand of the Twenty-One Points. However, after twelve years, the central government has not fulfilled any of our demands. East Pakistan is the home of the majority of Pakistan’s population. Protecting it is the central government’s moral and national responsibility. Why should we demand this responsibility? Why doesn’t the government itself fulfill this duty? Is the central government’s view that West Pakistan should be protected first, and then East Pakistan can be saved later, the only opinion?
How can the rulers claim that the protection of East Pakistan is only in West Pakistan’s hands? Did not the brief seventeen-day Indo-Pakistani war prove how helpless we are? We cannot survive on the mercy of the enemy. The defense policy of the central government has effectively forced us into such a situation.
Yet, for the sake of Pakistan’s unity and integrity, we wish to keep national defense under the control of the central government. At the same time, we also demand that the central government create a sufficient defense force in East Pakistan to make it self-reliant in defense. We want arms factories to be set up and the headquarters of the navy to be relocated here. How long will the government delay these matters? But in the meantime, why is there so much objection from the western brothers to forming a small paramilitary force with minimal weapons at a low cost? Why is it that when a separate war fund is raised for the defense of East Pakistan, it is taken to the central defense fund? There are no answers to these questions.
Still, we do not want to interfere with the central government’s authority in national matters. In such circumstances, is it unreasonable for East Pakistan to demand the means for self-defense and prepare for it with the resources it has? Is this demand treasonous?
In this regard, I have a few requests to our Pakistani brothers and sisters:
Please do not think that I am only demanding rights for East Pakistanis. In my 6-Point Plan, the demands of West Pakistanis are equally included. If this demand is accepted, West Pakistanis will also benefit equally.
When I say that the wealth of East Pakistan has been siphoned off and accumulated in West Pakistan, I am talking about regional disparities, not personal discrimination. I know that West Pakistanis are not to blame for creating these disparities. I also know that, like us, there are many poor people in West Pakistan. Until the capitalist system is dismantled, personal inequalities will not be removed. But before that, regional exploitation must be stopped.
This regional exploitation is due to our geographical position, and the abnormal system being tried that ignores this position. For example, had Pakistan’s capital been in East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan, and if the country’s defense forces had been based in East Pakistan, what harm would it have caused? Let’s consider this. Sixty-two percent of Pakistan’s total revenue is spent on the defense forces, and thirty-two percent is spent on the central government administration.
If these 92% of the costs were not in West Pakistan but in East Pakistan, how different would it be? You all understand the principles of economics: Government income is the public’s expenditure, and government expenditure is the public’s income. According to this, under the present system, half of the total government expenditure is for East Pakistan, but all the government revenue comes from West Pakistan. Due to the capital being in West Pakistan, all government, semi-government institutions, and foreign missions have to spend all their costs in West Pakistan. This total expenditure is West Pakistan’s income. As a result, every year, West Pakistan’s income increases, while East Pakistan grows poorer in comparison.
If our capital had been in East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan, these costs would have been borne by East Pakistan. We East Pakistanis would have been wealthy to that extent, while you West Pakistanis would have been poorer. What would you have done then? What claims would you have made? You would have made these demands louder than us. You would have demanded them much earlier. You would not have waited 18 years like we did. It would not have been wrong for you to make such demands.
Do you know what we East Pakistanis would have done if you had made such demands? We would have accepted all your demands. We would not have called you provincialists. We know and believe that those demands are your rightful claims. Demanding what is rightfully yours is not wrong; it is your duty. We are so sincere in this belief that if that situation had arisen, we would have made sure you received your rights even before you had to ask.
You call us selfish because we are demanding our rights. But what about the fact that you have taken our rightful share along with yours? What will people say about this? We only want our rightful share; we do not want to take yours. If we had the ability, we would even give something to others. Would you like an example? Here it is:
-
In the first Constituent Assembly, we had 44 members, and you had 28. If we wanted, we could have used our democratic strength to bring the capital and defense headquarters to East Pakistan through voting. But we didn’t do that.
-
Seeing the minority of West Pakistanis, with a sense of brotherhood, we elected West Pakistani members in six of the 44 seats from East Pakistan’s votes.
