PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA
_________________________________________________________________
Contents
PART
1 : MUSLIM CASE FOR PAKISTAN
Chapter I : What does
the league demand ?
Chapter II : A nation calling for a home
Chapter III : Escape
from degradation
The Muslim Case for Pakistan is sought to be
justified on the following grounds:—
(i)
What the Muslims are asking
for is the creation of administrative areas which are ethnically more homogeneous.
(ii)
The Muslims want these
homogeneous administrative areas which are predominantly Muslim to be constituted into
separate States,
(a) because the Muslims by themselves constitute a separate
nation and desire to have a national home, and
(b) because experience shows that the Hindus want to use their
majority to treat the Muslims as though they were second-class citizens in an alien State.
This part is devoted to the exposition of these
grounds.
WHAT DOES THE LEAGUE DEMAND ?
I
On the 26th of March 1940, Hindu India was startled to attention as it had never been before. On that day,
the Muslim League at its Lahore Session passed the following Resolution :—
" 1. While approving and endorsing the action taken by the Council
and the Working Committee of the All-India Muslim League as indicated in their resolutions dated the 27th of August, 17th and 18th of
September and 22nd of October 1939 and 3rd of February 1940 on the constitutional issue,
this Session of the All-India Muslim League emphatically reiterates that the Scheme of
Federation embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935, is
totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is
altogether unacceptable to Muslim India;
" 2. It
further records its emphatic view that while the declaration dated the 18th of October
1939 made by the Viceroy on behalf of His Majesty's Government is reassuring in as far as it declares that the policy and plan on which
the Government of India Act, 1935, is based will be reconsidered in consultation with the
various parties, interests and communities in India, Muslim India will not be satisfied
unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan
would be acceptable to the Muslims, unless it is framed with their approval and consent;
" 3. 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 the Muslims unless it is designated on the following basic principle, viz. 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;
" 4. That
adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically
provided in the constitution for minorities in these units
and in the regions for the protection of their religious,
cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights, and interests in
consultation with them ; and in other
parts of India where the Musalmans are in a minority,
adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the
constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious,
cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights, and interests in
consultation with them ;
" 5. This
Session further authorizes the Working Committee to frame a
Scheme of Constitution in accordance with these basic
principles, providing for the assumption Finally by the
respective regions of all powers such as defence, external
affairs, communication, customs, and such other matters as may be necessary."
What does this Resolution contemplate ? A reference to para 3 of the
Resolution will show that the Resolution contemplates that the areas in which Muslims
predominate shall be incorporated into independent States. In concrete terms, it means
that the Punjab, the North-Western Frontier Province,
Baluchistan and Sind in the North-West and Bengal in the
East instead of remaining as the provinces of British India shall be incorporated as
independent States outside of British India. This is the sum and substance of the
Resolution of the Muslim League.
Does the Resolution contemplate that these
Muslim provinces, after being incorporated into States, will remain each an independent
sovereign State or will they be joined together into one constitution as members of a
single State, federal or unitary ? On this point, the
Resolution is rather ambiguous, if not self-contradictory. It speaks of grouping the zones
into " Independent States in which the Constituent
Units shall be autonomous and sovereign." The use of
the term " Constituent Units "
indicates that what is contemplated is a Federation. If that is so, then, the use of the
word " sovereign "
as an attribute of the Units is out of place. Federation of Units and sovereignty-of Units are contradictions. It may be that what is
contemplated is a confederation. It is, however, not very material for the moment whether
these Independent States are to form into a federation or a confederation. What is
important is the basic demand, namely, that these areas are to be separated from India and
formed into Independent States.
