PAKISTAN OR THE PARTITION OF INDIA
_______________________________________________________________
Contents
Part
III - WHAT IF NOT PAKISTAN ?
Chapter VII : Hindu alternative to Pakistan
Chapter VIII
: Muslim alternative to Pakistan
Chapter IX : Lessons from abroad
WHAT IF NOT PAKISTAN ?
Having
stated the Muslim case for Pakistan and the Hindu case against it, it is necessary to turn
to the alternatives to Pakistan, if there be any. In forming one's judgement on Pakistan,
one must take into account the alternatives to it. Either there is no alternative to
Pakistan : or there is an alternative to Pakistan, but it is worse than Pakistan. Thirdly,
one must also take into consideration what would be the consequences, if neither Pakistan
nor its alternative is found acceptable to the parties concerned. The relevant data,
having a bearing on these points, are presented in this part under the following heads
:—
1 Hindu
alternative to Pakistan.
2 Muslim
alternative to Pakistan.
3 Lessons
from abroad.
I
Thinking of the Hindu alternative to
Pakistan, the scheme that at once comes to one's mind is the one put forth by the late
Lala Hardayal in 1925. It was published in the form of a statement which appeared in the Pratap of Lahore. In this statement, which he
called his political testament, Lala Hardayal said:—
" I declare that the future of the Hindu
race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangalhan,
(2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the
Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely
of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the
Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions
are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of
Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European
institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made
of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly
part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam..... Just as there is
Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the
frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always
warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will
begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always
be....... If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the
frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes."
I do not know how many Hindus would come
forward to give their support to this scheme of Lala Hardayal as an alternative to
Pakistan. 1[f.1]
In the first place, Hindu religion is not a
proselytising religion. Maulana Mahomed Ali was quite right when, in the course of his
address as President of the Congress, he said:
" Now, this has been my complaint for a
long lime against Hinduism, and on one occasion, lecturing at Allahabad in 1907,I had
pointed out the contrast between Musalmans and Hindus, by saying that the worst that can
be said of a Muslim was that he had a tasteless mess which he called a dish fit for kings,
and wanted all to share it with him, thrusting it down the throats of such as did not
relish it and would rather not have it, while his Hindu brother, who prided himself on his
cookery, retired into the privacy of his kitchen and greedily devoured all that he had
cooked, without permitting even the shadow of his brother to fall on his food, or sparing
even a crumb for him. This was said not altogether in levity; and in fact, I once asked
Mahatma Gandhi to justify this feature of his faith to me. "
What answer the Mahatma gave to his question,
Mr. Mahmed Ali did not disclose. The fact is that however much the Hindus may wish, Hindu
religion cannot become a missionary religion like Islam or Christianity. It is not that
the Hindu religion was never a missionary religion. On the contrary, it was once a
missionary religion—indeed could not but have been a missionary religion, otherwise
it is difficult to explain how, it could have spread over an area so vast as the Indian
continent. 2[f.2] But once a
missionary religion, Hinduism perforce ceased to be a missionary religion after the time
when the Hindu society developed its system of castes. For, caste is incompatible with
conversion. To be able to convert a stranger to its religion, it is not enough for a
community to offer its creed. It must be in a position to admit the convert to its social
life and to absorb and assimilate him among its kindred. It is not possible for the Hindu
society to satisfy this prerequisite of effective conversion. There is nothing to prevent
a Hindu, with a missionary zeal, to proceed to convert an alien to the Hindu faith. But
before he converts the alien, he is bound to be confronted with the question: What is to
be the caste of the convert ? According to the Hindus, for a person to belong to a caste
he must be born in it. A convert is not born in a caste, therefore he belongs to no caste.
This is also an important question. More than political or religious, man is a social
animal. He may not have, need not have, religion ; he may not have, need not have,
politics. He must have society; he cannot do without society. For a Hindu to be without
caste is to be without society. Where there is no society for the convert, how can there
be any conversion ? So long as Hindu society is fragmented in autonomous and autogenic
castes, Hindu religion cannot be a missionary religion. The conversion of the Afghans and
the frontier tribes to Hinduism is, therefore, an idle dream.
In the second place, Lala Hardayal's scheme
must call for financial resources the immensity of which it is hardly possible to compute.
, Who can furnish the funds necessary for the conversion
of the Afghans and the Frontier Tribesmen to Hinduism ? The Hindus, having ceased
to convert others to their faith for a long time, have also lost the. zeal for conversion.
Want of zeal is bound to affect the question of finances. Further, Hindu society being
moulded in the cast of the Chaturvarna, wealth
has, from very ancient times, been most unevenly distributed. It is only the Baniya who is
the heir to wealth and property among the Hindus. There are, of course, the landlords who
are the creation of foreign invaders or native rebels, but they are not as numerous as the
Baniya. The Baniya is money-made and his pursuits are solely for private gain. He knows no
other use of money except to hold it and to transmit it to his descendants. Spread of
religion or acquisition and promotion of culture do not interest him. Even decent living
has no place in his budget. This has been his tradition for ages. If money is expected, he
is not much above the brute in the conception and manner of life. Only one new service, on
the expenditure side, has found a place in his budget. That service is politics. This
happened since the entry of Mr. Gandhi as a political leader. That new service is the
support of Gandhian politics. Here again, the reason is not love of politics. The reason
is to make private gain out of public affairs. What hope is there that such men will spend
money on such a bootless cause as the spread of Hindu religion among the Afghans and
Frontier Tribes ?
Thirdly, there is the question of facilities
for conversion that may be available in Afghanistan. Lala Hardayal evidently thought that
it is possible to say in Afghanistan, with the same impunity as in Turkey, that the Koran
is wrong or out of date. Only one year before the publication of his political testament
by Lala Hardayal, i.e., in 1924; one Niamatulla—a follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahamed of
Quadiyan—who claimed to be the messiah and Mahdi and a prophet of a sort—was
stoned to death 3[f.3] at Kabul by
the order of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of Afghanistan. The crime of this man
was, as reported by a Khilafat paper, that he was professing and preaching ideas and
beliefs, inconsistent with Islam and Shariat. This man, says the same paper, was stoned to
death according to the agreeing judgements of the first Shariat (canon) Court, the Central
Appellate Court and the Ulema and Divines of the final Appellate Committee of the Ministry
of Justice. In the light of these difficulties, the scheme must be said to be wild in its
conception and is sure to prove ruinous in its execution. It is adventurous in character
and is too fantastic to appeal to any reasonable man except perhaps some fanatical Arya
Samajists of the Punjab.
II
The stand taken by Hindu Mahasabha has been defined by Mr. V. D.
Savarkar, the President of the Sabha, in his presidential
addresses at the annual sessions of the Sabha. As defined by him, the Hindu Maha Sabha is
against Pakistan and proposes to resist it by all means. What these means are we do not
know. If they are force, coercion and resistance, they are only negative alternatives and
Mr. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha Sabha alone can say how far these means will succeed.
It would, however, not be fair to Mr.
Savarkar to say that he has only a negative attitude towards the claim put forth by the
Muslims of India. He has put forth his positive proposals in reply to them.
To understand his positive proposals, one
must grasp some of his basic conceptions. Mr. Savarkar lays great stress on a proper
understanding of the terms, Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindudom.
He says : 4[f.4]
" In expounding the ideology of the Hindu movement, it is absolutely necessary to have a correct grasp of the meaning attached to these three terms. From the word " Hindu" has been coined the word "Hinduism " in English. It means the schools or system of Religion the Hindus follow. The second word " Hindutva " is far more comprehensive and refers not only to the religious aspects of the Hindu people as the word " Hinduism " does but comprehend even their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects as well. It is more or less akin to " Hindu Polity " and its nearly exact translation would be " Hinduness ". The third word " Hindudom " means the Hindu people spoken of collectively. It is a collective name for the Hindu World, just as Islam denotes the Moslem World."
Mr. Savarkar takes it as a gross
misrepresentation to say that the Hindu Maha Sabha is a religious body. In refutation of
this misrepresentation, Mr. Savarkar says : 5[f.5]
" It has come to my notice that a very
large section of the English educated Hindus hold back from joining the Hindu Maha
Sabha.... under the erroneous idea that it is an exclusively Religious organization—
something like a Christian Mission. Nothing could be far from truth. The Hindu Maha Sabha
is not a Hindu Mission. It leaves Religious questions regarding theism, monotheism.
Pantheism or even atheism to be discussed and determined by the different Hindu schools of
religious persuasions. It is not a Hindu Dharma Maha Sabha, but a Hindu National Maha
Sabha. Consequently by its very constitution it is debarred to associate itself
exclusively as a partisan with any particular religious school or sect even within the
Hindu fold. As a national Hindu body it will of course propagate and defend the National
Hindu Church comprising each and all religions of Hindusthani origin against any non-Hindu
attack or encroachment. But the sphere of its activity is far more comprehensive than that
of an exclusively religious body. The Hindu Maha Sabha identifies itself with the National
life of Hindudom in all its entirety, in all its social, economical, cultural and above
all political aspects and is pledged to protect and promote all that contributes to the
freedom, strength and glory of the Hindu Nation; and as an indispensable means to that end
to attain Puma Swarajya, absolute political Independence of
Hindusthan by all legitimate and proper means. "
Mr. Savarkar does not admit that the Hindu
Maha Sabha is started to counteract the Muslim League and that as soon as the problems
arising out of the Communal Award are solved to the satisfaction of both Hindus and
Musalmans, the Hindu Maha Sabha will vanish. Mr. Savarkar insists that the Hindu Maha
Sabha must continue to function even after India becomes politically free. He says : 6[f.6]
"...... Many a superficial critic seems
to fancy that the Maha Sabha was only contrived to serve as a make-weight, as a reaction
checkmating the Moslem League or the anti-Hindu policy of the present leaders of the
Congress and will be out of court or cease automatically 10 function as soon as it is
shorne of this spurious excuse to exist. But if the aims and object of the Maha Sabha mean
anything it is clear that it was not the outcome of any frothy effusion, any fussy
agitation to remove a grievance here or oppose a seasonal party there. The fact is that
every organism whether, individual or social which is living and deserves to survive
throws out offensive and defensive organs as soon as it is brought to face adversely
changing environments. The Hindu Nation too as soon as it recovered and freed itself from
the suffocating grip of the pseudo-nationalistic ideology of the Congress brand developed
a new organ to battle in the struggle for existence under the changed conditions of modem
age. This was the Hindu Maha Sabha. It grew up of a fundamental necessity of the National
life and not of any ephemeral incident. The constructive side of its aims and objects make
it amply clear that its mission is as abiding as the life of the Nation itself. But that
apart, even the day to day necessity of adapting its policy to the ever changing political
currents makes it incumbent on Hindudom to have an exclusively Hindu organization
independent of any moral or intellectual servility or subservience to any non-Hindu or
jointly representative institution, to guard Hindu interests and save them from being
jeopardised. It is not so, only under the present political subjection of Hindustan but it
will be all the more necessary to have some such exclusively Hindu organization, some such
Hindu Maha Sabha in substance whether it is identical with this present organization or
otherwise to -serve as a watchtower at the gates of Hindudom for at least a couple of
centuries to come, even after Hindustan is partially or wholly free and a National
Parliament controls its political destiny.
" Because, unless something altogether
cataclysmic in nature upsets the whole political order of things in the world which
practical politics cannot envisage today, all that can be reasonably expected in immediate
future is that we Hindus may prevail over England and compel her to recognise India as a
self-governing unit with the status contemplated in the Westminster Statute. Now a
National Parliament in such a self-governing India can only reflect the electorate as it
is, the Hindus and the Moslems as we find them, their relations a bit bettered, perhaps a
bit worsened. No realist can be blind to the probability that the extraterritorial designs
and the secret urge goading on the Moslems to transform India into a Moslem stale may at
any time confront the Hindustani state even under self-government either with a Civil War
or treacherous overtures to alien invaders by the Moslems. Then again there is every
likelihood that there will ever continue at least for a century to come a danger of
fanatical riots, the scramble for services, legislative seats, weightages out of
proportion to their population on the part of the Moslem minority and consequently a
constant danger threatening internal peace. To checkmate this probability which if we are
wise we must always keep in view even after Hindustan attains the status of a
self-governing country, a powerful and exclusive organization of Hindudom like the Hindu
MahaSabha will always prove a sure and devoted source of strength, a reserve force for the
Hindus to fall back upon to voice their grievances more effectively than the joint
Parliament can do, to scent danger ahead, to warn the Hindus in lime against it and to
fight out if need be any treacherous design to which the joint state itself may
unwittingly fall a victim.
"The History of Canada, of Palesline,of
the movement of the Young Turks will show you that in every slate where two or more such
conflicting elements as the Hindus and Moslems in India happen to exist as constituents,
the wiser of them has to keep its exclusive organization intact, strong and watchful to
defeat any attempt at betrayal or capture of the National State by the opposite party;
especially so if that party has extra-territorial affinities, religious or cultural, with
alien bordering states."
Having stated what is Hindustan, and what is
Hindu Maha Sabha, Mr. Savarkar next proceeds to define his conception of Swaraj. According
to Mr. Savarkar : 7[f.7]
" Swaraj to the Hindus must mean only
that in which their" Swaraj ", their " Hindutva " can assert itself
without being overlorded by any non-Hindu people, whether they be Indian Territorials or
extra-Territorials—-some Englishmen are and may continue to be territorially born
Indians. Can, therefore, the overlordships of these Anglo-indians be a " Swarajya
" to the Hindus ? Aurangzeb or Tipu were hereditary Indians, nay, were the sons of
converted Hindu mothers. Did that mean that the rule of Aurangzeb or Tipu was a
"Swarajya" to the Hindus ? No ! Although
they were territorially Indians they proved to be the worst enemies of Hindudom and
therefore, a Shivaji, a Gobindsingh, a Pratap or the Peshwas had to fight against the
Moslem domination and establish real Hindu Swarajya. "
As part of his Swaraj Mr. Savarkar insists
upon two things.
Firstly, the retention of the name Hindustan
as the proper name for lndia 8[f.8] " The name " Hindustan " must continue to be
the appellation of our country. Such other names as India, Hind, etc., being derived from
the same original word Sindhu may be used but only to signify the same sense—die land
of the Hindus, a country which is the abode of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, Bharat-Bhumi
and such other names are of course the ancient and the most cherished epithets of our
Mother Land and will continue to appeal to the cultured elite. In this insistence that the
Mother Land of the Hindus must be called but " Hindustan ", no encroachment or
humiliation is implied in connection with any of our non-Hindu countrymen. Our Parsee and
Christian countrymen are already too akin to us culturally and .arc too patriotic and the
Anglo-indians too sensible to refuse to fall in line with us Hindus on so legitimate a
ground. So far as our Moslem countrymen are concerned it is useless to conceal the fact
that some of them are already inclined to look upon this molehill also as an insuperable
mountain in their way to Hindu-Moslem unity. But they should remember that the Moslems do
not dwell only in India nor are the Indian Moslems the only heroic remnants of the
Faithful in Islam. China has crores of Moslems. Greece, Palestine and even Hungary and
Poland have thousands of Moslems amongst their nationals. But being there a minority, only
a community, their existence in these countries has never been advanced as a ground to
change the ancient names of these countries which indicate the abodes of those races whose
overwhelming majority owns the land. The country of the Poles continues to be Poland and
of the Grecians as Greece. The Moslems there did
not or dared not to distort them but are quite content to distinguish themselves as Polish
Moslems or Grecian Moslems or Chinese Moslems when occasion arises, so also our Moslem
countrymen may distinguish themselves nationally or territorially whenever they want,
as" Hindustance Moslems "without compromising in the least their separateness as
Religious or Cultural entity. Nay, the Moslems have been calling themselves as "
Hindustanis " ever since their advent in India, of their own accord.
" But if inspite of it all some
irascible Moslem sections amongst our countrymen object even to this name of our Country,
that is no reason why we should play cowards to our own conscience. We Hindus must not
betray or break up the continuity of our Nation from the Sindhus. in Rigvedic days to the
Hindus of our own generation which is implied in " Hindustan ", the accepted
appellation of our Mother Land. Just as the land of the Germans is Germany, of the English
England, of the Turks Turkistan, of the Afghans
Afghanistan—even so we must have it indelibly impressed on the map of the earth for
all times to come a " Hindustan "—the land of the " Hindus ".
The second is the retention of Sanskrit as
sacred language, Hindi as national language and Nagari as the script of Hindudom. 9[f.9]
"The Sanskrit shall be our " Deva
Bhasha)" 10[f.10] our sacred
language and the "Sanskrit Nishtha" 11[f.11] Hindi, the
Hindi which is derived from Sanskrit and draws its nourishment from the latter, is our '
'mr' ' (Rashtra Bhasha) 12[f.12] our current
national language—-besides being the richest and the most cultured of the ancient
languages of the world, to us Hindus the Sanskrit is the holiest tongue of tongues. Our scriptures, history,
philosophy and culture have their roots so deeply imbedded in the Sanskrit literature that
it forms veritably the brain of our Race. Mother of the majority of our mother tongues,
she has suckled the rest of them at her breast. All Hindu languages current today whether
derived from Sanskrit or grafted on to it can only grow and flourish on the sap of life
they imbibe from Sanskrit. The Sanskrit language therefore must ever be an indispensable
constituent of the classical course for Hindu youths.
" In adopting the Hindi as the National
tongue of Hindudom no humiliation or any invidious distinction is implied as regards other
provincial tongues. We are all as attached to our provincial tongues as to Hindi and they
will all grow and flourish in their respective spheres. In fact some of them are today
more progressive and richer in literature. But nevertheless, taken all in all the Hindi
can serve the purpose of a National Pan-Hindu language best. It must also be remembered
that the Hindi is not made a National Language to order. The fact is that long before
either the English or even the Moslems stepped in India the Hindi in its general form had
already come to occupy the position of a National tongue throughout Hindustan. The Hindu
pilgrim, the tradesman, the tourist, the soldier, the Pandit travelled up and down from
Bengal to Sind and Kashmere to Rameshwar by making himself understood from locality to
locality through Hindi. Just as the Sanskrit was the National Language of the Hindu
intellectual world even so Hindi has been for at least a thousand years in the past the
National Indian Tongue of the Hindu community.....
"By Hindi we of course mean the pure
"Sanskrit Nistha" Hindi, as we find it for example in the " Satyartha
Prakash " written by Maharsi Dayananda Saraswati. How simple and untainted with a
single unnecessary foreign word is that Hindi and how expressive withal ! It may be
mentioned in passing that Swami Dayanandaji was about the first Hindu leader who gave
conscious and definite expression to the view
that Hindi should be the Pan-Hindu National language
of India. " This Sanskrit Nistha " Hindi has nothing to do with that hybrid, the
so-called Hindusthani which is being hatched up by the Wardha scheme. It is nothing short
of a linguistic monstrosity and must be ruthlessly suppressed. Not only that but it is our
bounden duty to oust as ruthlessly all unnecessary alien words whether Arabian or English,
from every Hindu tongue—whether provincial or dialectical. . . . . . .
"....... Our Sanskrit alphabetical order
is phonetically about the most perfect which the world has yet devised and almost all our
current Indian scripts already follow it. The Nagari Script too follows this order. Like
the Hindi language the Nagari Script too has already been current for centuries all over
India amongst the Hindu literary circles for some two thousand years at any rate in the
past and was even popularly nick-named as the " Shastri Lipi " the script of our
Hindu Scriptures. ....It is a matter of common knowledge that if Bengali or Gujarathi is
printed in Nagari it is more or less understood by readers in several other provinces. To
have only one common language throughout Hindustan at a stroke is impracticable and
unwise. But to have the Nagari script as the only common script throughout Hindudom
is much more feasible. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the different
Hindu scripts current in our different provinces have a future of their own and may
flourish side by side with the Nagari. All that is immediately indispensable in the common
interest of Hindudom as a whole is that the Nagari Script must be made a compulsory
subject along with the Hindi language in every school in the case of Hindu students.
"
What is to be the position of the Non-Hindu
minorities under the Swaraj as contemplated by Mr. Savarkar ? On this question, this is
what Mr. Savarkar has to say : 13[f.13]
"When once the Hindu Maha Sabha not only
accepts but maintains the principles of" one man one vote " and the public
services to go by merit alone added to the fundamental rights and obligations to be shared
by all citizens alike irrespective of any distinction of Race or Religion . . .. any
further mention of minority rights is on the principle not only unnecessary but
self-contradictory. Because it again introduces a consciousness of majority and minority
on Communal basis. But as practical politics requires it and as the Hindu Sanghatanists
want to relieve our non-Hindu countrymen of even a ghost of suspicion, we are prepared to
emphasise that the legitimate rights of minorities with regard to their Religion, Culture,
and Language will be expressly guaranteed: on one condition only that the equal rights of
the majority also must not in any case be encroached upon or abrogated. Every minority may
have separate schools to train up their children in their own tongue, their own religious
or cultural institutions and can receive Government help also for these,—but always
in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common exchequer. The same principle must of
course hold good in case of the majority too.
"Over and above this, in case the
constitution is not based on joint electorates and on the unalloyed National principle of
one man one vote, but is based on the communal basis then those minorities who wish to
have separate electorate or reserve seats will be allowed to have them,—but always in
proportion to their population and provided that it does not deprive the majority also of
an equal right in proportion of its population too."
