The Two Dominions

BY Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA. M.A. *

Divided India with its two Dominions has now had three months of experience of political freedom, and we can put to ourselves the question as to what lessons we can legitimately draw from it.

We have valued political freedom both as an end in itself and as a means for the social and economic reconstruction of the country. The events of the three months have not only prevented the Government of the Dominion of India from embarking on the work of reconstruction, for which there is such an urgent need, but have also shown that it is impossible for the Dominion to attend to this need unless its Government has behind it the power that is required to maintain effectively and securely the freedom that has been won. It is also now clear that this freedom is being threatened in a variety of ways by enemies from without as well as from within and the government is not strong enough to take all the steps necessary to meet the threat successfully. It is now passing through the ‘Munich’ phase of its existence. It is now in the same position as Chamberlain and his Government when they had to face Hitler at Munich.

The risk to India’s freedom comes from Pakistan from without and from the protagonists from within of the policy of the Muslim League. These latter are found not only among the masses of people, who have secretly stored large quantities of arms and ammunition and built underground factories for the manufacture of modern weapons of warfare, but also among the Muslim officials, civil as well as military, who are still in the service of the Government of India. It is against this danger that measures have to be taken, and they have to be taken without a moment’s delay.

The risk from Pakistan is not imaginary but real. It is the logical corollary from the ideology which lies behind the whole Pakistan movement, and it is the only inference that can be legitimately drawn from the conduct of the masses of people in Pakistan, of the Muslim National Guards, of the Pakistan Army and Police, and even of the Pakistan Government which has been either unable to control the activities of all these or unwilling to do so for fear of loss of popular support. These activities have resulted in the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Sikhs, the abduction of their women, the forcible conversion of thousands to Islam, the destruction or appropriation of their property, and their migration in mass across the Pakistan frontiers into India in circumstances which brought to them unprecedented suffering and misery.

For some time to come, the policy of the Government of India and the programme of its work should be based on the hypothesis that Pakistan is a hostile neighbour. Realism requires this. No blunder or folly that the Government of India might commit would be more disastrous in its consequences than to ignore the hostile and unfriendly character of the Government of Pakistan or its failure to take all adequate measures to protect the country and itself against that hostility.

The hostility is implicit in the ideology of Pakistan. What the ideology wants is not merely the creation of an independent sovereign Muslim State in the areas of India where the Muslims are in a majority. It is much more than this and the establishment of Pakistan with the boundaries laid down by the Radcliffe Committee is only the first step. No one should forget in this connection that neither Mr. Jinnah nor the Muslim League is the creator of Pakistan ideology. They are merely the instruments that have come into existence to give effect to it, and they are therefore bound by that ideology. Those who have originated it and who have been promulgating it aim, first, at the extension of Pakistan boundaries to include the whole of the old Provinces of the Punjab, Bengal and Assam, and the State of Kashmir, and next, at the creation of a number of Pakistans in other parts of the Dominion of India and the Indian States, and finally the reduction of the Hindus in India to the position of a minority and setting up of a Muslim sovereign State over the whole country. Nothing less than the re-establishment of the Mughal Empire as conceived by Aurangazeb will satisfy them. This is what is implicit in their conception of Pakistan and it is this ideology that has to be taken notice of.

