An abridged version of Dr. Ambedkar’s Book “Pakistan or Partition of India”

Ashish Sethiya

I would prefer Character over Reputation, Lous Litt one of the protagonists from the TV series, blurted out to his colleague. Cannot think of a better statement to describe Dr. Ambedkar, the architect of the constitution of India. A colossus of a man — scholar of the highest order, never shy of speaking the inconvenient truth and a true patriot. It is the people like him who enhance the stature of awards like Bharat Ratna.

His book on Partition was originally a report which was produced by a committee appointed by the Independent Labor Party after the 1940 Lahore Resolution. The Chairman of the committee was Dr. Bheemrao Ramji Ambedkar. This book is a treasure-trove for anyone who would like to understand the socio-political situation which eventually leads to the partition of India.

The following note started with the objective of writing an excerpt of the book or key takeaways, but given the depth and breadth of content in the book, it has turned out to be an abridged version or a Mini-Book.

Before you proceed I would again urge you to read the original masterpiece by Dr. Ambedkar. Only if you are hard-pressed for time or currently not keen on reading the full book currently you should read this instead.

Highlights of the book

• The in-depth recounting of the incidents and facts concerning partition
• Expounding on the terms nation, nationality, and nationalism
• Candid Views on Congress, Gandhi, Veer Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha, Jinnah, Muslim League, Other Muslim leaders, Hindusim and Islam
• Examples from countries faced with similar situations
• Insights on National Revenue and Expenditure

“In a controversy carried on the plain of pure sentiment, there is nothing surprising if a dispassionate student finds more stupefaction and less understanding, more heat and less light, more ridicule and less seriousness”

The position of Dr. Ambedkar on the partition may come out as a surprise to many. It may also come out as a surprise that he did not blame the British for the partition of India as most Indians today do, because in his view for British it does not matter whether India remains united or is territorially divided. It was immaterial to them. In his book, he articulates his reasoning in detail and talks at length about talks about all the possible options, and weighs them objectively, and dispassionately.

And while doing so looks he at different perspectives of the demand for Pakistan — historical, cultural, social, and practical. He looks at examples of other countries who have gone through a similar situation and how the learnings can be applied in the Indian context

The book is divided into 5 parts

• Introduction
• Part 1 — Muslim Case for Pakistan
• Part II — Hindu Case Against Pakistan
• Part III — What If Not Pakistan
• Part IV — Pakistan And The Malaise
• Part V — Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

He starts by mentioning some of the popular reactions to the Muslim league’s resolution on Pakistan

• A case of Political Measles to which a people in infancy of the conscious unity and power are very liable
• The permanent frame of the Muslim mind
• You don’t cut your head to cure your headache
• You don’t cut a baby into two because two women are enraged in fighting out a claim as to who its mother is

The Position of Dr. Amebdkar on the problem of Pakistan

I do not think the demand for Pakistan is the result of mere political distemper, which will pass away with the reflux of time. As I read into the situation, it seems to me that it is characteristics in the biological sense of the term, which the Muslim body politic has developed in the same manner as an organism develops a characteristic.

Those who believe in shooting it by similes should remember that nonsense does not cease to be nonsense because it is put in rhyme and that a metaphor is no argument though it is sometimes the gunpowder to drive one home and imbed it in memory.

He mentions that for the British it was immaterial whether India is united or is divided territorially as it does not impact them. Their issue was how to reconcile with the parties involved in the partition of India. He did not expect the British to accede to the demand of Indian Nationalists like Hindu Mahasabha to use coercion against the demand of Pakistan as it may not bring in the desired benefits and the consequences will be even worse as the time passes and the way Hindu Nationalists are demanding the right of self-determination, Muslims should also have the same right. Otherwise, for them, it may just be continuing imperialism with the Hindu majority taking the place of the British Majority. He categorically mentions that it is not up to the British to decide about the Pakistan issue, but it is up to the Hindus & Muslims.

He talks about the Muslim concern if there is a Hindu lead Central Government for all of India wherein there are some provinces that are Muslim dominated. He dwells on the fact that there is a significant amount of cultural difference even amongst Hindus, though there also is a rising sense of nationhood. He brings out a very important but rarely discussed issue of Financial Resources. He lays out a table of revenues from various provinces and said if Hindus look at its financial considerations other than patriotic considerations, they may one day support the idea of Pakistan. So, while Muslims will be asking for Pakistan for communal reasons, Hindus may be doing the same for Financial reasons.

In this context, he talks about the difference between an Open and an Empty Mind.

“I have an open mind, though not an empty mind. A person with an open mind is always the subject of congratulations. While this may be so, it must, at the same time, be realized that an open mind may also be an empty mind and that such an open mind, if it is a happy condition, is also a very dangerous condition for a man to be in. A disaster may easily overtake a man with an empty mind. Such a person is like a ship without ballast and without a rudder. It can have no direction. It may float but may also suffer a shipwreck against a rock for want of direction.”

