PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA
__________________________________________________________________
Contents
PART
II - HINDU CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN
Chapter IV : Break-up
of Unity
Chapter V : Weakening
of the Defences
Chapter VI : Pakistan and communal
peace
HINDU
CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN
There
seem to be three reasons present to the mind of the Hindus who are opposing this scheme of
Pakistan. They object to the scheme :—
1. Because
it involves the breaking-up of the unity of India.
2. Because
it weakens the defence of India.
3. Because
it fails to solve the communal problem.
Is
there any substance in these objections ? This part
is concerned with an examination of the validity of these
objections.
BREAK-UP OF UNITY
Those Hindus, who maintain the affirmative, rely chiefly upon the fact that the areas which the
Muslims want to be separated from India have always been a part of India. Historically
this is, no doubt, true. This area was a part of India when Chandragupta
was the ruler; it continued to be a part of India when Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese pilgrim,
visited India in the 7th century A. D. In his diary, Hsuan Tsang has recorded that India
was divided into five divisions or to use his language, there were ‘ five Indies '1[f.1]: (1) Northern India, (2) Western India, (3) Central India,
(4) Eastern India and (5) Southern India and that these five divisions contained 80
kingdoms. According to Hsuan Tsang, Northern India comprised the Punjab proper, including
Kashmir and the adjoining hill States with the whole of Eastern Afghanistan beyond the
Indus, and the present Cis-Satlaj States to the west of the Sarasvati river. Thus, in
Northern India there were included the districts of Kabul, Jallalabad, Peshawar, Ghazni
and Bannu, which were all subject to the ruler of Kapisa, who was a Hindu Kshatriya and
whose capital was most probably at Charikar, 27 miles from Kabul. In the Punjab proper,
the hilly districts Taxila, Singhapura, Urasa, Punch and Rajaori, were subject to the Raja
of Kashmir; while the whole of the plains, including Multan and Shorkot, were dependent on
the ruler of Taki or Sangala, near Lahore. Such was the extent of the northern boundary of
India at the time when Hsuan Tsang came on his pilgrimage. But as Prof. Toynbee points out :
" We must be on our guard against ' historical sentiment ', that is
against arguments taken from conditions which once existed or were supposed to exist, but
which are no longer real at the present moment They are most easily illustrated by extreme
examples. Italian newspapers have described the annexation of Tripoli as recovering the
soil of the Fatherland because it was once a province of the Roman Empire; and the entire
region of Macedonia is claimed by Greek Chauvinists on the one hand, because it contains
the site of Pella, the cradle of Alexandar the Great in the fourth century B.C. and by
Bulgarians on the other, because Ochrida, in the opposite corner, was the capital of the Bulgarian Tzardom in the
tenth century A. D., though the drift of time has buried the tradition of the latter
almost as deep as the achievements of the ' Emathian Conqueror ' on which the modem Greek
nationalists insist so strongly. "
The same logic applies here. Here also
arguments are taken from conditions which once existed but which are no longer real and
which omit to take into consideration later facts which history has to record during
practically one thousand years—after the return of Hsuan Tsang.
It is true that when Hsuan Tsang came, not only
the Punjab but what is now Afghanistan was part of India and further, the people of the
Punjab and Afghanistan were either Vedic or Buddhist by religion. But what has happened
since Hsuan Tsang left India ?
The most important thing that has happened is
the invasion of India by the Muslim hordes from the north-west. The first Muslim invasion
of India was by the Arabs who were led by Mahommad Bin Qasim. It took place in 711 A. D.
and resulted in the conquest of Sind. This first Muslim invasion did not result in a
permanent occupation of the country because the Caliphate of Baghdad, by whose order and
command the invasion had taken place, was obliged by the middle of the 9th century A. D.
to withdraw 2[f.2] its direct control from this distant province of Sind. Soon
after this withdrawal, there began a series of terrible invasions by Muhammad of Ghazni in 1001 A. D. Muhammad
died in 1030 A. D., but within the short span of 30 years,
he invaded India 17 times. He was followed by Mahommad Ghori who began his career as an
invader in 1173. He was killed in 1206. For thirty years had Muhammad of Ghazni ravaged
India and for thirty years Mahommad Ghori harried the same country in the same way. Then
followed the incursions of the Moghul hordes of Chenghiz Khan. They first came in 1221.