That being the position assigned to the
minorities, Mr. Savarkar concludes 14
[f.14] that under his scheme of Swaraj :
"The Moslem minority in India will have
the right to be treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic rights in
proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will not encroach on the legitimate
rights of any non-Hindu minority. But in no case can the Hindu majority resign its right
which as a majority it is entitled to exercise under any democratic and legitimate
constitution. The Moslem minority in particular has not obliged the Hindus by remaining in
minority and therefore, they must remain satisfied with the status they occupy and with
the legitimate share of civic and political rights that is their proportionate due. It
would be simply preposterous t endow the Moslem minority with the right of exercising a
practical veto on the legitimate rights and privileges of the majority and call it a
" Swarajya ". The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not going to
struggle and fight and die only to replace an Edward by an Aurangazeb simply because the
latter happens to be born within Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters
themselves in their own house, in their own Land. " And it is because he wants his
Swaraj to bear the stamp of being a Hindu Raj that Mr. Savarkar wants that India should
have the appellation of Hindustan.
This structure has been reared by Mr.
Savarkar on two propositions which he regards as fundamental.
The first is that the Hindu are a nation by
themselves. He enunciates this proposition with great elaboration and vehemence. Says 15[f.15] Mr.
Savarkar :
" In my
Presidential speech at Nagpur I had, for the first time in the history of our recent politics pointed out in bold relief
that the whole Congress ideology was vitiated ab initio by its unwitted
assumption that the territorial unity, a common habitat, was the only factor that
constituted and ought to and must constitute a Nation. This conception of a Territorial
Nationality has since then received a rude shock in Europe
itself from which it was imported wholesale to India and the present War has justified my
assertion by exploding the myth altogether. All Nations carved out to order on the
Territorial design without any other common bond to mould each of them into a national
being have gone to rack and ruin, tumbled down like a house of cards. Poland and
Czechoslovakia will ever serve as a stem warning against any such efforts to frame
heterogeneous peoples into such hotch-potch Nation, based only on the shifting sands of
the conception of Territorial Nationality, not cemented by any cultural, racial or
historical affinities and consequently having no common
will to incorporate themselves into a Nation. These treaty-Nations broke up at the first
opportunity they got: The German part of them went over to Germany, the Russian to Russia,
Czechs to Czechs and Poles to Poles. The cultural, linguistic, historical and such other
organic affinities proved sponger than the Territorial one. Only those Nations have
persisted in maintaining their National unity and identity during the last three to four
centuries in Europe which had developed racial, linguistic cultural and such other organic
affinities in addition to their Territorial unity or even at times in spite of it and
consequently willed to be homogeneous National units—such as England, France,
Germany, Italy, Portugal, etc.
" Judged by any and all of these tests
which go severally and collectively to form such a homogeneous and organic Nation, in
India we Hindus are marked out as an abiding Nation by ourselves. Not only do we own a
common Fatherland, a Territorial unity, but what is scarcely found anywhere else in the world, we have a common Holy Land which is identified with
our common Fatherland. This Bharat Bhumi, this Hindustan, India is both our 1^^ and gi^.
Our patriotism therefore is doubly sure. Then, we have common affinities, cultural,
religious, historical, linguistic, and racial which through the process of countless
centuries of association and assimilation moulded us into a homogeneous and organic nation
and above all induced a will to lead a corporate and common national life. The Hindus are
no treaty Nation—but an organic National Being.
" One more pertinent point must be met
as it often misleads our Congressite Hindu brethren in particular. The homogeneity that
wields a people into a National Being does not only imply the total absence of all
internal differences, religious, racial or linguistic, of sects and sections amongst
themselves. It only means that they differ more from other people as a national unit than they differ amongst
themselves. Even the most unitarian nations of today—say the British or the
French— cannot be free from any religious, linguistic, cultural, racial or other differences,
sects or sections or even some antipathies existing amongst themselves. National
homogeneity connotes oneness of a people in relation to the contrast they present to any other people as a whole.
" We Hindus, in spite of thousand and
one differences within our fold, are bound by such religious, cultural, historical,
racial, linguistic and other affinities in common as to stand out as a definitely
homogeneous people as soon as we are placed in contrast with any other non-Hindu
people— say the English or Japanese or even the Indian Moslems. That is the reason
why today we the Hindus from Cashmere to Madras and Sindh to Assam will have to be a
Nation by ourselves ". . .
The second proposition on which Mr. Savarkar
has built up his scheme relates to the definition of the term Hindu. According to Mr.
Savarkar a Hindu is a person:
" ...... who regards-and owns this
Bharat Bhumi, this land from
the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land;—i.e., the land of the origin of his religion, the
cradle of his faith.
The followers therefore of Vaidicism, SanaUmism, Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmosamaj, the Devasamaj, the
Prarlhana Samajandsucholherreligionsofindianorigin
are Hindus and constitute
Hindudom, i.e., Hindu people
as a whole.
Consequently the so-called aboriginal or
hill-tribes also are Hindus : because India is their Fatherland as well as their Holy Land
whatever form of religion or worship they follow. The definition rendered in Sanskrit
stands thus:
ASINDHU SINDH PANYANTA YSMA BHARAT BHUMIKA I
PRITIBHU H PUNDYABHOOSHRAIV SA VAI
HINDURITISMRITAH II
This definition , therefore, should be recognized by the Government and made the
test of ' Hindutva * in enumerating the population of Hindus in the Government census to come. "
This definition
of the term Hindu has been framed with great care and caution. It is designed to serve two
purposes which Mr. Savarkar has in view. First, to exclude from it Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews by prescribing the recognition of India as a
Holy Land as a qualification for being a Hindu. Secondly, to include Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc., by not insisting upon belief in
the sanctity of the Vedas as an element in the
qualifications.
Such is the scheme of Mr. Savarkar and the
Hindu Maha Sabha. As must have been noticed, the scheme has
some disturbing features.
One is the categorical assertion that the
Hindus are a nation by themselves. This, of course, means that the Muslims are a separate
nation by themselves. That this is his view, Mr. Savarkar does not leave to be inferred.
He insists upon it in no uncertain terms and with the most absolute emphasis he is capable
of. Speaking at the Hindu Maha Sabha Session held at Ahmedabad in 1937, Mr. Savarkar said
:—
" Several infantile politicians commit
the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or
that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our well-meaning but
unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of
communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that
the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a
cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. When the
time is ripe you can solve them; but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing
recognition of them. It is safer to diagnose and treat deep-seated disease than to ignore
it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be
a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary these are two nations in the main,
the Hindus and the Muslims in India. "
Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and
Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement
about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist that there are two nations in
India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as
regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live. Mr. Jinnah says
India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy
Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists
that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts,
one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus ; that the two nations shall dwell in one
country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution
shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that
is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate
co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between the two
nations the rule of the game, which Mr. Savarkar prescribes, is to be one man one vote, be
the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does
not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground
for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power
in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee
secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is
insisted upon by the Muslims, 16[f.16] such
guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by
confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the
political privileges it has secured so far.
This alternative of Mr. Savarkar to Pakistan
has about it a frankness, boldness and definiteness which distinguishes it from the
irregularity, vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes the Congress declarations
about minority rights. Mr. Savarkar's scheme has at least the merit of telling the
Muslims, thus far and no further. The Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu
Maha Sabha. On the other hand, with the Congress the Musalmans find themselves nowhere
because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game in
diplomacy, if not in duplicity.
At the same time, it must be said that Mr.
Savarkar's attitude is illogical, if not queer. Mr. Savarkar admits that the Muslims are a
separate nation. He concedes that they have a right to cultural autonomy. He allows them
to have a national flag. Yet he opposes the demand of the Muslim nation for a separate
national home. If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he refuse the
claim of the Muslim nation for a national home ?
It would not have been a matter of much
concern if inconsistency was the only fault of Mr. Savarkar. But Mr. Savarkar in
advocating his scheme is really creating a most dangerous situation for the safety and
security of India. History records two ways as being open to a major nation to deal with a
minor nation when they are citizens of the same country and are subject to the same
constitution. One way is to destroy the nationality of the minor nation and to assimilate
and absorb it into the major nation, so as to make one nation out of two. This is done by
denying to the minor nation any right to language, religion or culture and by seeking to
enforce upon it the language, religion and culture of the major nation. The other way is
to divide the country and to allow the minor nation a separate, autonomous and sovereign
existence, independent of the major nation. Both these ways were tried in Austria and
Turkey, the second after the failure of the first.
Mr. Savarkar
adopts neither of these two ways. He does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation. On
the contrary he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language
and culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time he does
not consent to divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each sovereign in its own
territory. He wants the Hindus and the Muslims to live as two separate nations in one
country, each maintaining its own religion, language and culture. One can understand and
even appreciate the wisdom of the theory of suppression of the minor nation by the major
nation because the ultimate aim is to bring into being one nation. But one cannot follow
what advantage a theory has which says that there must ever be two nations but that there
shall be no divorce between them. One can justify this attitude only if the two nations
were to live as partners in friendly intercourse with mutual respect and accord. But that
is not to be, because Mr. Savarkar will not allow the Muslim nation to be co-equal in
authority with the Hindu nation. He wants the Hindu nation to be the dominant nation and
the Muslim nation to be the servient nation. Why Mr.
Savarkar, after sowing this seed of enmity between the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation
should want that they should live under one constitution and occupy one country, is
difficult to explain.
One cannot give Mr. Savarkar credit for
having found a new formula. What is difficult to understand is that he should believe that
his formula is the right formula. Mr. Savarkar has taken old Austria and old Turkey as his
model and pattern for his scheme of Swaraj. He sees that in Austria and Turkey there lived
one major nation juxtaposed
to other minor nations bound by one constitution with the major nation dominating the
minor nations and argues that if this was possible in Austria and Turkey, why should it
not be possible for the Hindus to do the same in India.
That Mr. Savarkar
should have taken old Austria and old Turkey as his model
to build upon is really very strange. Mr. Savarkar does not seem to be aware of the fact
that old Austria and old Turkey are no more. Much less does he seem to know the forces
which have blown up old Austria and old Turkey to bits. If Mr. Savarkar instead of
studying the past—of which he is very fond—were to devote more attention to the
present, he would have learnt that old Austria and old Turkey came to ruination for
insisting upon maintaining the very scheme of things which Mr. Savarkar has been advising
his " Hindudom " to adopt, namely, to establish a Swaraj in which there
will be two nations under the mantle of one single constitution in which the major nation will be allowed to hold the minor nation in subordination
to itself.
The history of the disruption of Austria,
Czechoslovakia and Turkey is of the utmost importance to India and the members of the
Hindu Maha Sabha will do
well to peruse the same. I need say nothing here about it because I have drawn attention
to lessons from their fateful history in another chapter.
Suffice it to say that the scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the
Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfy their vanity. and their pride in
being an imperial race. But it can never ensure a stable
and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple reason that the Muslims will never
yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative.
III
Mr. Savarkar is quite unconcerned about the
Muslim reaction to his scheme. He formulates his scheme and throws it in the face of the
Muslims with the covering letter ' take it or leave it '. He is not perturbed by the Muslim refusal to join in the
struggle for Swaraj. He is quite conscious of the strength of the Hindus and the Hindu
Maha Sabha and proposes to carry on the struggle in the confident hope that, alone and
unaided, the Hindus will be able to wrest Swaraj from the British. Mr. Savarkar is quite prepared to say to the Musalmans :
"If you come, with you, if you don't, without you; and if you oppose, in spite of you—the Hindus will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can. "
Not so Mr. Gandhi.
At the very commencement of his career as a political leader of India when Mr. Gandhi startled the people of India by his promise to win Swaraj within six months, Mr. Gandhi said that he
could perform the miracle only if certain conditions were
fulfilled. One of these conditions was the achievement of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi
is never tired of saying that there is no Swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi
did not merely make this slogan the currency of Indian politics but he has strenuously
worked to bring it about. Mr. Gandhi, it may be said, began his carrier
as a political leader of India with the manifesto dated 2nd March 1919 declaring his
intention to launch Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act and asking those who desired to join him to sign
the Satyagraha pledge. That campaign of Satyagraha was a short-lived campaign and was
suspended by Mr. Gandhi on 18th April 1919. As a part of his programme Mr. Gandhi had
fixed 17[f.17] the 6th March
1919 to be observed all over India as a day of protest against the Rowlatt Act. Mass
meetings were to be held on that day and Mr. Gandhi had prescribed that the masses
attending the meetings should take a vow in the following terms :
" With God as witness, we Hindus, and Mahomedans
declare that we shall behave towards one another as
children of the same parents, that we shall have no differences, that the sorrows of each
shall be the sorrows of the other and that each shall help the other in removing them. We
shall respect each other's religion and religious feelings and shall not stand in the way
of our respective religious practices. We shall always refrain from violence to each other
in the name of religion. " There was nothing in the campaign of Satyagraha against
the Rowlatt Act which could have led to any clash between the Hindus and Muslims. Yet Mr.
Gandhi asked his followers to take the vow. This shows how insistent he was from the very
beginning upon Hindu-Muslim unity.
The Mahomedans started the Khilafat movement
in 1919. The objective of the movement was two-fold; to preserve the Khilafat and to
maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. Both these objectives were unsupportable.
The Khilafat could not be saved simply because the Turks, in whose interest this agitation
was carried on, did not want the Sultan. They wanted a republic and it was quite
unjustifiable to compel the Turks to keep Turkey a monarchy when they wanted to convert it
into a republic. It was not open to insist upon the integrity of the Turkish Empire
because it meant the perpetual subjection of the different nationalities to the Turkish
rule and particularly of the Arabs, especially when it was agreed on all hands that the
doctrine of self-determination should be made the basis of the peace settlement.
The movement was started by the Mahomedans.
It was taken up by Mr. Gandhi with a tenacity and faith which must have surprised many
Mahomedans themselves. There were many people who doubted the ethical basis of the
Khilafat movement and tried to dissuade Mr. Gandhi from taking any part in a movement the
ethical basis of which was so questionable. But Mr. Gandhi had so completely persuaded
himself of the justice of the Khilafat agitation that he refused to yield to their advice.
Time and again he argued that the cause was just and it was his duty to join it. The
position taken up by him may be summed up in his own words. 18[f18]
" (1) In my opinion, the Turkish claim
is not only not immoral and unjust, but it is highly equitable, only because Turkey wants
to retain what is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that
whatever guarantee may be necessary to be taken for the protection of the non-Muslim and
non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the Christians theirs and the Arabs their
self-government under the Turkish suzerainty;
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak,
incapable or cruel. He is certainly disorganised and probably without good generalship.
The argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelly one often hears quoted in connection with
those from whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres a proper
commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any case security can be taken
against oppression;
(3) I have already stated that, if I were not
interested in the Indian Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the
Turks any more than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as an
Indian to share the sufferings and trials of fellow-Indians. If I deem the Mahomedan to be
my brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best of my ability, if
his cause commends itself to me as just;
(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus
should join hands with the Mahomedans. It is, therefore, a matter of feeling and opinion.
It is expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just cause and I
should, therefore, travel with him along the whole road so long as the means employed by
him are as honourable as his end. I cannot regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept
his statement that the Khilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it
binds him to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life. "'
Mr. Gandhi not only agreed with the Muslims
in the Khilafat cause but acted as their guide and their friend. The part played by Mr.
Gandhi in the Khilafat agitation and the connection between the Khilafat agitation and the
Non-co-operation Movement has become obscure by the reason of the fact that most people
believed that it was the Congress which initiated the Non co-operation Movement and it was
done as a means for winning Swaraj. That such a view should prevail is quite
understandable because most people content themselves with noting the connection between
the Non-co-operation Movement and the special session of the Congress held at Calcutta on
7th and 8th September 1920. But anyone, who cares to go behind September 1920 and examine
the situation as it then stood, will find that this view is not true. The truth is that
the non-co-operation has its origin in the Khilafat agitation and not in the Congress
Movement for Swaraj : that it was started by the Khilafatists to help Turkey and adopted
by the Congress only to help the Khilafatists : that Swaraj was not its primary object,
but its primary object was Khilafat and that Swaraj was added as a secondary object to
induce the Hindus to join it will be evident from the following facts.
The Khilafat movement may be said to have
begun on 27th October 1919 when the day was observed as the Khilafat Day all over India.
On 23rd November 1919 the first Khilafat Conference met at Delhi. It was at this session
that the Muslims considered the feasibility of non-co-operation as a means of compelling
the British Government to redress the Khilafat wrong. On 10th March 1920 the Khilafat
Conference met at Calcutta and decided upon non-co-operation as the best weapon to further
the object of their agitation.
On 9th June 1920 the Khilafat Conference met
at Allahabad and unanimously reaffirmed their resolve to resort to non-co-operation and
appointed an Executive Committee to enforce and lay down a^ detailed programme. On 22nd
June 1920 the Muslims sent a message to the Viceroy stating that they would start
non-co-operation if the Turkish grievances were not redressed before 1st August 1920. On
30th June 1920 the Khilafat Committee meeting held at Allahabad resolved to start
non-co-operation, after a month's notice to the Viceroy. Notice was given on 1st July 1920
and non-co-operation commenced on 1st August 1920. This short resume shows that the
non-co-operation was started by the Khilafat Committee and all that the Congress special
session at Calcutta did was to adopt what the Khilafat Conference had already done and
that too not in the interest of Swaraj but in the interest of helping the Musalmans in
furthering the cause of Khilafat. This is clear from the perusal of the Congress
Resolution 19 [f.19] passed at the special session held at Calcutta.
Although the Non-co-operation Movement was
launched by the Khilafat Committee and merely adopted by the Congress primarily to help
the Khilafat cause, the person who suggested it to the Khilafat Committee and who
identified himself with the Committee and took the responsibility of giving effect to it
and who brought about its adoption by the Congress was Mr. Gandhi. At the first Khilafat
Conference held at Delhi on 23rd November
1919 Mr. Gandhi was present. Not only was Mr.
Gandhi present but also it was he who advised the Muslims to adopt non-co-operation as a
method for forcing the British to yield to their demands regarding the Khilafat. The
joining of Mr. Gandhi in the Khilafat movement is full of significance. The Muslims were
anxious to secure the support of the Hindus in the cause of Khilafat. At the Conference
held on 23rd November 1919 the Muslims had invited the Hindus. Again on 3rd June 1920 a
joint meeting of the Hindus and the Khilafatist Muslims was held at Allahabad. This meeting was attended
among others by Sapru, Motilal Nehru and Annie Besant. But
the Hindus were hesitant in joining the Muslims. Mr. Gandhi was the only Hindu who joined
the Muslims. Not only did he show courage to join them, but also he kept step with them,
nay, led them. On 9th June
1920 when the Khilafat Conference met at
Allahabad and formed an Executive Committee to prepare a detailed programme of non
co-operation and give effect to it, Mr. Gandhi was the only Hindu on that Executive
Committee. On 22nd June 1920 the Muslims sent a message to the Viceroy that they would
start non-co-operation if the Turkish grievances were not redressed before 1st August
1920. On the same day Mr. Gandhi also sent a letter to the Viceroy explaining the justice
of the Khilafat cause, the reasons why he has taken up the cause and the necessity of
satisfying the hands of the Khilafatists. For instance the notice given to the Viceroy on
1st July 1920 that non-co-operation will be started on 1st August was given by Mr. Gandhi
and not by the Khilafatists. Again when non-co-operation was started by the Khilafatist on
31st August 1920 Mr. Gandhi was the first to give a concrete shape to it by returning his
medal. After inaugurating the Non-co-operation Movement as an active member of the
Khilafat Committee Mr. Gandhi next directed his energy to the cause of persuading the
Congress to adopt non-co-operation and strengthen the Khilafat movement. With that object
in view Mr. Gandhi toured the country between 1st August and 1st September 1920 in the
company of the Ali Brothers who were the founders of the Khilafat movement impressing upon
the people the necessity of non-co-operation. People could notice the disharmony in the
tune of Mr. Gandhi and the Ali Brothers. As the Modern
Review pointed out: " Reading between the lines of their speeches, it is not
difficult to see that with one of them the sad plight of the Khilafat in distant Turkey is
the central fact, while with the other attainment of Swaraj here in India is the object in
view ". This dichotomy 20[f.20] of interest
did not augur well for the success of the ultimate purpose. Nonetheless Mr. Gandhi
succeeded in carrying the Congress with him in support of the Khilafat cause. 21[f.21]
For a long time the Hindus had been engaged
in wooing the Muslims to their side. The Congress was very anxious to bridge the gulf
between itself and the Muslim League. The ways and means adopted in 1916 for bringing
about this consummation and which resulted in the Lucknow Pact signed between the Congress
and the Muslim League have been graphically told by Swami Shradhanand in his impressions
of the Congress Session held in that year at Lucknow. Says the Swami 22[f.22] :
" On sitting on the dias (Lucknow
Congress platform) the first thing that I noticed was that the number of Moslem delegates
was proportionately fourfold of what it was at Lahore in 1893. The majority of Moslem
delegates Bad donned gold, silver and silk embroidered chogas (flowing robes) over their
ordinary coarse suits of wearing apparel. It was rumoured that these ' chogas ' had been
put by Hindu moneyed men for Congress Tamasha. Of some 433 Moslem delegates only some 30
had come from outside, the rest belonging to Lucknow City. And of these majority was
admitted free to delegate seals, board and lodging. Sir Syed Ahmad's anti-Congress League
had tried in a public meeting to dissuade Moslems from joining the Congress as delegates.
As a countermove the Congress people lighted the whole Congress camp some four nights
before the session began and advertised that that night would be free. The result was that
all the " Chandul Khanas " of Lucknow were emptied and a huge audience of some
thirty thousand Hindus and Moslems was addressed from half a dozen platforms. It was then
that the Moslem delegates were elected or selected. All this was admitted by the Lucknow
Congress organisers to me in private.
" A show was being made of the Moslem delegates.