The Resolution is so worded as to give the idea
that the scheme adumbrated in it is a new one. But, there can be no doubt that the
Resolution merely resuscitates a scheme which was put forth by Sir Mahomed Iqbal in his Presidential address to the Muslim League at its
Annual Session held at Lucknow in December 1930. The scheme was not then adopted by the League. It was,
however, taken up by one Mr. Rehmat Ali who gave it the name, Pakistan, by which it is known. Mr. Rehmat Ali, M. A., LL.B., founded the Pakistan Movement in 1933. He divided India into two, namely, Pakistan and
Hindustan. His Pakistan included the Punjab, N. W. F. Province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. The rest to him was Hindustan. His idea was to have an "
independent and separate Pakistan " composed of five
Muslim provinces in the North as an independent State. The proposal was circulated to the
members of the Round Table Conference but never officially put forth. It seems an attempt
was made privately to obtain the assent of the British Government, who, however, declined
to consider it because they thought that this was a "
revival of the old Muslim Empire." 1[f.1]
The League has only enlarged the original scheme of Pakistan. It has sought to create one more Muslim State in the East to include the Muslims in Bengal and Assam. Barring this, it expresses in its essence and general outline the scheme put forth by Sir Mahomed Iqbal and propagated by Mr. Rehmat Ali. There is no name given to this new Muslim State in the East. This has made no difference in the theory and the issues involved in the ideology of Mr. Rehmat Ali. The only difficulty one feels is that the League, while enlarging the facets, has not christened the two Muslim States with short and sweet names as it might have been expected to do. That it did not do and we are left to carry on the discussion with two long jaw-breaking names of Muslim State in the West and Muslim State in the East. I propose to solve this difficulty by reserving the name Pakistan to express the ideology underlying the two-nation theory and its consequent effect, namely, partition, and by designating the two Muslim States in the North-West and North-East as Western Pakistan and Eastern Pakistan.
The scheme not only called Hindu India to
attention but it shocked Hindu India. Now it is natural to ask, what is there that is new
or shocking in this scheme ?
Is the idea of linking up of the provinces in the North-West a shocking idea ?
If so, let it be remembered that the linking of these
provinces is an age-old project put forth by successive Viceroys, Administrators and
Generals. Of the Pakistan provinces in the North-West, the Punjab and N. W. F.
P. constituted a single province ever since the Punjab was conquered by the British in
1849. The two continued to be a single province till 1901. It was in 1901 that Lord Curzon broke up their unity and created the present two
provinces. As to the linking up of the Punjab with Sind,
there can be no doubt that had the conquest of Sind followed
and not preceded the conquest of the Punjab, Sind would have been incorporated into the
Punjab, for the two are not only contiguous but are connected by a single river which is
the most natural tie between them. Although Sind was joined to Bombay, which in the
absence of the Punjab was the only base from which it could be governed, the idea of disconnecting Sind
from Bombay and joining it to the Punjab was not given up and projects in that behalf were
put forth from time to time. It was first put forth during the Governor-Generalship of
Lord Dalhousie; but for financial reasons, was not
sanctioned by the Court of Directors. After the mutiny, the question was reconsidered but
owing to the backward state of communications along the Indus, Lord Canning refused to
give his consent. In 1876, Lord Northbrook was of the
opinion that Sind should be joined to the Punjab. In 1877, Lord Lytton,
who succeeded Northbrook, sought to create a trans-indus
province, consisting of the six frontier districts of the Punjab and of the transindus districts of Sind. This would have included the six
Frontier districts of the Punjab, namely, Hazara, Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu (except the Cis-indus tracts), Dera Ismail Khan (with the same exception), Dera Ghazi Khan, and trans-Indus Sind (with the exception of
Karachi). Lytton also proposed that Bombay should receive the whole or part of the Central
Provinces, in order to compensate it for the loss of trans-indus
Sind. These proposals were not acceptable to the Secretary of State. During the
Vice-royalty of Lord Lansdowne (1888—94), the same
project was revived in its original form, namely, the transfer of Sind to the Punjab, but owing to the formation of the
Baluchistan Agency, Sind had ceased to be a Frontier
district and the idea which was military in its motive, lost its force and Sind remained without being incorporated in the Punjab. Had the
British not acquired Baluchistan and had Lord Curzon not
thought of carving out the N. W. F.
P. out of the Punjab, we would have witnessed long ago the creation of Pakistan as an
administrative unit.
With regard to the claim for the creation of
a National Muslim State in Bengal, again, there is nothing new in it. It will be recalled
by many that in 1905, the province of Bengal and Assam was divided by the then Viceroy,
Lord Curzon into two provinces :
(1) Eastern
Bengal and Assam with Dacca as its capital and
(2) Western Bengal with Calcutta as its capital. The newly-created province of Eastern
Bengal and Assam included Assam and the following districts of the old province of Bengal
and Assam: (1) Dacca, (2) Mymensingh,
(3) Faridpur, (4) Backer gunge,
(5) Tippera, (6) Noakhali, (7)
Chittagong, (8) Chittag-ong
Hill Tracts, (9) Rajashahl, (10) Dinajpur,
(II) Jalpaiguri, (12) Rangpur, (13) Bogra, (14) Pabna and (15) Malda. Western
Bengal included the remaining districts of the old Province of Bengal and Assam with the
addition of the district of Sambalpur which was transferred
from C. P. to Western Bengal.