They then only wintered on the border of India but did not enter it. Twenty years after,
they marched on Lahore and sacked it. Of their inroads, the most terrible was under Taimur
in 1398. Then comes on the scene a new invader in the person of Babar who invaded India in
1526. The invasions of India did not stop with that of Babar. There occurred two more
invasions. In 1738 Nadirshah's invading host swept over the Punjab like a flooded river
" furious as the ocean ". He was followed by Ahmadshah Abdalli who invaded India
in 1761, smashed the forces of the Mahrattas at Panipat and crushed for ever the attempt
of the Hindus to gain the ground which they had lost to their Muslim invaders.
These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest. There was another object behind them. The expedition against Sind by Mahommad bin Qasim was of a punitive character and was undertaken to punish Raja Dahir of Sind who had refused to make restitution for the seizure of an Arab ship at Debul, one of the sea-port towns of Sind. But, there is no doubt that striking a blow at the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims of this expedition. In one of his dispatches to Hajjaj, Mahommad bin Qasim is quoted to have said :
" The nephew
of Raja Dahir, his warriors and principal officers have been dispatched, and the infidels
converted to Islam or destroyed. Instead of idol-temples, mosques and other places of
worship have been created, the Kulbah it read, the call to prayers is raised, so that
devotions are performed at staled hours. The Takbir and praise to the Almighty God are
offered every morning and evening. " 3[f.3]
After receiving the above dispatch, which had
been forwarded with the head of the Raja, Hajjaj sent the following reply to his general:
" Except that you give protection to all,
great and small alike, make no difference between enemy and friend. God, says, ' Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats '. Then know that
this is the command of the
great God. You shall not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong
your work. After this give no quarter to any enemy except those who are of rank." 4[f.4]
Muhammad of Ghazni also looked upon his
numerous invasions of India as the waging of a holy war. Al' Utbi, the historian of
Muhammad, describing his raids writes :
" He demolished idol temples and
established Islam. He captured ...... cities, killed the polluted wretches, destroying the
idolaters, and gratifying Muslims. ' He then returned home and promulgated accounts of the
victories obtained for Islam. ....... and vowed that every year he would undertake a holy
war against Hind 5[f.5]. " Mahommed Ghori was actuated by the same
holy zeal in his invasions of India. Hasan Nizami, the historian, describes his work in
the following terms :
" He purged by his sword the land of Hind
from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn
of God-plurality and the
impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigour and intrepidity left not one temple
standing 6[f.6]
Taimur has in his Memoir explained what led him
to invade India. He says:
" My object in the invasions of Hindustan
is to lead a campaign against the infidels, to convert them to the true faith according to the command of
Muhammad (on whom and his family be the blessing and peace of God), to purify the land
from the defilement of misbelief and polytheism, and overthrow the temples and idols,
whereby we shall be Ghazis
and Mujahids,
companions and soldiers of the faith before God. " 7[f.7]
These invasions of India by Muslims were as
much invasions of India as they were wars among the Muslims themselves. This fact has
remained hidden because the invaders are all lumped together as Muslims without
distinction. But as a matter of fact, they were Tartars, Afghans and Mongols. Muhammad of
Ghazni was a Tartar, Mahommed of Ghori was an Afghan, Taimur was a Mongol, Babar was a
Tartar, while Nadirshah and Ahmadshah Abdalli were Afghans. In invading India, the Afghan
was out to destroy the Tartar and the Mongol was out to destroy the Tartar as well as the
Afghan. They were not a loving family cemented by the feeling of Islamic brotherhood. They
were deadly rivals of one another and their wars were often wars of mutual extermination.
What is, however, important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts
they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith.
The methods adopted by the Muslim invaders of
India are not less significant for the subsequent history of India than the object of
their invasions.
Mahommad bin Qasim's first act of religious
zeal was forcibly to circumcise the Brahmins of the captured city of Debul ; but on
discovering that they objected to this sort of conversion, he proceeded to put all above
the age of 17 to death, and to order all others, with women and children, to be led into
slavery. The temple of the Hindus was looted, and the rich booty was divided equally among
the soldiers, after one-fifth, the legal portion for the government, had been set aside.
