Vol. 8 · pages 161–165
Pakistan or the Partition of India
This text was extracted automatically from the official PDF of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, so it may contain small errors. Always check the original page before quoting.
PDF page 161 (printed page 136)
136 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
country. Such other names as India, Hind, etc., being derived
from the same original word Sindhu may be used but only
to signify the same sense—the land of the Hindus, a country
which is the abode of the Hindu Nation. Aryavarta, BharatBhumi and such other names are of course the ancient and the
most cherished epithets of our Mother Land and will continue
to appeal to the cultured elite. In this insistence that the
Mother Land of the Hindus must be called but “Hindustan”,
no encroachment or humiliation is implied in connection with
any of our non-Hindu countrymen. Our Parsee and Christian
countrymen are already too akin to us culturally and are too
patriotic and the Anglo-Indians too sensible to refuse to fall
in line with us Hindus on so legitimate a ground. So far as
our Moslem countrymen are concerned it is useless to conceal
the fact that some of them are already inclined to look upon
this molehill also as an insuperable mountain in their way
to Hindu-Moslem unity. But they should remember that the
Moslems do not dwell only in India nor are the Indian Moslems
the only heroic remnants of the Faithful in Islam. China has
crores of Moslems. Greece, Palestine and even Hungary and
Poland have thousands of Moslems amongst their nationals.
But being there a minority, only a community, their existence
in these countries has never been advanced as a ground to
change the ancient names of these countries which indicate the
abodes of those races whose overwhelming majority owns the
land. The country of the Poles continues to be Poland and of
the Grecians as Greece. The Moslems there did not or dared not
to distort them but are quite content to distinguish themselves
as Polish Moslems or Grecian Moslems or Chinese Moslems
when occasion arises, so also our Moslem countrymen may
distinguish themselves nationally or territorially whenever they
want, as “Hindustanee Moslems” without compromising in the
least their separateness as Religious or Cultural entity. Nay,
the Moslems have been calling themselves as “Hindustanis”
ever since their advent in India, of their own accord.
“But if inspite of it all some irascible Moslem sections
amongst our countrymen object even to this name of our
Country, that is no reason why we should play cowards to
our own conscience. We Hindus must -not betray or break
up the continuity of our Nation from the Sindhus in Rigvedic
days to the Hindus of our own generation which is implied
in “Hindustan”, the accepted appellation of our Mother Land.
Just as the land of the Germans is Germany, of the English
England, of the Turks Turkistan, of the Afghans Afghanistan—
even so we must have it indelibly impressed on the map of
the earth for all times to come a “Hindustan”—the land of
the “ Hindus”.
PDF page 162
137
PAKISTAN : HINDU ALTERNATIVE TO PAKISTAN
The second is the retention of Sanskrit as sacred language,
Hindi as national language and Nagari as the script of Hindudom.*
“The Sanskrit shall be our “ nsoHkk"kk” (Deva Bhasha)§ our sacred
language and the “Sanskrit Nishtha”† Hindi, the Hindi which is
derived from Sanskrit and draws its nourishment from the latter,
is our “jk"VªHkk"kk” (Rashtra Bhasha)‡ our current national language—
besides being the richest and the most cultured of the ancient
languages of the world, to us Hindus the Sanskrit is the holiest
tongue of tongues. Our scriptures, history, philosophy and culture
have their roots so deeply imbedded in the Sanskrit literature that
it forms veritably the brain of our Race. Mother of the majority
of our mother tongues, she has suckled the rest of them at her
breast. All Hindu languages current today whether derived from
Sanskrit or grafted on to it can only grow and flourish on the sap
of life they imbibe from Sanskrit. The Sanskrit language therefore
must ever be an indispensable constituent of the classical course
for Hindu youths.