Moslem delegate gets up to second a resolution in Urdu. He
begins : ' Hozarat, I am a Mahomedan delegate '. Some Hindu delegate gels up and calls for three cheers for Mahomedan delegates and the response is so enthusiastic
as to be beyond description. "
In taking up the cause of Khilafat Mr. Gandhi achieved a
double purpose. He carried the Congress Plan of winning over the Muslims to its
culmination. Secondly he made the Congress a power in the country, which it would not have
been, if the Muslims had not joined it. The cause of the Khilafat appealed to the Musalmans far more than political safeguards, with the result
that the Musalmans who were outside it trooped into the
Congress. The Hindus welcomed them. For, they saw in this a common front against the
British, which was their main aim. The credit for this must of course go to Mr. Gandhi.
For there can be no doubt that this was an act of great daring.
When the Musalmans in 1919 approached the
Hindus for participation in the Non-co-operation Movement which the Muslims desired to
start for helping Turkey and the Khilafat, the Hindus were found to be divided in three
camps. One was a camp of those who were opposed to non-co-operation in principle. A second
camp consisted of those Hindus who were prepared to join the Muslims in their campaign of
non-co-operation provided the Musalmans agreed to give up Cow Slaughter. A third group
consisted of the Hindus who feared that the Mahomedans
might extend their non-co-operation to inviting the Afghans to invade India, in which case
the movement instead of resulting in Swaraj might result in the subjection of India to
Muslim Raj.
Mr. Gandhi did not care for those Hindus who
were opposed to joining the Muslims in the Non-co-operation Movement. But with regard to
the others he told them that their attitude was unfortunate.
To those Hindus who wanted to give their
support on the condition that the Muslims give up cow killing, Mr. Gandhi said 23[f.23] :
" I submit
that the Hindus may not open the Goraksha (cow protection) question here. The test of friendship is
assistance in adversity, and that
too, unconditional assistance. Co-operation that needs
consideration is a commercial contract
and not friendship. Conditional co-operation is like adulterated
cement which does not bind. It is the duty of the Hindus, if they see the justice of the Mahomedan cause to render co-operation. If the Mahomedans feel themselves bound in honour to spare the Hindu's feelings and to
slop cow killing, they may do so, no matter whether the Hindus co-operate with them
or not. Though therefore, I yield to no Hindu in my worship of the cow, I do not want to
make the slopping of cow killing a condition precedent to co-operation. Unconditional
co-operation means the protection of the cow."
To those Hindus who feared to join the
Non-co-operation Movement for the reasons that Muslims may
invite the Afghans to invade India, Mr. Gandhi said 24[f.24] :
" It is
easy enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is difficult to resist the Mahomedan position. In my opinion, the best way to prevent India
from becoming the battle ground between the forces of Islam and
those of the English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation
a complete and immediate success, and I have little doubt that, if the Mahomedans remain
true to their declared intention and are able to
exercise self-restraint and make sacrifices, the Hindus
will ' play the game ' and
join them in the campaign of non-co-operation. I feel
equally certain that Hindus will not assist Mahomedans in promoting or bringing about an
armed conflict between the British Government and their allies, and Afghanistan. British
forces are too well organised to admit of any successful invasion of the Indian frontier.
The only way, therefore, the Mahomedans can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of
the honour of Islam is to take up non-co-operation in real earnest. It will not only be
completely effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive scale, but it will
also provide full scope for individual conscience. If I cannot bear
an injustice done by an individual or a corporation, and, I am directly or indirectly
instrumental in upholding that individual or corporation, I must answer for it before my
Maker; but I have done all that is humanly possible for me
to do consistently with the moral code that refuses to injure even the wrong-doers, if I cease to support the injustice in the
manner described above. In applying, therefore, such a great force, there should be no
haste, there should be no temper shown. Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a
voluntary effort. The whole thing, then, depends upon Mahomedans themselves. If they will
but help themselves, Hindu help will come and the Government, great and mighty though it
is, will have to bend before the bloodless opposition of a whole nation. "
Unfortunately, the hope of Mr.Gandhi that '
no Government can possibly withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation ' did not
come true. Within a year of the starting of the Non-co-operation Movement, Mr. Gandhi had
to admit that the. Musalmans had grown impatient and that :
" In their impatient anger, the
Musalmans ask for more energetic and more prompt action by the Congress and Khilafat
organisations. To the Musalmans, Swaraj means, as it must mean, India's ability to deal
effectively with the Khilafat question. The Musalmans, therefore, decline to wait if the
attainment of Swaraj means indefinite delay of a programme that may require the Musalmans
of India to become impotent witnesses of the extinction of Turkey in European waters.
" It is impossible not to sympathise
with this attitude. I would gladly recommend immediate action if I could think of any
effective course. I would gladly ask for postponement of Swaraj activity if thereby we
could advance the interest of Khilafat. I could gladly take up measures outside
non-co-operation, if I could think of any, in order to assuage the pain caused to the
millions of the Musalmans.
" But, in my humble opinion, attainment
of Swaraj is the quickest method of righting the Khilafat wrong. Hence it is, that for me
the solution of the Khilafat question is attainment of Swaraj and vice versa. The only way to help the affiliated
Turks is for India to generate sufficient power to be able to assert herself. If she
cannot develop that power in time, there is no way out for India and she must resign
herself to the inevitable. What can a paralytic do to stretch forth a helping hand to a
neighbour but to try to cure himself of his paralysis ? Mere ignorant, thoughtless and angry outburst of violence
may give vent to pent-up rage but can bring no relief to Turkey. "
The Musalmans were not in a mood to listen to
the advice of Mr. Gandhi. They refused to worship the principle of non-violence. They were
not prepared to wait for Swaraj. They were in a hurry to find the most expeditious means
of helping Turkey and saving the Khilafat. And' the Muslims
in their impatience did exactly what the Hindus feared they would do, namely, invite the Afghans to invade India. How far the Khilafatists
had proceeded in their negotiations with the Amir of Afghanistan it is not possible to
know. But that such a project was entertained by them is beyond question. It needs no
saying that the project of an invasion of India was the most dangerous project and every
sane Indian would dissociate himself from so mad a project. What part Mr. Gandhi played in
this project it is not possible to discover. Certainly he did not dissociate himself from
it. On the contrary his misguided zeal for Swaraj and his obsession on Hindu-Moslem unity
as the only means of achieving it, led him to support the project. Not only did he advise 25[f.25] the Amir not
to enter into any treaty with the British Government but declared:
" I would, in a sense, certainly assist
the Amir of Afghanistan if he waged war against the British Government. That is to say, I
would openly tell my countrymen that it would be a crime to help a government which had
lost the confidence of the nation to remain in power ".
Can any sane man go so far, for the sake of
Hindu-Moslem unity ? But, Mr. Gandhi was so attached to Hindu-Moslem unity that he did not
stop to enquire what he was really doing in this mad endeavour. So anxious was Mr. Gandhi
in laying the foundation of Hindu-Moslem unity well and truly, that he did not forget to
advise his followers regarding the national crisis. In an Article in Young India of 8th September 1920 Mr. Gandhi said :
" During the Madras tour, at Bezwada I
had occasion to remark upon the national crisis and suggested that it would be better to have cries about ideals than
men. I asked the audience t replace Mahatma Gandhi-ki-jai and Mahomed Ali Shoukat
Ali-ki-jai by Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai. Brother Shoukat Ali, who followed, positively laid
down the law. In spite of the Hindu-Muslim unity, he had observed that, if Hindus shouted
Bande Mataram, the Muslims rang out with AllahoAkbar and vice ersa. This, he rightly said jarred on the ear
and still showed that the people did not act with one mind. There should be therefore only
three cries recognised. Allaho Akbar to be joyously sung out by Hindus and Muslims,
showing that God alone was great and no other. The second should be Bande Malaram (Hail
Motherland) or Bharat Mata-ki-jai (Victory to Mother Hind). The third should be
Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai without which there was no victory for India, and no true
demonstration of the greatness of God.. I do wish that the newspapers and public men would
take up the Maulana's suggestion and lead the people only to use the three cries. They are
full of meaning. The first is a prayer and confession of our littleness and therefore a
sign of humility. It is a cry in which all Hindus and Muslims should join in reverence and
prayfulness. Hindus may not fight shy of Arabic words, when their meaning is not only
totally inoffensive but even ennobling. God is no respecter of any particular tongue.
Bande Mataram, apart from its wonderful associations, expresses the one national
wish—the rise of India to her full height. And I should prefer Bande Mataram to
Bharat Mata-ki-jai, as it would be a graceful recognition of the intellectual and
emotional superiority of Bengal. Since India can be nothing without the union of the Hindu
and the Muslim heart, Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai is a cry which we may never forget.
" There should be no discordance in
these cries. Immediately some one has taken up any of the three cries, the rest should
take it up and not attempt to yell out their favourite. Those, who do not wish to join,
may refrain, but should consider it a breach of etiquette to interpolate their own when a
cry has already been raised. It would be better too, always to follow out the three cries
in the order given above. "
These are not the only things Mr. Gandhi has
done to build up Hindu-Moslem unity. He has never called the Muslims to account even when
they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus.
It is a notorious fact that many prominent
Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their
writings or by their part in the Shudhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic
Musalmans. First to suffer was Swami Shradhanand, who was shot by Abdul Rashid on 23rd
December 1926 when he was lying in his sick bed. This was followed by the murder of Lala
Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist of Delhi. Rajpal, the author of the Rangila Rasool, was stabbed by llamdin on 6th April
1929 while he was sitting in his shop. Nathuramal Sharma was murdered by Abdul Qayum in
September 1934. It was an act of great daring. For Sharma was stabbed to death in the
Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind where he was seated awaiting the hearing of his
appeal against his conviction under Section 195, 1. P. C., for the publication of a
pamphlet on the history of Islam. Khanna, the Secretary of the Hindu Sabha, was severely
assaulted in 1938 by the Mahomedans after the Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held in
Ahmedabad and very narrowly escaped death.
This is, of course, a very short list and
could be easily expanded. But whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic
Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count, towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of
law where law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals.
On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for
clemency being shown to them. As anillustration of this attitude, one may refer to Mr. Barkat Alli, a Barrister of
Lahore, who argued the appeal of Abdul Qayum. He went to the length of saying that Qayum was not
guilty of murder of Nathuramal because his act was justifiable by the law of the Koran.
This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the
attitude of Mr. Gandhi.
Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the
matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much
against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders.
Not only have the Musalmans not condemned 26[f.26] these outrages
but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept
silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was
anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it
could be achieved by sacrificing their lives.
This attitude to excuse the Muslims any
wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi
had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots.
The blood-curdling atrocities committed by
the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a
wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was
intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of
" congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake
of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for
Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing
Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the
Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the " brave
God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner
which they consider as religious ". Speaking of the Muslim silence over the Mopla
atrocities Mr. Gandhi told the Hindus:
" The Hindus must have the courage and
the faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical
eruptions. A verbal disapproval by the Mussalmans of Mopla madness is no test of Mussalman
friendship. The Mussalmans must naturally feel the shame and humiliation of the Mopla
conduct about forcible conversions and looting, and they must work away so silently and
effectively that such a thing might become impossible even on the part of the most
fanatical among them. My belief is that the Hindus as a body have received the Mopla
madness with equanimity and that the cultured Mussalmans are sincerely sorry of the
Mopla's perversion of the teaching of the Prophet"
The Resolution 27[f.27] passed by the
Working Committee of the Congress on the Mopla atrocities shows how careful the Congress
was not to hurt the feelings of the Musalmans.
" The Working Committee places on record
its sense of deep regret over the deeds of violence done by Moplas in certain areas of
Malbar, these deeds being evidence of the fact that there are still people in India who
have not understood the message of the Congress and the Central Khilafat Committee, and
calls upon every Congress and Khilafat worker to spread the said message of non-violence
even under the gravest provocation throughout the length
and breadth of India.
" Whilst, however, condemning violence
on the part of the Moplas, the working Committee desires it to be known that the evidence
in its possession shows that provocation beyond endurance was given to the Moplas and that
the reports published by and on behalf of the Government have given a one-sided and highly
exaggerated account of the wrongs done by the Moplas and an understatement of the needless
destruction of life resorted to by the Government in the name of peace and order.
" The Working Committee regrets to find
that there have been instances of so-called forcible conversion by some fanatics among
Moplas, but warms the public against believing in the Government and inspired versions.
The Report before the Committee says:
" The families, which have been reported
to have been forcibly converted into Mahomedanism, lived in the neighbourhood of Manjeri.
It is clear that conversions were forced upon Hindus by a fanatic gang which was always
opposed to the Khilafat and Non-co-operation Movement and there were only three cases so
far as our information goes. ' "
The following instances of Muslim
intransigence, over which Mr. Gandhi kept mum are recorded by Swami Shradhanand in his
weekly journal called the Liberator. Writing in
the issue of 30th September 1926 the Swamiji says :
" As regards the removal of
untouchability it has been authoritatively ruled several times that it is the duty of
Hindus to expiate for their past sins and non-Hindus should have nothing to do with it But
the Mahomedan and the Christian Congressmen have openly revolted against the dictum of Mr.
Gandhi at Vaikorn and other places. Even such an unbiased leader as Mr. Yakub Hassan,
presiding over a meeting called to present an address to me at Madras, openly enjoined
upon Musalmans the duty of converting all the untouchables in India to Islam. "
But Mr. Gandhi said nothing by way of
remonstrance either to the Muslims or to the Christians.
In his issue of July 1926 the Swami writes :
" There was another prominent fact to
which I drew the attention of Mahatma Gandhi. Both of us went together one night to the
Khilafat Conference at Nagpur. The Ayats (verses) of the Quran recited by the Maulanas on
that occasion, contained frequent references to Jihad and killing of the Kaffirs.But when
I drew his attention to this phase of the Khilafat movement, Mahatmaji smiled and said, '
They are alluding to the British Bureaucracy '. In reply I said that it was all subversive
of the idea of non-violence and when the reversion of feeling came the Mahomedan Maulanas
would not refrain from using these verses against the Hindus. "
The Swami 's third instance relates to the
Mopla riots. Writing in the Liberator of 26th
August 1926 the Swami says :
"The first warning was sounded when the
question of condemning the Moplas for their atrocities on
Hindus came up in the Subjects Committee. The original resolution condemned the Moplas
wholesale for the killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the forcible conversion
to Islam. The Hindu members themselves proposed
amendments till it was reduced to condemning only certain individuals who had been guilty
of the above crimes. But some of the Moslem leaders could not bear this even. Maulana
Fakir and other Maulanas, of course, opposed the
resolution and there was no wonder. But I was surprised, an out-and-out Nationalist like Maulana Hasrat Mohani opposed the resolution on the ground that the Mopla
country no longer remained Dar-ul-Aman but became Dar-ul-Harab and they suspected the
Hindus of collusion with the British enemies of the Moplas. Therefore, the Moplas were
right in presenting the Quran or sword to the Hindus. And if the Hindus became Mussalmans
to save themselves from death, it was a voluntary change of faith and not forcible
conversion—Well, even the harmless resolution condemning some of the Moplas was not
unanimously passed but had to be accepted by a majority of votes only. There were other
indications also, showing that the Mussalmans considered the Congress to be existing on
their sufferance and if there was the least attempt to ignore their idiosyncracies the superficial unity would be scrapped asunder. "
The last one refers to the burning of the
foreign cloth started by Mr. Gandhi. Writing in the Liberator of 31st August 1926 the Swamiji says:
" While
people came to the conclusion, that the burning of foreign cloth was a religious duty of Indians and Messrs. Das, Nehru and other topmost
leaders made bon-fire of
cloth worth thousands, the Khilafat
Musalmans got permission from Mahatmaji to send all foreign cloth for the use of the Turkish brethren. This again was a
great shock to me. While Mahatmaji stood adamant and did
not have the least regard for Hindu feelings when a question of principle was involved,
for the Moslem dereliction of duty, there was always a soft
corner in his heart "
In the history of his efforts to bring about
Hindu-Moslem unity mention must be made of two incidents. One is the Fast, which Mr.
Gandhi underwent in the year 1924. It was a fast of 21 days. Before undertaking the fast
Mr. Gandhi explained the reasons for it in a statement from which the following extracts
are taken:
" The fact
that Hindus and Musalmans, who were only two years ago apparently working together as
friends, are now fighting like cats and dogs in some places, shows conclusively that the
non-co-operation they offered was not non-violent. I saw the symptoms in Bombay, Chauri Chaura and in a host of minor cases. I did penance
then. It had its effects protanto. But this Hindu-Muslim tension was
unthinkable. It became unbearable on hearing of the Kohat
tragedy. On the eve of my departure from Sabarmati for Delhi, Sarojinj Devi wrote to me that speeches and homilies on peace would not do. I must find out an effective
remedy. She was right in saddling the responsibility on me. Had I not been instrumental in bringing into
being the vast energy of the people?
I must find the remedy if the energy proved self-destructive.
*
* *
" I was
violently shaken by Amethi, Sambhal and Gulbarga. I had read the reports about Amelhi and Sambhal prepared by Hindu and Musalman friends. I
had learnt the joint finding of Hindu and Musalman friends who went to Gulbarga. I was
writhing in deep pain and yet
I had no remedy. The news of Kohal set the smouldering mass aflame. Something had got to be done. I
passed two nights in restlessness and pain. On Wednesday I
knew the remedy. I must do penance.
"It is a warning to the Hindus and
Musalmans who have professed to love me. If they have loved
me truly and if I have been
deserving of their love, they will do penance with me for
the grave sin of denying God in their hearts.
" The penance of Hindus and Mussalmans
is not falling but retracting their steps. It is true penance for a
Mussalman to harbour no ill-will for his Hindu brother and an equally true penance for a
Hindu to harbour none for his Mussalman brother.
" I did not consult friends—noteven
Hakim Saheb who was close with me for a long lime on Wednesday—not Maulana Mahomed
Ali under whose roof I am enjoying the privilege of hospitality.
"But was it right
for me to go through the
last under a Mussalman roof? (Gandhi
was at that time the guest of Mr. Mahomed Ali at
Delhi). Yes, it was. The fast is not born out of ill-will
against a single soul. My being under a Mussalman roof
ensures it against any such interpretation. It is in the fitness of things that this fast
should be taken up and completed in a Mussalman house.
" And who is Mahomed Ali ? Only two days
before the fast we had a discussion about a private matter in which I had told him what
was mine was his and what was his was mine. Let me gratefully tell the public that I have never received warmer or teller treatment than under
Mahomed Ali's roof. Every want of mine is anticipated. The dominant thought of every one
of his household is to make me and mine happy and comfortable. Doctors Ansari and Abdur
Rehman have constituted themselves my medical advisers. They examine me daily. I have had
many a happy occasion in my life. This is no less happy than the previous ones. Bread is
not everything. I am experiencing here the richest love. It is more than bread [or me.
" It has been whispered that by going so
much with Mussalman friends, I make myself unfit to know the Hindu mind. The Hindu mind is
myself. Surely I do not live amidst Hindus to know the
Hindu mind when every fibre of my being is Hindu. My Hinduism must be a very poor thing if
it cannot flourish under influences the most adverse. I know instinctively what is
necessary for Hinduism. But I must labour to discover the Mussalman mind. The closer I
come to the best of Mussalmans,the juster I am likely to be in my estimate of the Mussalmans and their doings. I am striving to become
the best cement between the two communities. My longing is to be
able to cement the two with my blood, if necessary. But, before I can do so, I must prove
to the Mussalmans that I love them as well as I love the Hindus. My religion teaches me to love all equally. May God help me to do so I My fast among
other things is meant to qualify me for achieving that equal and selfless love. "
The fast produced Unity Conferences. But the
Unity Conferences produced nothing except pious resolutions which were broken as soon as
they were announced.
This short historical sketch of the part Mr.
Gandhi played in bringing about Hindu-Moslem unity may be concluded by a reference to the
attitude of Mr. Gandhi in the negotiations about the Communal Settlement. He offered the
Muslims a blank cheque. The blank cheque only served to exasperate the Muslims as they
interpreted it as an act of evasion. He opposed the separate electorates at the Round
Table Conference. When they were given to the Muslims by the Communal Award, Mr. Gandhi
and the Congress did not approve of them. But when it
came to voting upon it, they took the strange attitude of neither approving it nor
opposing it.
Such is the history of Mr. Gandhi's efforts to bring about Hindu-Moslem unity. What fruits did
these efforts bear? To be able to answer this question it is necessary to examine the
relationship between the two communities during 1920-40, the years during which Mr. Gandhi laboured
so hard to bring about Hindu-Moslem unity. The relationship is well described in the
Annual Reports on the affairs of India submitted year by year to Parliament by the
Government of India under the old Government of India Act. It
is on these reports 28[f.28] that I have
drawn for the facts recorded below.
Beginning with the year 1920 there occurred
in that year in Malabar what is known as the Mopla Rebellion. It was the result of the
agitation carried out by two Muslim organizations, the Khuddam-i-Kaba (servants of the
Mecca Shrine) and the Central Khilafat Committee. Agitators actually preached the doctrine
that India under the British Government was Dar-ul-Harab and that the Muslims must fight
against it and if they could not, they must carry out the alternative principle of Hijrat. The Moplas were suddenly carried off their
feet by this agitation. The outbreak was essentially a rebellion against the British Government The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by
overthrowing the British Government. Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured,
bands of desperadoes collected for an attack on British
authority. On 20th August a severe encounter took place between the Moplas and the British
forces at Pinmangdi Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and the railway destroyed in
a number of places. As soon as the administration had been paralysed, the Moplas declared
that Swaraj had been established. A certain Ali Mudaliar was proclaimed Raja, Khilafat
flags were flown, and Ernad and Wallurana were declared Khilafat Kingdoms. As a rebellion
against the British Government it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the
treatment accorded by the Moplas to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a
dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of
temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and
destruction— in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism,
were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be
hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the
country. This was not a Hindu-Moslem riot. This was just a Bartholomew. The number of
Hindus who were killed, wounded or converted, is not known. But the number must have been
enormous.
