‘These are the sons of Nawabs, and these are Rais of such-and-such districts, and these are such-and-such great Mohammedans,’ whilst everybody knows how the men were bought. We know very well the people of our own nation, and that they have been induced to go either by pressure, or by folly, or by love of notoriety, or by poverty. If any Rais on his own inclination and opinion joins them, we do not care a lot. By one man’s leaving us our crowd is not diminished. But this telling of lies that their men are landlords and Nawabs of such-and-such places and their attempt to give a false impression that the Mohammedans have joined them, this is a most unwarrantable interference with our nation. When matters took such a turn, then it was necessary that I should warn my nation of their misrepresentations in order that others should not fall into the trap; and that I should point out to my nation that the few who went to Madras, went by pressure, or from temptation, or in order to help their profession, or to gain notoriety, or were bought. (Cheers) No Rais from here took part in it.
This was the cause of my giving a speech at Lucknow, contrary to my wont, on the evils of the National Congress; and this is the cause also of today’s speech. And I want to show this that except Badruddin Tyabji who is a gentleman of very high position and for whom I have great respect, no leading Mohammedan took part in it. He did take part, but I think he made a mistake. He has written me two letters, one of which was after the publication of my Lucknow speech. I think that he wants me to point out those things in the Congress which are opposed to the interests of Mohammedans in order that he may exclude them from the discussion. But in reality the whole affair is bad for Mohammedans. However, let us grant that Badruddin Tyabji’s opinion is different from ours; yet it cannot be said that his opinion is the opinion of the whole nation, or that his sympathy with the Congress implies the sympathy of the whole community. My friend there, Mirza Ismail Khan, who has just come from Madras, told me that no Mohammedan Rais took part in the Congress. It is said that Prince Humayun Jah joined it. Let us suppose that Humayun Jah, whom I do not know, took part in it, yet our position as a nation will not suffer simply because two men stand aside. No one can say that because these two Rais took part in it therefore the whole nation has joined it. To say that the Mohammedans have joined it is quite wrong and is a false accusation against our nation. If my Bengali friends had not adopted this wrong course of action, I should have had nothing to do with the National Congress, nor with its members, nor with the wrong aspirations for which they have raised such an uproar. Let the delegates of National Congress become the stars of heaven, or the sun itself—I am delighted. But it was necessary and incumbent on me to show the falsity of impression which, by taking a few Mohammedans with them by pressure or by temptation, they wished to spread that the whole Mohammedan nation had joined them. (Cheers)
Gentlemen, what I am about to say is not only useful for my own nation, but also for my Hindu brothers of these provinces, who from some wrong notions have taken part in this Congress. At last they also will be sorry for it, although perhaps they will never have occasion to be sorry; for it is beyond the region of possibility that the proposals of the Congress should be carried out fully. These wrong notions which have grown up in our Hindu fellow-country-men, and on account of which they think it expedient to join the Congress, depend upon two things.
The first thing is that they think that as both they themselves and the Bengalis are Hindus, they have nothing to fear from the growth of their influence. The second thing is this: that some Hindus—I do not speak of all the Hindus but only of some—think that by joining the Congress and by increasing the power of the Hindus they will perhaps be able to suppress those Mohammedan religious rites which are opposed to their own, and, by all uniting, annihilate them. But I frankly advise my Hindu friends that if they wish to cherish their religious rites they can never be successful in this way. If they are to be successful, it can only be by friendship and agreement. The business cannot be done by force; and the greater the enmity and animosity the greater will be their loss. I will take Aligarh as an example. There Mohammedans and Hindus are in agreement. The Dushera and Moharrum fell together for three years, and no one knows what took place. It is worth notice how, when an agitation was started against cow-killing, the sacrifice of cows increased enormously, and religious animosity grew on both sides, as all who live in India know well. They should understand that those things which can be done by friendship and affection cannot be done by any pressure or force. If these ideas which I have expressed about the Hindus of these Provinces be correct and their condition be similar to that of the Mohammedans, then they ought to continue to cultivate friendship with us. Let those who live in Bengal eat up their own heads. What they want to do, let them do it. What they don’t want to do, let them not do it. Neither their disposition nor their general condition resembles that of the people of this country. Then what connection have the people of this country with them? As regards Bengal, there is, as far as I am aware in Lower Bengal, a much larger proportion of Mohammedans than Bengalis. And if you take the population of the whole of Bengal, nearly half are Mohammedans and something over half are Bengalis. Those Mohammedans are quite unaware of what sort of thing the National Congress is. No Mohammedan Rais of Bengal took part in it; and the ordinary Bengalis who live in the district are also as ignorant of it as the Mohammedans. In Bengal the Mohammedan population is so great that if the aspirations of those Bengalis who are making so loud an agitation be fulfilled, it will be extremely difficult for the Bengalis to remain in peace even in Bengal. These proposals of the Congress are extremely inexpedient for the country which is inhabited by two different nations, who drink from the same well, breathe the air of the same city, and depend on each other for its life. To create animosity between them is good neither for peace, nor for the country, nor for the town.
