Vol. 8 · pages 326–330

301 PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION How far will Muslims obey the authority of a government manned and controlled by the Hindus ? The answer to this question need not call for much inquiry. To the Muslims a Hindu is a Kaffir.* A Kaffir is not worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status. That is why a country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence seems to be necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to obey the authority of government, do not simply exist. But if proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to omit. In the midst of the Khilafat agitation when the Hindus were doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were a low and an inferior race. A Musalman wrote† in the Khilafat paper called Insaf :— “What is the meaning of Swami and Mahatma? Can Muslims use in speech or writing these words about non-Muslims ? He says that Swami means ‘Master’, and ‘Mahatma’ means ‘possessed of the highest spiritual powers’ and is equivalent to ‘Ruh-i-aazam’, and the supreme spirit.” He asked the Muslim divines to decide by an authoritative fatwa whether it was lawful for Muslims to call non-Muslims by such deferential and reverential titles. A remarkable incident was reported‡ in connection with the celebration, of Mr. Gandhi’s release from gaol in 1924 at the Tibbia College of Yunani medicine run by Hakim Ajmal Khan at Delhi. According to the report, a Hindu student compared Mr. Gandhi to Hazarat Isa (Jesus) and at this sacrilege to the Musalman sentiment all the Musalman students flared up and threatened the Hindu student with violence, and, it is alleged, even the Musalman professors joined with their co-religionists in this demonstration of their outraged feelings. * The Hindus have no right to feel hurt at being called Kaffirs. They call the Muslims Mlechas—persons not fit to associate with. † See “Through Indian Eyes,” Times of India, dated 11-3-24. ‡ See “ Through Indian Eyes,” Times of India, dated 21-3-24.

302 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES In 1923 Mr. Mahomed Ali presided over the session of the Indian National Congress. In this address he spoke of Mr. Gandhi in the following terms: “Many have compared the Mahatma’s teachings, and latterly his personal sufferings, to those of Jesus (on whom be peace)…….When Jesus contemplated the world at the outset of his ministry he was called upon to make his choice of the weapons of reform……The idea of being all-powerful by suffering and resignation, and of triumphing over force by purity of heart, is as old as the days of Abel and Cain, the first progeny of man….. “Be that as it may, it was just as peculiar to Mahatma Gandhi also; but it was reserved for a Christian Government to treat as felon the most Christ-like man of our time ( Shame, Shame) and to penalize as a disturber of the public peace the one man engaged in public affairs who comes nearest to the Prince of Peace. The political conditions of India just before the advent of the Mahatma resembled those of Judea on the eve of the advent of Jesus, and the prescription that he offered to those in search of a remedy for the ills of India was the same that Jesus had dispensed before in Judea. Self-purification through suffering ; a moral preparation for the responsibilities of government; self-discipline as the condition precedent of Swaraj—this was Mahatma’s creed and conviction ; and those of us, who have been privileged to have lived in the glorious year that culminated in the Congress session at Ahmedabad, have seen what a remarkable and rapid change he wrought in the thoughts, feelings and actions of such large masses of mankind. ” A year after, Mr. Mahomed Ali speaking at Aligarh and Ajmere said: “ However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character. ” The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mahomed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi, was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptuous sentiments about him. When Mr. Mahomed Ali was speaking at a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mr. Mahomed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied*: - “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi. ” *“ Through Indian Eyes,” Times of India, dated 21-3-24.

303 PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION It was suggested* at the time that Mr. Mahomed Ali had to recant because the whole of the orthodox Muslim community had taken offence for his having shown such deference to Mr. Gandhi, who was a Kaffir, as to put him on the same pedestal as Jesus. Such praise of a Kaffir, they felt, was forbidden by the Muslim Canon Law. In a manifesto† on Hindu-Muslim relations issued in 1928 Khwaja Hasan Nizami declared : “Musalmans are separate from Hindus ; they cannot unite with the Hindus. After bloody wars the Musalmans conquered India, and the English took India from them. The Musalmans are one united nation and they alone will be masters of India. They will never give up their individuality. They have ruled India for Hundreds of years, and hence they have a prescriptive right over the country. The Hindus are a minor community in the world. They are never free from internecine quarrels ; they believe in Gandhi and worship the cow ; they are polluted by taking other people’s water. The Hindus do not care for self-government; they have no time to spare for it; let them go on with their internal squabbles. What capacity have they for ruling over men ? The Musalmans did rule, and the Musalmans will rule.” Far from rendering obedience to Hindus, the Muslims seem to be ready to try conclusions with the Hindus again. In 1926 there arose a controversy as to who really won the third battle of Panipat, fought in 1761. It was contended for the Muslims that it was a great victory for them because Ahmad Sha Abdali had 1 lakh of soldiers while the Mahrattas had 4 to 6 lakhs. The Hindus replied that it was a victory to them—a victory to vanquished—because it stemmed the tide of Muslim invasions. The Muslims were not prepared to admit defeat at the hands of Hindus and claimed that they will always prove superior to the Hindus. To prove the eternal superiority of Muslims over Hindus it was proposed by one Maulana Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that the Hindus and Muslims should fight, under test conditions, fourth battle on the same fateful plain of Panipat. The Maulana accordingly issued‡ a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya in the following terms: “If you Malaviyaji, are making efforts to falsify the result at Panipat, I shall show you an easy and an excellent way (of testing it). Use your * “Through Indian Eyes”, Times of India, dated 26-4-24. † Ibid., dated 14-3-28. ‡ Ibid., dated 20-6-26.