Muhammad of Ghazni from the first adopted those
plans that would strike terror into the hearts of the Hindus. After the defeat of Raja
JaipalinA.D. 1001, Muhammad ordered that Jaipal " be paraded about in the streets so
that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace;
and that fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidels. "
"The slaughtering of ' infidels' seemed to
be one thing that gave Muhammad particular pleasure. In one attack on Chand Rai, in A. D.
1019, many infidels were slain or taken prisoners, and the
Muslims paid no regard to booty until they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers
of the sun and fire. The historian naively adds that the elephants of the Hindu armies
came to Muhammad of their own accord, leaving idols, preferring the service of the
religion of Islam. " 8[f.8]
Not infrequently, the slaughter of the Hindus
gave a great setback to the indigenous culture of the Hindus, as in the conquest of Bihar
by Muhammad Bakhtyar Khilji. When he took
Nuddea (Bihar) the Tabaquat-i-Nasiri informs us that:
" great plunder fell into the hands of
the victors. Most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to
death. Large number of books were found......... but none could explain their contents as
all the men had been killed, the whole fort and city being a place of study. " 9[f.9]
Summing up the evidence on the point. Dr. Titus
concludes :
" Of the destruction of temples and the
desecration of idols we have an abundance of evidence. Mahommad
bin Qasim carried out his plan of destruction systematically in Sind, we have seen, but he
made an exception of the famous temple at Multan for purposes of revenue, as this temple
was a place of resort for pilgrims, who made large gifts to the idol. Nevertheless, while
he thus satisfied his avarice by letting the temple stand, he gave vent to his malignity
by having a piece of cow's flesh tied around the neck of the idol.
" Minhaj-as-Siraj further tells how
Mahommad became widely known for having destroyed as many as a thousand temples, and of
his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he
asserts was broken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni,
one he placed at the entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the
fourth to Medina. 10[f.10]"
It is said by Lane Poole that Muhammad of
Ghazni " who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against the
infidels of Hindustan " could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the
temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It was for this specific purpose that he, at the
very close of his career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to
Anhalwara on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple:
" There a hundred thousand pilgrims were
wont to assemble, a thousand Brahmins served the temple and guarded its treasures, and
hundreds of dancers and singers played before its gates. Within stood the famous linga, a
rude pillar stone adorned with gems and lighted by jewelled candelebra which were reflected in rich hangings, embroidered with
precious stones like stars, that decked the shrine..... Its
ramparts were swarmed with incredulous Brahmins, mocking the vain arrogance of foreign
infidels whom the God of Somnath would assuredly consume. The foreigners, nothing daunted,
scaled the walls; the God remained dumb to the urgent appeals of his servants; fifty
thousand Hindus suffered for their faith and the sacred shrine was sacked to the joy of
the true believers. The great stone was cast down and its fragments were carried off to
grace the conqueror's palace. The temple gates were setup at Ghazni and a million pounds
worth of treasure rewarded the iconoclast " 11[f.11]
The work done by Muhammad of Ghazni became a
pious tradition and was faithfully followed by those who came after him. In the words of
Dr. Titus 12[f.12]
"Mahommad Ghori, one of the enthusiastic
successors of Muhammad of Ghazni, in his conquest of Ajmir destroyed pillars and
foundations of the idol-temples, and built in their stead mosques and colleges, and the
precepts of Islam and the customs of the law were divulged and established. At Delhi, the
city and its vicinity were freed from idols and idol worship, and in the sanctuaries of
the images of the Gods mosques were raised by the worshippers of the one God.
" Qutb-ud-Din Aybak also is said to have
destroyed nearly a thousand temples, and then raised mosques on their foundations. The
same author states that he built the Jami Masjid, Delhi, and adorned it with the stones
and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants, and covered it
with inscriptions (from the Quran) containing the divine commands. We have further
evidence of this harrowing process having been systematically employed from the
inscription extant over the eastern gateway of this same mosque at Delhi, which relates
that the materials of 27 idol temples were used in its construction.
" Ala-ud-Din, in his zeal to build a
second Minar to the Jami Masjid, to rival the one built by Qulb-ud-Din, is said by Amir
Khusru not only to have dug stones out of the hills, but to have demolished temples of the
infidels to furnish a supply. In his conquests of South
India the destruction of temples was carried out by Ala-ud-Din as it had been in the north
by his predecessors.