“In adopting the Hindi as the National tongue of Hindudom no
humiliation or any invidious distinction is implied as regards other
provincial tongues. We are all as attached to our provincial tongues
as to Hindi and they will all grow and flourish in their respective
spheres. In fact some of them are today more progressive and richer
in literature. But nevertheless, taken all in the Hindi can serve
the purpose of a National Pan-Hindu language best. It must also
be remembered that the Hindi is not made a National Language
to order. The fact is that long before either the English or even
the Moslems stepped in India the Hindi in its general form had
already come to occupy the position of a National tongue throughout
Hindustan. The Hindu pilgrim, the tradesman, the tourist, the
soldier, the Pandit travelled up and down from Bengal to Sind
and Kashmere to Rameshwar by making himself understood from
locality to locality through Hindi. Just as the Sanskrit was the
National Language of the Hindu intellectual world even so Hindi
has been for at least a thousand years in the past the National
Indian Tongue of the Hindu community..........
“By Hindi we of course mean the pure “Sanskrit Nistha”
Hindi, as we find it for example in the “Satyartha Prakash”
written by Maharsi Dayananda Saraswati. How simple and
untainted with a single unnecessary foreign word is that
Hindi and how expressive withal! It may be mentioned in
passing that Swami Dayanandaji was about the first Hindu
leader who gave conscious and definite expression to the
*Speech 1939, pp. 21,22,23.
§ Language of Gods.
†Basically Sanskrit.
‡National Language.
PDF page 163 (printed page 138)
138 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
view that Hindi should be the Pan-Hindu National language of
India. “This Sanskrit Nistha” Hindi has nothing to do with that
hybrid, the so-called Hindustani which is being hatched up by the
Wardha scheme. It is nothing short of a linguistic monstrosity
and must be ruthlessly suppressed. Not only that but it is our
bounden duty to oust as ruthlessly all unnecessary alien words
whether Arabian or English, from every Hindu tongue—whether
provincial or dialectical ...........
“.......... Our Sanskrit alphabetical order is phonetically about
the most perfect which the world has yet devised and almost all
our current Indian scripts already follow it. The Nagari Script too
follows this order. Like the Hindi language the Nagari Script too
has already been current for centuries all over India amongst the
Hindu literary circles for some two thousand years at any rate
in the past and was even popularly nick-named as the “ Shastri
Lipi” the script of our Hindu Scriptures .......... It is a matter
of common knowledge that if Bengali or Gujarathi is printed
in Nagari it is more or less understood by readers in several
other provinces. To have only one common language throughout
Hindustan at a stroke is impracticable and unwise. But to have
the Nagari script as the only common script throughout Hindudom
is much more feasible. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind
that the different Hindu scripts current in our different provinces
have a future of their own and may flourish side by side with
the Nagari. All that is immediately indispensable in the common
interest of Hindudom as a whole is that the Nagari Script must
be made a compulsory subject along with the Hindi language in
every school in the case of Hindu students.”
What is to be the position of the Non-Hindu minorities under
the Swaraj as contemplated by Mr. Savarkar ? On this question,
this is what Mr. Savarkar has to say : *
“When once the Hindu Maha Sabha not only accepts but
maintains the principles of “one man one vote” and the public
services to go by merit alone added to the fundamental rights
and obligations to be shared by all citizens alike irrespective
of any distinction of Race or Religion .... any further mention
of minority rights is on the principle not only unnecessary but
self-contradictory. Because it again introduces a consciousness
of majority and minority on Communal basis. But as practical
politics requires it and as the Hindu Sanghatanists want to relieve
our non-Hindu countrymen of even a ghost of suspicion, we are
prepared to emphasise that the legitimate rights of minorities
with regard to their Religion, Culture, and Language will be
expressly guaranteed : on one condition only that the equal
rights of the majority also must not in any case be encroached
upon or abrogated. Every minority may have separate schools
to train up their children in their own tongue, their own
* Ibid., p. 4.
PDF page 164
139
PAKISTAN : HINDU ALTERNATIVE TO PAKISTAN
religious or cultural institutions and can receive Government help also
for these,—but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the
common exchequer. The same principle must of course hold good in
case of the majority too.
“Over and above this, in case the constitution is not based on joint
electorates and on the unalloyed National principle of one man one
vote, but is based on the communal basis then those minorities who
wish to have separate electorate or reserve seats will be allowed to have
them,—but always in proportion to their population and provided that
it does not deprive the majority also of an equal right in proportion of
its population too.”