After this long preface I wish to explain what method my nation, nay, rather the whole people of this country, ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this—in whose hands shall the Administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time you must remember that although the number of Mohammedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be considered insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. Then our Musalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier on the north to the extreme end of Bengal.
This thing—who, after the departure of English would be conquerors—would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it. Now, suppose that the English are not in India and that one of the nations of India has conquered the other, whether the Hindus the Mohammedans, or the Mohammedans the Hindus. At once some other nation of Europe, such as the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, or the Russians, will attack India. Their ships of war, covered with iron and loaded with flashing cannons and weapons, will surround her on all sides. At that time who will protect India? Neither Hindus can save nor Mohammedans; neither the Rajputs nor my brothers the Pathans. And what will be the result? The result will be this—that foreigners will rule India, because the s
tate of India is such that if foreign powers attack her, no one has the power to oppose them. From this reasoning it follows that of necessity an empire, not of any Indian race, but of foreigners, will be established in India. Now, will you please decide which of the nations of Europe you would like to rule over India? I ask if you would like Germany, whose subjects weep for heavy taxation and the stringency of their military service? Would you like the rule of France? Stop! I fancy you would, perhaps, like the rule of the Russians, who are very great friends of India and of Mohammedans, and under whom the Hindus will live in great comfort, and who will protect with the tenderest care the wealth and property which they have acquired under English rule? (Laughter) Everybody knows something or other about these powerful kingdoms of Europe. Everyone will admit that their governments are far worse, nay, beyond comparison worse, than the British Government. It is, therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of everything in India the English Government should remain for many years—in fact for ever!
When it is granted that the maintenance of the British Government, and of no other, is necessary for the progress of our country, then I ask whether there is any example in the world of one nation having conquered and ruled over another nation, and that conquered nation claiming it as a right that they should have representative government? The principle of representative government is that it is government by a nation, and that the nation in question rules over its own people and its own land. Can you tell me of any case in the world’s history in which any foreign nation after conquering another and establishing its empire over it has given representative government to the conquered people? Such a thing has never taken place. It is necessary for those who have conquered us to maintain their empire on a strong basis. When rulers and ruled are one nation, representative government is possible. For example, in Afghanistan, of which Amir Abdur Rahman is the ruler, where all the people are brother-Afghans, it might be possible. If they want they can have representative government. But to think that representative government can be established in a country over which a foreign race rules, is utterly vain, nor can a trace of such a state of things be discovered in the history of the world. Therefore to ask that we should be appointed by election to the Legislative Council is opposed to the true principles of government, and no government whatever, whether English or German or French or Russian or Musalman, could accept this principle. The meaning of it is this: ‘Abandon the rule of the country and put it in our hands.’ Hence, it is in no way expedient that our nation should join in and echo these monstrous proposals.
The next question is about the budget. They say: ‘Give us power to vote on the budget. Whatever expenses we may grant shall be granted, whatever expenses we do not grant shall not be granted.’ Now, consider to what sort of government this principle is applicable. It is suited to such a country as is, according to the fundamental principles of politics, adapted also for representative government. The rulers and the ruled must be of the same nation. In such a country the people have also the right of deciding matters of peace and war. But this principle is not adapted to a country in which one foreign race has conquered another. The English have conquered India and all of us along with it. And just as we made the country obedient and our slave, so the English have done with us. Is it then consistent with the principles of empire that they should ask us whether they should fight Burma or not? Is it consistent with any principle of empire? In the times of the Mohammedan empire, would it have been consistent with the principles of rule that, when the Emperor was about to make war on a Province of India, he should have asked his subject-peoples whether he should conquer that country or not? Whom should he have asked? Should he have asked those whom he had conquered and had made slaves and whose brothers he also wanted to make his slaves? Our nation has itself wielded empire, and people of our nation are even now ruling. Is there any principle of empire by which rule over foreign races may be maintained in this manner?