Even Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League accepted the Radcliffe Award as something temporary and as a matter of expediency. They have not abandoned the claim to Pakistan–which included Assam also–referred to in the Lahore resolution of December 1940. But it is to Mr. Chaudari Rahmat Ali, the founder of “The Pakasia Cultural Movement”, that we have to turn to obtain a complete understanding of the concept of Pakistan. In the pamphlets which he has issued on the subject, there is a map which is of a revealing character. It provides not merely for the present Pakistan but also for a Pakistan inside each Province of India and in the leading States, whose area will bear the same proportion to the total area of the Province or the State as the Muslim population in it bears to the total population. In the United Provinces, for instance, where the Muslims form 14 per cent of the population, a territory equivalent in area to 14 per cent of the area of U.P. should be carved out into a separate Muslim State. Similarly in every other region of the country. In his view, India is not a country but a continent and should therefore contain not one State but a number of States. This is the character of the Pakistan ideology from the territorial standpoint. This should not be dismissed as the outpourings from the mind of an unpractical dreamer. For it is outpourings like these, and the systematic propaganda carried on in their favour for less than a decade, that have been responsible for the two-nation theory taking deep root among the Muslim masses, and for the partition of the country and the inhuman massacres and destruction of property that came in its wake. This will be the ideal for the Pakistan Government to pursue, and it is against this that the Government of India has to guard itself. It was only the other day that a serious demand was made by the Muslim League Party in the Madras Legislature for the creation of a Mapilastan in Malabar where the Muslims are in a majority.

Implicit also in the Pakistan ideology is the contemptuous attitude adopted by it towards Hindustan and the Hindu social order. Mr. Jinnah and some of the members of the present Pakistan Government have given expression to it. In the view of Mr. Rahmat Ali, there are in India today six religions–Dravidianism, Akhootism (religion of the scheduled classes), Caste Hinduism, Sikhism, Christianity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism–besides Islam; and all of them except Hinduism have lost their vigour and vitality and are in a state of decay and decline. But even Hinduism is losing its strength and deserves to lose it because of its exclusiveness. The tendency to look upon the scheduled classes as a community completely separated from the Caste Hindus is an integral part of the Pakistan ideology, and the inference that is drawn from it is that the time has come to convert to Islam all the scheduled classes not only in Pakistan but also in India and carry on propaganda among the Caste Hindus in favour of Islam. The ideal aimed at is to so increase the number of Muslims in the land that the Hindus will be reduced to the position of a minority. Work on these lines is being carried on in Sind where Mr. Mandal, the scheduled castes Minister, has called on them to wear separate badges to distinguish them from Caste Hindus. In East Bengal and in several other regions, there is a vigorous movement for the conversion of the scheduled classes on a large scale. If this process goes on uninterruptedly for a few years, the danger of the Hindus becoming a minority in areas where they are now in a majority will become real, and the claim will then be put forward to establish Muslim majority rule in such areas on the grounds of democracy and justice! It is a danger like this that creates a doubt whether the right to carry on religious propaganda should be included among the fundamental rights of citizens.

The significance of this element in Pakistan ideology is best brought out by a reference to the contention of Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League that Pakistan is the only solution of the Indian communal problem. For, events have now shown that the Pakistan as established on August 15th has not only failed to solve the problem but also aggravated it in a variety of ways. What Mr. Jinnah originally meant was that the Hindus in the sovereign State of Pakistan would not have the status of citizens, but only of hostages serving as a guarantee against any ill-treatment of the Muslim minorities in India. But it is not in this way that the contention has to be understood or interpreted today. For, the communal problem, so far as Western Pakistan is concerned, is being solved in quite a different way. It involves the extermination of the Hindus and Sikhs from the North-West Frontier Province and West Punjab. This has been achieved for all practical purposes. In Sind, Hindus find life and property to be so very insecure that they are evacuating the Province in large numbers. And if, under the leadership of Mr. Mandal, the process of converting the scheduled classes goes on, there will be no minority communities in Western Pakistan to trouble the Government. This systematic policy of extermination of Caste Hindus and their evacuation brings an additional advantage. It places at the disposal of the Muslim masses there the rich lands and the other valuable properties left behind by the evacuees. This is a windfall to them and has been a powerful factor in stimulating the masses to acts of atrocity against the minorities.

