The Hindu-Moslem problem

(Minister, Indore)

I

The rule of the stronger is an universal law, but it may not be a contented Government. One of the noblest Englishmen has said, "Good Government is no substitute for self-Government." When India seeks it, the greatest question is to substitute the Government of the people for the Government of the rulers. Such a Government can be formed only on the contentment of the different castes, creeds, or races inhabiting a country or a community inhabiting the region which aspires to become a self-governing unit on popular basis. Ever since the Aryans spread and established their sway all over India a sort of a regional nationhood was formed. An element of unity permeated the whole nation, and at the time of its greatest prosperity gave birth to a national poet like Kalidasa. The Greeks, the Huns, and the Central Asiatic tribes who made inroads were absorbed, and, beyond a ripple in the society, they made no difference to it; but it being a theocratic cum aristocratic organisation, it failed to absorb the Musalmans who were organised on a democratic theocracy. They still possess that characteristic and have maintained their aloofness in spite of the lapse of centuries, and continuous or occasional attempts at union, if not of absorption, made by the inevitable trend of circumstances or Rulers like Akbar.

The feeling of original nationhood cannot be stronger than the feelings of unity in religion or in following the formulas of a graded society under a people ruled by a theocratic aristocracy. The influence of the Brahmins has always been supreme with the ruling races in India. Although racial and tribal, no less than vocational and professional, divisions became stereotyped and religious regional devotion was developed, as evidenced by the visits to holy places, encouraged by the Buddhists, the rigidity in customs, sanctified by religion, emphasised tribal, and through them regional peculiarities. Regional patriotism of a political or a governmental nature was not established. The laissez faire policy of the Government divorced its activities from the daily life of the people, which was regulated not by the laws of the Government but by laws alleged to be promulgated by divine beings or at their commands. Empires were born, established, flourished and disintegrated over different regions but the general life of the people as a whole was unaffected. The majority unconsciously and inevitably forced its will on the isolated minorities and, allowing them to follow their own customs and laws as long as they could, absorbed them by the force of circumstances; and essentially majority rule prevailed in matters of inheritance, social customs and outward appearances. The minorities, except in a few matters, being cut off from the base of their original home, ceased to have a separate existence. Exclusive as the Hindu religo-social life is, it has a way of imposing its superiority on others.

It is of this peculiarity that the Musalmans of the present day are afraid and so would perpetuate an aristocratic rule rather than allow the flood-gates of democracy to be opened. They have hitherto perpetuated separate existence and have by their aggressiveness imposed their customs on the inhabitants of the soil. A theocratic nation, it forced itself on a foreign country and by its virility and democratic moulding, not only ruled over foreign peoples but made them converts and supporters of their power, progress and prestige.

The chief characteristic of the Musalmans is Pan-Islamism. Setting aside the boundaries of countries or natural divisions or of tribe or race, the Musalmans enforced unity in thought and action. Not that teachers and preachers with their peculiar doctrines have not risen and flourished among Musalmans, as among others, but the main thought has remained the same, viz., that there is but one God and Mohammed is His Prophet. Influenced by the predominating thought of the majority surrounding them, they have their visits to holy places in India, but the pilgrimage to Mecca in far-off Arabia is the goal of the life of every Musalman. He remembers it daily by turning his face towards it five times a day. He feels more affinity with a Turkish, Mongolian, Negro or a Red Indian follower of Mohammed than with his neighbour of a different religion. He is made of such stuff that he has preserved his integrity and propagated his system of thought and custom. What he is afraid of is a democracy like itself in its political aspect.

It is not easy to know why this closely-knit democratic theocracy should fear and seek protection from a disintegrated and graded aristocratic theocracy which is Hinduism. It may be that because the Musalmans who converted millions of men in Mongolia, Middle Asia, Afghanistan, Baluchistan, Iraq, Egypt, almost the whole of Africa, China, Indo-China and the big islands south of Burma, could not obliterate Hinduism, which isolated the former like the healthy germs isolating disease germs in areas where the former were in a majority, or healthy bodies protecting themselves against disease germs in areas where the former were in a minority. They are afraid of the inherent weakness of their theology. It did make an appeal to comparatively ward, also barbarous people, but it could not make any impression on a speculative philosophy of the highest order and religion suited to it, as well as the external local circumstances. As a matter of fact the latter have influenced the various sects of Musalmans. Some of the rules of life enjoined on them by their religion as well as the rewards set up before the pious followers may be suitable to the circumstances of its original home, but, turned over in the light of convenience or reasoning, they would appear to be most unhealthy and even revolting. An eminent scholar holding an exalted office under a Musalman Ruler told the present writer, not many months ago, that he had told his co-religionists who were opposing the joint electorates in British India that in doing so they appeared to be more afraid of their co-religionists than of the Hindus.