For him, the objective of this book is not to covert but to explain though he does, says it may seem provocative at times, but that is to bring about the attention of the indifferent and the casual reader

Part I — Muslim Case for Pakistan

In March 1940, the All India Muslim League in their Lahore resolution bought forth the demand of Pakistan on the following grounds

(i) What the Muslims are asking for is the creation of administrative areas that are ethnically more homogeneous.
(ii) The Muslims want these homogeneous administrative areas which are predominantly Muslim to be constituted into separate States,
(a) because the Muslims by themselves constitute a separate nation and desire to have a national home, and
(b) because experience shows that the Hindus want to use their majority to treat the Muslims as though they were second-class citizens in an alien State.

He recounts that the Lahore resolution though may be shocking for many was already there in some form for the other as can be noted by the speech of Sir Mohmmad Iqbal in 1930. The name Pakistan was propounded by Rehmat Ali in 1933. He also recollected that Bengal has gone through this in 1905 when it was divided based on Religion but was again united in 1911.

Dr. Ambedkar now bought the Congress party and Gandhi Ji into the picture at this juncture and said how the Civil Disobedience Movement was the turning point of Congress as it helped them to connect with the nation at large.

Gandhi Ji has also by then come out with the principle of Linguistic Provinces. Dr. Ambedkar was critical of this as he says no thought has been given to practical concerns of resources etc in this provision and this will further alienate already loose social cohesiveness amongst Indians. He could not help but observe that the demand for Pakistan is just another manifestation of the demand for freedom to pursue their own cultural identity

One of the most important questions that dwelled in the book is “What constitutes a Nation”. He mentions that Hindus argue that Muslims cannot have Pakistan because there are Racial, Linguistic, and Country affinities amongst themselves. A Tamil Brahmin is more like Tamil Muslaman and a lot less like a Punjabi Brahmin. A Sindhi Musalman speaks the same language as a Sindhi Hindu, and they have lived together for centuries in the same country. On this, Dr. Ambedkar states from the Essays on Nationality by Renan that race, language, and country do not suffice to create a nation.

Renan said “A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage of memories; the other is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to preserve worthily the undivided inheritance which has been handed down. Man does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the outcome of a long past of efforts, and sacrifices, and devotion.

In the past an inheritance of glory and regrets to be shared, in the future alike ideal to be realized; to have suffered, and rejoiced, and hoped together; all these can be understood despite diversities of race and language. I said just now, ‘to have suffered together’ for indeed, suffering in common is a greater bond of union than joy. As regards national memories, mourning’s are worth more than triumphs; for they impose duties, they demand common effort.”

Understanding the Hindu — Muslim relationship basis above is critical — There are affinities, but the differences are starker. For example, for Hindus Prthiviraj Chauhan, Maharana Pratap, Shivaji, and the likes are Heroes who fought the Islamic Warriors, whereas for Muslims invaders the likes of Mohamad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb are Heroes. In matters of religion, one takes inspiration from Gita, Ramayan, and Mahabharat whereas the other takes inspiration from the Quran and Hadis. This religious and political and religious difference is immense.

Dr. Ambedkar said “In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mohmaddan social life, in relying upon a common language, the Hindu is mistaken for what is accidental and superficial for what is essential and fundamental”

One also needs to understand the difference between Nationality and Nationalism and its implications.

Nationality means “consciousness of kind, awareness of the existence of that tie of kinship.” Nationalism means “the desire for a separate national existence for those who are bound by this tie of kinship.” For nationality to flame into nationalism two conditions must exist. First, there must arise the “will to live as a nation.” Secondly, there must be a territory which nationalism could occupy and make it a state, as well as a cultural home of the nation. Without such a territory, nationalism, to use Lord Acton’s phrase, would be a “soul as it. we’re wandering in search of a body in which to begin life over again and dies out finding none.” The Muslims have developed a “will to live as a nation.” For them, nature has found a territory which they can occupy and make it a state as well as a cultural home for the new-born Muslim nation.

Some Hindu organizations have been asking what is the grievance that Muslims have that they are asking for a separate nation. What they are not realizing is that demand by a certain group for a separate nation does not necessarily have to be preceded by any grievance. Having said that the Muslim League did present their grievances which in one sentence can be summed up as follows — The constitutional safeguards have failed to save them from the tyranny of the Hindu Majority.

Dr. Ambedkar noted that irrespective of the grievances as claimed by Muslims or the absence of it as claimed by Hindus, the real issue is that is the minority community willing to live under the rule of the majority community? It is also important to note that over time the relationship between Congress and the Muslim League has also worsened. He goes on to the extent of claiming that both Congress and Hindu Mahasabha are Hindu in constitution wherein the only difference being Hindu Mahasabha is crude in its utterances and brutal in action, while the Congress is politic and polite.