In the year 1921-22 communal jealously did
not subside. The Muharram Celebrations had been attended by serious riots both in Bengal
and in the Punjab. In the latter province in particular, communal feeling at Multan
reached very serious heights, and although the casualty list was comparatively small, a
great deal of damage to property was done.
Though the year 1922-23 was a peaceful year
the relations between the two communities were strained throughout 1923-24. But in no
locality did this tension produce such tragic consequences as in the city of Kohat. The immediate cause of the trouble was the publication and circulation of a pamphlet containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem. Terrible riots broke out on the
9th and 10th of September 1924, the total casualties being about 155 killed and wounded.
House property to the estimated value of Rs. 9 lakhs was
destroyed, and a large quantity of goods were looted. As a result of this reign of terror
the whole Hindu population evacuated the city of Kohat. After protracted negotiations an
agreement of reconciliation was concluded between the two communities. Government giving an assurance that, subject to certain
reservations, the prosecution pending against persons concerned in rioting should be
dropped. With the object of enabling the sufferers to restart their businesses and rebuild
their houses. Government sanctioned advances, free of
interest in certain instances, amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs. But even after the settlement had
been reached and evacuees had returned to Kohat there was no peace and throughout 1924-25
the tension between the Hindu and Musalman masses in
various parts of the country increased to a lamentable extent. In the summer months, there
was a distressing number of riots. In July, severe fighting
broke out between Hindus and Musalmans in Delhi, which was
accompanied by serious casualties. In the same month, there was a bad outbreak at Nagpur.
August was even worse. There were riots at Lahore, at Lucknow, at Moradabad, at Bhagalpur
and Nagpur in British India ; while a severe affray took place at Gulbarga in the Nizam's
Dominions. September-October saw severe fighting at Lucknow, Shahajahanpur, Kankinarah and
at Allahabad. The most terrible outbreak of the year being the one that took place at.
Kohat which was accompanied by murder, arson and loot.
In 1925-26 the antagonism between the Hindus
and the Muslims became widespread. Very significant features of the Hindu-Muslim rioting,
which took place during this year were its wide distribution and its occurrence, in some
cases, in small villages. Calcutta, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and the
Bombay Presidency were all scenes of riots, some of which led to regrettable losses of
life. Certain minor and local Hindu festivals which occurred at the end of August, gave
rise to communal trouble in Calcutta, in Berar, in Gujarat in the Bombay Presidency, and
in the United Provinces. In some of these places there were actual clashes between the two
communities, but elsewhere, notably at Kankinarah—one of the most thickly populated
jute mill centres of Calcutta—serious rioting was prevented by the activity of the
police. In Gujarat, Hindu-Muslim feeling was running high in these days and was marked by
at least one case of temple desecration. The important Hindu festival of Ramlila, at the
end of September, gave rise to acute anxiety in many places, and at Aligarh, an important
place in the United Provinces, its celebration was marked by one of the worst riots of the
year. The riot assumed such dangerous proportions that the police were compelled to fire
in order to restore order, and five persons were killed, either by the police or by riots.
At Lucknow, the same festival gave rise at one time to a threatening situation, but the
local authorities prevented actual rioting. October saw another serious riot at Sholapur
in the Bombay Presidency. There, the local Hindus were taking a car with Hindu idols
through the city, and when they came near a mosque, a dispute arose between them and
certain Muslims, which developed into a riot.
A deplorable rioting started in Calcutta in
the beginning of April as an affray outside a mosque between Muslims and some Arya
Samajists and continued to spread until 5th April, though there was only one occasion on
which the police or military were faced by a crowd which showed determined resistance,
namely, on the evening of the 5th April, when fire had to be opened. There was also a
great deal of incendiarism and in the first three days of this incendiarism, the Fire
Brigade had to deal with 110 fires. An unprecedented feature of the riots was the attacks
on temples by Muslims and on mosques by Hindus which naturally led to intense bitterness.
There were 44 deaths and 584 injured. There was a certain amount of looting and business
was suspended, with great economic loss to Calcutta. Shops began to reopen soon after the
5th, but the period of tension was prolonged by the approach of a Hindu festival on the
13th of April, and of the Id on the 14th. The Sikhs were to have taken out a procession on
the 13th, but Government were unable to give them the necessary license. The apprehensions
with regard to the 13th and 14th of April, fortunately, did
not materialise and outward peace prevailed until 22nd April when it was abruptly broken
as a result of a petty quarrel in a street, which restarted the rioting. Fighting between
the mobs of the two communities, generally on a small scale, accompanied by isolated
assaults and murders continued for six days. During this period there were no attacks on
the temples and mosques and there was little arson or looting. But there were more
numerous occasions, on which the hostile mobs did not immediately disperse on the
appearance of the police and on 12 occasions it was necessary to open fire. The total
number of casualties during this second phase of the rioting was 66 deaths and 391
injured. The dislocation of business was much more serious during the first riots and the
closing of Marwari business houses was not without an effect on European business firms.
Panic caused many of the markets to be wholly or partially closed and for two days the
meat supply was practically stopped. So great was the panic that the removal of refuse in
the disturbed area was stopped. Arrangements were, however, made to protect supplies, and
the difficulty with the Municipal scavengers was overcome, as soon as the Municipality had
applied to the police for protection. There was slight extension of the area of rioting,
but no disturbances occurred in the mill area around Calcutta. Systematic raiding of the
portions of the disturbed area, the arrest of hooligans, the seizure of weapons and the
re-inforcement of the police by the posting of British soldiers to act as special police
officers had the desired effect, and the last three days of April, in spite of the
continuance of isolated assaults and murders, witnessed a steady improvement in the
situation. Isolated murders were largely attributable to hooligans of both communities and
their persistence during the first as well as the second outbreak induced a general belief
that these hooligans were hired assassins. Another equally persistent feature of the
riots, namely, the distribution of inflammatory printed leaflets by both sides, together
with the employment of hired roughs, strengthened the belief that money had been spent to
keep the riots going.
The year 1926-27 was one continuous period of
communal riots. Since April 1926, every month witnessed affrays more or less serious
between partizans of the two communities and only two months passed without actual rioting
in the legal sense of the word. The examination of the circumstances of these numerous
riots and affrays shows that they originated either in utterly petty and trivial disputes
between individuals, as, for example, between a Hindu shopkeeper and a Mahomedan customer,
or else, the immediate cause of trouble was the celebration of some religious festival or
the playing of music by Hindu processionists in the neighbourhood of Mahomedan places of
worship. One or two of the riots, indeed, were due to nothing more than strained nerves
and general excitement. Of these, the most striking example occurred in Delhi on 24th
June, when the bolting of a pony in a crowded street gave the impression that a riot had
started, upon which both sides immediately attacked each other with brickbats and staves.
Including the two outbursts of rioting in
Calcutta during April and May 1926,40 riots took place during the twelve months ending
with April 1st 1927, resulting in the death of 197 and injuries, more or less severe, to
1,598 persons. These disorders were widespread, but Bengal, the Punjab, and the United
Provinces were the parts of India most seriously affected. Bengal suffered most from
rioting, but on many occasions during the year, tension between Hindus and Mahomedans was
high in the Bombay Presidency and also in Sind. Calcutta remained uneasy throughout the
whole of the summer. On 1st June a petty dispute developed into a riot in which forty
persons were hurt. After this, there was a lull in overt violence until July 15th on which
day fell an important Hindu religious festival. During its celebration the passage of a
procession, with bands playing in the neighbourhood of certain mosques, resulted in a
conflict, in which 14 persons were killed and 116 injured. The next day saw the beginning
of the important Mahomedan festival of Muharram. Rioting broke out on that day and, after
a lull, was renewed on the 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd. Isolated assaults and cases of
stabbing occurred on the 23rd, 24th and 25th. The total ascertained casualties during this
period of rioting were 28 deaths and 226 injured. There were further riots in Calcutta on
the 15th September and 16th October and on the latter day there was also rioting in the
adjoining city of Howrah, during which one or two persons were killed and over 30 injured.
The April and May riots had been greatly aggravated by incendiarism, but, happily, this
feature was almost entirely absent from the later disorders and during the July riots, for
example, the Fire Brigade was called upon to deal with only four incendiary fires.
Coming to the year 1927-28 the following
facts stare us in the face. Between the beginning of April and the end of September 1927,
no fewer than 25 riots were reported. Of these 10 occurred in the United Provinces, six in
the Bombay Presidency, 2 each in the Punjab, the Central Provinces, Bengal, and Bihar and
Orissa, and one in Delhi. The majority of these riots occurred during the celebration of a
religious festival by one or other of the two communities, whilst some arose out of the
playing of music by Hindus in the neighbourhood of mosques or out of the slaughter of cows
by the Muslims. The total casualties resulting from the above disorders were approximately
103 persons killed and 1,084 wounded.
By far the most serious riot reported during
the year was that which took place in Lahore between the 4th and 7th of May 1927. Tension
between the two communities had been acute for some time before the outbreak, and the
trouble when it came was precipitated by a chance collision between a Mahomedan and two
Sikhs. The disorder spread with lightning speed and the heavy casualty list—27 killed
272 injured—was largely swollen by unorganised attacks on individuals. Police and
troops were rushed to the scene of rioting quickly and it was impossible for clashes on a
big scale to take place between hostile groups. Casual assassinations and assaults were
however, reported, for two or three days longer before the streets and lanes of Lahore
became safe for the solitary passerby.
After the Lahore riot in May, there was a
lull for two months in inter-communal rioting, if we except a minor incident, which
happened about the middle of June in Bihar and Orissa ; but July witnessed no fewer than
eight riots of which the most serious occurred in Multan in the Punjab, on the occasion of
the annual Muharram celebrations. Thirteen killed and twenty-four wounded was the toll
taken by this riot. But August was to see worse rioting still. In that month, nine riots
occurred, two of them resulting in heavy loss of life. In a riot in Bettiah, a town in
Bihar and Orissa, arising out of a dispute over a religious procession, eleven persons
were killed and over a hundred injured, whilst the passage of a procession in front of a
mosque in Bareilly in the United Provinces was the occasion of rioting in which fourteen
persons were killed and 165 were injured. Fortunately, this proved to be the turning point
in inter-communal trouble during the year, and September witnessed only 4 riots. One of
these, however, the riot in Nagpur in the Central Provinces on September 4th was second
only to Lahore riot in seriousness and in the damage which it caused. The spark, which
started the fire, was the trouble in connection with a Muslim procession, but the
materials for the combustion had been collected for some time. Nineteen persons were
killed and 123 injured were admitted to hospitals as a result of this riot, during the
course of which many members of the Muslim community abandoned their homes in Nagpur.
A feature of Hindu-Muslim relations during
the year which was hardly less serious than the riots was the number of murderous outrages
committed by members of one community against persons belonging to the other. Some of the
most serious of these outrages were perpetrated in connection with the agitation relating
to Rangila Rasul and Risala Vartman, two
publications containing most scurrilous attack on the Prophet Muhammed
and as a result of them, a number of innocent persons lost their lives, sometimes in
circumstances of great barbarity. In Lahore a series of outrages against individuals led
to a state of great excitement and insecurity during the summer of 1927.
The excitement over the Rangila Rasul 29[f.29] case
had by now travelled far from its original centre and by July had begun to produce
unpleasant repercussions on and across the North-West Frontier. The first signs of trouble
in this region became apparent early in June, and by the latter part of July the
excitement had reached its height. On the British side of the border, firm and tactful
handling of the situation by the local authorities averted, what would have been a serious
breach of the peace. Economic boycott of Hindus was freely advocated in the British
Frontier Districts, especially in Peshawar, but this movement met with little success, and
although the Hindus were maltreated in one or two villages, the arrest of the culprits,
together with appropriate action under the Criminal Law, quickly restored order. Across
the border however, the indignation, aroused by these attacks on the Prophet, gave rise to
more serious consequences. The Frontier tribesmen are acutely sensitive to the appeal of
religion and when a well-known Mullah started to preach against the Hindus among the
Afridis and Shinwaris in the neighbourhood of the Khyber Pass, his words fell on fruitful ground. He called upon
the Afridis and Shinwaris to expel all the Hindus living in their midst unless they
declared in writing that they dissociated themselves from the doings of their
co-religionists down country. The first to expel their Hindu neighbours were two clans of
the Khyber Afridis, namely the Kuikhel and Zakkakhel, on the 22nd July. From these, the
excitement spread among their Shinwari neighbours, who gave their Hindu neighbours notice
to quit a few days later. However, after the departure of some of the Hindus, the
Shinwaris agreed to allow the remainder to stay on. Some of the Hindus on leaving the
Khyber were roughly handled. In two cases, stones were thrown, though happily without any
damage resulting. In a third case, a Hindu was wounded and a large amount of property
carried off, but this was recovered by Afridi Khassadars in full, and the culprits were
fined for the offence. Thereafter, arrangements were made for the picketing of the road
for the passage of any Hindu evacuating tribal territory. Under pressure from the
Political Agent an Afridi jirga decided towards
the end of July to suspend the Hindu boycott pending a decision in the Risala Vartman
case. In the following week, however, several Hindu families, who had been living at Landi
Kotal at the head of the Khyber Pass moved to Peshawar refusing to accept assurances of
the tribal chiefs but leaving one person from each family behind to watch over their
interests. All told, between four hundred and fifty Hindus, men, women and children, had
come into Peshawar by the Middle of August, when the trouble was definitely on the wane.
Some of the Hindus were definitely expelled, some were induced to leave their homes by
threats, some left from fear, some no doubt from sympathy with their neighbours. This
expulsion and voluntary exodus from tribal territory were without parallel. Hindus had
lived there for more generations than most of them could record as valued and respected,
and, indeed, as essential members of the tribal system, for whose protection the tribesmen
had been jealous, and whose blood feuds they commonly made their own. In all, about 450
Hindus left the Khyber during the excitement ; of these, about 330 had returned to their
homes in tribal territory by the close of the year 1927. Most of the remainder had decided
to settle, at any rate for the present, amid the more secure conditions of British India.
The year 1928-29 was comparatively more
peaceful than the year 1927-28. His Excellency Lord Irwin, by his speeches to the Central
Legislature and outside, had given a strong impetus to the attempts to find some basis for
agreement between the two communities, on those questions of political importance, which
were responsible for the strained relations between them. Fortunately the issues arising
out of the inquiry by the Simon Commission which was appointed in 1929, absorbed a large
part of the energy and attention of the different communities, with the result that less
importance came to be attached to local causes of conflict, and more importance to the
broad question of constitutional policy. Moreover, the legislation passed during the
autumn session of the Indian Legislature in 1927 penalising the instigation of
inter-communal hostility by the press, had some effect in improving the inter-communal
disturbances. The number of riots during the twelve months ending with March 31st, 1929,
was 22. Though the number of riots was comparatively small, the casualties,—swelled
heavily by the Bombay riots,—were very serious, no fewer than 204 persons having been
killed and nearly a thousand injured. Of these, the fortnight's rioting in Bombay accounts
for 149 killed and 739 injured. Seven of these 22 riots, or roughly one-third of them,
occurred on the day of the celebration of the annual Muslim festival of Bakr-i-Id at the
end of May. The celebration of this festival is always a dangerous time in Hindu-Muslim
relations. The Muslim regard it as a day of animal sacrifice, and as the animal chosen is
almost always a cow the slightest tension between the two communities is apt to produce an
explosion. Of the Bakr-i-Id riots only two were serious and both of them took place in the
Punjab. The first took place in a village in the Ambala District in which ten people were
killed and nine injured. The other riot which took place in Softa village in the Gurgaon
District in the Southern Punjab, attained considerable notoriety because of its
sensational features. The village of Softa is about 27 miles south of Delhi and is
inhabited by Muslims. This village is surrounded by villages
occupied by Hindu cultivators who, on hearing that the muslims
of Softa intended to sacrifice a cow on the ' Id Day ',
objected to the sacrifice of the particular cow selected on the ground that it had been
accustomed to graze in fields belonging to the Hindu cultivators. The dispute over the
matter assumed a threatening aspect and the Superintendent of Police of the district
accordingly went with a small force of police, about 25 men in all, to try to keep peace.
He took charge of the disputed cow and locked it up, but his presence did not deter the
Hindu cultivators of a few neighbouring villages from collecting about a thousand people
armed with pitchforks, spears and staves, and going to Softa. The Superintendent of Police
and an Indian Revenue official, who were present in the village, assured the crowd that
the cow, in connection with which the dispute had arisen would not be sacrificed, but this
did not satisfy the mob which threatened to burn the whole village if any cow was
sacrificed, and also demanded that the cow should be handed over to them. The
Superintendent of Police refused to agree to this demand, whereupon the crowd became
violent and began to throw stones at the police and to try to get round the latter into
the village. The Superintendent of Police warned the crowd to disperse, but to no effect.
He, therefore, fired one shot from his revolver as a further warning. Notwithstanding the
crowd still continued to advance and the Superintendent had to order his party of police
to fire. Only one volley was fired at first, but as this did not cause the retreat of the
mob, two more volleys had to be fired before the crowd slowly dispersed, driving off some
cattle belonging to the village.
While the police were engaged in this affair
a few Hindu cultivators got into Softa at another place and tried to set fire to the
village. They were, however, driven away by the police after they had inflicted injuries
on three or four men. In all 14 persons were killed and 33 were injured. The Punjab
Government deputed a judicial officer to enquire into this affair. His report, which was
published on 6th July, justified the action of the police in firing on the mob and
recorded the opinion that there was no reason to suppose that the firing was excessive or
was continued after the mob had desisted from its unlawful aggression. Had the police not
opened fire, the report proceeds, their own lives would have been in immediate danger, as
also the lives of the people of Softa. Lastly, in the opinion of the officer writing the report, had Softa village been sacked, there
would certainly have broken up, within 24 hours, a terrible communal conflagration in the
whole of the surrounding country-side.
The riots of Kharagpur, an important railway
centre not far from Calcutta, also resulted in serious loss of life. Two riots took place
at Kharagpur, the first on the occasion of the Muharram celebration at the end of June and
the second on the 1st September 1928, when the killing of a cow served as a cause. In the
first riot 15 were killed and 21 injured, while in the second riot, the casualties were 9
killed and 35 wounded. But none of these riots is to be compared with those that raged in
Bombay from the beginning to the middle of February, when, as we have seen, 149 persons
were killed and well over 700 injured.
During the year 1929-30 communal riots, which
had been so conspicuous and deplorable a feature of public life during the preceding
years, were very much less frequent. Only 12 were of sufficient importance to be reported
to Government of India, and of these only the disturbances in the City of Bombay were
really serious. Starting on the 23rd of April they continued sporadically until the middle
of May, and were responsible for 35 deaths and about 200 other casualties. An event which
caused considerable tension in April was the murder at Lahore of Rajpal, whose pamphlet Rangila Rasul, containing a scurrilous attack on
the Prophet of Islam, was responsible for much of the communal trouble in previous years,
and also for a variety of legal and political complications. Fortunately, both communities
showed commendable restraint at the time of the murder, and again on the occasion of the
execution and funeral of the convicted man ; and although feelings ran high no serious
trouble occurred.
The year 1930-31 saw the eruption of the
Civil Disobedience Movement It gave rise to riots and disturbances all over the country.
They were mostly of a political character and the parties involved in them were the police
and the Congress volunteers. But, as it always happens in India, the political
disturbances took a communal twist. This was due to the fact that the Muslims refused to
submit to the coercive methods used by Congress volunteers to compel them to join in Civil
Disobedience. The result was that although the year began with political riots it ended in
numerous and quite serious communal riots. The worst of these communal riots took place in
and around Sukkur in Sind
between the 4th and 11th of August and affected over a hundred villages. The outbreak in
the Kishoreganj subdivision of
Mymensingh District (Bengal) on the 12th/15th of July was also on a large scale. In addition, there were
communal disturbances on the 3rd of August in Ballia (United Provinces) ; on the 6th of
September in Nagpur, and on the 6th/7th September in Bombay ; and a Hindu-Christian riot
broke out near Tiruchendur (Madras) on the 31st of October. On the 12th of February, in
Amritsar, an attempt was made to murder a Hindu cloth merchant who had defied the
picketers, and a similar outrage which was perpetrated the day before in Benares had very
serious consequences. On this occasion, the victim was a Muslim trader, and the attack
proved fatal; as a result, since Hindu-Muslim relations throughout most of Northern India
were by this time very strained, a serious communal riot broke out and continued for five
days, causing great destruction of property and numerous casualties. Among the other
communal clashes during this period were the riots at Nilphamari (Bengal) on the 25th of
January and at Rawalpindi on the 31st. Throughout Northern
India communal relations had markedly deteriorated during the first two months of
1931, and already, in February, there had been serious communal rioting in Benares, This
state of affairs was due chiefly to the increasing exasperation created among Muslims by
the paralysis of trade and the general atmosphere of unrest and confusion that resulted
from Congress activities. The increased importance which the Congress seemed to be
acquiring as a result of the negotiations with the Government aroused in the Muslims
serious apprehensions and had the effect of worsening the tension between the two
communities. During March, this tension, in the United Provinces at any rate, became
greatly increased. Between the 14th and 16th there was serious rioting in the Mirzapur
District, and on the 17th, trouble broke out in Agra and continued till the 20th. There
was also a communal riot in Dhanbad (Bengal) on the 28th, and in Amritsar District on the
30th ; and in many other parts of the country, the relations between members of the two
communities had become extremely strained.
In Assam, the communal riot which occurred at
Digboi in Lakhimpur District, resulted in deaths of one Hindu and three Muslims. In
Bengal, a communal riot took place in the Asansol division during the Muharram festival.