The Musalmans of India not only desire protection in administrative areas where they are in a minority but also where they are even in a majority. The reason of it is not far to seek. The Musalmans do not think in the terms of nationalism, whether provincial or country-wide, but in terms of Pan-Islamism. They desire to convert their surroundings to their religion, It is to them a peculiar culture, to which they would raise those below in civilization or drag down those higher in it. They can brook no compromise. But the view of some people is that within the next two hundred years, Mahomedanism will undergo a great change, if it will not disappear in its present form.

Be that as it may, if India is to be allowed a place in the sun, these two civilizations must agree to differ in religious dogma only. It seems an impossible task or at any rate beyond the range of the vision at present that the Musalmans will turn their eyes from outside India to India itself. But it is at least not visionary to expect that that feeling will be confined to religious matters. Before separate electorates threw a bait as regards political preferment and power, the social relations between the two nations were in many places cordial. But that cordiality does not seem to have had any substantial basis underneath it. It should be based not on tolerance or even good-will but on common interests.

Shall political advancement wait until both the nations have come to understand and realize what their interests are? If they realize it, there will be coalition in many matters. That the Musalmans are more sectarian than Hindus is a potent factor. Apart from the two bones of contention, viz., music and cow-slaughter, the above is a potent cause of distrust and hatred. Why cannot the Musalmans agree to have as few Masjids as possible, instead of multiplying them in odd places, as they have their one Idgah? In an Indian State erection of new Masjids or temples without permission has been prohibited by law. When cows are killed by millions for their food value in India, why cannot the Hindus tolerate the slaughter of a few cows as a religious rite by a nation which has embedded itself in this great country? As regards wordly preferment, it depends upon many circumstances: witness the agitation of non-Brahmin Hindus. No person who has risen high in public service should, if he is true to it give preference on account of religious feelings. And after all a place in the public service is not the be-all and end-all of life.

For the reasons already explained, it appears certain that unless there is a change of heart among the leaders of the two nations to unite for the political advancement of India, the cleavage between the two may go on widening, by the rivalry between them for preferment in social and religious matters.

Several solutions have been suggested for the removal of the possibility of the development noted in the preceding paragraphs. There is the proposal to forcibly convert minorities to the religion of the majority by so re-organising provinces as to group the largest number of one of the two nations together. It may be possible to do this, but even the attempts of Aurangazeb, who made the mightiest attempt to turn India into a Mohammedan country like the Middle East, failed. It is improbable, that with civilisation so advanced, a similar attempt stands any chance of success.

The other is the attempt of both the nations for Tanzeem and Tablig, i.e., Shudhi and Sangathan in the hope that two strong and organised communities can afford to jointly shoulder the political responsibility without fear of the culture of either of them being jeopardised or eventually destroyed. There appears to be some sense in this view, although at first these attempts might lead to strife and a trial of strength. In any case it is a matter which will require patience and time to be effective and beneficial to both the nations.

Yet another attempt was the introduction of separate electorates. It has possibly aggravated the evil by emphasising the peculiar characteristics of both the cultures. Rarely the representatives of the two nations would have occasion in a politically dependent country to think nationally. There would be many more matters which would afford opportunities of thinking communally. This evil would have, and has, gone on obliterating the national i.e., the coalitional point of view. The point to remember is that in India there exist two nations whose character is not regional, and therefore any coalition between them cannot but be of an international character.

Suggestions have been made to introduce the safeguards imposed by the League of Nations for the protection of minorities in the newly-formed Governments in Europe. In the first place, as reported by the Simon Commission, those have not operated efficaciously there. The protection afforded, though theoretically sound, may, as the communal electorates have done in India, in the course of time prove a disintegrating and not a nation-building activity. It also introduces an element of the resort to a foreign body for the redress of internal grievances. Moreover the new Governments that have been brought into existence in Europe have, as their basis, both regional as well as racial considerations. In India the different Provinces and States have been organized on entirely different considerations. A rearrangement of them in the case of Indian States is a task for a revolution, while in the case of Provinces it is a bold task which a united nation can alone undertake. The rules framed by the League of Nations for the protection of the culture of the minorities of a certain ratio to the entire popu1ation are meant to preserve intact the culture but not the political identity of the communities in minorities. The U. S. A. has never given any such protection. Neither the Indian States have ever given such protection. The. policy of neutrality in religious matters pursued by the British Government in India has permeated the Indian States, but beyond this no protection was sought or given. Why cannot the same safeguard be sufficient, the ultimate power to adjudicate on such a dispute being left to an impartial tribunal of jurists? Given the desire to effect mutations, by non-violent and peaceful methods, and relying upon them, all communities can and should agree to claim representation on the population basis, irrespective of caste, creed, or special interest. The interest of the nation ought to predominate.