This division of one province into two, which
is known in Indian history as the Partition of Bengal, was an attempt to create a Muslim
State in Eastern Bengal, inasmuch as the new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was,
barring parts of Assam, a predominantly Muslim area. But, the partition was abrogated in
1911 by the British who yielded to the Hindus, who were opposed to it and did not care for
the wishes of the Muslims, as they were too weak to make themselves felt. If the partition
of Bengal had not been annulled, the Muslim State in Eastern Bengal, instead of being a
new project, would now have been 39 years old. 2[f.2]
III
Is the idea of separation of Pakistan from
Hindustan shocking ? If so, let me recall
a few facts which are relevant to the issue and which form the basic principles of the
Congress policy. It will be remembered that as soon as Mr. Gandhi
captured the Congress, he did two things to popularize it. The first thing he did was to
introduce Civil Disobedience.
Before Mr. Gandhi 's entry into the politics
of India, the parties contending for power were the Congress, the Liberals and the
Terrorists of Bengal. The Congress and the Liberals were really one party and there was no
distinction between them such as divides them today. We can, therefore, safely say that
there were only two parties in India, the Liberals and the Terrorists. In both, the
conditions for admission were extremely difficult. In the Liberal Party, the condition for
admission was not merely education but a high degree of learning. Without first
establishing a reputation for study, one could never hope to obtain admission to the
Liberal Party. It effectively excluded the uneducated from
rising to political power. The Terrorists had prescribed the hardest test conceivable.
Only those who were prepared to give their lives for the cause, not in the sense of
dedicating them but in the sense of dying for it, could become members of their
organization. No knave could, therefore, get an entry into the Terrorists' organization.
Civil disobedience does not require learning. It does not
call for the shedding of life. It is an easy middle way for that large majority who have
no learning and who do not wish to undergo the extreme penalty and at the same time obtain
the notoriety of being patriots. It is this middle path which made the Congress more
popular than the Liberal Party or the Terrorist Party.
The second thing Mr. Gandhi did was to
introduce the principle of Linguistic Provinces. In the constitution that was framed by
the Congress under the inspiration and guidance of Mr. Gandhi, India was to be divided
into the following Provinces with the language and headquarters as given below :—
Province |
Language |
Headquarters |
Hindustani |
Ajmere. |
|
Andbra |
Madras. |
|
Assam |
Assamese |
Gauhati |
Hindustani |
||
Bengal |
Bengali |
Calcutta. |
Bombay (City) |
Bombay. |
|
Delhi |
Hindustani |
Delhi. |
Ahmedabad. |
||
Kamatak |
Kannada |
Dharwar |
Kerala |
Malayalam |
Calicut |
Mahakosal |
Hindustani |
Jubbulpore |
Maharashtra |
Poona. |
|
Nagpur |
Marathi |
|
Pushtu |
Peshawar. |
|
Punjab |
Punjabi |
Lahore. |
Karachi. |
||
Tamil Nadu |
Tamil |
Madras. |
United Provinces |
Hindustani |
Lucknow |
Cuttack. |
||
Maralhi |
Akola. |
In this distribution no attention was paid to
considerations of area, population or revenue. The thought that every administrative unit must be capable of supporting and
supplying a minimum standard of civilized life, for which it must have sufficient area, sufficient population and sufficient revenue, had
no place in this scheme of distribution of areas for provincial purposes. The determining
factor was language. No thought was given to the possibility that it might introduce a disruptive force in the already
loose structure of the Indian social life. The scheme was, no doubt, put forth with the
sole object of winning the people to the Congress by appealing to their local patriotism.
The idea of linguistic provinces has come to stay and the demand for giving effect to it
has become so insistent and irresistible that the Congress, when it came into power, was
forced to put it into effect. Orissa has already been
separated from Bihar. 3[f.3] Andhra is demanding
separation from Madras. Kamatak is asking for separation
from Maharashtra.4[f.4] The only
linguistic province that is not demanding separation from
Maharashtra is Gujarat Or rather, Gujarat has given up for the moment the idea of separation.
That is probably because Gujarat has realized that union with Maharashtra is, politically
as well as commercially, a better investment.