In Bihar and Orissa there was a certain amount of communal tension during the year,
particularly in Saran. Altogether there were 16 cases of communal rioting and unlawful
assembly. During the Bakr-i-Id festival a clash occurred in the Bhabua sub-division of
Shahabad. Some 300 Hindus collected in the mistaken belief that a cow had been sacrificed.
The local officers had succeeded in pacifying them when a mob of about 200
Muhammedans armed with lathis, spears and swords, attacked the Hindus, one of whom
subsequently died. The prompt action of the police and the appointment of a conciliation
committee prevented the spread of the trouble. The Muharram festival was marked by two
small riots in Monghyr, the Hindus being the aggressors on one occasion and the Muslims on
the other. In the Madras Presidency there were also several riots of a communal nature
during the year and the relations between the communities were in places distinctly
strained. The most serious disturbance of the year occurred at Vellore on the 8th of June,
as a result of the passage of a Muslim procession with Tazias near a Hindu temple ; so
violent was the conflict between members of the two communities that the police were
compelled to open fire in order to restore order ; and sporadic fighting continued in the
town during the next two or three days. In Salem town, owing to Hindu-Muslim tension a
dispute arose on the 13th of July, as to who had been the victor at a largely attended
Hindu-Muslim wrestling match at Shevapet. Another riot occurred in October at
Kitchipalaiyam near Salem town ; the trouble arose from a few Muslims disturbing a street
game played by some young Hindus. Hindu-Muslim disturbances also arose in Polikal village,
Kurnool District, on the 15th of March, owing to a dispute about the route of a Hindu
procession, but the rioters were easily dispersed by a small force of police. In the
Punjab there were 907 cases of rioting during the year as compared with 813 in 1929. Many
of them were of a communal character, and the tension between the two principal
communities remained acute in many parts of the Province. In the United Provinces,
although communal tension during 1930 was not nearly so acute as during the first 3 months
of 1931, and was for a while overshadowed by the excitement engendered by the Civil
Disobedience Movement, indications of it were fairly numerous, and the causes of
disagreement remained as potent as ever. In Dehra Dun and Bulandshahr there were communal
riots of the usual type, and a very serious riot occurred in Ballia city as a result of a
dispute concerning the route taken by a Hindu procession, which necessitated firing by the
police. Riots also occurred in Muttra, Azamgarh, Mainpuri and several other places.
Passing on to the events of the year 1931-32,
the progress of constitutional discussions at the R. T. C. had a definite reaction in that it bred a certain
nervousness among the Muslim and other minority communities as to their position under a
constitution functioning on the majority principle. The first session of the Round Table
Conference afforded the first " close-up " of the
constitutional future. Until then the ideal of Dominion Status had progressed little
beyond a vague and general conception, but the declaration of the Princes at the opening
of the Conference had brought responsibility at the Centre, in the form of a federal
government, within definite view. The Muslims, therefore, felt that it was high time for
them to take stock of their position. This uneasiness was intensified by the Irwin-Gandhi
settlement, which accorded what appeared to be a privileged position to the Congress, and
Congress elation and pose of victory over the Government did not tend to ease Muslim
misgivings. Within three weeks of the " pact " occurred the savage communal riots at Cawnpore, which significantly enough began with the attempts
of Congress adherents to force Mahomedan shopkeepers to observe a hartal in memory of Bhagat Singh who was executed
on 23rd March. On 24th March began the plunder of Hindu shops. On the 25th there was a
blaze. Shops and temples were set fire to and burnt to cinders. Disorder, arson, loot,
murder, spread like wild fire. Five hundred families abandoned their houses and took
shelter in villages. Dr. Ramchandra was one of the worst sufferers. All members of his
family, including his wife and aged parents, were killed and their bodies thrown into
gutters. In the same slaughter Mr. Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi lost his life. The Cawnpore
Riots Inquiry Committee in its report states that the riot was of unprecedented violence
and peculiar atrocity, which spread with unexpected rapidity through the whole city and
even beyond it. Murders, arson and looting were widespread for three days, before the
rioting was definitely brought under control. Afterwards it subsided gradually. The loss
of life and property was great. The number of verified deaths was 300; but the death roll
is known to have been larger and was probably between four and five hundred. A large
number of temples and mosques were desecrated or burnt or destroyed and a very large
number of houses were burnt and pillaged.
This communal riot, which need never have
occurred but for the provocative conduct of the adherents of the Congress, was the worst
which India has experienced for many years. The trouble, moreover, spread from the city to
the neighbouring villages, where there were sporadic communal disturbances for several
days afterwards.
The year 1932-33 was relatively free from
communal agitations and disturbances. This welcome improvement was doubtless in some
measure due to the suppression of lawlessness generally and the removal of uncertainty in
regard to the position of the Muslims under the new constitution.
But in 1933-34 throughout the country
communal tension had been increasing and disorders which occurred not only on the occasion
of such festivals as Holi, Id and Muharram, but also many resulting from ordinary
incidents of every-day life indicated, that there had been a deterioration in communal
relations since the year began. Communal riots during Holi occurred at Benares and
Cawnpore in the United Provinces, at Lahore in the Punjab, and at Peshawar. Bakr-i-ld was
marked by serious rioting at Ayodhya, in the United Provinces over cow sacrifice, also at
Bhagalpore in Bihar and Orissa and at Cannanore in Madras.
A serious riot in the Ghazipur District of the United
Provinces also resulted in several deaths. During April and May there were Hindu-Muslim
riots at several places in Bihar and Orissa, in Bengal, in Sind
and Delhi, some of them provoked by very trifling incidents, as for instance, the
unintentional spitting by a Muslim shopkeeper of Delhi upon a Hindu passer-by. The
increase in communal disputes in British India was also reflected in some of the States
where similar incidents occurred.
The position with regard to communal unrest
during the months from June to October was indicative of the normal, deep-seated
antagonism between the two major communities. June and July months, in which no Hindu or
Muhammedan festival of importance took place, were comparatively free from riots, though
the situation in certain areas of Bihar necessitated the quartering of additional police.
A long-drawn-out dispute started in Agra. The Muslims of this city objected to the noise
of religious ceremonies in certain Hindu private houses which they said disturbed
worshippers at prayers in a neighbouring mosque. Before the dispute was settled, riots
occurred on the 20th July and again on the 2nd September, in the course of which 4 persons
were killed and over 80 injured. In Madras a riot, on the 3rd September resulting in one
death and injuries to 13 persons was occasioned by a book published by Hindus containing
alleged reflections on the Prophet. During the same month minor riots occurred in several
places in the Punjab and the United Provinces.
In 1934-35 serious trouble arose in Lahore on
the 29th June as a result of a dispute between Muslims and Sikhs about a mosque situated
within the precincts of a Sikh temple known as the Shahidganj Gurudwara. Trouble had been
brewing for some time. Ill-feeling became intensified when the Sikhs started to demolish
the Mosque despite Muslim protests. The building had been the subject of prolonged
litigation, which has confirmed the Sikh right of possession.
On the night of the 29th June a crowd of 3 or
4 thousand Muslims assembled in front of the Gurudwara. A struggle between this crowd and
the Sikhs inside the Gurudwara was only averted by the prompt action of the local
authorities. They subsequently obtained an undertaking from the Sikhs to refrain from
further demolition. But during the following week, while strenuous efforts were being made
to persuade the leaders to reach an amicable settlement, the Sikhs under pressure of
extremist influence again set about demolishing the mosque. This placed the authorities in
a most difficult position. The Sikhs were acting within their legal rights. Moreover the
only effective method of stopping demolition would have been to resort to firing. As the
building was full of Sikhs and was within the precincts of a Sikh place of worship, this
would not only have caused much bloodshed but, for religious reasons, would have had
serious reactions on the Sikh population throughout the Province. On the other hand,
inaction by Government was bound to cause great indignation among the Muslims, for
religious reasons : and it was expected that this would show itself in sporadic attacks on
the Sikhs and perhaps on the forces of Government.
It was hoped that discussions between leaders
of the two communities would effect some rapprochement, but mischief-makers inflamed the
minds of their co-religionists. Despite the arrest of the chief offenders, the excitement
increased. The Government's gesture in offering to restore to the Muslims another
mosque which they had purchased years ago proved unavailing. The situation took a
further turn for the worse on the 19th July and during the following two days the
situation was acutely dangerous. The Central Police station was practically besieged by
the huge crowds, which assumed a most menacing attitude. Repeated attempts to disperse
them without the use of firearms failed and the troops had to fire twice on the 20th July
and eight times on the 21st. In all 23 rounds were fired and 12 persons killed.
Casualties, mostly of a minor nature, were numerous amongst the military and police.
As a result of the firing, the crowds
dispersed and did not reassemble. Extra police were brought in from other Provinces and
the military garrisons were strengthened. Administrative control was re-established
rapidly, but the religious leaders continued to fan
the embers of the agitation. Civil litigation was renewed and certain Muslim organisations
framed some extravagant demands.
The situation in Lahore continued to cause
anxiety up to the close of the year. On the 6th November, a Sikh was mortally wounded by a
Muslim. Three days later a huge Sikh-Hindu procession was taken out. The organisers
appeared anxious to avoid conflict but nonetheless one serious clash occurred. This was
followed by further rioting on the next day. But for the good work of the police and the
troops, in breaking up the fights quickly, the casualties might have been very large.
On the 19th March 1935 a serious incident
occurred in Karachi after the execution of Abdul Quayum, the Muslim who had murdered
Nathuramal, a Hindu, already referred to as the writer of a scurrilous pamphlet about the
Prophet. Abdul Quayum's body was taken by the District Magistrate, accompanied by a police
party, to be handed over to the deceased's family for burial outside the city. A huge
crowd, estimated to be about 25,000 strong, collected at the place of burial. Though the
relatives of Abdul Quayum wished to complete the burial at the cemetery, the most violent
members of the mob determined to take the body in procession through the city. The local
authorities decided to prevent the mob entering, since this would have led to communal
rioting. All attempts of the police to stop the procession failed, so a platoon of the
Royal Sussex Regiment was brought in to keep peace. It was forced to open fire at short
range to stop the advance of the frenzied mob and to prevent itself from being
overwhelmed. Forty-seven rounds were fired by which 47 people were killed and 134 injured.
The arrival of reinforcements prevented further attempts to advance. The wounded were
taken to the Civil Hospital and the body of Abdul Quayum was then interred without further
trouble.
On the 25th August 1935 there was a communal
riot at Secunderabad.
In the year 1936 there were four communal
riots. On the 14th April there occurred a most terrible riot at Firozabad in the Agra
District. A Muslim procession was proceeding along the main bazar and it is alleged that
bricks were thrown from the roofs of Hindu houses. This enraged the Muslims in the
procession who set fire to the house of a Hindu, Dr. Jivaram, and the adjacent temple of
Radha Krishna. The inmates of Dr. Jivaram's house in
addition to 11 Hindus including 3 children were burnt to death. A second Hindu-Muslim riot
broke out in Poona in the Bombay Presidency on 24th April
1936. On the 27th April there occurred a Hindu-Muslim riot in Jamalpur
in the Monghyr District. The fourth Hindu-Muslim riot of the year took place in Bombay on
the 15th October 1936.
The year 1937 was full of communal
disturbances. On the 27th March 1937 there was a Hindu-Muslim riot at Panipat over the
Holi procession and 14 persons were killed. On the 1st May 1937 there occurred a communal
riot in Madras in which 50 persons were injured. The month of May was full of communal
riots which took place mostly in the C. P. and the Punjab. One that took place in
Shikarpur in Sind caused great panic. On 18th June there was a Sikh-Muslim riot in
Amritsar. It assumed such proportions that British troops had to be called out to maintain
order.
The year 1938 was marked by two communal
riots—one in Allahabad on 26th March and. another in Bombay in April.
There were 6 Hindu-Muslim riots in 1939. On
the 21st January there was a riot at Asansol in which one was killed and 18 injured. It
was followed by a riot in Cawnpore on the 11th February in which 42 were killed, 200
injured and 800 arrested. On the 4th March there was a riot at Benares followed by a riot
at Cassipore near Calcutta on the 5th March. On 19th June there was again a riot at
Cawnpore over the Rathajatra procession.
A serious riot occurred on 20th November 1939
in Sukkur in Sind. The riot was the culmination of the
agitation by the Muslims to take possession, even by force, of a building called Manzilgah which was in the possession of Government as
Government property and to the transfer of which the Hindus had raised objections. Mr. E. Weston—now a judge of
the Bombay High Court—who was appointed to investigate into the disturbances gives 30[f.30] the following
figures of the murdered and the wounded :
Persons injured. |
Persons died from injuries. |
|||||
|
Hindus. |
Mdns. |
Ilindus. |
Mdns. |
Ilindus. |
Mdns. |
Sukkur Town |
20 |
12 |
11 |
11 |
1 |
|
Sukkur Taluka |
2 |
2 |
23 |
|
5 |
|
Shikarpur Taluka |
5 |
|
11 |
|
2 |
|
Garhi Yasin Taluka |
24 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
Rohri Taluka |
10 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
Pano Akil Taluka |
6 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Ghorki Taluka |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
Mirpur Mathelo Taluka |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Ubauro Taluka |
4 |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
142 |
14 |
58 |
12 |
9 |
|
Of the many gruesome incidents recorded by
him the following may be quoted:
" The most terrible of all the
disturbances occurred on the night of the 20th at Gosarji village which is eight miles
from Sukkur and sixteen from Shikarpur. According to an early statement sent by the
District Magistrate to Government, admittedly incomplete, 27 Hindus were murdered there
that night. According to the witnesses examined the number was 37.
" Pamanmal,
a contractor of Gosarji states that at the
time of satyagraha the leading Hindus of Gosarji came in deputation to the leading
zemindar of the locality Khan Sahib Amirbux who was then at Sukkur. He reassured them and
said he was responsible for their safely. On the 20th Khan Sahib Amirbux was at Gosarji,
and that morning Mukhi Mahrumal was murdered there. The Hindus went to Khan Sahib Amirbux
for protection and were again reassured, but that night wholesale murder and looting took
place. Of the 37 murdered, seven were women. Pamanmal states that the following morning he
went to the Sub-Inspector of Bagerji, which is one mile from Gosarji, but he was abused
and driven from the thana. He then went to Shikarpur and complained to the panchayat, but
did not complain to any officer there. I may mention that the Sub-Inspector of Bagerji was
afterwards prosecuted under section 211, Indian Penal Code, and has been convicted for
failure to make arrests in connection with murders at Gosarji.
" As Khan Sahib Amirbux, the zemindar,
who was said to have given assurance of protection to the Hindus of Bagerji, was reported
to be attending the Court, he was called and examined as a Court witness. He states that
he lives half a mile from Gosarji village. The Sub-Inspector of Bagerji came to Gosarji on
the 20th after the murder of Mehrumal, and he acted as a
mashir. He says that the Hindus did not ask for help and there was no apprehension of
trouble. On the night of the 20th he was not well, and he heard nothing of the murders. He
admits that he had heard of the Manzilgah evacuation. Later in his evidence he admits that
he told the villagers of Gosarji to be on the alert as there was trouble in Sukkur, and he says he had called the
panchayat on the evening of the 19th. He went to Gosarji at sunrise on the 21st after the
murders. He admits that he is regarded as the protector of Gosarji. "
" I find it
impossible to believe the evidence of this witness. I have no doubt that he was fully
aware that there was trouble in Gosarji on the night of 20th and preferred to remain in
his house. "
Who can deny that this record of rioting
presents a picture which is grim in its results and sombre in its tone ? But being chronological in order, the record might fail to
give an idea of the havoc these riots have caused in any given Province and the paralysis it has brought about in its social and
economic life. To give an idea of the paralysis caused by the recurrence of riots in a
Province I have recast the record of riots for the Province of Bombay. When recast the
general picture appears as follows :
Leaving aside the Presidency and confining
oneself to the City of Bombay, there can be no doubt that the record of the city is the
blackest. The first Hindu-Muslim riot took place in 1893. This was followed by a long
period of communal peace which lasted upto 1929. But the years that have followed have an
appalling story to tell. From February 1929 to April
1938—a period of nine years—there were no less than 10 communal riots. In 1929 there were two communal riots. In the first, 149
were killed and 739 were injured and it lasted for 36 days. In the second riot 35 were
killed, 109 were injured and it continued for 22 days. In 1930 there were two riots.
Details as to loss of life and its duration are not available. In 1932 there were again
two riots. The first was a small one. In the second 217 were killed, 2,713 were injured
and it went on for 49 days. In 1933 there was one riot, details about which are not
available. In 1936 there was one riot in which 94 were killed, 632 were injured and it
continued to rage for 65 days. In the riot of 1937, 11 were killed, 85 were injured and it
occupied 21 days. The riot of 1938 lasted for 2 1/2
hours only but within that time 12 were killed and a little over 100 were injured. Taking
the total period of 9 years and 2 months from February 1929 to April 1938 the Hindus and
Muslims of the City of Bombay alone were engaged in a sanguinary warfare for 210 days
during which period 550 were killed and 4,500 were wounded. This does not of course take
into consideration the loss of property which took place through arson and loot.
V
Such is the record of Hindu-Muslim
relationship from 1920 to 1940. Placed side by side with the frantic efforts made by Mr.
Gandhi to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity, the record makes most painful and heart-rending
reading. It would not be much exaggeration to say that it is a record of twenty years of
civil war between the Hindus and the Muslims in India, interrupted by brief intervals of
armed peace.
In this civil war men were, of course, the
principal victims. But women did not altogether escape molestation. It is perhaps not
sufficiently known how much women have suffered in communal hostilities. Data relating to
the whole of India are not available. But some data relating to Bengal exist.
On the 6th September 1932 questions were
asked in the old Bengal Legislative Council regarding the abduction of women in the
Province of Bengal. In reply, the Government of the day stated that between 1922 to 1927,
the total number of women abducted was 568. Of these, 101 were unmarried and 467 were
married. Asked to state the community to which the abducted women belonged, it was
disclosed that out of 101 unmarried women 64 were Hindus, 29 Muslims, 4 Christians, and 4
non-descript : and that out of 467 married women 331 were Hindus, 122 Muslims, 2
Christians and 12 non-descript. These figures relate to cases which were reported or if
reported were not detected. Usually, about 10 p.c. of the cases are reported or detected
and 90 p.c. go undetected. Applying this
proportion to the facts disclosed by the Bengal Government, it may be said that about
35,000 women were abducted in Bengal during the short period of five years between
1922-27.
The attitude towards women-folk is a good
index of the friendly or unfriendly attitude between the two communities. As such, the
case which happened on 27th June 1936 in the village of Govindpur in Bengal makes very
instructive reading. The following account of it is taken from the opening speech 32[f.32] of the Crown
counsel when the trial of 40 Mahomedan accused began on the 10th August 1936. According to
the prosecution :
" There lived in Govindpur a Hindu by
name Radha Vallabh. He had a
son Harendra. There lived also in Govindpur a Muslim woman
whose occupation was to sell milk. The local Musalmans of the village suspected that
Harendra had illicit relationship with this Muslim milk woman. They resented that a Muslim
woman should be in the keeping of a Hindu and they decided to wreak their vengeance on the
family of Radha Vallabh for this insult. A meeting of the Musalmans of Govindpur was
convened and Harendra was summoned to allend this meeting. Soon after Harendra went to the
meeting, cries of Harendra were heard. It was found that Harendra was assaulted and was
lying senseless in the field where the meeting was held. The Musalmans of Govindpur were
not satisfied with this assault. They informed Radha Vallabh that unless he, his wife and
his children embraced Islam the Musalmans did not feel satisfied for the wrong his son had
done to them. Radha Vallabh was planning to send away to another place his wife and
children. The Musalmans came to know this plan. Next day when Kusum, the wife of Radha
Vallabh, was sweeping the courtyard of her house, some Mahomedans came, held down Radha
Vallabh and some spirited away Kusum, After having taken her to some distance two
Mahomedans by name Laker and Mahaxar raped her and removed her ornaments.
After some time, she came to her senses and ran towards her
home. Her assailants again pursued her. She succeeded in
reaching her home and locking herself in. Her Muslim assailants broke open the door,
caught hold of her and again carried her away on the road. It was suggested by her
assailants that she should be again raped on the street. But with the help of another
woman by name Rajani, Kusum escappd
and look shelter in the house of Rajani. While she was in the house of Rajani the Musalmans of Govindpur paraded her husband Radha Vallabh in the streets in complete disgrace. Next day the Musalmans kept watch on the roads to and from Govindpur
to the Police Station to prevent Radha Vallabh and Kusum
from giving information of the outrage to the Police. "
These acts of barbarism against women,
committed without remorse, without shame and without condemnation by their fellow brethren
show the depth of the antagonism which divided the two communities. The tempers on each
side were the tempers of two warring nations. There was carnage, pillage, sacrilege and
outrage of every species, perpetrated by Hindus against Musalmans and by Musalmans against
Hindus—more perhaps by Musalmans against Hindus than by Hindus against Musalmans.
Cases of arson have occurred in which Musalmans have set fire to the houses of Hindus, in
which whole families of Hindus, men, women and children were roasted alive and consumed in
the fire, to the great satisfaction of the Muslim spectators. What is astonishing is that
these cold and deliberate acts of rank cruelty were not regarded as atrocities to be
condemned but were treated as legitimate acts of warfare for which no apology was
necessary. Enraged by these hostilities, the editor of the Hindustan—a Congress paper—writing in
1926 used the following language to express the painful truth of the utter failure of Mr. Gandhi's efforts to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity. In words
of utter despair the editor said 33[f.33] :
" There is
an immense distance between the India of to-day and India a nation, between an uncouth reality which expresses itself in murder and
arson and that fond fiction which is in the imagination of
patriotic if self-deceiving men. To talk about Hindu-Muslim unity from a thousand
platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudly structure dissolves itself at the
exchange of brick-bats and the desecration of tombs and temples. To sing a few pious hymns of peace and goodwill a la Naidu. . . . .. will not benefit the country.