II

In India the Musa1mans are a closely-knit, fully-organised and intensely fanatical non-regional nation. It has occupied the entire continent of India from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas and from the Arabian Sea to the borders of Burma. Wherever the Musalmans go they carry with them their Masjid, burial ground, Idgah and the daily practice of turning to the west in remembrance of Mecca five times a day. From personal appearance, dress or customs to every thing else, they are exactly the reverse of the Hindus. Their language too is outlandish; its script too is written from the opposite side. This nation has in no single country a larger number among its fold than in India or China. It has no regional patriotism except for the holy places in Arabia and Iraq. Its intense devotion to the doctrines taught by Mohammed makes it aggressive for their spread.

On the other hand the rest of the population which, at least, has no patriotism for any other country than India, is divided amongst numerous castes and sub-castes and creeds, with only a few things common to all. It is the latter characteristics which make it a nation. European writers are fond of pointing out that India is a continent like Europe and, therefore, can never come before the world as one country with an unitary Government. They would divide India into innumerable States just as it may suit the fancies or claims of the people in power. They forget that the divisions so much apparent are but gradations in an aristocratically planned nation. The only divisions that count are political divisions created by past events and happenings.

The only obstacle, therefore, to the welding of India into a nation are the Musalmans. Neither the depressed classes who will be lifted by enlightened Indian opinion, especially when it will have the control of the administration and Government, nor the Christians who possess regional patriotism, are an obstacle. The fact that Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, and the Hedjaz, not to speak of such older States as Afghanistan or Persia, have developed regional patriotism, creates the hope that the Indian Muslims too may give up Pan-Islamism. Under the strong, even tyrannical, rule of the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia, and perhaps the nationalist military Government of China, the Musalmans in those nations have been moulded and absorbed into them. Perhaps when India acquires a National Government, what has happened to Islam elsewhere may happen here. What to do till then is a problem that staggers imagination and baffles prophecy.

Much store can be laid by the educated, and hence enlightened youth in the country. There is ground for hoping that the young Musalmans are more affected by the views of the regionally minded far-seeing- leaders in the country than by those of Pan-Islamic leaders. But the appeal of the bigots is devoutly responded to by the masses. Any hold on the people that the former acquire might lead to a lessening of the hold of the latter. At present, whether their proposals be in the general interests of all the inhabitants of the country or not, the idea simply makes no appeal to the masses, excites their wrath and invites their opposition. Such being the case, the state of affairs can only be mended by a strong rule of the majority, which is sure to lead to revolution with all its attendant horrors, or by, in course of time, an internal revolution affected by world causes, or by a peaceful penetration under a Swarajya Government. But never under foreign domination can the pace be accelerated. Therefore the first objective to gain is the attainment of self-government.

It may be asked whether, with the two nations continuing to live, evolve and progress separately, the cleavage between them will not continue to widen, as it certainly has since the introduction of the separate communal electorates. And if it is so, will not the strife between the two for supremacy be more intensified, leading to perpetual struggle which might even invite foreign invasion, as in the past, with the removal of the control exercised by the foreign power, than under its continuance?

Logically there can be one reply to the question, but practical politics are different. Situated as they are, neither of the two nations, much less the Musalmans, can free themselves from the inevitable evil effects of the foreign domination without mutual help and understanding. But both of them desire to attain an independent status, to quote the present Prime Minister of England, "within the British Empire, if possible, and without it, if necessary." The part taken by the youth of both the communities, at least in advanced places like Bombay, during the recent demonstration for freedom, is a most hopeful sign. The riots in many places, and the massacre at Cawnpore, have, no doubt, counterbalanced the good result, and have intensified the difficulties in the solution of the problem.

In order to break the bone of the non-regional nation, the creation and federation of autonomous Provinces (British Indian and Indian States) with an unitary Central Government is the most desirable step. The latter may possess control over such subjects as Defence, Transportation, all-India Tariffs (such as the Sea-customs duties), Communications, Protection of Minorities, and Finances. It will enforce law and order in case of the breakdown of the Constitution in any constituted Province, pass laws affecting the social and religious customs of the whole of India, effect changes in the Constitution of any Province or Central Government, declare war or peace and direct the relations with the Empire or any foreign power. It is hardly necessary to add that this list is rather more suggestive than exhaustive. But it is necessary that residuary powers be left to the Provinces. They should be re-arranged having regard to their natural geographical, linguistic and national characteristics. In political matters there shall be no distinction of caste or creed. The same shall be the case with regard to the services. Perfect religious neutrality should be guaranteed. These and such other measures will create regional patriotism, while the unitary character of the rule in India will be preserved. The Minorities in Provinces shall be protected as far as their peculiar culture is concerned so long as they continue to exist; peaceful penetration of the culture of the majority into that of the minority cannot be prevented even though it may tend to obliterate these minority communities.