Be. that as it may, the fact remains that
separation on linguistic basis is now an accepted principle with the Congress. It is no
use saying that the separation of Karnatak
and Andhra is based on a linguistic difference and that
the claim to separation of Pakistan is based on a cultural difference. This is a
distinction without difference. Linguistic difference is simply another name for cultural
difference.
If there is nothing shocking in the separation of Karanatak and Andhra, what is
there to shock in the demand for the separation of Pakistan ?
If it is disruptive in its effect, it is no more disruptive than the separation of Hindu provinces such as Karnatak from Maharashtra or
Andhra from Madras. Pakistan is merely
another manifestation of a cultural unit demanding freedom for the growth of its own
distinctive culture.
A NATION CALLING FOR A HOME
That there are factors, administrative,
linguistic or cultural, which are the predisposing causes behind these demands for
separation, is a fact which is admitted and understood by all. Nobody minds these demands
and many are prepared to concede them. But, the Hindus say that the Muslims are going beyond the idea of separation and questions, such as what has led them to
take this course, why are they asking for partition, for the annulment of the common tie
by a legal divorce between Pakistan and Hindustan, are being raised.
The answer is to be found in the declaration
made by the Muslim League in its Resolution that the Muslims of India are a separate
nation. It is this declaration by the Muslim League, which is both resented and ridiculed
by the Hindus.
The Hindu resentment is quite natural. Whether
India is a nation or not, has been the subject-matter of controversy
between the Anglo-Indians and
the Hindu politicians ever since the Indian National Congress was founded. The Anglo-Indians were never tired of proclaiming that India was
not a nation, that ' Indians 'was
only another name for the people of India. In the words of one Anglo-Indian
" to know India was to forget that there is such a
thing as India." The Hindu politicians and patriots have been, on the other hand,
equally persistent in their assertion that India is a nation. That the Anglo-Indians were right in their repudiation cannot be gainsaid.
Even Dr. Tagore, the national poet
of Bengal, agrees with them. But, the Hindus have never
yielded on the point even to Dr. Tagore.
This was because of two reasons. Firstly, the
Hindu felt ashamed to admit that India was not a nation. In a world where nationality and
nationalism were deemed to be special virtues in a people, it was quite natural for the
Hindus to feel, to use the language of Mr. H. G. Wells, that it would be as improper for India to be without
a nationality as it would be for a man to be without his clothes in a crowded assembly.
Secondly, he had realized that nationality had a most intimate connection with the claim
for self-government. He knew that by the end of the 19th century, it had become an
accepted principle that the people, who constituted a nation, were entitled on that
account to self-government and that any patriot, who asked for self-government for his
people, had to prove that they were a nation. The Hindu for these reasons never stopped to
examine whether India was or was not a nation in fact. He never cared to reason whether
nationality was merely a question of calling a people a nation or was a question of the
people being a nation. He knew one thing, namely, that if he was to succeed in his demand
for self-government for India, he must maintain, even if he could not prove it, that India
was a nation.
In this assertion, he was never contradicted by
any Indian. The thesis was so agreeable that even serious Indian students of history came
forward to write propagandist literature in support of it, no doubt out of patriotic
motives. The Hindu social reformers, who knew that this was a dangerous delusion, could
not openly contradict this thesis. For, anyone who questioned it was at once called a tool
of the British bureaucracy and enemy of the country. The
Hindu politician was able to propagate his view for a long time. His opponent, the Anglo-lndian, had ceased to reply to him. His propaganda had
almost succeeded. When it was about to succeed comes this
declaration of the Muslim League— this rift in the
lute. Just because it does not come from the Anglo-Indian,
it is a deadlier blow. It destroys the work which the Hindu politician has done for years. If the
Muslims in India are a separate nation, then, of course, India is not a nation. This
assertion cuts the whole ground from under the feet of the Hindu politicians. It is
natural that they should feel annoyed at it and call it a stab in the back.
But, stab or no stab, the point is, can the Musalmans
be said to constitute a nation ?
Everything else is beside the point. This raises the question :
What is a nation ? Tomes have been written on the subject.
Those who are curious may go through them and study the different basic conceptions as
well as the different aspects of it. It is, however, enough to know the core of the
subject and that can be set down in a few words. Nationality
is a social feeling. It is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those
who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This national feeling is a double
edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of fellowship for one's
own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship feeling for those who are not one's own kith and kin. It is a feeling of " consciousness of kind " which
on the one hand binds together
those who have it, so strongly that it over-rides all differences arising out of economic
conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who are not of
their kind. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling.
