Gandhiji and Hindu - Muslim Unity

GANDHIJI AND HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY

Mahatma Gandhi tried a number of experiments in the use of Satyagraha to solve India’s problems. Among them the most complex and sensitive was Hindu-Muslim unity. It was a communal problem and unless it was solved, he knew that the country would not progress because it was based on mutual distrust, apprehension and hatred. But yet it should be solved in the interest of the country. Hence Hindu-Muslim differences became a challenge to him and to establish unity between the two communities became his life’s mission.

In a sense these complexities arose more due to the psychological nature of Hindus and Muslims. They were often gripped in a state of fear. Gandhi thought that Hindus and Muslims should believe not only in physical but moral or God’s strength. This would give rise to trust and beget trust. But to develop trust there should be a conducive atmosphere. This should be created because, according to Gandhiji, both races lived under the same sky, drank the same water, breathed the same air and shared the same land. So they could share amicability and trustworthiness.

Some people felt that he unnecessarily linked politics with religion and so the problem of Hindu-Muslim unity acquired religio-political colouring. But he denied this. He said that during his early life at Rajkot when he was a boy he saw his father maintain cordial relations with Muslims. Hindus and Muslims dined together in his house in large numbers. Inspired by this, when he visited South Africa to argue a Muslim case, he maintained good Hindu-Muslim fraternity there. At times he became poetic and said that if one opened his chest, one would find his heart beating for Hindu-Muslim unity all twenty-four hours.

In a sense, he felt that this was not a problem at all because Muslims existed in other countries of the world and lived cordially with other races. But here Hindu-Muslim relation was something unparalleled. There were also Muslims in China, England, and other countries but nowhere there had been a demand from Muslims for separate identity or state as in India. If Muslims in Indian provinces on the basis of their majority demanded separate identity, he questioned the fate of the Muslims who were in minority in other provinces orscattered throughout the length and breadth of India. Does it not apply to them?

Though the problem was social, it had economic links also. Since Hindus were larger in numbers throughout India and as land was concentrated largely in the hands of a few Hindus, the Muslims were gripped with a fear of economic insecurity or ‘prevailing poverty’. No doubt, some lands of Muslims better irrigated than others and yielded produce, but their benefits werereaped by the Hindu landlords. Due to constant distrust between them barriers were developed and Muslims started separate schools and townships. Thus land was also separated for them. This led to discrimination even in the treatment of animals like the cow. While Hindus held it in respect, the Muslims treated the cow just like any other animal. Gandhiji believed that if Hindus were not so particular over the cow and withdrew quarreling, the mutual distrust could be mitigated. But under the pressure of passion and prejudice, both roused each other and entered into communal warfare.

Hence harmony is important and if this was achieved, Hindus and Muslims could live like brothers. For example, Gandhiji had his Muslim followers like Azad, Ali brothers, Ghaffar Khan and Hindus like Nehru, Patel, Rajendra Prasad etc. In political meetings both moved like brothers. He even claimed that he had no hatred against M.A. Jinnah, who at one time was a staunch congressman and moved closely with him. But later, since 1930’s, he became a bitter rival to him. Yet Gandhiji said that he never talked ill of him. Actually Islam never spread hatred over the other communities. Hence if Jinnah hated him, it was because of his human weakness.

Gandhiji’s dedication for Hindu-Muslim unity can be understood from a number of metaphors he often used in speeches. He said that both Hindus and Muslims were like two branches or leaves of the same tree. Itmeans the basis of both communities was religious and depended upon unity, peace and compactness but not in drifting away as separate unit. A Hindu or a Muslim, irrespective of his religion, belongs to the same nation.

Gandhiji referred to the social growth of Muslims and the top positions they held in society. Buddruddin Tyabji was a Muslim but acted as a President of the Congress. Dadabhai Naoroji and Pherozeshah Mehta were Parsis but they too presided over Congress sessions. Hence he thought there was no bar if Muslims wanted to occupy high positions. If there was a quarrel, it means it was a sort of a bargain and there was no need for such a thing if both communities sought friendship.

Further, there should be congenial atmosphere for both communities, because as he said both Hindus and Muslims ate the same cereals and drank the same water. For Gandhiji inter-dining and intermarriages were also not extraordinary things or something to be keenly observed. It did not matter if one did not eat with another or enter into matrimonial alliance. It is a private and personal matter just like one’s likes and dislikes. But some how caste Hindus, as Gandhiji wondered, were very particular over this private matter, and gave religious colouring. He said that these customs and superstitions should be ignored since Hindus and Muslims were products of the same soil.

But the ultimate objective of Gandhiji was to attain Swaraj by promoting Hindu-Muslim unity. He did not want that the British should continue to rule but he knew that one day it would be ended. To liberate India from the British yoke there were two methods: using violence and observing non-violence. The mutineers tried the first method in 1857 but it proved ineffective. Gandhiji did not like it but preferred the second because it was superior and it does not require the consent of others as in the case of violence. The reason is if two persons want the same thing and one of the two follows nonviolence there is no quarrel. So with nonviolence one can attain Swaraj. But if one follows violence it involves many awful steps on the way. If the Indians preferred to achieve Swaraj by violence, Gandhiji said, one should not think of achieving Swaraj in the near future because once the fighting started it was difficult to wind it up and rivers of blood would flow. Hence in order to achieve Swaraj, communal harmony and nonviolence are the most relevant and useful methods.