" The Sultan Firoz Shah, in his Futuhat,
graphically relates how he treated Hindus who had dared to build new temples. ' When they
did this in the city (Delhi) and the environs, in opposition to the law of the Prophet,
which declares that such are not to be tolerated, under Divine guidance I destroyed these
edifices. I killed these leaders of infidelity and punished others with stripes, until
this abuse was entirely abolished and where infidels and idolaters worshipped idols,
Musalmans now by God's mercy perform their devotions to the true God."
Even in the reign of Shah Jahan, we read of the
destruction of the temples that the Hindus had started to rebuild, and the account of this
direct attack on the piety of the Hindus is thus solemnly recorded in the Badshah-namah :
" It had been brought to the notice of
His Majesty, says the historian, that during the late reign (of Akbar) many idol-temples
had been begun but remained unfinished at Benares, the great stronghold of infidelity. The
infidels were now desirous of completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith,
gave orders that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all temples
that had been begun should be cast down. It was reported from the Province of Allahabad
that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of Benares. " 13[f.13]
It was left to Aurangzeb to make a final
attempt to overthrow idolatry. The author of ' Ma '
athir-i-Alamgiri dilates upon his efforts to put down Hindu teaching, and his
destruction of temples in the following terms :
" In April, A. D. 1669, Aurangzib learned
that in the provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, but especially in the latter, foolish
Brahmins were in the habit of expounding frivolous books in their schools, and that
learners, Muslims as well as Hindus, went there from long distances.... The ' Director of
the Faith ' consequently issued orders to all the governors of provinces to destroy with a
willing hand the schools and temples of the infidels; and they were enjoined to put an
entire stop to the teaching and practising of idolatrous worship.. ...Later it was
reported to his religious Majesty that
the Government officers had
destroyed the temple of Bishnath at Benares. " 14[f.14]
As Dr. Titus observes 15 [f.15]—
" Such invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem
to have been more concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving of
captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the' proselytizing sword ' than they
were with the conversion of them even by force. But when rulers were permanently
established the winning of converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of
the stale policy to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land.
"Qutb-ud-Din, whose reputation for
destroying temples was almost as great as that of Muhammad, in the latter part of the
twelfth century and early years of the thirteenth, must have frequently resorted to force
as an incentive to conversion. One instance may be noted: when he approached Koil
(Aligarh) in A. D. 1194, ' those of the garrison who were wise and acute were converted to
Islam, but the others were slain with the sword '.
" Further examples of extreme measures
employed to effect a change of faith are all too numerous. One pathetic case is mentioned
in the lime of the reign of Firoz Shah (A. D. 1351—1388). An old Brahmin of Delhi had
been accused of worshipping idols in his house, and of even leading Muslim women to become
infidels. He was sent for and his case placed before the judges, doctors, elders and
lawyers. Their reply was that the provisions of the law were clear. The Brahmin must
either become a Muslim or be burned. The true faith was declared to him and the right
course pointed out, but he refused to accept it. Consequently he was burned by the order
of the Sultan, and the commentator adds, ' Behold the Sultan's strict adherence to law and
rectitude, how he would not deviate in the least from its decrees '. "
Muhammad not only destroyed temples but made it
a policy to make slaves of the Hindus he conquered. In the words of Dr. Titus:
" Not only was slaughter of the infidels
and the destruction of their temples resorted to in earlier period of Islam's
contact with India, but as we have seen, many of the vanquished were led into slavery. The
dividing up of booty was one of the special attractions, to the leaders as well as to the
common soldiers in these expeditions. Muhammad seems to have made the slaughter of
infidels, the destruction of their temples, the capturing of slaves, and the plundering of the wealth of the people, particularly of the temples
and the priests, the main object of his raids. On the occasion of his first raid he is
said to have taken much booty ; and half a million Hindus, ' beautiful men and women ',
were reduced to slavery and taken back to Ghazni. " 16[f.16]
When Muhammad later took Kanauj, in A. D. 1017,
he took so much booty and so many prisoners that * the fingers of those who counted them
would have tired '. Describing how common Indian slaves had become in Ghazni and Central
Asia after the campaign of A. D. 1019, the historian of the times says 17[f.17] :
"The number of prisoners may be conceived
from the fact that each was sold for from two to ten dirhams.
