Makers of Modern India

by Ramachandra Guha

  No settlement with [the] majority community is possible, as no Hindu leader speaking with any authority shows any concern or genuine desire for it. Honourable settlement can only be achieved between equals, and unless the two parties learn to respect and fear each other, there is no solid ground for any settlement. Offers of peace by the weaker party always means confession of weakness, and an invitation to aggression. Appeals to patriotism, justice and fair-play and for good-will fall flat. It does not require political wisdom to realize that all safeguards and settlements would be a scrap of paper, unless they are backed up by power. Politics means power and not relying only on cries of just or fair-play or good-will …

  I want the Musalmans to ponder over the situation and decide their own fate by having one single, definite, uniform policy which should be loyally followed throughout India. The Congressite Musalmans are making a great mistake when they preach unconditional surrender. It is the height of defeatist mentality to throw ourselves on the mercy and good-will of others and the highest act of perfidy to the Musalman community; and if that policy is adopted, let me tell you, the community will seal its doom and will cease to play its rightful part in the national life of the country and the Government. Only one thing can save the Musalmans and energise them to regain their lost ground. They must first recapture their own souls and stand by their lofty position and principles which form the basis of their great unity and which bind them in one body-politic …

  In October 1939 the Congress ministries resigned in protest against the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, taking India into the Second World War without consulting Indian opinion. As the war intensified in Europe, the question of India’s political future was intensely discussed in England. The next excerpt is from an article written by Jinnah for the London journal, Time and Tide, and published in January 1940 under the title ‘The Constitutional Maladies of India’.2

  The constitutional maladies from which India at present suffers may best be described as symptoms of a disease inherent in the body-politic. Without diagnosing the disease, no understanding of the symptoms is possible and no remedy can suggest itself. Let us, therefore, first diagnose the disease, then consider the symptoms and finally arrive at the remedy.

  What is the political future of India? The declared aim of the British Government is that India should enjoy Dominion Status in accordance with the Statute of Westminster in the shortest practicable time. In order that this end should be brought about, the British Government very naturally would like to see in India the form of democratic constitution it knows best and thinks best, under which the government of the country is entrusted to one or other political party in accordance with the turn of the elections.

  Such, however, is the ignorance about Indian conditions among even the members of the British Parliament that, in spite of all the experience of the past, it is even yet not realized that this form of government is totally unsuited to India. Democratic systems based on the concept of a homogeneous nation such as England are very definitely not applicable to heterogeneous countries such as India and this simple fact is the root cause of all India’s constitutional ills …

  The British people must realize that Hinduism and Islam represent two distinct and separate civilizations and, moreover, are as distinct from one another in origin, tradition and manner of life as are nations of Europe …

  If, therefore, it is accepted that there are in India a major and a minor nation, it follows that a parliamentary system based on the majority principle must inevitably mean the rule of the major nation. Experience has proved that, whatever the economic and political programme of any political party, the Hindu, as a general rule, will vote for his caste-fellow and the Muslim for his co-religionist.

  The British people, being Christians, sometimes forget the religious wars of their own history and to-day consider religion as a private and personal matter between man and God. This can never be the case in Hinduism and Islam, for both these religions are definite social codes which govern not so much man’s relation with his God as man’s relation with his neighbour. They govern not only his law and culture but every aspect of his social life and such religions, essentially exclusive, completely preclude that merging of identity and unity of thought on which Western democracy is based …

  The next excerpt is from Jinnah’s famous address to the March 1940 meeting of the Muslim League, held in Lahore, which committed both party and leader to the creation of a separate Muslim homeland to be named Pakistan.3

  … The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realized, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Musalmans but to the British and Hindus also. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure peace and happiness of the people of this subcontinent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into ‘autonomous national states’. There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country will disappear. It will lead more towards natural good-will by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minorities by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim Indian and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslims and various other minorities.

  It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of your troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state …

  History has [shown] to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the subcontinent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation, which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during the ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unit of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but termination of the British regime … will be the herald of the entire break-up with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.

  Muslim
India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years and any repetition of such a government must lead to civil war …

  Musalmans [in India] are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood … Musalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social and political life in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands and the vital interests of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

  Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit … Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realize how big and stupendous it is? Do you realize that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly and sincerely for your people, you will never realize your aim. Friends, I therefore want you to make up your mind definitely and then think of devices and organize your people, strengthen your organization and consolidate the Musalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide-awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam, organize the people economically, socially, educationally and politically and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. (Cheers).

  The last excerpt is from a speech to the students union of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in March 1941, a year after the Pakistan resolution. The AMU was the college of choice for bright young Muslims from all over India. Jinnah is thus addressing those who could play crucial leadership roles in the (as yet hypothetical) state of Pakistan.4

  … Mr. Jinnah began by expressing his warmest thanks for the deep affection and regard shown to him by the Aligarh students. Proceeding, he said that when he addressed them last year, the Lahore resolution, popularly known as Pakistan, had not been passed, but he had noticed that they were anxious for the declaration of the ideal embodied in the Lahore resolution. In other parts of India he had noticed the same feeling. Mr Jinnah said:

  What I have done is to declare boldly what was stirring the heart of Muslim India. The whole Hindu press, Hindu leaders and the Congress got hysterical about it. They raised a storm of opposition: but all the press propaganda, vituperation, misrepresentation and hysterical outbursts have not changed our position. I have asserted on numerous occasions that the democratic parliamentary system of government as they have in England and other Western countries is entirely unsuited to India. I was condemned in the Congress press as an enemy of India’s freedom! But the truth of the statement is gradually dawning on the minds of all thinking persons …

  In everything that is fundamental and essential to life Hindus and Muslims differ. It is no use shutting one’s eyes to realities. Among Hindus themselves there are schisms and exclusive castes and sub-castes. Between them they make a most undemocratic society yet they have suddenly fallen in love with democracy. They talk of nothing else but democracy. (Laughter.) In Bombay recently a swimming bath on the seashore was opened for the exclusive use of the Hindus. They are not prepared to swim with the Muslims even in the sea. I do not want to ridicule the feelings of the Hindus. I respect everyone’s religious feelings. I am only referring to these things to show how deep is the difference between the Hindus and the Muslims. It would be no wisdom to proceed to build for India a constitution on the assumption as if these differences did not exist. By ignoring the realities and the difficulties in the way of fitting India into a simple democratic system the Hindus will be doing the greatest harm to their own people. Democracy of the kind they want to impose on India is an impossibility, for even the conditions which make diluted democracy possible in other countries are absent from India. The sooner the idea is given up the better.

  It was therefore after mature consideration that we passed the Lahore resolution which advocates the establishment of independent sovereign states in regions of Muslim majority, namely, the North-West and the North-East of India and also provides for mandatory safeguards for minorities in the regional states and their units. Now it does not require a great genius or a great constitutionalist to understand the scheme of partition. Without waiting to consider the scheme on its merits the Congress and other Hindu circles became hysterical about it, as if it were a nightmare or some dangerous animal! (Laughter.) As a matter of fact, Pakistan has been there for centuries; it is there to-day, and it will remain till the end of the world. (Cheers.) It was taken away from us; we have only to take it back. What is the title of the Hindus to it? How can we be prevented from claiming what is our own? It is really more in the interest of the Hindus themselves. What, after all, does the League say? Zones with clear Muslim majority are to be demarcated and allowed to establish independent states of their own with the necessary territorial readjustments. Under the scheme two-thirds of India goes to the Hindus where they can have their own states. They should be content with their due share. They can never have the whole of India …

  The old slogans against Pakistan, such as vivisection of India, cutting Mother India into two, and cutting the mother cow have been given up. They have now begun to ask whether they will be safe if India is partitioned. The Hindu press has raised the bogey that if India is partitioned the Muslims will overrun the entire country. It is a baseless insinuation. For if that is the Hindu fear, may I know how do they then propose to rule over the whole of India? In Pakistan there will be no more than seventy million Muslims. Hindu India will consist of no less than two hundred and twenty million Hindus. Do they mean to say that these 220 million people cannot hold their freedom against a mere seventy million? Then it is said that the future of India will not be safe, as all the invasions have come from the North-West of India, and that Pakistan itself will not be able to ward off such invasions. It is said that a united India, a democratic India, alone can withstand such attacks and, therefore, there should be a central democratic government of India. By having a central government and a majority in the ballot-box they think they can make the country safe from invasion. (Laughter.) Further, our Hindu friends ask the Muslim minorities as to how Pakistan was going to benefit them and that they would suffer at the hand of the Hindus. As for the invasions from the North-West, may I know where did the Portuguese come from? Where did the French come from, and where did our British masters come from? Was it through the Khyber Pass? They came from the coasts. But we know that, as a matter of fact, modern warfare knows no frontiers. The decisive weapon of modern war is the air-arm. The land and the sea powers have taken a secondary position. Let us, therefore, live as good neighbours; let the Hindus guard the South and West and let the Muslims guard the frontiers. We will then stand together and say to the world, ‘Hands off India; India for the Indians’. (Cheers.)

  The second objection which concerns Muslim minorities has no force. As a self-respecting people, we in the Mu
slim minority provinces say boldly that we are prepared to undergo every suffering and sacrifice for the emancipation and liberation of our brethren in regions of Muslim majority. By standing in their way and dragging them along with us into a united India we do not in any way improve our position. Instead, we reduce them also to the position of a minority. But we are determined that, whatever happens to us, we are not going to allow our brethren to be vassalised by the Hindu majority. But the fact is that the creation of these independent states will be the surest guarantee for the fair treatment of the minorities. When the time for consultation and negotiations comes the case of Muslims in the minority provinces will certainly not go by default.

  Pakistan is not only a practicable goal but the only goal if you want to save Islam from complete annihilation in this country. We have yet to go a long way. Pakistan is there but we have to take it. It is easier to achieve freedom than to keep it. England and America are independent states but how hard they have to struggle to preserve their independence! We have to prepare ourselves. Make yourselves strong; prepare your people in education, trade, industries, commerce and defence. The problems before us will be how to maintain internal security and ward off external aggression. Freedom cannot be achieved or kept by the spinning of charkhas. We should be prepared to fight and defend our homes and ideals we cherish. (Cheers.) The realization of Pakistan is in your hands … Aligarh is the arsenal of Muslim India and you are its best soldiers. Go to the countryside. Educate our people and uplift them. Explain to our people what is our goal. There are many who are trying to mislead them. Let them understand things and then they will march on to their destined goal.