The President of the Congress has been improvising on the
theme of Hindu- Muslim unity, so dear to her heart, with brilliant variations, which does
credit to her genius but leaves the problem untouched. The millions in India can only
respond when the unity song is not only on the tongues of the leaders but in the hearts of
the millions of their countrymen. "
Nothing I could say can so well show the
futility of any hope of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity upto now was at least in
sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind. Even
Mr. Gandhi has given up what, he perhaps now realizes, is an impossible task.
But there are others who notwithstanding the
history of the past twenty years, believe in the possibility of Hindu-Muslim unity. This
belief of theirs seems to rest on two grounds. Firstly/they believe in the efficacy of a
Central Government to mould diverse set of people into one
nation. Secondly, they feel that the satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means
of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity.
It is true that Government is a unifying
force and that there are many instances where diverse people have become unified into one
homogeneous people by reason of their being subjected to a single Government. But the
Hindus, who are depending upon Government as a unifying force seem to forget that there
are obvious limits to Government acting as a unifying force. The limits to Government
working as a unifying force are set by the possibilities of fusion among the people. In a
country where race, language and religion do not stand in the way of fusion. Government is
most effective as a unifying force. On the other hand, in a country where race, language
and religion put an effective bar against fusion, Government can have no effect as a
unifying force. If the diverse people in France, England, Italy and Germany became unified
nations by reason of a common Government, it was because neither race, language nor
religion obstructed the unifying process of Government. On the other hand, if the people
in Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Turkey failed to be unified, although under a
common Government, it was because race, language and religion were strong enough to
counter and nullify the unifying power of Government. No one can deny that race, language
and religion have been too dominant in India to permit the people of India to be welded
into a nation by the unifying force of a common Government. It is an illusion to say that
the Central Government in India has moulded the Indian people into a nation. What the
Central Government has done, is to tie them together by one law and to house them together
in one place, as the owner of unruly animals does, by tying them with one rope and keeping
them in one stable. All that the Central Government has done is to produce a kind of peace
among Indians. It has not made them one nation.
It cannot be said that time has been too
short for unification to take place. If one hundred and fifty years of life under a
Central Government does not suffice, eternity will not suffice. For this failure the
genius of the Indians alone is responsible. There is among Indians no passion for unity,
no desire for fusion. There is no desire to have a common dress. There is no desire to
have a common language. There is no will to give up what is local and particular for
something which is common and national. A Gujarati takes pride in being a Gujarati, a
Maharashtrian in being a Maharashtrian, a Punjabi in being a Punjabi, a Madrasi in being a
Madrasi and a Bengali in being a Bengali. Such is the mentality of Hindus, who accuse the
Musalman of want of national feeling when he says "I am a Musalman first and Indian
afterwards ". Can any one suggest that there exists anywhere in India even among the
Hindus an instinct or a passion that would put any semblance of emotion behind their
declaration " Civis Indianus sum ", or
the smallest consciousness of a moral and social unity, which desires to give expression
by sacrificing whatever is particular and local in favour of what is common and unifying ?
There is no such consciousness and no such desire. Without such consciousness and no such
desire, to depend upon Government to bring about unification is to deceive oneself.
Regarding the second, it was no doubt the
opinion of the Simon Commission:
"That the communal riots were a
manifestation of the anxieties and ambitions aroused in both the communities by the prospects of India's political Future. So long as authority was
firmly established in British hands and self-government was not thought of, Hindu-Muslim
rivalry was confined within a narrower field. This was not merely because the presence of a
neutral bureaucracy discouraged strife. A further reason was that there was little for
members of one community to
fear from the predominance of the other. The comparative absence of communal strife in the Indian States today may be similarly
explained. Many, who are well
acquainted with conditions in British India a
generation ago, would testify
that at that
epoch so much good feeling had been engendered between the two sides that communal tension as a threat to civil peace was at a minimum. But the coming of the
Reforms and the anticipation of what may follow them have given new point to
Hindu-Muslim competition. The one community
naturally lays claim to the
rights of a majority and
relics upon its qualifications of better education and
greater wealth ; the other is all the more determined on those accounts to secure effective protection for its members, and does not forget that it represents the previous conquerors of the country. It wishes to be assured of adequate representation and of a full share of
official posts. "
Assuming that to be a true diagnosis, assuming that Muslim demands are reasonable, assuming that the
Hindus were prepared to grant them—and these are all very big assumptions—it is
a question whether a true union between Hindus and Muslims can take place through
political unity, resulting from the satisfaction of Muslim political demands. Some people
seem to think that it is enough if there is a political unity between Hindus and Muslims.
I think this is the greatest delusion. Those who take this view seem to be thinking only
of how to bring the Muslims to join the Hindus in their demands on the British for
Dominion Status or Independence as the mood of the moment be. This, to say the least, is a
very shortsighted view. How to make the Muslims join the Hindus in the latter's demands on the British is comparatively a very small
question. In what spirit will they work the constitution ?
Will they work it only as aliens by an unwanted tie or will they work it as true kindreds,
is the more important question. For working it as true kindreds, what is wanted is not
merely political unity but a true union of heart and soul, in other words, social unity.
Political unity is worth nothing, if it is not the expression of real union. It is as
precarious as the unity between persons, who without being friends become allies of each
other. How very precarious it always is, is best illustrated by what has happened between
Germany and Russia. Personally, I do not think that a permanent union can be made to
depend upon the satisfaction of mere material interests. Pacts may produce unity. But that
unity can never ripen into union. A pact as a basis for a union is
worse than useless. As its very nature indicates, a pact is separative in character. A
pact cannot produce the desire to accommodate, it cannot instil the spirit of sacrifice,
nor can it bind the parties to the main objective. Instead
of accommodating each other, parties to a pact strive to get, as much as possible, out of
each other. Instead of sacrificing for the common cause, parties to the pact are
constantly occupied in seeing that the sacrifice made by one is not used for the good of
the other. Instead of fighting for the main objective, parties to the pact are for ever
engaged in seeing that in the struggle for reaching the goal the balance of power between
the parties is not disturbed. Renan spoke the most profound
truth when he said :
"Community
of interests is assuredly a powerful bond between
men. But nevertheless can interests suffice to make a nation ? I do not believe it. Community of interests
make commercial treaties. There is a sentimental
side to nationality; it is at once body and soul ; a Zollverein is not a fatherland. "
Equally striking is the view of James Bryce, another well-known
student of history. According to Bryce,
" The
permanence of an institution depends not merely on the material interests that support it, but on its conformity to the deep-rooted sentiment of the men for whom it has been made. When it draws to itself and provides a fitting expression for that sentiment,
the sentiment becomes thereby not only more vocal
but actually stronger, and in its turn imparts a fuller vitality to the institution. "
These observations of Bryce were made in
connection with the foundation of the German Empire by Bismarck who, according to Bryce,
succeeded in creating a durable empire because it was based on a sentiment and that this
sentiment was fostered
" .... most of all by what we call the instinct or passion for nationality, the desire of a people already conscious of a moral and social unity, to see such unity expressed and realize under a single government, which shall give it a
place and name among civilized suites
".
What is it that produces this moral and
social unity which gives permanence and what is it that drives people to see such unity
expressed and realized under
a single government, which shall give it a place and a name among civilized states ?
No one is more competent to answer this
question than James Bryce. It was just such a question he had to consider in discussing
the vitality of the Holy Roman Empire as contrasted with the Roman Empire. If any Empire
can be said to have succeeded in bringing about political unity among its diverse subjects
it was the Roman Empire. Paraphrasing for the sake of brevity the language of Bryce :—The gradual
extension of Roman citizenship through the founding of colonies, first throughout Italy
and then in the provinces, the working of the equalized and equalizing Roman Law, the even
pressure of the government on all subjects, the movements of population, caused by
commerce and the slave traffic, were steadily assimilating
the various peoples. Emperors, who were for the most part natives of the provinces, cared
little to cherish Italy or even after the days of the Antonines,
to conciliate Rome. It was their policy to keep open for every subject a career by whose
freedom they had themselves risen to greatness. Annihilating distinctions of legal status
among freemen, it completed the work, which trade and literature and toleration to all
beliefs but one were already performing. No quarrel of race or religions disturbed that
calm, for all national distinctions were becoming merged in the idea of a common Empire.
This unity produced by the Roman Empire was
only a political unity. How long did this political unity last ?
In the words of Bryce:
"Scarcely had these slowly working influences brought about this
unity, when other influences began to threaten it. New foes assailed the
frontiers ; while the loosening of the structure within was shown by the long
struggles for power which
followed the death or deposition of each successive emperor. In the
period of anarchy after the
fall of Valerian, generals were raised by their armies in every part of the Empire, and ruled great provinces as monarchs apart, owning no allegiance to the possessor of the capital. The breaking-up of the western half of the Empire into separate kingdoms might have been anticipated by two hundred years, had there not arisen in Diocletian a prince active and skilful enough to bind up
the fragments before they had lost all
cohesion, meeting altered
conditions by new remedies. The policy he adopted by dividing and localizing authority recognized the fact that the weakened heart could no longer make its pulsations fell to the body's extremities. He parcelled out the supreme power among four monarchs, ruling as joint emperors in four capitals, and then sought to give it a fictitious strength by surrounding it with an oriental pomp which his earlier predecessors would have scorned. . . .
The prerogative of Rome was menaced by the -rivalry of Nicomedia, and the nearer greatness of Milan. "
It is, therefore, evident that political
unity was not enough to give permanence and stability to the Roman Empire and as Bryce points out that "
the breaking-up of the western half (of the Roman Empire) into separate kingdoms might
have been anticipated by two hundred years, had the barbarian tribes on the border been
bolder, or had there not arisen in Diocletian
a prince active and skilful enough to bind up the fragments
before they had lost all cohesion, meeting altered conditions by new remedies ". But the fact is that the Roman Empire which was
tottering and breaking into bits and whose political unity was not enough to bind it
together did last for several hundred years as one cohesive unit after it became the Holy
Roman Empire. As Prof. Marvin points out 34[f.34] :
" The unity of the Roman Empire was mainly political and military. It lasted for between four and Five hundred years. The unity which supervened in the Catholic Church was religious
and moral and endured for a thousand
years. "
The question is what made the Holy Roman
Empire more stable than the Roman Empire could ever hope to be ?
According to Bryce it was a common religion in the shape of Christianity and a common religious organization in the shape of the
Christian Church which supplied the cement to the Holy Roman Empire and which was wanting
in the Roman Empire. It was this cement which gave to the people of the Empire a moral and
social unity and made them see such unity expressed and realized under a single
government.
Speaking of the unifying effect of
Christianity as a common religion Bryce says:
" It is on
religion that the
in most and deepest life of a nation rests. Because Divinity was divided, humanity had been divided, likewise ; the
doctrine of the unity of God now enforced the
unity of man, who had been created
in His image. The first lesson of Christianity was love, a love that was to join in one body those whom suspicion and prejudice
and pride of race had hitherto
kept apart. There was thus
formed by the new religion a community of the faithful, a Holy Empire, designed to gather all men into its bosom, and standing opposed to the manifold polytheisms
of the older world, exactly
as the universal sway of the Caesars was contrasted with the innumerable kingdoms and city republics that had gone before it . .
. . " 35[f.35]
If what Bryce
has said regarding the instability of the Roman Empire and the comparatively greater
stability of its successor, the Holy Roman Empire, has any lesson for India and if the
reasoning of Bryce that the Roman Empire was unstable because it had nothing more than
political unity to rely on, and that the Holy Roman Empire was more stable, because it
rested on the secure foundation of moral and social unity, produced by the possession of a
common faith, is valid reasoning and embodies human experience, then it is obvious that
there can be no possibility of a union between Hindus and Muslims. The cementing force of
a common religion is wanting. From a spiritual point of view, Hindus and Musalmans are not merely two classes or two sects such as
Protestants and Catholics or Shaivas and Vaishnavas. They are two distinct species. In this view,
neither the Hindu nor .the Muslim can be expected to
recognize that humanity is an essential quality present in them both, and that they are
not many but one and that the differences between them are no more than accidents. For
them Divinity is divided and with the division of Divinity their humanity is divided and
with the division of humanity they must remain divided. There is nothing to bring them in
one bosom.
Without social union, political unity is difficult to be achieved. If achieved, it would be as precarious
as a summer sapling, liable to be uprooted by the gust of a hostile wind. With mere
political unity, India may be a State. But to be a State is not to be a nation and a
State, which is not a nation, has small prospects of survival in the struggle for
existence. This is especially true where nationalism—the most dynamic force of modern
times—is seeking everywhere to free itself by the destruction and disruption of all
mixed states. The danger to a mixed and composite state, therefore, lies not so much in
external aggression as in the internal resurgence of
nationalities which are fragmented, entrapped, suppressed and held against their will.
Those who oppose Pakistan should not only bear this danger in mind but should also realize
that this attempt on the part of suppressed nationalities to disrupt a mixed state and to
found a separate home for themselves, instead of being condemned, finds ethical justification from the principle of self-determination.
MUSLIM ALTERNATIVE TO PAKISTAN
I
The Hindus say they have an alternative to Pakistan. Have the Muslims also an alternative to
Pakistan? The Hindus say yes, the Muslims say no. The Hindus
believe that the Muslim proposal for Pakistan is only a bargaining manoeuvre put forth
with the object of making additions to the communal gains already secured under the
Communal Award. The Muslims repudiate the suggestion. They say there is no equivalent to
Pakistan and, therefore, they will have Pakistan and nothing but Pakistan. It does seem
that the Musalmans are devoted-to
Pakistan and are determined to have nothing else and that the Hindus in hoping for an
alternative are merely indulging in wishful thinking. But assuming that the Hindus are
shrewd enough in divining what the Muslim game is, will the Hindus be ready to welcome the Muslim alternative to
Pakistan? The answer to the question must, of course, depend upon what the Muslim alternative is.
What is the Muslim alternative to Pakistan? No one knows. The Muslims, if they have
any, have not disclosed it and perhaps will not disclose it till the day when the rival
parties meet to revise and settle the terms on which the Hindus and the Muslims are to
associate with each other in the future. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. It is,
therefore, necessary for the Hindus to have some idea of the possible Muslim alternative
to enable them to meet the shock of it; for the alternative cannot be better than the Communal
Award and is sure to be many degrees worse.
In the absence
of the exact alternative proposal one can only make a guess. Now
one man's guess is as good as that of another, and the party concerned has to choose on
which of these he will rely. Among the likely guesses, my guess is that the Muslims will
put forth as their alternative some such proposal as the following :—
"That the
future constitution of India shall provide:
(i) That the Muslims shall have 50% representation
in the Legislature, Central as well as Provincial, through separate electorates.
(ii) That 50% of
the Executive in the Centre as well as in the Provinces shall consist of Muslims.
(iii) That in the Civil Service 50% of the posts shall be assigned for the Muslims.
(iv) That in the Fighting Forces the Muslim proportion shall be
one half, both in the ranks and in the higher grades.
(v) That Muslims
shall have 50% representation in all public bodies, such
as councils and commissions, created for public purposes.
(vi) That
Muslims shall have 50% representation in all international organizations in which India will participate.
(vii) That if the Prime Minister be a Hindu, the Deputy Prime Minister shall be a Muslim.
(viii) That if
the Commander-in-Chief be a
Hindu, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief shall be a Muslim.
(ix) That no changes in the Provincial boundaries shall be made except with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the
Legislature.
(x) That no
action or treaty against a Muslim country shall be valid unless the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature is obtained.
(xi) That no law
affecting the culture or religion or religious
usage of Muslims shall be made
except with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature.
(xii) That the national language for India shall
be Urdu. (xiii) That no law prohibiting or restricting the slaughter of cows or the propagation of and conversion
to Islam shall be valid unless it is passed with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members
of the Legislature.
(viv) That no change in the constitution
shall be valid unless the
majority required for effecting such changes also
includes a 66% majority of
the Muslim members of the Legislature.
This guess of mine is not the result of
imagination let loose. It is not the result of a desire to frighten the Hindus into an unwilling and
hasty acceptance of Pakistan,
If I may say so, it is really an intelligent anticipation
based upon available data coming from Muslim quarters.
An indication of what the Muslim alternative is likely to be, is
obtainable from the nature of the Constitutional Reforms
which are contemplated for the Dominions of His Exalted Highness the Nizam
of Hyderabad.
The Hyderabad scheme of Reforms is a novel
scheme. It rejects the scheme of communal representation obtaining in British India. In its place is substituted
what is called Functional Representation, i.e. representation by classes and by professions. The composition of the Legislature which is to
consist of 70 members is to be as follows :—
Elected |
|
Nominated |
|
||
12 |
8 |
||||
|
|
||||
Tenants 4 |
|
Paigahs 3 |
|
||
Women |
1 |
|
|
||
Graduates |
1 |
Peshkari 1 |
|
||
University |
|
|
|||
2 |
|
||||
1 |
|
|
|||
Legal |
2 |
|
|||
Medical |
2 |
|
|
||
Western 1 |
|
Officials |
18 |
||
|
|
1 |
|||
Oriental 1 |
|
Backward Classes |
1 |
||
Teaching |
1 |
Minor Unrepresented |
3 |
||
Commerce |
1 |
Classes. |
|
||
Industries |
2 |
Others |
6 |
||
Banking |
2 |
|
|
||
Indigenous 1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Co-operative
and |
|
|
|
|
|
Joint Stock 1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|||
1 |
|
|
|||
District Municipalities 1 |
|
|
|||
City Municipality |
1 |
|
|
||
Rural Boards |
1 |
|
|
||
Total |
33 |
Total |
.
37 |
||
Whether the scheme of functional representation will
promote better harmony between the various classes and
sections than communal representation does is more than doubtful. In addition to
perpetuating existing social and religious divisions, it may quite easily intensify class
struggle by emphasizing class consciousness. The scheme
appears innocuous but its real character will come out when every class will demand
representation in proportion to its numbers. Be that as it
may, functional representation is not the most significant
feature of the Hyderabad scheme of Reforms. The most significant feature of the scheme is
the proposed division of seats between Hindus and Musalmansn
in the new Hyderabad Legislature. Under the scheme as approved by H. E. H. the Nizam, communal representation is not al together banished. It is retained along with functional
representation. It is to operate through joint electorates. But there is to be equal
representation for "the two majority communities" on every 36[f.36] elective body including the legislature and no candidate
can succeed unless, he secures 40 percent, of the votes polled by-members of his community. This
principle of equal representation to Hindus and Muslims irrespective of their numbers 37[f.37] is not
only to apply to every elective body but it is to apply to both elected as well as
nominated members of the body.
In justification of this theory of equal
representation it is stated that:
" The importance of the Muslim community
in the state, by virtue of its historical position and its status in the body politic, is so obvious that it cannot be reduced to the status of a
minority in the Assembly."
Quite recently there have appeared in the press 38[f.38] the proposals
formulated by one Mr. Mir Akbar
Ali Khan calling himself the leader of the Nationalist Party as a means of
settling the Hindu-Muslim problem in British India. They are as follows :—
(1) The future Constitution of India must rest upon the broad
foundation of adequate military defence of the country and
upon making the people reasonable military minded. The Hindus must
have the same military mindedness as the Muslims.
(2)
The present moment offers a supreme opportunity for the two communities to ask for the defence of India bang made over to them. The Indian Army must consist of an equal
number of Hindus
and Muslims and no regiment should be cm a communal, as distinguished from regional basis.
(3) The Governments in the Provinces and at
the Centre should be wholly National Governments composed
of men who are reasonable military minded. Hindu and Muslim Ministers should be equal in
number in the Central as well as all Provincial cabinets; other important minorities might
wherever necessary be given special representation. This scheme will function most satisfactorily with joint electorates, but in the present temper
of the country separate electorates might be continued. The Hindu Ministers must be
elected by the Hindu members of the legislature and the Muslim
Ministers by the Muslim members.
(4) The Cabinet is to be removable only on an express vote
of no-confidence, against the Cabinet as a
whole, passed by a majority of 2/3rd of the whole house which majority must be of Hindus and Muslims taken
separately.
(5) The religion, language, script and
personal law of each community should be safeguarded by a paramount constitutional check
enabling the majority of members, representing that community in the legislature to
place a veto on any legislative
or other measure affecting it. A similar veto must be provided against any measure
designed or calculated to affect adversely the economic well-being
of any community.
(6) An adequate communal representation in the services must be agreed to as a practical measure of
justice in administration and in the distribution
patronage.
If the proposals put forth by a Muslim leader
of the Nationalist Party in Hyderabad State is an indication of the direction in which the mind of the Muslims in
British India is running, then,
the guess I have made as to what is likely to be the alternative to
Pakistan derives additional support.
II
It is true that in the month of April 1940 a
Conference of Muslims was held in Delhi under the grandiloquent name of " The Azad Muslim
Conference." The Muslims who met in the Azad Conference were those who were opposed to the Muslim
League as well as to the Nationalist Muslims. They were opposed to the Muslim League
firstly, because of their hostility to Pakistan and secondly because they did not want to
depend upon the British Government for the protection of
their rights 39[f.39] They were also opposed to the Nationalist Musalmans (i. e. Congressites out and out)
because they were accused of indifference to the cultural and religious rights of the
Muslims. 40[f.40]
With all this the Azad Muslim Conference was
hailed by the Hindus as a Conference of friends. But the resolutions passed by the
Conference leave very little to choose between it and the League. Among the resolutions
passed by the Azad Muslim Conference the following three bear directly upon the issue in
question.