These were afterwards taken to Ghazni, and merchants came
from far distant cities to purchase them ;. . ....and the fair and the dark, the rich and
the poor were commingled in one common slavery.
" In the
year A.D. 1202, when Qulb-ud-Din captured Kalinjar, after the temples had been convened into mosques, and the very name of idolatry was
annihilated, fifty thousand
men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.
"
Slavery was the fate of those Hindus who were
captured in the holy war. But, when there was no war the systematic abasement of the
Hindus played no unimportant part in the methods adopted by the Muslim invaders. In the
days of Ala-ud-Din, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Hindus had in certain
parts given the Sultan much trouble. So, he determined to impose such taxes on them that
they would be prevented from rising in rebellion.
" The Hindu was to be left unable to keep
a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries
of life. " 18[f.18]
Speaking of the levy of Jizyah Dr. Titus says 19[f.19] ''
"
The payment of the Jizyah by the Hindus continued throughout the dominions of the sultans,
emperors, and kings in various parts of India with more or less regularity, though often,
the law was in force in theory only ; since it depended entirely on the ability of the
sovereign to enforce his demands. But, finally, it was abolished throughout the Moghul
Empire in the ninth year of the enlightened Akbar's reign (A. D. 1665), after it had been
accepted as a fundamental part of Muslim government policy in India for a period of more
than eight centuries. "
Lane Poole says that
" the Hindu was taxed to the extent of
half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats, and other
milk-cattle. The taxes were to be levied equally on rich and poor, at so much per acre, so
much per animal. Any collectors or officers taking bribes were summarily dismissed and
heavily punished with sticks, pincers, the rack, imprisonment and chains. The new rules
were strictly carried out, so that one revenue officer would string together 20 Hindu
notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the betelnut, so
cheering and stimulative to pleasure, was to be seen in a Hindu house, and the wives of
the impoverished native officials were reduced to taking service in Muslim families.
Revenue officers came to be regarded as more deadly than the plague; and to be a
government clerk was disgrace worse than death, in so much that no Hindu would marry his
daughter to such a man. " 20[f.20]
These edicts, says the historian of the period,
" were so strictly
carried out that the chaukidars
and khuts and muqad-dims were not able to ride on horseback, to
find weapon, to wear fine clothes, or to indulge in betel. . .... No Hindu could hold up
his head. ..... Blows, confinement in the stocks,
imprisonment and chains were all employed to enforce payment. "
All this was not the result of mere caprice or
moral perversion. On the other hand, what was done was in accordance with the ruling ideas
of the leaders of Islam in the broadest aspects. These ideas were well expressed by the
Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of
the Hindus under Muslim law. The Kazi said :—
" They are
called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer
demands silver from them they should without question, and
with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths,
they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it.....
The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this humble payment, and by this
throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for
religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ' Keep them in subjection '. To
keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most
inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them,
plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ' Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and properly '. No doctor
but the great doctor (Hani-fah), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus ; doctors of other schools allow no other alternative
but ' Death or Islam '. " 21[f.21]
Such is the story of this period of 762 years
which elapsed between the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni and
the return of Ahmadshah Abdalli.
How far is it open to the Hindus to say that
Northern India is part of Aryavarta ? How far is it open to the Hindus to say because once it
belonged to them, therefore, it must remain for ever an integral part of India ? Those who oppose separation and hold to the ' historic
sentiment ' arising out of an ancient fact that Northern India including Afghanistan was once part of India and that
the people of that area were either Buddhist or Hindus, must be asked whether the events of these 762 years of incessant Muslim invasions, the object with
which they were launched and the methods adopted by these invaders to give effect to their
object are to be treated as though they were matters of no account ?
Apart from other consequences which have flowed
from them these invasions have, in my opinion, so profoundly altered the ' culture and
character of the northern areas, which it is now proposed to be included in a Pakistan,
that there is not only no unity between that area and the rest of India but that there is
as a matter of fact a real antipathy between the two.