Part II — Hindu Case Against Pakistan

Dr. Ambedkar zeroed upon three objections in the mind of Hindus, concerning partition: -
1. It involves the breaking-up of the unity of India.
2. It weakens the defence of India.
3. It fails to solve the communal problem.

He started by saying before Hindus complain about it, they should first ascertain what is the historical evidence of Hindu — Muslim unity. In this context, he shed light on how Islam came to India. He recounts, that it came to India primarily in the form of Invaders of Ismalic faith but of different origins — Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and Afghans. Some of the notable invaders were Mohamad Bin Qasim, Muhammad of Gajni, Mahommed Ghori, Taimur, Nadir Shah, and Ahmadshah Abdali.

These Muslim invasions were not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest. But there is no doubt that striking a blow to the idolatry and polytheism of Hindus and establishing Islam in India was also one of the aims of this expedition.

These invasions of India by Muslims were as many invasions of India as they were wars among the Muslims themselves. They were deadly rivals of one another, and their wars were often Wars of mutual extermination. What is, however, important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith.

Dr. Titus further observes “Such invaders as Muhammad and Timur seem to have been more concerned with iconoclasm, the collection of booty, the enslaving of captives, and the sending of infidels to hell with the ‘proselytizing sword’ than they were with the conversion of them even by force. But when rulers have permanently established the winning of converts became a matter of supreme urgency. It was a part of the state policy to establish Islam as the religion of the whole land”

On Jijiya taxes Lane Poole says “the Hindu was taxed to the extent of half the produce of his land, and had to pay duties on all his buffaloes, goats, and other milk-cattle. The new rules were strictly carried out so that one revenue officer would string together 20 Hindu notables and enforce payment by blows. No gold or silver, not even the betelnut, so cheering and stimulative to pleasure was to be seen in a Hindu house”

What is important to note is that the atrocities on native Hindus by Islamic invaders and rulers were not simply moral perversions but were done as per Islamic injunctions against the infidels and had religious sanction and encouragement.

For instance, A Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under Muslim law. The Kazi said: —

“They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should without question, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this humble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them in subjugation.’ To keep the Hindus in a basement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and properly.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifah), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus; doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islam

There are 12 such quotations by Islamic Historians covering different Islamic invaders and rulers quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book.

The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind them their aftermath. One aftermath is the bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness between the two is so deep-seated that a century of political life has neither succeeded in assuaging it nor in making people forget it. As the invasions were accompanied with. destruction of temples and forced conversions, with spoliation of property, with slaughter, enslavement, and abasement of men, women, and children, what wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a source of pride to the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus?

The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable

Under these premises, Dr. Ambedkar asks the question, what is the unity between Hindustan and Pakistan. For him, Geographical unity is not a unity but is just a coincidence of nature. He also doesn’t give much weightage to the external unit of habits and customers as it can happen just when people are exposed to a similar environment.

If unity is to be abiding, it must be founded on a sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred. In short, it must be spiritual. Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth.

He moves on to examine the 2nd point which is of Weakening of Defences. Here he spoke about three things: 1) The Question of frontiers 2) The Question of Resources and 3) Question of Armed Forces.

The question of the frontier was not so critical and even the second question of resources was in favor of India as Pakistan had revenues of 36 Cr whereas Hindustan had revenues of 120 Cr. In terms of al population, area, and revenues Hindustan was relatively much better off than the Pakistan area.

The critical question was of Armed Forces. He brings out a very important point about the proportion of soldiers from areas that were to become Pakistan. It was way higher than the proportion of their overall population. Hindus were concerned that the defence of India will be weakened considerably if Pakistan were to become a separate nation, as a high proportion of soldiers will become part of the Pakistan army. But the question arises is about the loyalties of Muslim men in the Indian army. Will, they defend India if there is an attack from the Muslim army from Afghanistan or will they become one with them. He opined that it is rather better to have a safe army, which implied the lowering of the preponderance of Muslim men in the Indian army. The partition will automatically result in a decrease in the proportion of Muslim men in the Indian army and with the help of resources the army can further strengthen.

He makes one brilliant observation in respect of resources.

The revenue of the Central Government amounts to Rs.121 crores. Of this, about Rs. 52 crores are annually spent on the Army. The bulk of this amount is spent over the Muslim Army drawn from the Pakistan area, but the bulk of this is contributed by the Hindu Provinces and is spent on an Army which for the most part consists of non-Hindus!! How many Hindus are aware of this tragedy? How many know at whose cost this tragedy is being enacted? Today the Hindus are not responsible for it because they cannot prevent it. The question is whether they will allow this tragedy to continue. If they mean to stop it, the surest way of putting an end to it is to allow the scheme of Pakistan to take effect. To oppose it is to buy a sure weapon of their destruction. A safe Army is better than a safe border.