That being the position assigned to the minorities, Mr. Savarkar
concludes* that under his scheme of Swaraj:
“The Moslem minority in India will have the right to be
treated as equal citizens, enjoying equal protection and civic
rights in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority will
not encroach on the legitimate rights of any non-Hindu minority.
But in no case can the Hindu majority resign its right which as
a majority it is entitled to exercise under any democratic and
legitimate constitution. The Moslem minority in particular has
not obliged the Hindus by remaining in minority and therefore,
they must remain satisfied with the status they occupy and with
the legitimate share of civic and political rights that is their
proportionate due. It would be simply preposterous to endow the
Moslem minority with the right of exercising a practical veto on
the legitimate rights and privileges of the majority and call it a
“Swarajya”. The Hindus do not want a change of masters, are not
going to struggle and fight and die only to replace an Edward
by an Aurangazeb simply because the latter happens to be born
within Indian borders, but they want henceforth to be masters
themselves in their own house, in their own Land.”
And it is because he wants his Swaraj to bear the stamp of
being a Hindu Raj that Mr. Savarkar wants that India should
have the appellation of Hindustan.
This structure has been reared by Mr. Savarkar on two
propositions which he regards as fundamental.
The first is that the Hindu are a nation by themselves. He
enunciates this proposition with great elaboration and vehemence.
Says† Mr. Savarkar:
“In my Presidential speech at Nagpur I had, for the first time in the
history of our recent politics pointed out in bold relief that the whole
Congress ideology was vitiated ab initio by its unwitted assumption
that the territorial unity, a common habitat, was the only factor that
* Ibid., p. 16.
† Ibid., pp. 14-17.
PDF page 165 (printed page 140)
140 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
constituted and ought to and must constitute a Nation. This
conception of a Territorial Nationality has since then received a rude
shock in Europe itself from which it was imported wholesale to India
and the present War has justified my assertion by exploding the
myth altogether. All Nations carved out to order on the Territorial
design without any other common bond to mould each of them into
a national being have gone to rack and ruin, tumbled down like
a house of cards. Poland and Czechoslovakia will ever serve as
a stern warning against any such efforts to frame heterogeneous
peoples into such hotch-potch Nation, based only on the shifting
sands of the conception of Territorial Nationality, not cemented
by any cultural, racial or historical affinities and consequently
having no common will to incorporate themselves into a Nation.
These treaty-Nations broke up at the first opportunity they got:
The German part of them went over to Germany, the Russian to
Russia, Czechs to Czechs and Poles to Poles. The cultural, linguistic,
historical and such other organic affinities proved stronger than the
Territorial one. Only those Nations have persisted in maintaining
their National unity and identity during the last three to four
centuries in Europe which had developed racial, linguistic cultural
and such other organic affinities in addition to their Territorial
unity or even at times in spite of it and consequently willed to be
homogeneous National units—such as England, France, Germany,
Italy, Portugal, etc.
“Judged by any and all of these tests which go severally and
collectively to form such a homogeneous and organic Nation, in India
we Hindus are marked out as an abiding Nation by ourselves. Not
only do we own a common Fatherland, a Territorial unity, but what
is scarcely found anywhere else in the world, we have a common
Holy Land which is identified with our common Fatherland. This
Bharat Bhumi, this Hindustan, India is both our fir`Hkw and iq.;Hkw Our
patriotism therefore is doubly sure. Then, we have common affinities,
cultural, religious, historical, linguistic, and racial which through
the process of countless centuries of association and assimilation
moulded us into a homogeneous and organic nation and above all
induced a will to lead a corporate and common national life. The
Hindus are no treaty Nation—but an organic National Being.
“One more pertinent point must be met as it often misleads our
Congressite Hindu brethren in particular. The homogeneity that
wields a people into a National Being does not only imply the total
absence of all internal differences, religious, racial or linguistic, of
sects and sections amongst themselves. It only means that they
differ more from other people as a national unit than they differ
amongst themselves. Even the most unitarian nations of today—
say the British or the French— cannot be free from any religious,
linguistic, cultural, racial or other differences, sects or sections
or even some antipathies existing amongst themselves. National
homogeneity connotes oneness of a people in relation to the contrast
they present to any other people as a whole.