The first of these runs as follows :—
" This
conference, representative of Indian Muslims who desire to secure the fullest freedom of the country, consisting of delegates and representatives of every province, after having given its fullest and most careful consideration
to all the vital questions affecting the interest of the Muslim
community and the country as a whole declares the following:—
" India will have geographical and
political boundaries of an individual whole and as such is the common homeland of all the citizens irrespective of race or religion who are joint owners of
its resources. All nooks and comers of the country are hearths and
homes of Muslims who cherish the historic eminence of their religion and
culture which are dearer to them
than their lives. From the national
point of view every Muslim is an Indian. The common rights of all residents of the country and their responsibilities, in every walk of life and in
every sphere of human activity are the same. The Indian
Muslim by virtue of these rights and responsibilities, is
unquestionable an Indian national and in every part of the country is entitled
to equal privileges with that of every Indian national in
every sphere of governmental, economic and other national activities and in public services.
For that very reason Muslims own equal responsibilities with other Indians for
striving and making sacrifices to
achieve the country's independence. This is a self-evident proposition, the truth of which no right
thinking Muslim will question. This Conference declares unequivocally and with all
emphasis at its command that the goal of Indian Muslims is complete independence along with protection of their religion and communal
rights, and that they are anxious to attain this goal as early as possible. Inspired by this aim they have in the past made great sacrifices and are ever ready to make greater sacrifices.
"The Conference
unreservedly and strongly repudiates the baseless charge
levelled against Indian Muslims by the agents of British
Imperialism and others that they
are an obstacle in the path of Indian freedom and emphatically declares
that the Muslims are fully alive to their responsibilities and consider it
inconsistent with their
traditions and derogatory to their
honour to lag behind others in the struggle for
independence."
By this Resolution they repudiated the scheme
of Pakistan. Their second Resolution was in the following terms:—
"This is the considered view of this
Conference that only that constitution for the future Government of India would be
acceptable to the people of India which is framed by the Indians themselves elected by means of adult franchise.
The constitution should fully safeguard all the legitimate
interests of the Muslims in accordance with the
recommendations of the Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly. The representatives of
other communities or of an outside power would have no right to interfere in the determination of
these safeguards."
By this Resolution the Conference asserted
that the safeguards for the Muslims must be determined by the Muslims alone. Their third
Resolution was as under:—
" Whereas
in the future constitution
of India it would be essential, in order to ensure stability of government and preservation of security, that every citizen and community should feel
satisfied, this Conference considers it necessary that a scheme of safeguards as regards
vital manors mentioned below should be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Muslims.
" This
Conference appoints a board consisting of 27 persons. This
board, after the fullest investigation, consultation and consideration, shall make its
recommendations for submission to the next session of this Conference, so that the
Conference may utilise the recommendations as a means of
securing a permanent national settlement of the communal question. This recommendation
should be submitted within two months. The matters referred
to the board are the following:
"1. The protection of Muslim culture, personal law and religious rights.
" 2.
Political rights of Muslims and their protection.
" 3. The
formation of future constitution of India to be non-unitary and federal, with absolutely essential and
unavoidable powers for the Federal Government.
"The provision of safeguards for the economic, social and cultural rights of
Muslims and for their share in public services
" The board
will be empowered to fill up any vacancy in a suitable manner. The board will have the right to co-opt other members. It will be empowered also
to consult other Muslim bodies and if it considers necessary, any responsible organisation
in the country. The 27 members of the board will be nominated by the president.
"The quorum
for the meeting will be nine.
" Since the
safeguards of the communal rights of different communities will be determined in the
constituent assembly referred to in the resolution which this Conference has passed, this
Conference considers it necessary to declare that Muslim members
of this constituent will be elected by Muslims themselves."
We must await the report 41[f.41] of this board
to know what safeguards the Azad Muslim Conference will
devise for the safety and protection of Muslims. But there appears no reason to hope that
they will not be in favour of what I have guessed to be the likely alternative for
Pakistan. It cannot be overlooked that the Azad Muslim
Conference was a body of Muslims who were not only opposed to the Muslim League but were
equally opposed to the Nationalist Muslims. There is, therefore, no ground to trust that
they will be more merciful
to the Hindus than the League has been or will be.
Supposing my guess turns out to be correct,
it would be interesting
to know what the Hindus will have to say in reply. Should they prefer such an alternative to Pakistan ? Or should
they rather prefer Pakistan to such an alternative ? Those
are questions which I must leave the Hindus and their leaders to answer. All I would like
to say in this connection is that the Hindus before
determining their attitude towards this question should note certain important
considerations.
In particular they should note that there is a
difference between Macht
Politic 42 [f.42] and Gravamin Politic 43[f.43] ; that there is a difference between Communitas Communitatum and a nation of nations; that there is a difference between safeguards to allay
apprehensions of the weak and contrivances to satisfy the ambition for power of the
strong: that there is a difference between providing safeguards and handing over the
country. Further, they should also note that what may with safety be conceded to Gravamin Politic may not be conceded to Macht Politic. What may be conceded with safety to
a community may not be conceded to a nation and what may be conceded with safety to the
weak to be used by it as a weapon of defence may not be
conceded to the strong who may
use it as a weapon of attack.
These are important considerations and, if
the Hindus overlook them, they will do so at their peril.
For the Muslim alternative is really a frightful and
dangerous alternative.
LESSONS FROM ABROAD
Hindus who will not yield to the demand of the Muslims for the division of India into
Pakistan and Hindustan and would insist upon maintaining the geographical unity of India
without counting the cost will do well to study the fate that has befallen other countries
which, like India, harboured many nations and sought to
harmonise them.
It is not necessary to review the history of
all such countries. It is enough to recount here the story of two, Turkey and Czechoslovakia.
I
To begin with Turkey. The emergence of the
Turks in history was due to the fact that they were driven away by the Mongols from their
home in Central Asia, somewhere between 1230-40 A.D., which
led them to settle in north-west Anatolia.
Their career as the builders of the Turkish Empire began in
1326 with the conquest of Brusa.
In 1360-61, they conquered Thrace from the Aegean to the Black Sea; in 1361-62, the Byzantine
Government of Constantinople accepted their supremacy. In
1369 Bulgaria followed suit. In 1371-72 Macedonia was conquered. In 1373 Constantinople definitely
accepted Ottoman sovereignty. In 1389 Servia was conquered,
in 1430Salonica, in 1453 Constantinople, in 1461 Trebizond,
in 1465Quraman, and in 1475KaffaandTana were annexed. After a short lull, they conquered
Mosul in 1514, Syria, Egypt, the Hiaz
and the Yaman in 1516-17 and
Belgrade in 1521. This was followed in 1526 by victory over the Hungarians at Mohacz. In 1554 took place the first conquest of Baghdad and
in 1639 the second Conquest of Baghdad. Twice they laid siege to Vienna, first in 1529 and
again in 1683 with a view to extend their conquest beyond. But on both occasions they were
repulsed with the result that their expansion in Europe was completely checked forever.
Still the countries they conquered between
1326 and 1683 formed a vast empire. A few of these territories the Turks had lost to their enemies thereafter, but taking the extent of the
Turkish Empire as it stood in 1789 on the eve of the French Revolution,
it comprised (1) the Balkans, south of the Danube, (2) Asia
Minor, the Levant and the neighbouring islands (i.e., Cyprus),
(3)Syria and Palestine, (4) Egypt, and (5) North Africa from
Egypt to Morocco.
The tale of the disruption of the
Turkish Empire is easily told. The first to break away de facto, if not de jure, was Egypt in 1769.
The next were the Christians in the Balkans. Bessarabia was
taken by Russia in 1812 after a war with Turkey. In 1812 Serbia rebelled with the aid of Russia and the Turks were
obliged to place Serbia under a separate government. In 1829 similar concessions were
granted to two other Danubian provinces, Moldavia and Wallachia. As a result of the Greek war of independence which
lasted between 1822-29, Greece was completely freed from the Turkish rule and the Greek
independence was recognised by the Powers in 1832. Between
1875-77 there was turmoil amongst the Balkans. There was a revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bulgarians
resorted to atrocities against the Turks, to which the Turks replied with atrocities in
equal measure. As a result, Serbia and Montenegro declared war
on Turkey and so did Russia. By the Treaty of Berlin, Bulgaria .was given self-government under Turkey and Eastern Rumania
was to be ruled by Turkey under a Christian Governor. Russia gained Kars and Batourn. Dobrudja was given to Rumania. Bosnia and Herzegovina were assigned to Austria for administration and
England occupied Cyprus.In 1881 Greece gained Thessaly
and France occupied Tunis. In 1885 Bulgaria and Eastern Rumania were united into one
state.
The story of the growth and decline of the
Turkish Empire upto 1906 has
been very graphically described by Mr. Lane Poole in the
following words 44[f.44] :—
"In its old
extent, when the Porte ruled
not merely the narrow
territory now called Turkey in Europe, but Greece,
Bulgaria and Eastern Rumania, Rumania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
with the Crimea and a portion of Southern Russia, Egypt, Syria, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers
and numerous islands in the Mediterranean, not counting the
vast but mainly desert tract of Arabia, the total population (at the
present time) would be over fifty millions, or nearly twice
that of Europe without Russia. One by one her provinces have been taken away. Algiers and
Tunis have been incorporated with
France, and this 175,000 square miles and five million inhabitants have transferred
their allegiance. Egypt is practically independent, and this means a loss of 500,000 miles
and over six millions of inhabitants. Asiatic Turkey alone has suffered comparatively little
diminution. This forms the bulk of tier present dominions, and
comprises about 680,000
square miles, and over sixteen millions of population. In
Europe her losses have been almost as severe as in Africa where Tripoli alone remains to
her. Serbia and Bosnia are administered by Austria and thereby nearly 40,000 miles and three and a half millions of
peoples have become Austrian subjects. Wallachia and Moldavia are
united in the independent kingdom of Rumania, diminishing
the extent of Turkey by 46,000 miles and over five millions of inhabitants. Bulgaria is a dependent
stale over which the Ports has no real control and Eastern Rumania has lately de facto become part of Bulgaria and the two contain nearly 40,000 square miles, and three millions of inhabitants. The kingdom of Greece with its 25,000 miles and two million
population has long been separated from its parent In Europe where the Turkish territory once extended to 230,000
miles, with a population of nearly 20 millions, it now reaches only the total of 66
thousand miles and a population of four and a half
millions. It has lost nearly three-fourths
of its land, and about the same proportion of its people."
Such was the condition of Turkey in 1907. What has befallen her since then is
unfortunately the worst part of her story. In 1908 taking advantage of the revolution
brought about by the Young Turks, Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bulgaria
declared her independence. In 1911 Italy took possession of Tripoli and in 1912 France
occupied Morocco. Encouraged by the successful attack of Italy in 1912, Bulgaria, Greece,
Serbia and Montenegro formed themselves into a Balkan League and declared war on Turkey.
In this war, known as the first Balkan War, Turkey was completely defeated. By the Treaty
of London(1913) the Turkish territory in Europe was reduced
to a narrow strip round Constantinople. But the treaty could not take effect because the
victors could not agree on the distribution of the spoils of victory. In 1913 Bulgaria
declared war on the rest of the Balkan League and Rumania declared war on Bulgaria in the
hope of extending her territory. Turkey also did the same. By the Treaty of Bukharest (1913), which ended the second Balkan War, Turkey
recovered Adrianople and got Thrace from Bulgaria. Serbia
obtained Northern Macedonia and Greece obtained Southern Macedonia (including Salonika),
while Montenegro enlarged her territory at the expense of Turkey. By 1914 when the Great
European War came on, the Balkans had won their
independence from Turkey and the area in Europe that remained under the Turkish Empire was
indeed a very small area round about Constantinople and her possessions in Asia. So far as
the African continent is concerned, the Sultanas power over
Egypt and the rest of North Africa was only nominal, for
the European Powers had established real control therein. In the Great War of 1914 the
overthrow of Turkey was complete. All the provinces from the Mediterranean to the Persian
Gulf were overrun, and the great cities of Baghdad, Jerusalem, Damascus and Alleppo were captured. In Europe the allied troops occupied
Constantinople. The Treaty of Sevres, which brought the war
with Turkey to a close, sought to deprive
her of all her outlying provinces and even of the fertile plains of Asia Minor.
Greek claim for territory was generously allowed at the expense of Turkey in Macedonia,
Thrace and Asia Minor and Italy was to receive Adalia and a
large tract in the South. Turkey was to be deprived of all her Arab provinces in Asia,
Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Hedjaz and Nejd. There was left to Turkey only the capital,
Constantinople, and separated from this city, by a "
neutral zone of the straits," part of the barren plateau of Anatolia. The treaty
though accepted by the Sultan was fiercely attacked by the Nationalist Party under Kemal Pasha. When
the Greeks advanced to occupy their new territory, they were attacked and decisively
beaten. At the end of the war with Greece, which went on from 1920 to 1922, the Turks had
reoccupied Smyrna. As the allies were not prepared to send armies to help the Greeks, they
were forced to come to terms with the Nationalist Turks. At the conference at Mudiania the Greeks agreed to revise the terms of the Treaty
of Sevres, which was done by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 which granted the demands of
Turkey except in Western Thrace. The rest of the Treaty of Sevres
was accepted by the Turks which meant the loss of her Arab provinces in Asia. Before the
War of 1914, Turkey had lost all her provinces in Europe. After the War, she lost her
provinces in Asia. As a result of the dismemberment of the
old Turkish Empire, what now remains of it is the small state called the Republic of
Turkey with an area which is a minute fraction of the old Empire
45[f.45].
II
Take the case of Czechoslovakia. It is the
creation of the Treaty of Trianon which followed the
European War of 1914. None of the peace treaties was more drastic in its terms than the
Treaty of Trianon. Says Prof. Macartney, " By it
Hungary was not so much mutilated as dismembered. Even if we exclude Croatia, Slavonia, which had stood only in a federal relationship to
the other lands of the Holy Crown—although one of eight hundred years'
standing—Hungary proper was reduced to less than one-third (32.6 per cent.) of her
pre-war area, and a little over two-fifths (41.6 per cent.)
of her population. Territories and peoples formerly Hungarian were distributed among no
less than seven states." Of these states, there was one which did not exist before.
It was a new creation. That was the state of Czechoslovakia.
The area of the Republic of Czechoslovakia
was 54,244 square miles and the population was about 13,613,172.
It included the territories formerly known as Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia and Ruthenia. It was a composite state which included in its bosom
three principal nationalities, (i) Czechs occupying Bohemia
and Moravia, (ii) Slovaks occupying Slovakiaand(iii) Ruthenians in
occupation of Ruthenia.
Czechoslovakia proved to be a very
short-lived state. It lived exactly for two decades. On the 15th March 1939 it perished or
rather was destroyed as an independent state. It became a protectorate of Germany. The
circumstances attending its expiry were of a very bewildering nature. Her death was brought about by the very Powers which had given it birth. By signing the Munich
Pact on 30th September 1938—of which the protectorate
was an inevitable consequence. Great Britain, France and
Italy assisted Germany, their former enemy of the Great War, to conquer Czechoslovakia,
their former ally. All the work of the Czechs of the past century to gain freedom was
wiped off. They were once more to be the slaves of their former German overlords.
Ill
What are the reasons for the disruption of Turkey ?
Lord Eversley
in his Turkish Empire 46[f.46] has
attempted to give reasons for the decay of Turkey, some internal,
some external. Among the internal causes there were two. First the degeneracy of the
Ottoman dynasty. The supreme power fell into the hands either of the Vazirs of the Sultans or more often in the hands of women of
the harem of the Sultan. The harem was always in antagonism
to the official administration of the Porte, which ostensibly carried on the
administration of the state under the direction of the Sultan. The officials of every
degree from the highest to the lowest were interested in the sale of all offices, civil
and military, to the highest bidders. For securing their object, they found it expedient
to bribe the inmates of the harem and thereby win the assent of the Sultans. The harem
thus became the centre from which corruption spread
throughout the Turkish Empire and which was one of the main causes of its decay. The
second main cause of the decadence of the Turkish Empire was the deterioration of its
armies due to two causes. During the last 300 years the army had lost the elan and the
daring by which the Ottomans won their many victories in the early period of their career.
The loss of this elan and daring by the Turkish army was due to the composition of the
army, recruitment to which was restricted to Turks and Arabs, and also to the diminution
of opportunities of plunder and the hope of acquiring lands for distribution among the
soldiers as an incentive to victory and valour in the latter period when the Empire was on the defensive and when it was no longer a question of making fresh conquests, but of retaining what had already been won,
Among the external causes of the disruption of Turkey, the chief one is said to be the rapacity of the European nations. But this view omits to take
note of the true cause. The true and the principal
cause of the disruption of Turkey was the growth of the spirit of nationalism among its subject
peoples. The Greek revolt, the revolts of the Serbs, Bulgarians and other Balkans against the Turkish authority were no doubt
represented as a conflict between Christianity and Islam. That is one way of looking at it, but only a superficial way. These revolts were simply
the manifestations of the spirit of nationalism by which they were generated. These
revolts no doubt had for their immediate causes Turkish misrule, Christian antipathy to Islam and the machinations of European
nations. But this does not explain the real force which motivated
them. The real motive force
was the spirit of nationalism and their revolts were only a manifestation of this inner
urge brought on by it. That it was nationalism which had brought about the disruption of
Turkey is proved by the revolt of the Arabs in the last war
and their will to be independent. Here there was no conflict between Islam and
Christianity, nor was the relationship between the two that of the oppressor and the
oppressed. Yet, the Arab claimed to be freed from the Turkish Empire. Why ? Because he was moved by Arab
nationalism and preferred to be an Arab nationalist to being a Turkish subject. What is
the cause of the destruction of Czechoslovakia ?
The general impression is that it was the
result of German aggression. To some extent that is true. But it is not the whole truth.
If Germany was the only enemy of Czechoslovakia, all that she would have lost was the
fringe of her borderland which was inhabited by the Sudeten
Germans. German aggression need have cost her nothing more. Really speaking the
destruction of Czechoslovakia was brought about by an enemy within her own borders. That
enemy was the intransigent nationalism of the Slovaks who were out to break up the unity
of the state and secure the independence of Slovakia.
The union of the Slovaks with the Czechs, as units of a single state, was based upon certain
assumptions. First, the two were believed to be so closely
akin as to be one people, and that the Slovaks were only a branch of Czechoslovaks. Second, the two spoke a single * Czechoslovak * language.
Third, there was no separate Slovak national consciousness.
Nobody examined these assumptions at the time, because the Slovaks themselves desired this
union, expressing their wish in 1918 by formal declaration of their representatives at the
Peace Conference. This was a superficial and hasty view of the matter. As Prof. Macartney 47[f.47] points out.
". . . .
' the central political fact which emerges from
the consideration of this history
(of the relations between the Czechs and Slovaks) for the purposes of the present age is the final crystallization of a Slovak national consciousness , . . .' The genuine and uncompromising believers in a single indivisible Czechoslovak language and
people were certainly never
so large, at least in
Slovakia, as they were made to appear. Today they have dwindled to a mere handful, under the influence of actual experience of the
considerable differences which exist between the Czechs and the Slovaks. At present Slovak is in practice recognized by the Czechs themselves as the
official language of Solvakia. The
political and national resistance has been no less tenacious, and to-day the name
of ' Czechoslovakia' is practically confined to official documents and
to literature issued for the
benefit of foreigners. During many weeks in the country I only remember hearing one person use the term for herself; this was a half German, half-Hungarian girl,
who used it in a purely political sense, meaning that she thought irridentism futile. No Czech
and no Slovak feels or calls himself, when speaking
naturally, anything but a Czech or a Slovak as the case may be."
This national consciousness of the Slovaks,
which was always alive, began to burst forth on seeing that the Sudeten
Germans had made certain demands on Czechoslovakia for autonomy. The Germans sought to
achieve their objective by the application of gangster morality to international politics,
saying " Give us what we ask or we shall burst up your
shop." The Slovaks followed suit by making their demands for autonomy but with a
different face. They did not resort to gangster methods but modulated their demands to
autonomy only. They had eschwed all
idea of independence, and, in the proclamation issued on October 8 by Dr. Tiso, the leading man in the autonomist movement in Slovakia,
it was said " We shall proceed in the spirit of our
motto, for God and the Nation, in a Christian and national spirit." Believing in
their bona fides and desiring
to give no room to the Gravamin Politic of which the Slovaks were making full
use to disturb the friendly relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks, the National
Assembly in Prague passed an Act in November 1938—immediately after the Munich
Pact—called the " Constitutional Act on the Autonomy of Slovakia." Its provisions were of a far-reaching character. There
was to be a separate parliament for Slovakia and this parliament was to decide the
constitution of Slovakia within the framework of the legal system of the Czechoslovak
Republic. An alteration in the territory of Slovakia was to
be with the consent of the two-third majority in the Slovak parliament. The consent of the
Slovak parliament was made necessary for international treaties which exclusively concerned Slovakia. Officials of the central state administration
in Slovakia were to be primarily Slovaks. Proportional representation
of Slovakia was guaranteed in all central institutions, councils, commissions and other
organizations. Similarly, Slovakia was to be proportionally represented on all
international organizations in which the Czechoslovak
Republic was called upon to participate. Slovak soldiers, in peace time, were to be stationed in Slovakia as far as possible. As far as
legislative authority was concerned all subjects which were strictly of common concern
were assigned to the parliament of Czechoslovakia. By way of guaranteeing these rights to
the Slovaks, the Constitution Act provided that the decision of the National Assembly to
make constitutional changes shall be valid only if the majority constitutionally required
for such changes includes also a proportionate majority of the members of the National
Assembly elected in Slovakia. Similarly, the election of the President of the Republic
required the consent not merely of the constitutionally determined majority of the members
of the parliament, but also of a proportionate majority of the Slovak members. Further to
emphasize that the central government must enjoy the confidence of the Slovaks it was
provided by the constitution that one-third of the Slovak members of parliament may propose a motion of '
No Confidence. '
These constitutional changes introduced, much
against the will of the Czechs, a hyphen between the Czechs
and the Slovaks which did not exist before. But it was done
in the hope that, once the relatively minor quarrels between the two were got out of the
way, the very nationalism of
the Slovaks was more likely to bring them closer to the Czechs than otherwise. With the
constitutional changes guaranteeing an independent status
to Slovakia and the fact that the
status so guaranteed could not be Changed without the
consent of the Slovaks themselves, there was no question of the Slovaks ever losing their
national identity through submergence by the Czechs. The autonomy introduced by the hyphen separated
the cultural waters and saved the Slovaks from losing their colour.