After settling the questions of defences of India, he moved on to the third objection of the Hindu case against Pakistan which is that the creation of Pakistan fails to solve the Communal Problem. On this question, he says that the creation of Pakistan may not solve the Communal Problem, but it will reduce it significantly — for if Pakistan is created, Hindustan will only have 2 Cr Muslims from 6.5 Cr. He recognizes the terror which can be unleashed especially by the Muslim Majority State on its minorities and hence proposes the exchange of minority populations citing the example of Greece, Bulgaria, and Turkey.

He also brings about the upper caste problem with Hindu Leadership in connection with the Hindus of the Punjab and Bengal and makes scathing remarks on them. The crux of his remarks is that the Upper Caste Hindus who form the Hindu opinion are selfish, acquisitive, and have an aversion to sharing good things in life with others. They have monopolized education and wealth, with which they have captured the state.

Part III — What If Not Pakistan

Over Dr. Ambedkar discusses what if not Pakistan. He deliberates what are the alternatives to Pakistan if any. Are they better or worse and what if neither Pakistan nor its alternatives? This issue is discussed under the following heads:

1. Hindu alternative to Pakistan
2. Muslim alternative to Pakistan
3. Lessons from abroad

1. Hindu Alternative to Pakistan

Lala Hardayal’s scheme for conversion in the North-West

Dr. Ambedkar starts by highlighting Lala Hardayal’s ambitious scheme for conversion in the North-West. In 1925 Lala Hardayal said

“I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safety of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes.”

Dr. Ambedkar was certainly not enthused by this scheme and stated that in the first place Hinduism like Islam is not a proselytizing religion. It may have been earlier but today Hinduism is under the grasp of the caste system, which only allows birth-based entry into a caste hence the idea of a proselytizing Hindu is not possible. Secondly, he mentions the resources required for Lala Hardayal’s objective do not exist, and finally converting an Afghan to Hindusim by telling them that Koran is wrong or out of date is simply not feasible. He mentions how a judicial court run as per Sharia Law gave a death penalty of stoning to death just because somebody was not willing to agree with the ways of Islam. Due to these reasons, he did not think Lala Hardayal’s Scheme was practical or possible.

The stand of Mr. V. D. Savarkar and the Hindu Maha Sabha

Dr. Ambedkar states that Veer Savarkar and Hindu Maha Sabha were vehemently opposed to the idea of Pakistan and were keen to resist it by all means possible. They insisted on following tenets of Swaraj

1. Firstly, the retention of the name Hindustan as the proper name for India
2. The second is the retention of Sanskrit as a sacred language, Hindi as the national language, and Nagari as the script of Hindudom

The idea of Hindi as a national language was not of the imposition but more of giving importance to it.

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.

Concerning the position of minorities, Veer Savarkar said

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. 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 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.

Veer Savarkar’s proposal stands on two principal propositions

The first is that the Hindus are a nation by themselves.

This Bharat Bhumi, this Hindustan, India is both our pitribhu (land of ancentors orfatherland) and punyabhu (holy land). 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 molded 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.

The second proposition on which Mr. Savarkar has built up his scheme relates to the definition of the term Hindu. According to Mr. Savarkar a Hindu is a person:

“. . . .who regards and owns this Bharat Bhumi, this land from the Indus to the Seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land; — i.e., the land of the origin of his religion, the cradle of his faith.

The followers therefore of Vaidicism, Sanatanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, the Arya Samaj, the Brahmosamaj, the Devasamaj, the Prarthana Samaj, and such other religions of Indian origin are Hindus and constitute Hindudom, i.e., Hindu people as a whole.

Consequently, the so-called aboriginal or hill-tribes also are Hindus: because India is their Fatherland as well as their Holy Land whatever form of religion or worship, they follow.

Dr. Ambedkar’s view on Veer Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha’s proposals

He mentioned that oddly there is a similarity of views between Savarkar and Jinnah when they say India has two nations — A Hindu and a Muslim. They differ on how they should exist, but they do agree that there are two of them.

Dr. Ambedkar states that “This alternative of Mr. Savarkar to Pakistan has about it a frankness, boldness and definiteness which distinguishes it from the irregularity, vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes the Congress declarations about minority rights. Mr. Savarkar’s scheme has at least the merit of telling the Muslims, thus far and no further. The Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu Maha Sabha. On the other hand, with the Congress the Musalmans find themselves nowhere because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game in diplomacy, if not in duplicity”

He further enumerates the issues with Savarkar’s scheme

1. If as per Savarkar Hindus are a nation and deserve a homeland then Muslims also deserve the same.
2. He says historically when two nations exist within the same country then there are two ways to deal with this. Either they become a separate nation or the majority through men’s constitution destroys the identity of smaller nations and absorbs it into it. But Savarkar’s advocates neither of the two. He mentioned the disruption Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Turkey faced while adopting a similar principle in history.
3. The scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfy their vanity and their pride in being an imperial race. But it can never ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative

Mr. Gandhi’s tenacious quest for Hindu-Muslim unity

On one hand where Savarkar’s was not concerned about whether Muslims would accept his proposal or not and his position can be summed up as: “If you come, with you, if you don’t, without you; and if you oppose, in spite of you — the Hindus will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can.”