Some may be disposed to think that the Government of Pakistan had nothing to do with these atrocities. But this is not a correct view. The Pakistan Government is a ‘League’ Government and the happenings in Calcutta, Noakhali, Tipperah, the Punjab and the Frontier Province during the last fifteen months are a part of the ‘League’ policy of striking terror into the Hindu minority. Moreover, while Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress spokesmen have systematically condemned the communal massacres and thrown the whole of their moral weight on the side of communal harmony and peace and the establishment of a purely secular State, and while Mahatma Gandhi has even gone to the extent of being ready to sacrifice his life in the cause of the protection of the Muslim minorities, it was only in a halting and a vacillating manner that the Pakistan atrocities were condemned by Mr. Jinnah and the responsible members of his Cabinet. What a contrast between the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi to bring about peace and the hesitation on the part of Mr. Jinnah!

Note should also be taken in this connection of the policy enunciated by the Pakistan Prime Minister in regard to the migration into Pakistan of’ Muslims from Provinces and States of India other than the East Punjab. He made it clear that such Muslims would not be allowed to enter Pakistan. At the same time encouragement is being given by the League organisations, and organisations closely following its policy and programme, to Muslims from Indian Provinces migrating in large numbers into States like Bhopal and Hyderabad, even though there has been no persecution of Muslim minorities in the Provinces concerned. It is now known that this is part of a deliberate plan to swell the numbers of Muslims in States ruled by Muslim rulers with a Hindu majority among their subjects, and make them fully armed so that, if need arises, they might be used to terrorise the un-armed Hindu citizens. Sixty to seventy thousand Muslims have thus migrated to Bhopal and more than a hundred thousand to Hyderabad. All these are important steps in the creation of ‘Pakistans’ within, and in the neighbourhood of, the Dominion of India which will serve as centres of attack if any trouble arises between Pakistan and India.
It is from this standpoint that the policy of the Pakistan Government towards Indian States has to be examined. There was a time when Mr. Jinnah declared that, with the lapse of the paramountcy of the British crown, Indian States, big as well as small, became fully sovereign and were therefore free to remain independent or accede to the Dominion of India or Pakistan according to their will and pleasure. It is in pursuance of this policy that he welcomed the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan, even though there was no geographical contiguity between the two, and even though the large majority of the citizens of Junagadh are Hindus and the territory itself is surrounded on almost all sides by sates which have acceded to the Dominion of India. The only explanation for this is that Junagadh has a strategic value of great significance and provides the Pakistan Government with facilities for concentrating its troops in a region which will easily serve as a jumping-off ground to attack India any time. It has already become a place for concentrating some Pakistani forces, resulting in a movement of Indian forces to the neighbourhood. The Hindu subjects of Junagadh are against its accession to Pakistan and some of them have formed a Provisional Government in opposition to the rule of its Nawab. It may so happen that there is a real rebellion against ruler by the Hindu subjects, and this will give further excuse for the Pakistan Government to intervene with larger forces. Of course, the Government of India has protested against this policy of Pakistan, but in politics protests will never been heeded unless there is the fear that they will be ed up by military force, which is not the case at present.

The policy which the Pakistan Government is pursuing towards Kashmir is entirely in conflict with what it has done in respect of Junagadh. According to the original doctrine of Mr. Jinnah, Kashmir is now a sovereign independent State and is therefore free to remain independent or accede to either Dominion according to the will and pleasure of its ruler. But unfortunately the ruler in this case is a Hindu, while the majority of his subjects are Muslims. The Pakistan Government assumes that the majority of the Muslim subjects are anxious that Kashmir should accede to the Pakistan Dominion, and it has therefore called upon the Kashmir ruler to abide by such wishes and threatened him with all kinds of coercive action–economic as well as political–to compel him to adopt such a course. There is no justification for a policy like this except that it is consistent with Pakistan ideology. Even Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of the Muslims in Kashmir, expressed the view that the question of accession is not so important or urgent as that of introducing Responsible Government. One reason why Pakistan has adopted this attitude towards Kashmir is that it believed that the Gogovernment of the Dominion of India is not, from the military point of view strong enough to afford assistance to the Kashmir ruler even if he requests for such assistance. Contrast all this with the attitude of the Government of India towards Hyderabad where, for months, a struggle has been going on between the ruler and his subjects who want the State to accede to the Dominion of India and introduce Responsible Government.