Now apply this test to the Muslim claim. Is it
or is it not a fact that the Muslims of India are an exclusive group ? Is it or is it not a fact that they have a consciousness of
kind ? Is it or is not a fact that every Muslim is possessed
by a longing to belong to his own group and not to any non-Muslim group ?
If the answer to these questions is in the
affirmative, then the controversy must end and the Muslim
claim that they are a nation must be accepted without cavil.
What the Hindus must show is that
notwithstanding some differences, there are enough affinities between Hindus and Musalmans to constitute them into one nation, or, to use plain
language, which make Muslims and Hindus long to belong together.
Hindus, who disagree with the Muslim view that
the Muslims are a separate nation by themselves, rely upon certain features of Indian
social life which seem to form the bonds of integration between Muslim society and Hindu
society.
In the first place, it is said that there is no
difference of race between the Hindus and the Muslims. That the Punjabi Musalman and the Punjabi Hindu, the U.
P. Musalman and the U. P.
Hindu, the Bihar Musalman and the Bihar
Hindu, the Bengal Musalman and the Bengal Hindu, the Madras Musalman and the Madras Hindu,
and the Bombay Musalman and the Bombay Hindu are racially of
one stock. Indeed there is more racial affinity between the Madras Musalman and the Madras
Brahmin than there is between the Madras Brahmin and the Punjab Brahmin. In the second
place, reliance is placed upon linguistic unity between Hindus and Muslims. It is said
that the Musalmans have no common language of their own
which can mark them off as a linguistic group separate from the Hindus. On the contrary, there is a
complete linguistic unity between the two. In the Punjab, both Hindus and Muslims speak
Punjabi. In Sind, both speak Sindhi. In Bengal, both speak
Bengali. In Gujarat, both speak Gujarati.
In Maharashtra, both speak Marathi.
So in every province. It is only in towns that the Musalmans speak Urdu and the Hindus the
language of the province. Bu,t outside, in the mofussil,
there is complete linguistic unity between Hindus and Musalmans. Thirdly, it is pointed out that India is
the land which the Hindus and Musalmans have now inhabited together for centuries. It is
not exclusively the land of the Hindus, nor is it exclusively the land of the Mahomedans.
Reliance is placed not only upon racial unity
but also upon certain common features in the social and cultural life of the two
communities. It is pointed out that the social life of many Muslim groups is honeycombed with Hindu customs. For instance, the Avans of the
Punjab, though they are nearly all Muslims, retain Hindu names and keep their genealogies
in the Brahmanic fashion. Hindu surnames are found among
Muslims. For instance, the surname Chaudhari is a Hindu
surname but is common among the Musalmans of U.P. and
Northern India. In the matter of marriage, certain groups of
Muslims are Muslims in name only. They either follow the Hindu form of the ceremony alone,
or perform the ceremony first by the Hindu rites and then call the Kazi and have it performed in the Muslim form. In some sections
of Muslims, the law applied is the Hindu Law in the matter of marriage, guardianship and
inheritance. Before the Shariat Act was passed, this was
true even in the Punjab and the N. W. F. P. In the social sphere the caste system is alleged to be as
much a part of Muslim society as it is of Hindu society. In the religious sphere, it is
pointed out that many Muslim pirs had Hindu disciples ; and similarly some Hindu yogis have had Muslim chelas. Reliance is placed on instances of friendship between
saints of the rival creeds. At
Girot, in the Punjab, the tombs of two ascetics, Jamali Sultan and Diyal Bhawan, who lived in close amity during the early part of the
nineteenth century, stand close to one another, and are reverenced by Hindus and Musalmans alike. Bawa Fathu, a Muslim saint, who lived about 1700 A.D. and whose tomb is at Ranital
in the Kangra District, received the title of prophet by the
blessing of a Hindu saint, Sodhi Guru
Gulab Singh. On the other hand, Baba
Shahana, a Hindu saint whose cult is observed in the Jang District, is said to have been the chela of a Muslim pir who changed
the original name (Mihra), of his Hindu follower, into Mir Shah.
All this, no doubt, is true. That a large
majority of the Muslims belong to the same race as the Hindus is beyond question. That all
Mahomedans do not speak a common tongue, that many speak the
same language as the Hindus cannot be denied. That there are certain social customs which
are common to both cannot be gainsaid. That certain religious rites and practices are
common to both is also a matter of fact. But the question is :
can all this support the conclusion that the Hindus and the Mahomedans on account of them
constitute one nation or these things have fostered in them a feeling that they long to
belong to each other ?
