The division of subcontinent into different federating units has an old history. It was a British M.P., John Bright, who immediately after mutiny in 1857 suggested that the Indian Empire be broken up into several smaller states (Ref: Liberty or Death by Patirick French P. 88) with complete autonomy, ultimately becoming independent States. This idea was later on picked up by many Muslim political figures like Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan. John Bright again in 1877 clearly said that after the British withdrawal from India it will have 5 or 6 great independent sovereign states like those of Europe (Ref: Rahmat Ali by K. K. Aziz P.51 1987 Ed.).
It was for the first time that in a meeting at Allahabad on 29th December, 1930, that Dr Muhammad Iqbal after a prior meeting with Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan proposed the "Two-Nation Theory" in which he clearly said that the Punjab, NWFP, Sind and Balochistan to be amalgamated into a single State which will bring to India, an internal balance of power, the creation of autonomous States is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure for India". There have been other political figures also from India and Britain who have been suggesting similar proposals, which has a long history.
The idea proposed initially by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali was published in a pamphlet in 1933 which was issued by following persons: (i) Rahmat Ali Chaudhry, (ii) Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak , (iii) Sheikh Muhammad Siddiq and (iv) Inayatullah Khan (of Charsaddah). This pamphlet was published by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali as Founder of Pakistan National Movement and circulated from 3 Humberstone Road, Cambridge, England on 28th January 1933 to the members of Round Table Conference.
The text of the letter and pamphlet, "Now or Never," has been reproduced by G. Allana in his compilation titled Pakistan Movement; "Historic Documents" at page 115. In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra and Dravidia (see page 120 D, ibid). This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934 also but the idea was generally rejected by all Muslim leaders who regarded it as 'only a students scheme' and was regarded as chimerical and impracticable (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson, page 81).
Chaudhry Rahmat Ali later on changed his own concept. He claimed that the destiny of the whole Millat in the continent of "Dinia" (changed name of India) and its dependencies lies in the integration of Muslims into ten countries, Pakistan, Bangistan, Osmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muistan, Maplistan, Saristan and Nasarastan than to be co-ordinated into Pak. Commonwealth of Nations.
Who was Chaudhry Rahmat Ali? There is only one biography which is written by a celebrated and highly respected author, K.K. Aziz, published in 1987. Other material is available in his pamphlets which have appeared in a collection form titled "Pakistan, the Fatherland of Pak Nation" in 1947 edition whose reproduction was issued in Pakistan in 1978.
All we know that he was the only son of one Shah Muhammad, Gujjar by caste from Hoshiarpur and graduated from Islamia College, Lahore. He worked in Pakistan Akhbar, Lahore.
He was appointed as tutor to the Nawab of Bahawalpur who is said to have at the age of 5 saluted King George V at Delhi Durbar. Later on he was appointed Private Secretary to Sardar Mir Dost Muhammad Khan, a Mazari Tamandar of Rohjhan. During this period he collected a couple of hundred - thousand rupees and shifted to England. He was given many recommendatory letters by Punjab chiefs for his admission to one educational institution.
Such a letter from Nawab Sir Usman Hayat Khan Tiwana, Member of the India Council, mentions that his record of services was creditable. He, himself during the Great War, acted as Secretary of the Recruitment Committee for Punjab University, Double Company and also as Secretary of One Day Fund Committee of the same University (Ref: Rahmat Ali by K. K. Aziz ibid page 118 Note 6).
We are not aware of any of his meetings with the Quaid-e-Azam. The only record which we find is that he wrote some letters the Quaid who in reply suggested a meeting with him during latter's visit to India.
The only other reference which I find is in 'Namai Aamal' where Sir Yamin Khan mentions of an incident in which the Quaid is said to have approved the idea of Rahmat Ali's Scheme before the 23rd March, 1940 Resolution was put in the general public meeting at Lahore.
This idea of the coining the name Pakistan by Rahmat Ali is highly doubtful as 'Karakal Pakistan' existed as autonomous region of U.S.S.R. Reference of the same can be found in the old editions of Encyclopaedia Britannica. K.A. in the issue of "The Nation" Friday Review 23rd January, 1987 page iv," wrote a column about the origin of the word "Pakistan", some portions of which are reproduced below:
Chaudhri Rahmat Ali was an 'elderly' student in London who influenced the youth who went there for studies. There were three in particular who helped him in his 'letter-writing' campaigns: Khwaja Abdur Rahim, Pir Ahsanuddin and Dr Jahangir Khan. All of them later became civil servants in Pakistan.
According to Dr Jahangir Khan, it was not Chaudhri Rehmat Ali who coined 'Pakistan' but Khwaja Abdur Rahim. It was Khwaja Abdur Rahim who showed it to Chaudhri Sahib and asked him to take it to Allama Iqbal, then staying in London.
The textbook explanation is that 'Pakistan' contains the name of the provinces, 'P' for Punjab, 'S' for Sind and 'stan' for Balochistan, etc. But this formula does not hang together because it is not very clear, specially because it ignores East Pakistan and the Frontier Province. Its real strength is the central section, 'Pak', which means 'pure'. 'Land of the pure' is a good formulation.
The Quaid accepted the present division of Punjab and Bengal in 3rd June, 1947 plan. Many people were critical of the same but he defended the same in his speech at University Grounds, Lahore.
However, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali was extremely critical. He published another pamphlet titled "The Greatest Betrayal". It is included in the book titled "Pakistan, the fatherland of the Pak Nation" which he issued in November, 1947 and reproduced in Pakistan by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali Academy Lahore in 1978.
In the note to this article, he described it as the most shameful and most treacherous page in the history of the Millat. He tried to explain disastrous implications of Jinnah's action and asked Muslims to reject the plan.
In this article, he called "Mister Jinnah" "Quisling-i-Azam" of Pakistan and Bangistan (in his opinion). He called it a fraud and deception to the Muslims. It was for this reason that Liaquat Ali Khan declared him persona non grata and ordered Rahmat Ali to leave Pakistan in October, 1948.
Now bringing back his body for reburial means to restart the controversy, whether the Quaid was justified in accepting the Pakistan, with a divided Punjab and Bengal or Rahmat Ali was right? What justification would be there to the present rulers if they bring back the body of a person who openly abused its founder? Only one can be right, not both! Such controversies have never made a nation cohesive, rather it has divided it and we don't require misdirections.