The
first Slovak parliament elected under the new constitution was opened on January 18, 1939,
and Dr. Martin Sokol, the President of the parliament, declared, " The period of the Slovak's struggle for freedom is ended. Now begins the period of
national rebirth." Other speeches made on the occasion
indicated that now that Slovakia had its autonomy the Slovaks would never feel animosity
towards the Czechs and that both would loyally abide by the Czecho-Slovak
State.
Not even a month elapsed since the
inauguration of the Slovak parliament before the Slovak
politicians began their battle against the hyphen and for complete separation. They made excited speeches in which they attacked the
Czechs, talked about Czech oppression and demanded a
completely independent Slovakia. By the beginning of March, the various forms of
separatism in Slovakia were seriously threatening the integrity of the Czechoslovak State.
On March 9 it was learnt that Tiso,
the Slovak Premier, had decided to proclaim the independence of Slovakia. On the 10th, in
anticipation of such an act, troops were moved in Slovakia and Tiso, the Prime Minister,
was dismissed along with other Slovak ministers by the President of the Republic, Dr. Hacha. On the next day Tiso, supposed to be under police
supervision, telephoned to Berlin and asked for help. On Monday Tiso
and Hitler met and had an hour and a half talk in Berlin. Immediately after the talk with Hitler, Tiso
got on the phone to Prague and passed on the German orders.
They were:—
(i)
All Czech troops to be
withdrawn from Slovakia;
(ii)
Slovakia to be an
independent state under German protection;
(iii)
The Slovak parliament to be
summoned by President Hacha to hear the proclamation of
independence.
There was nothing that President Hacha and
the Prague Government could do except say ' yes ' for they knew very well that dozens of divisions of German troops were massed round
the defenceless frontiers of Czechoslovakia ready to march
in at any moment if the demands made by Germany in the interest of and at the instance of
Slovakia were refused. Thus ended the new state of Czechoslovakia.
IV
What is the lesson to be drawn from the story
of these two countries ?
There is some difference as to how the
matters should be put. Mr. Sydney Brooks would say that the cause of these wars of
disruption is nationalism, which according to him is the enemy of the universal peace. Mr.
Norman Angell, on the other hand, would say it is not
nationalism but the threat to nationalism which is the cause. To Mr. Robertson nationalism is an irrational instinct, if not a positive
hallucination, and the sooner humanity got rid of it the better for all.
In whatever way the matter is put and
howsoever ardently one may wish for the elimination of nationalism, the lesson to be drawn is quite
clear: that nationalism is a fact which can neither be
eluded nor denied. Whether one calls it an irrational instinct or positive hallucination, the fact remains that it is a potent force which has a
dynamic power to disrupt empires. Whether nationalism is the cause or the threat to
nationalism is the cause, is a difference of emphasis only. The real
thing is to recognize, as does Mr. Toynbee, that "
nationalism is strong enough to produce war in spite of us. It has terribly proved itself
to be no outworn creed, but a vital force to be reckoned
with." As was pointed out by him, " the right
reading of nationalism has become an affair of life and death." It was not only so
for Europe. It was so for Turkey. It was so for Czechoslovakia. And what was a question of
life and death to them could not but be one of life and death to India. Prof. Toynbee
pleaded, as was done before him by Guizot, for the
recognition of nationality as the necessary foundation of European peace. Could India
ignore to recognize this plea ? If she does, she will be
acting at her peril. That nationalism is a disruptive force
is not the only lesson to be learnt from the history of these two countries. Their
experience embodies much else of equal if not of greater significance. What that is, will
be evident if certain facts are recalled to memory.
The Turks were by no means as illiberal as
they are painted. They allowed their minorities a large measure of autonomy. The Turks had
gone far towards solving the problem of how people of different communities with different
social heritages are to live together in harmony when they are geographically
intermingled. The Ottoman Empire had accorded, as a matter of course, to the non-Muslim
and non-Turkish communities within its frontiers a degree of territorial as well as cultural autonomy which had never been dreamt of in the
political philosophy of the West. Ought not the Christian subjects to have been satisfied
with this ? Say what one may, the nationalism of Christian
minorities was not satisfied with this local autonomy. It fought for complete freedom and
in that fight Turkey was slit open.
The Turks were bound to the Arabs by the tie
of religion. The religious tie of Islam is the strongest known to humanity. No social
confederacy can claim to rival the Islamic brotherhood in point of solidarity-. Add to this the fact that while the Turk treated his
Christian subjects as his inferior, he acknowledged the Arab as his equal. All non-Muslims
were excluded from the Ottoman army. But the Arab soldiers and
officers served side by side with Turks and Kurds. The Arab
officer class, educated in Turkish school, served in military and civil capacities on the
same terms as the Turks. There was no derogating distinction between the Turk and the
Arab, and there was nothing to prevent the Arab from rising to the highest rank in the
Ottoman services. Not only politically but even socially the Arab was treated as his equal
by the Turk and Arabs married Turkish wives and Turks married Arab wives. Ought not the
Arabs to have been satisfied with this Islamic brotherhood of Arabs and Turks based on
fraternity, liberty and equality ? Say what one may, the
Arabs were not satisfied. Arab nationalism broke the bonds of Islam and fought against his
fellow Muslim, the Turk, for its independence. It won, but Turkey was completely
dismantled.
As to Czechoslovakia, she began with the
recognition that both the Czechs and the Slovaks were one people. Within a few years, the
Slovaks claimed to be a separate nation. They would not even admit that they were a branch
of the same stock as the Czechs. Their nationalism compelled the Czechs to recognize the
fact that they were a distinct people. The Czechs sought to pacify the nationalism of the
Slovaks by drawing a hyphen as a mark indicating distinctness. In place of Czechoslovakia
they agreed to have Czecho-Slovakia. But even with the hyphen the Slovak
nationalism remained discontented. The act of autonomy was both, a hyphen separating them
from the Czechs as well as a link joining them with the Czechs. The hyphen as making
separation was welcome to the Slovaks but as making a link with the Czechs was very
irksome to them. The Slovaks accepted the autonomy with its hyphen with great relief and promised to be
content and loyal to the state. But evidently this was only a matter of strategy. They did not accept it
as an ultimate end. They accepted it because they thought that they could use it as a
vantage ground for destroying the hyphen which was their main aim and convert autonomy
into independence. The nationalism of the Slovaks was not content with a hyphen. It wanted
a bar in place of the hyphen. Immediately the hyphen was introduced, they began their
battle to replace the hyphen between the Czechs and the Slovaks by a bar. They did not
care what means they should employ. Their nationalism was so wrong-headed and so intense that when they failed they did not hesitate to
call the aid of the Germans.
Thus a deeper study of the disruption of
Turkey and Czechoslovakia shows that neither local autonomy nor the bond of religion is
sufficient to withstand the force of nationalism, once it
is set on the go.
This is a lesson which the Hindus will do
well to grasp. They should ask themselves : if the Greek, Balkan and Arab
nationalism has blown up the Turkish State and if Slovak nationalism has caused the
dismantling of Czechoslovakia, what is thereto prevent Muslim nationalism from disrupting
the Indian State ? If
experience of other countries teaches that this is the inevitable consequence of pent-up
nationalism, why not profit by their experience and avoid the catastrophe by agreeing to
divide India into Pakistan and Hindustan ? Let the Hindus
take the warning that if they refuse to divide India into
two before they launch on their career as a free people, they will be sailing in those
shoal waters in which Turkey, Czechoslovakia and many
others have foundered. If they wish to avoid shipwreck in mid-ocean, they must lighten the
draught by throwing overboard all superfluous cargo. They will ease the course of their
voyage considerably if they—to use the language of Prof. Toynbee—reconcile
themselves to making jetsam of less cherished and more combustible
cargo.
Will the Hindus really lose if they agree to divide India into two, Pakistan and Hindus'?
With regard to Czechoslovakia it is
instructive to note the real feelings of its government on
the loss of their territory caused by the Munich Pact. They
were well expressed by the Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia in his message to the people
of Czechoslovakia. In it he said 48[f.48] :—
" Citizens and soldiers.... I am living through the hardest hour of my life; I am carrying out the most painful
task, in comparison with which death would be easy. But precisely because I have flight and because I know under what conditions a war is won, must tell you frankly... that the forces opposed to us at this moment compel us to recognize
their superior strength and to act accordingly....
"In
Munich four European Great Powers
met and decided to demand of us the acceptance of new
frontiers, according to which the German areas of our State
would be taken away. We had the choice between desperate
and hopeless defence, which would have meant the sacrifice
not only of the adult generation but also of women and children,
and the acceptance of conditions which in their ruthlessness, and because they were imposed by pressure without war, have no parallel in history. We desired to make a contribution to peace; we
would gladly have made it But not by any means in the way it has been fenced upon
us.
" But we
were abandoned, and were alone.... Deeply moved, all your
leaders considered, together with
the army and the President of the Republic, all the possibilities which remained. They recognized
that in choosing between narrower frontiers and the death
of the nation it was their sacred duty to save the life of our people, so that we may not
emerge weakened from these terrible limes, and so that we may remain certain that our nation will gather itself together again, as it has done so often in the past. Let us alt see that our State re-establishes itself
soundly within its new frontiers, and that its population is assured of a new life of peace and
fruitful labour. With your help we shall succeed. We
rely upon you, and you have confidence in us."
It is evident that the Czechs refused to be
led by the force of historic sentiment. They were ready to
have narrower frontiers and a smaller Czechoslovakia to the ultimate destruction of their people.
With regard to Turkey the prevalent view was
the one that was expressed in 1853 by the Czar Nicholas I, during a conversation with British Ambassador in
St. Petersburg in which he said " We have on our hand a sick man—a very sick man . . .
. He may suddenly die upon our hands." From that day
the imminent decease of Turkey, the sick man of Europe was
awaited by all his neighbours. The shedding of the territories was considered as the
convulsions of a dying man who is alleged to have breathed his last by affixing his
signature to the Treaty of Severs.
Is this really a correct view to take of
Turkey in the process of dissolution? It is instructive to note the comments of Arnold Toynbee on this view. Referring
to the Czar's description of Turkey as the sick man who may
suddenly die, he says 49[f.49]:
" In this second and more sensational
part of his diagnosis Czar Nicholas went astray because he did not understand the nature of the symptoms. If a
person totally ignorant of natural history stumbled upon a
snake in course of shedding its skin, he would pronounce
dogmatically that the creature could not possible recover. He could point out
that when a man (or other
mammal) has the misfortune to lose his skin, he is never
known to survive. Yet while
it is perfectly true that the leopard
cannot change his spots nor the
Ethiopian his skin, a wider study would have informed our amateur
naturalist that a snake can do both and does both habitually. Doubtless, even for the snake, the process is awkward and uncomfortable.
He becomes temporarily torpid,
and in this condition he is dangerously
at the mercy of his enemies. Yet, if he escapes the kites and crows until
his metamorphosis is complete, he
not only recovers his health but renews his youth with
the replacement of his mortal coils. This is the recent experience of the Turk, and ' moulting snake ' is better simile than sick man for a description
of his distemper."
In this view, the loss of her possessions by
Turkey is the removal of an anomalous excrescence and the gain of a new skin. Turkey is
certainly homogeneous and has no fear of any disruption from within.
The Muslim areas are an anomalous excrescence
on Hindustan and Hindustan is an anomalous excrescence on them. Tied together they will
make India the sick man of Asia. Welded together they will make India a heterogeneous
unit. If Pakistan has the demerit
of cutting away parts of India, it has also the merit of
introducing harmony in place of conflict.
Severed into two, each becomes a more
homogeneous unit. The homogeneity of the two areas is obvious enough. Each has a cultural
unity. Each has a religious unity. Pakistan has a linguistic unity. If there is no such
unity in Hindustan, it is possible to have it without any controversy as to whether the
common language should be Hindustani, Hindi or Urdu. Separated,
each can become a strong and well-knit state. India needs a strong Central
Government. But it cannot have it so long as Pakistan remains a part of India. Compare the structure of the Federal Government as embodied
in the Government of India Act, 1935, and it will be found, that the Central Government as
constituted under it is an effete ramshackle thing with very little life in it. 50[f.50] As has
already been pointed out, this weakening of the Central Government is brought about by the
desire to placate the Muslim Provinces who wish to be
independent of the authority of the Central Government on the ground that the Central Government is bound to be predominantly Hindu in character and
composition. When Pakistan comes into being these considerations can have no force.
Hindustan can then have a strong Central Government and a
homogeneous population, which are necessary elements for the stability of the state and
neither of which will be secured unless there is severance of Pakistan from Hindustan.
[f.1]See Times of India
dated 25-7-1925, " Through Indian Eyes ".
[f.2]On the question whether the Hindu Religion was a missionary
Religion and if it was, why it ceased to be so, see my essay on Carte and Conversion in the Annual Number of the Telugu Samachar for 1926.
[f.3]See Report in Times of
India 27-11-24, "Through Indian Eyes
[f.4]Speech at the Calcutta Session of the Hindu Maha Sabha held
in December 1939, p. 14.
[f.5]Speech Ibid., p. 25.
[f.6]Ibid..pp.24—27
[f.7]Speech 1939, Ibid.. p. 18.
[f.8]Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[f.9]Speech 1939, pp. 21,22,23.
[f.10]Language of Gods
[f.11]Basically Sanskrit
[f.12]National Language
[f.13]Ibid., p. 4.
[f.14]Ibid., p. 16.
[f.15]Ibid.. pp. 14-17
[f.16]It should be noted that Mr. Savarkar is not opposed to
separate electorates for the Muslims. It is not clear whether he is in favour of separate
electorates for Muslims even where they are in a majority
[f.17]See his Manifesto dated 23rd March 1919
[f18]Young India, 2nd
June 1920.
[f.19]" In view of the fact that on the Khilafat question
both the Indian and Imperial Governments have signally failed in their duty towards the
Muslims of India and the Prime Minister has deliberately broken his pledged word given to
them, and that it is the duty of every non-Muslim Indian if every legitimate manner to
assist his Muslim brother in his attempt to remove the religious calamity that has
overtaken him;
"
And in view of the fact that, in the matter of the events of the April of 1919, both the
said Governments have grossly neglected or failed to protect the innocent people of the
Punjab and punish officers guilty of unsoldierly and barbarous behaviour towards them, and
have exonerated Sir Michael O'Dwyer who proved himself directly responsible for most of
the official crimes and callous to the sufferings of the people placed under his
administration, and that the debate in the House of Lords betrayed a woeful lack of
sympathy with the people of India, and systematic terrorism and frightfulness adopted in
the Punjab, and that the latest Viceregal pronouncement is proof of entire absence of
repentance in the matters of the Khilafat and the Punjab ;
"
This Congress is of opinion that there can be no contentment in India without redress of
the two aforementioned wrongs, and that the only effectual means to vindicate national
honour and to prevent a repetition of similar wrongs in future is the establishment of
Swarajya.
"
This Congress is further of opinion that there is no course left open for the people of
India but to approve of and adopt the policy of progressive non-violent non-co-operation
inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, until the said wrongs are righted and Swarajya is
established. "
Mrs.
Annie Besant says : " It will be remembered that Mr. Gandhi, in March 1920, had
forbidden the mixing up of non-co-operation in defence of the Khilafat with other
questions ; but it was found that the Khilafat was not sufficiently attractive to Hindus
", so at the meeting of the All-India Congress Committee held at Benares on May 30
and 31, the Punjab atrocities and the deficiencies of the Reforms Act were added to the
list of provocative causes.—The Future of
Indian Politics, p. 250.
[f.20]Mr. Gandhi repudiated the suggestion of the Modern Review and regarded it as " crudest cut
". Dealing with the criticism of the Modern
Review in his Article in Young India for
20th October 1921 Mr. Gandhi said " I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the
central fact, with Maulana Mahomed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in
laying down my life for the Khilafal, I ensure safely of the cow, that is my religion,
from the Musalman knife. "
[f.21]The Resolution of non-co-operation was carried by 1886 voles
against 884. The late Mr. Tairsee once told me that a large majority of the delegates were
no others than the taxi drivers of Calcutta who were paid to vote for the non-co-operation
resolution
[f.22]Liberator 22nd
April 1926.
[f.23]Young India, 10th
December 1919.
[f.24]Young India. 9th
June 1920
[f.25]Young India dated
4th May 1921
[f.26]It is reported
that for earning merit for the soul of Abdul Rashid, the murderer of Swami Shradhanand, in
the next world, the students and professors of the famous theological college at Deoband
finished five complete recitations of the Koran and had planned to finish daily a lakh and
a quarter recitations of Koranic verses. Their prayer was " God Almighty may give the
marhoom (Le.. Rashid) a place in the ' a ' ala-e-illeeyeen (the summit of the seventh
heaven) "— Times of India. 30-11-27 Through Indian Eyes columns.
[f.27]The resolution says that then were only three cases of forcible conversion
! ! In reply to a question in the Central
Legislature (Debates 16thJanuary 1922)Sir William Vincent replied: - The Madras Government
report that the number of forcible conversions probably runs to thousands but that for
obvious reasons it will never be possible to obtain anything like an accurate estimate
".
[f.28]The series is known as " India in 1920 " & so
on.
[f.29]Rangila Rasul was
written in reply to Sitaka Chinala—a
pamphlet written by a Muslim alleging that Sita, wife of Rama, the hero of Ramayana, was a
prostitute.
[f.30]Report of the
Court of Inquiry appointed under section 3 of the Sind Public Inquiries Act to inquire
into the riots which occurred at Sukkur in 1939, p. 65. The total of 142 Hindus under '
murdered ' seems to be a mistake. It ought to be 72.
[f.31]Ibid., pp. 66-67.
[f.32]This is an English version of the report which appeared in the Savadhan, a Marathi weekly of Nagpur, in its
issue of 25th August 1936
[f.33]Quoted in " Through Indian Eyes "columns of the Times of India, dated 16-8-26.
[f.34]The Unity of Western
Civiliazation (4th Ed.,) p. 27.
[f.35]The Christian Church did not play a passive pan in the
process of unification of the Holy Roman Umpire, It took a very active part in bringing it
about. " Seeing one institution after another falling to pieces around her, seeing
how countries and cities were being severed from each other by thr eruption of strange
tribes and the increasing difficulty of communication the Christain Church, " says
Bryce, " strove to save religious fellowship by strengthening the ecclesiastical
organization, by drawing lighter every bond of outward union. Necessities of faith were
still more powerful. Truth, it was said, is one, and as it must bind into one body all who
hold it, so it is only by continuing in that body that they can preserve it. There is one
Flock and one Shepherd. "
[f.36]Beside the Central Legislature there are to be constituted
under the scheme of Reforms other popular bodies such as Panchayats, Rural Boards,
Municipalities and Town Committees.
[f.37]The distribution
of population of Hyderabad State (excluding Berar) is according to the census of 1931 as
follows;—
"Hindus Untouchables Muslims Christians Others Total
96,99,615 24.73.230 15.34,666 1.51,382 5,77.255 1.44.36.148
[f.38]See Bombay Sentinal,
June 22nd, 1940. Mr. Mir Akbar Ali Khan says that he discussed his proposals with Mr.
Srinivas Iyengar, ex-president of the Congress and the proposals published by him are
really proposals as approved by Mr. lyengar.
[f.39]Mufti Kifay at Ullah, a prominent member of the conference,
in the course of his speech is reported to have said
: "They had to demonstrate that they
were not behind any other community in the fight for freedom, He wished to declare in
clear terms that they did not rely on the British Government for the protection of their rights. They would
themselves chalk out the safeguards
necessary for the protection of their religious rights and would fight oat any party,
however powerful, that would refuse to accept those safeguards as they would fight the
Government for freedom " (Prolonged cheers.) Hindustan
times.
april 30, 1940.
[f.40]See the speeches of Maulana Hafizul Rehman and Dr. K. M.
Ashraf in the same issue of the Hindustan Times.
[f.41]This report has not appeared even now
[f.42]Macht Politic
means Power Politics.
[f.43]Gravamin Politic
mews in which the main strategy is to gain power by manufacturing grievances.
[f.44]Turkey, pp.
363-64.
[f.45]The area of Turkey is 294,492 square miles exclusive of
3,708 square miles of lakes and swamps. The area of Turkey in Europe is only 9,257 square
miles.
[f.46]See abridgement by Sheikh Abdur Rashid.
[f.47]C. A. Macartney—Hungary
and Her Successors (Oxford), 1937, p. 136.
[f.48]Alexander Henderson—-Eye-witness in Czechoslovakia (Harrap. 1939). pp.
229-30.
[f.49]Amold Toynbee—Turkey,
p. 141
[f.50]For further light on this topic, mx my tract on Federation vs. Freedom