There are many flaws in the Hindu argument. In
the first place, what are pointed out as common features are
not the result of a conscious attempt to adopt and adapt to each other's ways and manners
to bring about social fusion. On the other hand, this uniformity is the result of certain purely
mechanical causes. They are partly due to incomplete conversions. In a land like India,
where the majority of the Muslim population has been recruited from caste and out-caste
Hindus, the Muslimization of the convert was neither complete nor effectual, either from fear of revolt or
because of the method of persuasion or insufficiency of preaching due to insufficiency of
priests. There is, therefore, little wonder if great sections of the Muslim community here
and there reveal their Hindu origin in their religious and social life. Partly it is to be
explained as the effect of common environment to which both Hindus and Muslims have been
subjected for centuries. A common environment is bound to
produce common reactions, and reacting constantly in the same way to the same environment is bound to produce a
common type. Partly are these common features to be explained as the remnants of a period
of religious amalgamation between the Hindus and the Muslims inaugurated by the Emperor Akbar, the result of a dead past which has no present and no
future.
As to the argument based on unity of race, unity of language and inhabiting a common country, the
matter stands on a different footing. If these considerations were decisive in making or
unmaking a nation, the Hindus would be right in saying that by reason of race, community
of language and habitat the Hindus and Musalmans form one
nation. As a matter of historical experience, neither race,
nor language, nor country has sufficed to mould a people into a nation. The argument is so
well put by Renan that it is impossible to improve upon his
language. Long ago in his famous essay on Nationality, Renan observed :—
" that race must not be
confounded with nation. The truth is that . there is no pure race; and that making politics depend upon ethnographical analysis, is allowing it to be borne upon a chimera . . . Racial facts, important as
they are in the beginning, have a constant tendency to lose their importance. Human
history is essentially
different from zoology. Race is not everything, as it is in
the sense of rodents and felines."
Speaking about language, Renan points out that :—
" Language
invites re-union ; it does not
force it. The United States and England, Spanish America and Spain speak the same
languages and do not form single nations. On
the contrary, Switzerland which owes her stability to the fact that she was founded by the
assent of her several parts counts three or four languages. In man there is something superior to language, —will. The will of Switzerland to be united, in
spite of the variety of her languages,' is a much more important fact than a similarity of language,
often obtained by persecution."
As to common country, Renan argued that :—
" It is no
more the land than the race that makes a nation. The land provides
a substratum, the field of battle and work; man provides the
soul ; man is everything in the formation of that sacred thing which is called a
people. Nothing of material nature suffices for it"
Having shown,
that race, language, and country do not suffice to create a nation, Renan raises in a
pointed manner the question, what more, then, is necessary
to constitute a nation ? His answer may be given in his own
words :—
" A nation
is a living soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which
in truth are but one,
constitute this soul, this spiritual
principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage of memories
; the other is the
actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to preserve worthily the undivided inheritance which has been handed down. Man does not improvise.
The nation, like the
individual, is the outcome of a long past of efforts, and
sacrifices, and devotion. Ancestor-worship
is therefore, all the more legitimate ; for our ancestors
have made us what we are. A heroic
past, great men, glory,—1 mean glory of the genuine
kind,—these form the social capital, upon which a national idea may be founded. To have common glories in the past, a common
will in the present; to have done great things together, to will to do the like
again,—such are the essential conditions for the . making of a people. We love in proportion to the sacrifices we have consented
to make, to the sufferings we
have endured. We love the
house that we have built, and will hand down to our descendant. The Spartan hymn, ' We
are what you were ; we shall be
what you are,' is in its simplicity
the national anthem of every
land.
" In the
past an inheritance of glory and regrets to be shared, in the future a like ideal to
be realised ; to have suffered, and rejoiced, and hoped together; all these things are
worth more than custom houses in common, and
frontiers in accordance with strategical ideas; all these can be understood in spite of diversities
of race and language. I said just now, ' to have suffered together ' for indeed, suffering in common is a greater bond of union than joy. As regards national memories,
mournings are worth more than
triumphs; for they impose duties, they demand common effort."