Gandhi Ji on the other hand was insistent on Hindu Muslim unity from the very beginning of his political career. He once proclaimed he can get Swaraj to India in 6 months provided some of the conditions are met, the primary one being Hindu Muslim unity.

In the short-lived Sathyagraph campaign that started in March 1919 against the Rowlatt Act, Gandhi Ji asked Hindu-Muslims to take the following pledge, ”With God as witness, we Hindus, and Mahomedans declare that we shall behave towards one another as children of the same parents, that we shall have no differences, that the sorrows of each shall be the sorrows of the other and that each shall help the other in removing them. We shall respect each other’s religion and religious feelings and shall not stand in the way of our respective religious practices. We shall always refrain from violence to each other in the name of religion.”

Dr. Ambedkar mentions that was nothing in the campaign of Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act which could have led to any clash between the Hindus and Muslims. Yet Mr. Gandhi asked his followers to take the vow. This shows how insistent he was from the very beginning upon Hindu-Muslim unity.

The Khilafat movement started by Muslims in 1919 to ensure the presence of Khilafat and the integrity of the Turkish empire was enthusiastically taken up by Gandhi Ji. In the name of solidarity with the Mussalmans of India, Gandhi Ji exhorted the Non-Hindus of the country to join the Khilafat movement against the British. The non-cooperation movement of 2020 has its roots in Khifat and not in the swaraj movement as is the popular perception. In-fact the seeds of the non-cooperation movement were sown in Khilafat meetings way before congress adopted it. The advice of non-cooperation was given by Mr. Gandhi himself as a member of the executive committee of the Khilafat movement. It was then later ratified by congress. The congress demanded Swaraj on the grounds of Jaliwala bag atrocity and the Khilafat movement.

Here it is important to highlight that Congress since long has been trying to woo Muslims and the league. Swami Sharadananda shares an interesting account of how Congress was trying to go about it

“On sitting on the dias (Lucknow Congress platform) the first thing that I noticed was that the number of Moslem delegates was proportionately fourfold of what it was at Lahore in 1893. The majority of Moslem delegates had donned gold, silver and silk embroidered chogas (flowing robes) over their ordinary coarse suits of wearing apparel. It was rumoured that these ‘chogas’ had been put by Hindu moneyed men for Congress Tamasha. Of some 433 Moslem delegates only some 30 had come from outside, the rest belonging to Lucknow City. And of these majority was admitted free to delegate seats, board and lodging. Sir Syed Ahmad’s anti-Congress League had tried in a public meeting to dissuade Moslems from joining the Congress as delegates. As a countermove the Congress people lighted the whole Congress camp some four nights before the session began and advertised that that night would be free. The result was that all the “Chandul Khanas” of Lucknow were emptied and a huge audience of some thirty thousand Hindus and Moslems was addressed from half a dozen platforms. It was then that the Moslem delegates were elected or selected. All this was admitted by the Lucknow Congress organisers to me in private.

“A show was being made of the Moslem delegates. Moslem delegate gets up to second a resolution in Urdu. He begins: ‘Hozarat, I am a Mahomedan delegate.’ Some Hindu delegate gets up and calls for three cheers for Mahomedan delegates and the response is so enthusiastic as to be beyond description.”

Dr. Ambedkar said about Gandhi Ji

In taking up the cause of Khilafat Gandhi Ji achieved a double purpose. He carried the Congress Plan of winning over the Muslims to its culmination. Secondly, he made the Congress a power in the country, which it would not have been if the Muslims had not joined it. The cause of the Khilafat appealed to the Musalmans far more than political safeguards, with the result that the Musalmans who were outside it trooped into the Congress. The Hindus welcomed them. For, they saw in this a common front against the British, which was their main aim. The credit for this must of course goes to Mr. Gandhi. For there can be no doubt that this was an act of great daring.

When the Musalmans in 1919 approached the Hindus for participation in the Non-co-operation Movement which the Muslims desired to start for helping Turkey and the Khilafat, the Hindus were found to be divided into three camps. One was a camp of those who were opposed to non-co-operation in principle. A second camp consisted of those Hindus who were prepared to join the Muslims in their campaign of non-co-operation provided the Musalmans agreed to give up Cow Slaughter. A third group consisted of the Hindus who feared that the Mahomedans might extend their non-co-operation to inviting the Afghans to invade India, in which case the movement instead of resulting in Swaraj might result in the subjection of India to Muslim Raj.

Gandhi Ji didn’t respond to the first group and negated both the demands of the 2nd and 3rd groups by his logic of selfless and unconditional kinship. Within a year of starting the non-cooperation movement, Muslamnas started growing impatient which was also acknowledged by Mr. Gandhi. One of the things they did was to invite the Amit of Afghanistan to attack our own country, though the scheme didn’t come through. But Gandhi Ji’s appeasement continued on several occasions in his insistence on Hindu Muslim unity.

