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 greatn