The first consequence of these invasions was
the breaking up of the unity of Northern India with the rest of India. After his conquest
of Northern India, Muhammad of Ghazni detached it from India
and ruled it from Ghazni. When Mahommed Ghori came in the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to
India and ruled it from Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar, detached Kabul and Kandahar from Northern India. Akbar
again attached it to Northern India. They were again detached by Nadirshah
in 1738 and the whole of Northern India would have been severed from India had it not been
for the check provided by the rise of the Sikhs. Northern
India, therefore, has been like a wagon in a train, which can be coupled or uncoupled
according to the circumstances of the moment. If analogy is wanted, the case of
Alsace-Lorraine could be cited. Alsace-Lorraine was originally part of Germany, like the
rest of Switzerland and the Low Countries. It continued to be so till 1680, when it was
taken by France and incorporated
into French territory. It belonged to France till 1871, when
it was detached by Germany and made part of her territory. In 1918, it was again detached
from Germany and made part of France. In 1940, it was detached from France and made part
of Germany.
The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind them their aftermath. One aftermath is the
bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness,
between the two, is so deep-seated that a century of political life has neither succeeded
in assuaging it, nor in making people forget it. As the invasions were accompanied with.
destruction of temples and forced conversions, with spoliation of property, with slaughter,, enslavement and abasement of men, women and children, what
wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a source of pride to
the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus ? But
these things apart, this north-west corner of India has been a theatre in which a stern
drama has been played. Muslim hordes, in wave after wave, have surged down into this area
and from thence scattered themselves in spray over the rest of India. These reached the
rest of India in thin currents. In time, they also receded from their farthest limits ; while they lasted, they left a deep deposit of Islamic
culture over the original Aryan culture in this north-west corner of India which has given
it a totally different colour, both in religious and political outlook. The Muslim
invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did
not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That
would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a
positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth
of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as
an oke. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The
successive invasions have deposited their ' silt ' more there than anywhere
else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick
in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist
culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs, no doubt , became the political masters of Northern India, but they did
not gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to
the rest of India before HsuanTsang. The Sikhs coupled it
back to India. Still, it remains like Alsace-Lorraine politically detachable and
spiritually alien so far as the rest of India is concerned. It is only an unimaginative
person who could fail to take notice of these facts or insist in the face of them that
Pakistan means breaking up into two what is one whole.
What is the unity the Hindu sees between
Pakistan and Hindustan ? If it is geographical unity, then
that is no unity. Geographical unity is unity intended by nature. In building up a
nationality on geographical unity, it must be remembered that it is a case where Nature
proposes and Man disposes. If it is unity in external things, such as ways and habits of
life, that is no unity. Such unity is the result of exposure to a common environment. If
it is administrative unity, that again is no unity. The instance of Burma is in point. Arakan and Tenas-serim were
annexed in 1826 by the treaty of Yendabu. Pegu and Martaban were annexed
in 1852. Upper Burma was
annexed in 1886. The administrative unity between India and Burma was forged in 1826. For
over 110 years that administrative unity continued to exist. In 1937, the knot that tied
the two together was cut asunder and nobody shed a tear over it. The unity between India
and Burma was not less fundamental. If unity is to be of an abiding character, it must be
founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short, it must be
spiritual. Judged in the light of
these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed, there is
more spiritual unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between Pakistan and
Hindustan. And if the Hindus did not object to the severance of Burma from India, it is
difficult to understand how the Hindus can object to the severance of an area like
Pakistan, which, to repeat, is politically detachable from, socially hostile and
spiritually alien to, the rest of India.
CHAPTER
V
WEAKENING OF THE DEFENCES
How will the creation of Pakistan affect the
question of the Defence of Hindustan ? The question is not
a very urgent one. For, there is no reason to suppose that Pakistan will be at war with
Hindustan immediately it is brought into
being. Nevertheless, as the question is sure to be raised, it is better to deal with it.
The question may be considered under three
heads: (1) Question of Frontiers, (2) Question of Resources
and (3) Question of Armed Forces.
I
QUESTION
OF FRONTIERS
It is sure to be urged by the Hindus that
Pakistan leaves Hindustan without a scientific frontier. The obvious reply, of course, is
that the Musalmans cannot be asked to give up their right
to Pakistan, because it adversely affects the Hindus in the matter of their boundaries.
But banter apart, there are really two considerations, which, if taken into account, will
show that the apprehensions of the Hindus in this matter are quite uncalled for.