In an article in Young India of 8th September 1920 Mr. Gandhi said

“During the Madras tour, at Bezwada I had occasion to remark upon the national crisis and suggested that it would be better to have cries about ideals than men. I asked the audience to replace Mahatma Gandhi-ki-jai and Mahomed Ali Shoukat Ali-ki-jai by Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai. Brother Shoukat Ali, who followed, positively laid down the law. In spite of the Hindu-Muslim unity, he had observed that, if Hindus shouted Bande Mataram, the Muslims rang out with Allaho Akbar and vice versa. This, he rightly said jarred on the ear and still showed that the people did not act with one mind. There should be therefore only three cries recognised. Allaho Akbar to be joyously sung out by Hindus and Muslims, showing that God alone was great and no other. The second should be Bande Malaram (Hail Motherland) or Bharat Mata-ki-jai (Victory to Mother Hind). The third should be Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai without which there was no victory for India, and no true demonstration of the greatness of God.. I do wish that the newspapers and public men would take up the Maulana’s suggestion and lead the people only to use the three cries. They are full of meaning. The first is a prayer and confession of our littleness and therefore a sign of humility. It is a cry in which all Hindus and Muslims should join in reverence and prayfulness. Hindus may not fight shy of Arabic words, when their meaning is not only totally inoffensive but even ennobling. God is no respecter of any particular tongue. Bande Mataram, apart from its wonderful associations, expresses the one national wish — the rise of India to her full height. And I should prefer Bande Mataram to Bharat Mata-ki-jai, as it would be a graceful recognition of the intellectual and emotional superiority of Bengal. Since India can be nothing without the union of the Hindu and the Muslim heart, Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai is a cry which we may never forget.

These are not the only things Mr. Gandhi has done to build up Hindu-Moslem unity. He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. Some of the instances are the killing of Swami Sharadnand Ji by Abdul Rashid, Lala Nanakchand, a prominent Arya Samajist. Rajpal, the author of the Rangila Rasool, by Ilamdin, Nathurmal Sharma by Abdul Qayuam while he was in Judicial Custody. He then mentions a very important observation that the response of people who mattered to these murders. The law took its course and punished the guilt, but the Muslim leaders did not condemn these fanatics, infact they were hailed as religious martyrs. The lawyer of Abdul Qayuam, Mr. Barkat Ali argued in court that Abdul is not guilty as he was acting as per the law of the Koran.

Dr. Ambedkar here wonders that the attitude of Muslims is understandable, but the attitude of Mr. Gandhi was strange. On one hand, he spoke about non-violence and condemned every act of violence, and not just condemn but even made Congress condemn against their will on acts of violence but for violence by Muslims, he was usually silent or apologetic. His insistence on Hindu Muslim unity was such that he continued to overlook or even justify the bigotry of Muslims

The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of “congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion.” Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the “brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious.” Speaking of the Muslim silence over the Mopla atrocities Mr. Gandhi told the Hindus:

“The Hindus must have the courage and the faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical eruptions. A verbal disapproval by the Mussalmans of Mopla madness is no test of Mussalman friendship. The Mussalmans must naturally feel the shame and humiliation of the Mopla conduct about forcible conversions and looting, and they must work away so silently and effectively that such a thing might become impossible even on the part of the most fanatical among them. My belief is that the Hindus as a body have received the Mopla madness with equanimity and that the cultured Mussalmans are sincerely sorry of the Mopla’s perversion of the teaching of the Prophet.”

Even the resolution passed by the congress working committee was very indirect and careful of not hurting Muslim sentiments.

Dr. Ambedkar here quotes a few more instances as recounted by Swami Sharadnanda Ji on how Gandhi Ji continued to play ball with Muslim religious fanatism. He mentions that while Gandhi Ji asked everyone to burn the foreign cloth he gave special permission to Muslimas to send their foreign cloth to be used by their Turkish brethren

This was in brief about how Mahatma Gandhi for the sake of Hindu Muslim unity offered a blank cheque to Musalmans but to no anvil other than some unity conferences and resolutions were broken as they were made.

The riot-torn history of Hindu-Muslim relations, 1920–1940

Dr. Ambedkar talks about the relationship between Hindus and Muslims during 1920–40, wherein Gandhi Ji labored hard to bring about Hindu Muslim unity. The incidents he mentioned were from annual reports of the Government.

One of the most horrible events was the Mopla rebellion of Malabar in the year 1920. It was an outcome of the Khilafat movement wherein the Moplas of Malabar inflicted horrible atrocities on Hindus. And this was not warranted as the Khilafat movement was against British not Hindus but in their fanatic zeal, the inflicted unspeakable atrocities — killing, rapes, desecration of temples and properties, ripe opening pregnant women, and mass conversions. Dr. Ambedkar said it was not a Hindu-Muslim riot, it was a Hindu Genocide.