The appeal made by the Pakistan Government to Britain and the Dominions in the British Commonwealth to interfere the affairs of India and solve the communal problem, is also a part of the same shock tactics whose aim is to discredit the Government of India and obtain from the British a verdict which, if we are to judge from the previous awards given by the British Government, is sure to be unduly favourable to the Muslim community and prejudicial to the Hindu community. The world knows by this time that not a small part of the responsibility for the communal tangle in India has to be borne by the British. The partition of India is merely the culmination of the policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ steadily pursued by them from the very beginning, a policy which resulted in the separate electorates created by Lord Minto, the communal award of Ramsay MacDonald, the grouping of Provinces by the Cabinet Delegation in 1946, and the establishment of the two Dominions of Pakistan and India in 1947. Liberals and Conservatives and Labour have all adhered to this policy, and Mr. Jinnah knows too well that the British could be safely relied on to put forward a solution to the communal problem which would help him in taking another step or two to give a more comprehensive shape to the concept of Pakistan. On no other ground is it possible to explain this appeal to the Dominions, of which South Africa with its anti Indian racial policy is one.

Mr. Jinnah has not stopped here. This appeal to Britain and the Dominions had its echo in the charges which the Pakistan delegates to the U.N.O. General Assembly made against the Government of the Dominion of India. They called for a U.N.O. enquiry into the atrocities committed by the Hindu majority against the Muslim minorities, as if the Muslim majorities in Pakistan were quite innocent! This attitude is in no way different from that adopted by Greece towards Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria. Mr. Jinnah would certainly welcome the supervision of the Government of India by a Committee of the United Nations Assembly.

No further evidence is required to support the thesis that realism requires that for some time to come–that is, until the Government of India acquires effective power and strength to maintain the freedom of the country–it has to adopt a wary and cautious policy towards Pakistan and look upon Pakistan as a hostile and unfriendly neighbour which will use all means–fair or foul–for the purpose of achieving its goal. Pakistan will also welcome any aid from Britain and America, on any terms whatever, provided they help her in creating confusion in the Dominion of India as a prelude to the destruction of India’s freedom.

In adopting the Hitlerian tactics which it has been adopting, and in its attempt to achieve the goal of Pakistan as conceived by the originators of the idea, it has to be recognised that the Pakistan Government has certain advantages which India does not at all possess, or possess to the same degree and extent as Pakistan does. In the first place, it knows exactly what its aim is. It is definite about its goal. Secondly, the Pakistan Government is a dictatorial Government dominated by one individual who is known for the inflexibility of his will. Mr. Jinnah is at one and the same time the Governor-General of Pakistan, the President of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, and the President of the All-India Muslim League. He has no rivals or competitors. It is through him alone that the Pakistan Government speaks and every other spokesman merely repeats what he says. There are, therefore, no divided counsels or conflicting voices in Pakistan. This is not the case in India. There is not one authoritative spokesman. There is the word of Mahatma Gandhi. There is the Congress President. There is Pandit Nehru and there is Sardar Patel. Besides these, there are persons like Prime Minister Pant of the U.P. On many crucial points, they express different views, and sometimes the public become confused and bewildered. This is a serious defect with the Government of the Dominion of India. The time has come when these divided counsels have to be abandoned and when there should be only one authoritative spokesman. Thirdly, there is a solidarity among the Muslims in Pakistan and in India on which Mr. Jinnah can always rely for support. It is this solidarity that gave him victory in his scheme for the partition of the country. The nationalist Muslims, respectable and patriotic as they are, have not so far shown any capacity for organised action strong enough to break the Muslim League solidarity. Even today they do not have any real organisation. Thc League Parties continue to flourish in the Provinces and the States and there is not much to show that their political outlook is changed. In contrast with the solidarity among the Muslims, there is the division in Hindu society. The Congress has so far done little to put an end to this division. Congress Governments in some of the Provinces–notably and prominently in Madras–have accentuated these divisions by pursuing a purely communal policy. In addition to all this there are political divisions created by the activities of the Communists, the Socialists, the Kisans and the Hindu Mahasabha. Another advantage which the Pakistan Government possesses is that Islam is a proselytizing religion. It believes in mass conversions. It can bring political pressure to compel non-Muslims to become Muslims and remove the obstacle that non-Muslim minorities may otherwise create. Not so is the case with Hinduism. It believes in the equality of all religions and in toleration. It is time now to consider whether this creed is to be continued or whether something like the Shuddhi movement is to be introduced to bring to the Hindu fold those who were in the past taken out of it through pressure. Another advantage which Pakistan possesses is the appeal which it is able to make to the Pan-Islamic sentiment and thus win the moral and material support of Muslim people living in other countries. It is a mistake to ignore the strength of this sentiment. There is an awakening of the Muslims, from Gibraltar to the Bay of Bengal. Its political significance is seen today in the united front of the Arab and other Muslim States against the Jews in Palestine. Through the U. N. O. a closer contact is being established among all the Islamic States and between Pakistan and the other Muslim States. There is no such extra territorial sentiment to which the Dominion of India can appeal. Finally, it is to be noted that the British are more sympathetic towards Pakistan than towards India. There is nothing strange in this. It is in keeping with their tradition. The British Governors in the Pakistan Provinces, and the British financial and other adviser of the Pakistan Government are there to maintain the closest association between Pakistan and Britain. It is quite possible that the United States also may come to the aid of Pakistan, as she did in the case of Turkey and Greece, through the application of the Truman doctrine.