-
If we wanted, we could have made Bengali the sole state language of Pakistan with the power of votes. Instead, we made a joint demand for Bengali and Urdu as state languages.
-
If we wanted, we could have crafted a favorable constitution for East Pakistan with the strength of votes.
-
We gave up majority rule and accepted the principle of equality between the two regions in all matters, with a promise to establish equality in every area, to foster unity and a sense of brotherhood, instead of insisting on our majority.
Four.
Therefore, Western Pakistani brothers, you see, wherever we had the means to give, we have given. There is nothing more to give. If there were, we would certainly give. Had East Pakistan been the capital, we would have already established a second capital in West Pakistan before you made any such demand. We would not have deceived you under the name of a second capital. In such a scenario, we would have made a perfect arrangement to ensure that the central government’s expenses are equally distributed between both regions. We would have granted complete autonomy to West Pakistan as a whole and to the provinces individually.
We would have shown that East Pakistanis, being in the majority, believe that Pakistan is not just for the East Pakistanis but for all Pakistanis, big and small alike. If East Pakistan had been the capital, we would not have taken all the rights and jobs for ourselves, but would have handed over the governance of West Pakistan to West Pakistanis. We would not have aimed to become the chairman of your Cotton Board, nor would we have aspired to become the governor of your province.
We would not have seized control of your PIDC, your WAPDA, your DIT, your Port Trust, your Railway, etc. We would have let you manage these yourselves. We would not have centralized East Pakistan in all the all-Pakistan institutions. As a result, we would not have made East Pakistan economically fat and West Pakistan lean. We would not have allowed this severe disparity to arise between the two regions.
Such generosity, such impartiality, and such a sense of justice between the two regions of Pakistan form the foundation of Pakistani patriotism. Only those who possess this are true patriots. Only leaders who believe this, that the two regions are like the two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two teeth, the right hand, and two feet of the body of Pakistan, only such leaders are worthy of leading both regions of Pakistan.
The leader who believes that if one part of Pakistan is weak, the entire Pakistan becomes weak, the leader who believes that those who intentionally or knowingly want to weaken any part of Pakistan are enemies, and the leader who is ready to deal firmly with those enemies, only such a leader is entitled to be the national leader of Pakistan. Only under their leadership will Pakistan’s unity remain intact, and its strength indomitable.
To be the leader of such a vast and extraordinary state as Pakistan, a leader’s heart must also be vast and extraordinary. I hope my Western Pakistani brothers will understand that my Six-Point Demand is not just for the survival of East Pakistan, but for the survival of the entire Pakistan.
My dear brothers and sisters, you can see that in my Six-Point Demand, there is not a single unjust, unreasonable, anti-West Pakistan, or Pakistan-destroying proposal. On the contrary, I have shown with logic and reasoning that if my recommendations are accepted, Pakistan will become much stronger. Yet, the spokespersons of vested interests are accusing me of treason. This is neither new nor surprising.
When I spoke for the oppressed people of East Pakistan, my elders and seniors faced abuse, and they were humiliated in their hands. And what of me? The people still remember that our beloved Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Haq was branded a traitor by them. The people also saw that one of Pakistan’s key founders, the universally respected national leader Shaheed Suhrawardy, had to face imprisonment on charges of treason by their hands. Thus, it became evident that speaking for the legitimate demands of East Pakistan entails the risk of being slandered as a traitor and subjected to imprisonment and suffering.
I have faced many such imprisonments in the past. By the grace of my elders’ prayers, the kindness of my colleagues, and the support of the nation, Allah has given me the strength to endure those hardships. With the love of five and a half crore people of East Pakistan, I am ready for any sacrifice in this struggle. What is the value of my life in comparison to the welfare of my countrymen?
I believe there is no greater work than struggling for the survival of the oppressed people. It was this wisdom I learned from the worthy leader, the late Suhrawardy. I have tried to serve the people of this country sitting at his feet. He is no longer with us, and I, too, have now crossed the threshold of youth and reached old age. My dear brothers and sisters of the country, I ask for only one prayer from Allah: that the rest of my life be spent in serving the political and economic liberation of my people.