The British did not establish clubs in colonial India merely for cricket, golf and other recreations. They formed part of the social architecture of colonial rule, providing civil and military officials with spaces to cultivate networks, consolidate solidarity and preserve racial distinctions.
The exclusion of Indians from establishments reserved for Europeans reflected the belief that political domination conferred social superiority. This history deserves unequivocal condemnation.
Yet condemning an institution’s colonial origins does not automatically invalidate its subsequent existence. Institutions, like societies, can evolve, and their ability to transcend the circumstances of their creation is an important measure of historical adaptation.
Lahore Gymkhana emerged from this world of colonial exclusivity and acquired its present name on March 23, 1906. Its history, however, cannot be frozen at the moment of its inception. Partition in 1947 dismantled the political and social order that had sustained colonial institutions, yet Lahore Gymkhana survived and gradually became part of the civilian life of ‘independent’ Pakistan.
An institution originally designed for a privileged foreign establishment adapted to a different national and social environment, drawing members from professional, business and salaried circles. While it remains selective and cannot be described as wholly egalitarian, its contemporary identity is no longer synonymous with the racial exclusivity of its founders.
It should be borne in mind that salaried individuals are among those whose incomes are taxed at source, and the revenue generated through taxation helps meet government expenditures without relying solely on loans from international institutions. Those crying foul over Gymkhana are privileged individuals who, in many cases, do not bear their fair share of the tax burden.
Anyhow reverting to the transformation deserves recognition, particularly in a country where many inherited institutions changed their personnel after independence without fundamentally altering their hierarchical structures.
Lahore Gymkhana’s evolution illustrates the possibility of preserving institutional continuity while accommodating a changed society. Its achievement lies not in perpetuating colonial privilege but in acquiring a different social meaning. Its history should, therefore, be assessed in the context of what it has become, rather than reduced to the circumstances of its birth.
Its internal electoral system is another important dimension of this evolution. The election of office-bearers by members provides a mechanism of representation and accountability, distinguishing member-based civilian governance from systems dependent entirely on external authority or official appointment.
The transparency of these elections must be judged by the electoral rules, eligibility criteria, fairness of the process and publication of results. Elections alone do not guarantee flawless governance, but neither should an established electoral system be dismissed without examining its actual functioning. Internal democracy does not make a club universally accessible, just as selective membership does not automatically make it unaccountable. These are distinct questions and should be treated as such.
This combination of historical continuity, social adaptation and member-based governance makes Lahore Gymkhana a distinctive institution in Pakistan’s civic landscape. Its survival is not remarkable merely because it has endured; its significance lies in its ability to acquire a place in a society radically different from the one that produced it.
This transformation should neither be romanticised nor dismissed. It deserves recognition alongside an honest examination of the institution’s remaining privileges and obligations.
It is against this background that the current criticism of the club must be judged. Its centrally located land is undeniably valuable, and questions concerning its lease, construction approvals, taxation and financial obligations are legitimate.
No institution should be exempt from the law, and public property must be administered transparently. But accountability is only as credible as the evidence supporting it.
The manner in which a member of the provincial assembly reportedly questioned the club’s chairman raises concerns if inaccurate examples or questionable comparisons are presented as established facts. Parliamentary oversight is a serious responsibility, not political theatre. An elected representative’s authority should be reflected in the accuracy of his information and the fairness of his questions, not merely in the audacity of his confrontation.
The selectivity of this indignation is equally troubling. If public land must be administered equitably, the principle must apply to all institutions, irrespective of their influence or proximity to the state. What comparable scrutiny is directed at garrison clubs, golf courses and other establishments associated with powerful constituencies? What standards govern their leases, concessions and use of public resources?
These questions do not absolve Lahore Gymkhana of accountability; they expose the inconsistency of targeting a civilian institution while comparable arrangements elsewhere may escape equivalent examination. If low rents, unauthorised structures or tax irregularities are objectionable, the same standards must apply across the board. Otherwise, equality before the law becomes a slogan invoked against the accessible while the powerful remain undisturbed.
The value of the club’s land inevitably raises another concern: whether scrutiny is directed towards a genuine public benefit or could create an opportunity to transfer a valuable asset from one privileged constituency to another. The land’s commercial potential makes vigilance necessary, although it does not, by itself, prove that any particular critic is motivated by land-grabbing interests. If the lease is legally defective or financially indefensible, it should be reviewed through lawful procedures. But reclaiming valuable property is not automatically an act of public service.
The authorities must explain what would replace the existing arrangement, who would benefit and whether the city would gain genuinely accessible recreational space or merely another commercially valuable development. Reform must serve the public, not simply change the beneficiaries of privilege.
Lahore Gymkhana should, therefore, be judged on two distinct but related grounds: the legality of its present arrangements and the significance of its institutional transformation. Its colonial origins cannot be condoned, but neither should they become a permanent indictment of an institution whose social context and governance have changed. Its lease must withstand legal and financial scrutiny; its elections should be assessed for transparency; and its evolution after
Partition should be recognised without exaggerating its egalitarian character. Acknowledging institutional progress does not mean granting immunity from accountability.
The real test of accountability is consistency, just as the test of institutional progress is the capacity to change. Pakistan must do more than condemn the exclusions of the Raj: it must subject contemporary privilege to equal scrutiny, regardless of who enjoys it. To single out a civilian club while leaving comparable or greater concentrations of privilege insufficiently examined is not a triumph of democratic accountability but a contradiction of its central principle.
An independent society demonstrates its maturity by judging institutions impartially, recognising genuine adaptation, demanding transparency in the use of public resources and refusing to let political theatre replace evidence.
Lahore Gymkhana’s colonial past should remind us of the injustice of exclusion; its subsequent evolution should remind us that institutions can change. The ultimate standard must be the public interest, not selective indignation or the lure of valuable urban land.
Published in Dawn, November 1st, 2026
The post In Spectrum: Gymkhana: colonial origins and politics of selective outrage appeared first on Dawn – Home.