304 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES well-known influence and induce the British Government to permit the fourth battle of Panipat to be fought without hindrance from the authorities. I am ready to provide…..a comparative test of the valour and fighting spirit of the Hindus and the Musalmans…..As there are seven crores of Musalmans in India, I shall arrive on a fixed date on the plain of Panipat with 700 Musalmans representing the seven crores of Muslims in India and as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you to come with 2,200 Hindus. The proper thing is not to use cannon, machine guns or bombs : only swords and javelins and spears, bows and arrows and daggers should be used. If you cannot accept the post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may give it to any descendant of Sadashivrao* or Vishwasrao* so that their scions may have an opportunity to avenge the defeat of their ancestors in 1761. But any way do come as a spectator; for on seeing the result of this battle you will have to change your views, and I hope there will be then an end of the present discord and fighting in the country…..In conclusion I beg to add that among the 700 men that I shall bring there will be no Pathans or Afghans as you are mortally afraid of them. So I shall bring with me only Indian Musalmans of good family who are staunch adherents of Shariat. ” IV Such are the religious beliefs, social attitudes and ultimate destinies of the Hindus and Muslims and their communal and political manifestations. These religious beliefs, social attitudes and views regarding ultimate destinies constitute the motive force which determines the lines of their action, whether they will be co-operative or conflicting. Past experience shows that they are too irreconcilable and too incompatible to permit Hindus and Muslims ever forming one single nation or even two harmonious parts of one whole. These differences have the sure effect not only of keeping them as under but also of keeping them at war. The differences are permanent and the Hindu-Muslim problem bids fair to be eternal. To attempt to solve it on the footing that Hindus and Muslims are one or if they are not one now they will be one hereafter is bound to be a barren occupation—as barren as it proved to be in the case of Czechoslovakia. On the contrary, time has come when certain facts must be admitted as beyond dispute, however unpleasant such admission may be. * They were the Military Commanders on the side of the Hindus in the third battle of Panipat.

305 PAKISTAN : NATIONAL FRUSTRATION In the first place, it should be admitted that every possible attempt to bring about union between Hindus and Muslims has been made and that all of them have failed. The history of these attempts may be said to begin with the year 1909. The demands of the Muslim deputation, if they were granted by the British, were assented to by the Hindus, prominent amongst whom was Mr. Gokhale. He has been blamed by many Hindus for giving his consent to the principle of separate electorates. His critics forget that withholding consent would not have been a part of wisdom. For, as has been well said by Mr. Mahomed Ali: “…..paradoxical as it may seem, the creation of separate electorates was hastening the advent of Hindu-Muslim unity. For the first time a real franchise, however restricted, was being offered to Indians, and if Hindus and Musalmans remained just as divided as they had hitherto been since the commencement of the British rule, and often hostile to one another, mixed electorates would have provided the best battle-ground for inter- communal strifes, and would have still further widened the gulf separating the two communities. Each candidate for election would have appealed to his own community for votes and would have based his claims for preference on the intensity of his ill-will towards the rival community, however, disguised this may have been under some such formula as ‘the defence of his community’s interest’. Bad as this would have been, the results of an election in which the two communities were not equally matched would have been even worse, for the community that failed to get its representative elected would have inevitably borne a yet deeper grudge against its successful rival. Divided as the two communities were, there was no chance for any political principles coming into prominence during the elections. The creation of separate electorates did a great deal to stop this inter-communal warfare, though I am far from oblivious of the fact that when inter-communal jealousies are acute the men that are more likely to be returned even from communal electorates are just those who are noted for the ill-will towards the rival community.” But the concession in favour of separate electorates made by the Hindus in 1909 did not result in Hindu-Muslim unity. Then came the Lucknow Pact in 1916. Under it the Hindus gave satisfaction to the Muslims on every count. Yet, it did not produce any accord between the two. Six years later, another attempt was made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity. The All-India Muslim League at its annual session held at Lucknow in March 1923 passed