Though India is the bigger of the two Dominions, the problems it has to face are more complicated and varied. There is more of heterogeneity among her peoples and more of division in the politically conscious sections. To create a strong and efficient State in such an atmosphere requires a larger amount of statesmanship, and statesmanship of the highest quality. The primary task, however, of this statesmanship is the creation of instruments of power with which it will be in a position to deaf with external as well as internal dangers. What the principal source of these dangers is has been pointed out above. It is the centre from which there is every possibility of India experiencing today what she experienced at the hands of Mahmud of Ghazni, Tamerlane, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdalli in the bygone days. Effort, therefore, should be concentrated on the building up of military strength without which the freedom of the State cannot be maintained. Every scheme of reconstruction should be judged, for the time being, by the one standard of the extent to which it will make the Dominion of India strong from the military point of view. Rapid industrialisation of the country, agricultural improvement, socialistic economy,–all these are necessary and desirable, but we have to realise that today they are necessary and desirable because, without them, we will not be strong enough to defend ourselves from the dangers that are the inevitable outcome of the Pakistan ideology. It may be that Right is on the side of the Dominion of India, but in the real world the claim to Right has no validity unless it is ed up by Might. It is on this simple truth that the policies of the Government of the Dominion of India should be based.

As a first step in this programme, the Government should once for all decide whether it believes in the doctrine of non-violence as preached by Mahatma Gandhi or is prepared to discard it. There is now no room for vacillation on this issue. It is not here argued that non-violent methods of fighting are less efficacious than violent methods. It is quite possible that they are really more efficacious. But even for carrying on a non-violent war, there must be an army trained and disciplined in the methods of non-violence. No such army exists today and no effort has been made all these years to create such an army. A crore of men in the country believing in non-violence as an article of faith and trained to practise it through yoga and tapas can beat any attack from anywhere. But where are the experts who can give such training and where are the persons who are eager to undergo such discipline? Is the Government or Mahatma Gandhi in a position to create such an army? If this is found an impossible and an impracticable task, the only alternative is to create an army, as the term is normally understood. It may necessitate universal military training. It will necessitate industrialisation of the country’s economy and the liquidation of all vested interests. This is the task which lies ahead of the Government of the Dominion of to India. In no other way will it be possible to overcome the danger arising out of the ideology of Pakistan, the greatest danger that India has to face today. There is no security or safety for India as long as this ideology inspires the Government of Pakistan and the League-minded Muslims inside India.

* Written on the 24th of October, 1947.