In the first place, can any country hope to
have a frontier which may be called scientific? As Mr. Davies, the author of North-West Frontier, observes:
" It would be impossible to demarcate on
the North-West of our Indian Empire a frontier which would satisfy ethnological, political
and military requirements. To seek for a zone which traverses easily definable geographical features;
which does not violate ethnic
considerations by cutting through the territories of closely related tribes; and which at the
same time serves as a political boundary, is Utopian."
As a matter of history, there has been no one
scientific boundary for India and different persons have
advocated different boundaries for India. The question of boundaries has given rise to two
policies, the " Forward " Policy and the "
Back to the Indus " Policy. The " Forward " Policy had a greater and a
lesser intent, to use the language of Sir George Macmunn. In its greater intent, it meant
active control in the affairs of Afghanistan as an Etat
Tampion to India and the extension of Indian influence up to the Oxus. In its lesser intent, it was confined to the absorption
of the tribal hills between the administered territory (i.e. the Province of N.-W.F.) and Afghanistan as
defined by the Durand Line and the exercise of British control right up to that line. The
greater intent of the Forward Policy, as a basis for a safe boundary for India, has long
been abandoned. Consequently, there remain three possible boundary lines to choose from:
(1) the Indus River, (2) the present administrative boundary of the N.-W. F. P. and (3)
the Durand Line. Pakistan will no doubt bring the boundary of Hindustan Back to the Indus,
indeed behind the Indus, to the Sutlej.
But this " Back to the Indus " policy was not without its advocates. The greatest
exponent, of the Indus boundary was Lord Lawrence, who was strongly opposed to any forward
move beyond the trans-indus foot-hills. He advocated
meeting any invader in the valley of the Indus. In his opinion, it would be an act of
folly and weakness to give battle at any great distance from the Indus base ; and the longer the distance an invading army has to march
through Afghanistan and the tribal country, the more harassed it would be. Others, no
doubt, have pointed out that a river is a weak line of defence. But the principal reason
for not retiring to the Indus boundary seems to lie elsewhere. Mr. Davies gives the real reason when he says that the
" ' Back to Indus ' cry becomes absurd when it is examined from the point of view of the inhabitants of the modern North-West Frontier Province. Not only would withdrawal
mean loss of prestige, but
it would also be a gross betrayal
of those peoples to whom we have extended our beneficent rule."
In fact, it is no use insisting that any
particular boundary is the safest, for the simple reason that geographical conditions are
not decisive in the world today and modern technique has robbed natural frontiers of much
of their former importance, even where they are mighty mountains, the broadest streams,
widest seas or far stretching deserts.
In the second place, it is always possible for
nations with no natural boundaries to make good this defect. Countries are not wanting
which have no natural boundaries. Yet, all have made good the deficiencies of nature, by creating artificial fortifications as
barriers, which can be far more impregnable than natural barriers. There is no reason to
suppose that the Hindus will not be able to accomplish what other countries similarly
situated have done. Given the resources, Hindus need have no fear for want of a naturally
safe frontier.
II
QUESTION
OF RESOURCES
More important than the question of a
scientific frontier, is the question of resources. If resources are ample for the
necessary equipment, then it is always possible to overcome the difficulties created by an
unscientific or a weak frontier. We must, therefore,
consider the comparative resources of Pakistan and Hindustan. The following figures are
intended to convey an idea of their comparative resources:—
Provinces |
Area |
Population |
|
|
|
|
|
13,518 |
2,425,003 |
1,90,11,842 |
|
Punjab |
91,919 |
23,551,210 |
12,53,87,730 |
46,378 |
3,887,070 |
9,56,76,269 |
|
Baluchistan .. |
54,228 |
420,648 |
|
Bengal |
82,955 |
50,000,000 |
36,55,62,485 |
288,998 |
80,283,931 |
60,56,38,326 |
Resources
of Hindustan
Provinces |
Area |
Population |
|
|
|
|
|
2,711 |
560,292 |
21,00,000 |
|
Assam |
55,014 |
8,622,251 |
4,46,04,441 |
69,348 |
32,371,434 |
6,78,21,588 |
|
Bombay |
77,271 |
18,000,000 |
34,98,03,800 |
99957 |
15,507,723 |
4,58,83,962 |
|