Other incidents

1921–22: The Muharram Celebrations had been attended by serious riots both in Bengal and in Punjab.

1923–24: Sever riots broke out in the city of Kohat, wounding 155. It resulted in the Hindu population leaving the city.

1924–25: Riots broke out all over India, notable among them being in Delhi, Nagpur, Lahore, Lucknow, Moradabad, Bhagalpur, Gulbarga, Shahajahanpur, Kankinarah, and at Allahabad

1925–26: Was a disturbing year with riots spreading even in small villages. Calcutta, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, and the Bombay Presidency were all scenes of riots, some of which led to regrettable losses of life.

1926–27: was one continuous period of communal riot including places like Delhi, Calcutta, Punjab, and United Provinces. About 40 riots broke out with 197 dead and 1598 injured.

1927–28: 25 riots were reported. Of these 10 occurred in the United Provinces, six in the Bombay Presidency, 2 each in Punjab, the Central Provinces, Bengal, and Bihar and Orissa, and one in Delhi. The total casualties of approximately 103 persons killed and 1,084 wounded.

1928–29: The number of riots during the twelve months ending with March 31st, 1929, was 22. Though the number of riots was comparatively small, the casualties, — swelled heavily by the Bombay riots, — were very serious, no fewer than 204 persons having been killed and nearly a thousand injured.

1929–30: 12 major incidents were reported including the one in Bombay arising out of the Rangila Rasool controversy. 35 deaths and 200 casualties were reported.

1930–31: This year saw the eruption of the Civil Disobedience Movement. It gave rise to riots and disturbances all over the country. But, as it always happens in India, the political disturbances took a communal twist. This was because the Muslims refused to submit to the coercive methods used by Congress volunteers to compel them to join in Civil Disobedience.

Some of the places were riots occurred where — Sukkur in Sind and a hundred villages, Kishoreganj subdivision of Mymensingh District (Bengal), Ballia (United Provinces), Nagpur, Tiruchendur (Madras), Amritsar, Benares, Nilphamari, Rawalpindi on the Mirzapur District, Agra Dhanbad (Bengal), Amritsar, Digboi in Lakhimpur District (Assam), Asansol (Bengal), Saran, Bhabua sub-division of Shahabad. Monghyr, Vellore(Madras Presidency), Salem, Kitchipalaiyam near Salem town, Polikal village, Kurnool District, Dehra Dun and Bulandshahr, Ballia city, Muttra, Azamgarh, Mainpuri, and several other places.

1931–32: Sever riots occurred in Cawnpore, The number of verified deaths was 300; but the death toll is known to have been larger and was probably between four and five hundred. Five hundred families abandoned their houses and took shelter in villages. This communal riot, which needs never have occurred but for the provocative conduct of the adherents of the Congress, was the worst which India has experienced for many years. The trouble, moreover, spread from the city to the neighbouring villages, where there were sporadic communal disturbances for several days afterward.

1933–34: Benares and Cawnpore in the United Provinces, at Lahore in Punjab, and Peshawar. Ayodhya, in the United Provinces, Bhagalpur in Bihar and Orissa, and at Cannanore in Madras. Ghazipur District, United Provinces, several places in Bihar and Orissa, in Bengal, in Sind and Delhi, Agra. Madras, Minor riots occurred in several places in the Punjab and the United Provinces.

1934–35:

Lahore on the 29th June as a result of a dispute between Muslims and Sikhs about a mosque situated within the precincts of a Sikh temple known as the Shahidganj Gurudwara.

On the 19th March 1935 a serious incident occurred in Karachi after the judicial execution of Abdul Quayum, the Muslim who had murdered Nathuramal, a Hindu, already referred to as the writer of a scurrilous pamphlet about the Prophet. Abdul Quayum’s body was taken by the District Magistrate, accompanied by a police party, to be handed over to the deceased’s family for burial outside the city. A huge crowd, estimated to be about 25,000 strong, collected at the place of burial.

1935–36:

This year saw Communal riots at Secunderabad

1936–37:

This year was full of communal riots in places like Firozabad, Poona, Jamalpur in the Monghyr District and Bombay

1937–38:

This year also saw a lot of communal disturbances. Panipat, Madras, C. P., and Punjab. Shikarpur in Sind caused great panic. Sikh-Muslim riot in Amritsar.

1938–39: The year 1938 was marked by two communal riots — one in Allahabad on 26th March and another in Bombay in April.

1939–40:There were 6 Hindu-Muslim riots in 1939. Asansol, Cawnpore, Benares, Cassipore near Calcutta, Sukkur in Sind.

It is important to note that some of these riots would start at the slightest of provocation like a dispute between a customer and the shopkeeper of different communities etc.