The right to give an opinion on the budget depends also on another principle, which is this: that in a country in which the people accept the responsibility for all the expenses of government, and are ready with their lives and property to discharge it—in such a country they have a right to give their opinion on the budget. They can say, ‘undertake this expense or leave that alone.’ And whatever the expense, it is then their duty to pay it. For example, in England in a time of necessity the whole wealth and property of everyone, from the Duke to the cobbler, is at the disposal of the government. It is the duty of the people to give all their money and all their property to the government, because they are responsible for giving government all that it may require. And they say: ‘Yes, take it! Yes, take it. Spend the money. Beat the enemy. Beat the enemy.’ These are conditions under which people have a right to decide matters about the budget. The principle that underlies the Government of India is of a wholly different nature. In India, the Government has itself to bear the responsibility of maintaining its authority and it must, in the way that seems to it fittest, raise money for its army and for the expense of the empire. Government has a right to take a proportion of the produce of the land as land-revenue, and is like a contractor who bargains on this income to maintain the empire. It has not the power to increase the amount settled as land-revenue. However great its necessity, it cannot say to the Zamindars: ‘Increase your contribution.’ Nor do the Zamindars think that, even in a time of necessity, government has any right to increase its fixed tax on land. If at this time there were a war with Russia, would all the Zamindars and Taluqdars be willing to give double their assessment to government? They would not give a pice more. Then what right have they to interfere and say: ‘So much should be spent and so much should not be spent?’ The method of the British Government is that of all kings and Asiatic empires. When you will not, even in time of war, give a pice more of your land-revenue, what right have you to interfere in the budget?
The real motive for scrutinizing the budget is economy. Economy is a thing of such a nature that everyone has a regard for it in his household arrangements. It is a crude notion that government has no regard for economy and squanders its money. Government practices economy as far as possible. Our government is so extremely miserly that it will not uselessly give anyone a single pice. Until great necessity arise and great pressure is brought to bear on it, it will not spend a pice. It has completely forgotten the generosity of the former emperors. The kings of later times presented poets and authors with estates and lakhs of rupees. Our government does not spend a pice in that way. What greater economy can there be than this? Instead of rewards it gives authors copyright. That also it does after taking two rupees for registering. It writes a letter as a sanad, and says that, for forty years, no other man may print the book. Print it, sell it, and make your profit: this is a reward to you from government.
People look at the income of the government and say it is much greater than that of former empires, but they don’t think of the expenses of government and how much they have increased. In the old days, a sword of fifteen or twenty rupees, a gun of ten or fifteen rupees, a cardboard ammunition bag, and a coil of fuse was enough equipment for a soldier. Now look and see how the expenses of the army have increased in modern times, and what progress has been made in arms, and how they are daily improving, and the old becoming useless. If a new kind of gun or cannon be invented in France or Germany, is it possible for government not to abandon all its old kinds of guns or cannons and adopt the new? When the expenses have grown so much, the wonder is how on earth government manages to carry on its business on the small tax which it raises. (Cheers) Perhaps many people will not like what I am going to say, but I will tell them openly a thing which took place. When after the Mutiny, the Hon’ble Mr Wilson was Financial Minister, he brought forward a law for imposing a tax, and said in his speech that this tax would remain for five years only. An honourable English friend of mine showed me the speech and asked me if I liked it. I read it and said
that I had never seen so foolish a Financial Minister as the Hon’ble Mr Wilson. He was surprised. I said that it was wrong to restrict it to five years. The condition of India was such that it ought to be imposed for ever. Consider for a moment that government has to protect its friends the Afghans, and their protection is necessary. It is necessary for government to strengthen the frontier. If in England there had been any need for strengthening a frontier, then the people would themselves have doubled or trebled (sic) their taxes to meet the necessity. In Burma there are expenses to be borne, although we hope that in future it will be a source of income. If under such circumstance, government increases the salt-tax by eight annas per maund, is this thing such that we ought to make complaints? If this increase of tax be spread over everybody it will not amount to half or quarter of a pice. On this to raise an uproar, to oppose government, to accuse it of oppression—what utter nonsense and injustice! And in spite of this they claim the right to decide matters about the budget.
The Great Speeches of Modern India Page 3