But without some radical changes and mutation in laws, the object of amalgamating the two nations now existing in India and so dividing it will not be achieved by these measures alone. If joint electorates for the legislative and governing bodies in the Central Government are not acceptable to the majority of the Musalmans, separate electorates must be accepted for them. Universal adult suffrage cannot yet be advocated as an effective basis for joint electorates for the Central institutions. So also the appointment of an impartial tribunal for dealing with and deciding any justiciable issues between the Provinces and the Central Government, as well as the creation of conciliation boards or boards of arbitration which are the necessary concomitants of the kind of Government advocated in this paper, will fail to produce a nation at once.

It may be hoped that the nationalisation of the mind will make religion a matter of personal preference. It will be entirely divorced from laws governing inheritance or other mundane matters. Persons holding the same or similar religious belief may form communities and hold joint celebrations, without causing any trouble to other communities. But inheritance should be governed according to the custom or creed of the father. If a Hindu marries a Mohammedan wife, their progeny should be governed by the Hindu customs. Hindi should be the national language for the whole of India and should be the court language of the Central institutions. The most convenient script for it should be used. Devanagari, owing to its phonetic superiority, beauty, and simplicity may hold the field. In village reconstruction and City Improvement, religious places of worship should be made as few as possible. The number existing should be reduced to a minimum gradually by the efflux of time if not by other measures. Conversions from one religion into another should be allowed. Musalmans should be encouraged to exalt some holy places in India, such as Ajmer in the Northern part of India and Gulburga in the South to the position of Mecca or Madina. Government should devote their utmost attention to the spread of national general education along with the making available of the highest literary and technical education in the country. In every matter it should be the look-out of the Provincial and Central Governments to make the country not only fully equipped in every respect and self-sufficient, but attractive to foreign students and scholars as in the past.

These measures, however, require time to fructify. The present-day politics, however, demand an immediate agreement as regards the further step to be taken. The Indian National Congress which is the biggest vocal body in the country, has given up the scheme adumbrated in the Nehru Report. The scheme of the Simon Commission is based on premises which are not acceptable to the Indian aspirations of any school of thought. Mussalmans, who are not agreed among themselves, hold a majority view which has a narrow communal bias. The first session of the Round Table Conference has to its credit the creation of some nebulous ideas. The formulation and the declaration of the fundamental rights by the Indian National Congress at its last session at Karachi, though valuable in themselves, do not constitute a complete scheme. The Indian States, which have a population of at least one-fifth of the population of India, are disunited and suffer from other draws and shortcomings.

The late Lokmanya Tilak has been blamed for entering into the Lucknow Pact. On it was based the separate electorates scheme given birth to by the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms. It is admitted that the separate electorates have aroused the feelings of communalism to a greater degree than ever before. But may it not be that it is weaning them away from Pan-Islamism to Nationalism? It is uncharitable to assume that that far-seeing statesman did not feel that the Pact was a step towards coalition by way of strife and assertiveness, in order to make up for the smallness of numbers by greater political importance. As was probably visualised by the late Lokmanya, through the creation of the political consciousness, by specially emphasising that aspect, this great nation would be an asset in the political advancement of the country. In course of time, the majority view which is national would prevail on account of its reasonableness and its immediate effects on all the races or tribes or the followers of the different religions inhabiting India.

Thus also Mahatma Gandhi is prepared to unreservedly accept any unanimous demand of the Musalmans. What he means is that, if they still think that separate electorates are necessary in the general interests of the country, let it be so; he having patience enough to wait for a better day and in the meanwhile utilising the period for constructive work, which alone could make India a politically independent nation by the non-violent and peaceful and soul-forceful methods designed and propagated by the Mahatma.

To sum up, the Musalmans are opposed to joint electorates based on adult suffrage, because their mentality is obsessed by Pan-Islamism. But there is an unanimity among all thinking men that, without the ghost of communal electorates being buried, India cannot have a place in the comity of nations. If it cannot be buried now, it will be so in due course, as the course of events is in that direction. It will be helped and even expedited if the Musalmans are weaned away from Pan-Islamism, by means of creating Provincial patriotism, at the same time taking care to keep the Central Government an unifying body and the principal in international affairs. Fear of losing communal culture will be minimised by the laying down of fundamental rights, such as the National Congress has in view and under consideration at the present moment. ‘Nation first and every thing afterwards,’ should be the watchword of the inhabitants of the country, especially of the youth; and it can only be brought about by doing the constructive work of making India economically self-dependent, as she is meant to be by Nature, and banishing such evils as untouchability and religious bigotry, by abolishing the use of intoxicants, especially spirituous liquors and such deleterious drugs as opium, and by pursuing the principles of charity, liberty and truth.