Are there any common historical antecedents
which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matters of pride or as
matters of sorrow ? That is the crux of the question. That
is the question which the Hindus must answer, if they wish to maintain that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation. So far as this aspect of
their relationship is. concerned,
they have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. There was no common
cycle of participation for a common achievement. Their past is a past of mutual
destruction—a past of mutual animosities, both in the political as well as in the
religious fields. As Bhai Parmanand
points out in his pamphlet called " The Hindu
National Movement":—"In history the Hindus
revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land
(against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the
invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes."
In the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration
from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat,
and the Geeta. The Musalmans,
on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran
and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more
vital than the things which unite. In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, in relying upon common language, common
race and common country, the Hindu is mistaking what is
accidental and superficial for what is essential and
fundamental. The political and religious antagonisms divide the Hindus and the Musalmans
far more deeply than the so-called common things are able to bind them together. The
prospects might perhaps be different if the past of the two communities can be forgotten
by both, Renan points out the importance of forgetfulness as
a factor in building up a nation :—
" Forgetfulness, and I shall even say historical error, form an essential
factor in the creation of a nation; and thus it is that the progress of historical studies may often be dangerous to the nationality. Historical research, in fact, brings back to
light the deeds of violence
that have taken place at the commencement of all political formations, even
of those the consequences of which have been most beneficial. Unity is ever achieved by brutality. The union of Northern and Southern France was the result of an extermination, and of a reign of terror lhal lasted for nearly a hundred years.
The king of France who was, if I may say so, the ideal type of a secular crystalliser, the king of France who made the most perfect national unity in existence, lost his prestige when seen at too close a distance. The nation that he had formed cursed him ; and today the knowledge of what he was worth, and what he did, belongs only to the
cultured.
" It is by contrast that these
great laws of the history of Western Europe become apparent. In the undertaking
which the king of France, in part by his justice, achieved so admirably, many
countries came to disaster.
Under the crown of St. Stephen, Magyars and Slavs have remained
as distinct as they were eight
hundred years ago. Far from
combining the different
elements in its dominions, the
house of Hapsburg has held them
apart and often opposed to one
another. In Bohemia, the Czech element and the German element
are superimposed like oil and
water in a glass. The Turkish policy of separation of nationalities according to religion has had
much graver results. It has
brought about the ruin of the East. Take a town like Smyrna
or Salonica; you will find there
five or six communities each with its own memories, and possessing among them scarcely
anything in common. But the essence
of the nation is, that all its individual members should have things in common;
and also, that all of them should hold many things in
oblivion. No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgundian, an Alan, or a
Visigoth; every French citizen ought to have forgotten St.
Bartholomew, and the massacres of the South in the thirteenth century. There are not ten
families in France able to furnish proof of a French origin; and yet, even if such a proof
were given it would be essentially defective, in consequence of a thousand
unknown crosses, capable of deranging all genealogical systems."
The pity of it is that the two communities can
never forget or obliterate their past. Their past is
imbedded in their religion, and for
each to give up its past is to give up its religion. To hope
for this is to hope in vain.
In the absence of common historical
antecedents, the Hindu view that Hindus and Musalmans form
one nation falls to the ground. To maintain it is to keep up a hallucination. There
is no such longing between the
Hindus and Musalmans to belong together as there is among the Musalmans of India.
It is no use saying that this claim of the
Musalmans being a nation is an after-thought of their leaders. As an accusation, it is
true. The Muslims were hitherto quite content to call themselves a community. It is only
recently that they have begun to style themselves a nation. But an accusation, attacking
the motives of a person, does not amount to a refutation of his thesis. To say that
because the Muslims once called themselves a community, they are, therefore, now debarred
from calling themselves a nation is to misunderstand the mysterious working of the
psychology of national feeling. Such an argument presupposes that wherever there exist a
people, who possess the elements that go to the making up of a nation, there must be
manifested that sentiment of nationality which is their natural consequence and that if
they fail to manifest it for sometime, then that failure is to be used as evidence showing
the unreality of the claim of being a nation, if made afterwards. There is no historical
support for such a contention. As Prof. Toynbee points out :—
"It is impossible to argue a priory from the presence of one or even several
of these factors to the existence of a nationality; they may have been there for
ages and kindled no response and if is impossible to argue from one case to another; precisely the same group of factors may produce nationality
here, and there have no effect."
This is probably due to the fact, as pointed out by Prof. Barker, that it is possible for nations to exist and even for centuries, in unreflective silence, although there exists that spiritual essence of a natio