Such barbaric mutual violence shows an utter lack of unity

The record of Hindu Muslim unity is so bleak during this period despite the frantic efforts of Mahatma Gandhi. It reflects the deep-rooted animosity between the two communities owing to historical and ideological differences.

In these riots, men were principal victims but many a time several women faced inhuman hostilities — molestation, adduction, rape, conversion & murder. He estimated that around 35,000 women were abducted in Bengal during the short period of five years between 1922–27. The abducted women were from all communities but, Hindu women were highest in number.

He further stated, “These acts of barbarism against women, committed without remorse, without shame, and without condemnation by their fellow brethren show the depth of the antagonism which divided the two communities. The tempers on each side were the tempers of two warring nations. There was carnage, pillage, sacrilege, and outrage of every species, perpetrated by Hindus against Musalmans and by Musalmans against Hindus — more perhaps by Musalmans against Hindus than by Hindus against Musalmans.”

The sustained animosity between Hindus and Muslims eventually perhaps led Gandhi Ji also believe it is an impossible task, however many still thought that there could be co-operation and peace between Hindus and Muslims, on the following grounds:

• Firstly, they believe in the efficacy of a Central Government to mould a diverse set of people into one nation.
• Secondly, they feel that the satisfaction of Muslim demands will be a sure means of achieving Hindu-Muslim unity.

Dr. Ambedkar opined on the first one

The limits to Government working as a unifying force are set by the possibilities of fusion among the people. In a country where race, language and religion do not stand in the way of fusion, Government is most effective as a unifying force. On the other hand, in a country where race, language and religion put an effective bar against fusion, Government can have no effect as a unifying force. If the diverse people in France, England, Italy and Germany became unified nations by reason of a common Government, it was because neither race, language nor religion obstructed the unifying process of Government. On the other hand, if the people in Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Turkey failed to be unified, although under a common Government, it was because race, language and religion were strong enough to counter and nullify the unifying power of Government. No one can deny that race, language and religion have been too dominant in India to permit the people of India to be welded into a nation by the unifying force of a common Government. It is an illusion to say that the Central Government in India has moulded the Indian people into a nation. What the Central Government has done, is to tie them together by one law and to house them together in one place, as the owner of unruly animals does, by tying them with one rope and keeping them in one stable. All that the Central Government has done is to produce a kind of peace among Indians. It has not made them one nation.

Similarly, for the 2nd ground, Dr. Amebdkar expressed severe doubts about it as the differences and mistrust between two communities will never let them settle as a single nation. You can have a political union and not a Social union. And without Social Union political union can’t last. He quoted Renan and James Bryce

Renan “Community of interests is assuredly a powerful bond between men. But nevertheless, can interests suffice to make a nation? I do not believe it. Community of interests make commercial treaties. There is a sentimental side to nationality; it is at once body and soul; a Zollverein is not a fatherland.”

James Bryce “The permanence of an institution depends not merely on the material interests that support it, but on its conformity to the deep-rooted sentiment of the men for whom it has been made. When it draws to itself and provides a fitting expression for that sentiment, the sentiment becomes thereby not only more vocal but stronger, and in its turn imparts a fuller vitality to the institution.”

Muslim Alternative to Pakistan

Let me start with Dr Ambedkars own conclusion of the Muslim Alternative to Pakistan as envisaged by him.

“For the Muslim alternative is really a frightful and dangerous alternative”

In this chapter, Dr. Ambedkar mentions that as per Muslims there is no alternative to Pakistan but basis his understanding and reading of the Muslim mind, he brings forth a charter of demands which the Muslims may present as an alternative to Pakistan.

That the future constitution of India shall provide:

(i) That the Muslims shall have 50% representation in the Legislature, Central as well as Provincial, through separate electorates.

(ii) That 50% of the Executive in the Centre as well as in the Provinces shall consist of Muslims.

(iii) That in the Civil Service 50% of the posts shall be assigned for the Muslims.

(iv) That in the Fighting Forces the Muslim proportion shall be one half, both in the ranks and in the higher grades.

(v) That Muslims shall have 50% representation in all public bodies, such as councils and commissions, created for public purposes.

(vi) That Muslims shall have 50% representation in all international organizations in which India will participate.

(vii) That if the Prime Minister be a Hindu, the Deputy Prime Minister shall be a Muslim.

(viii) That if the Commander-in-Chief be a Hindu, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief shall be a Muslim.

(ix) That no changes in the Provincial boundaries shall be made except with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature.

(x) That no action or treaty against a Muslim country shall be valid unless the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature is obtained.

(xi) That no law affecting the culture or religion, or religious usage of Muslims shall be made except with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature.

(xii) That the national language for India shall be Urdu.

(xiii) That no law prohibiting or restricting the slaughter of cows or the propagation of and conversion to Islam shall be valid unless it is passed with the consent of 66% of the Muslim members of the Legislature.

(viv) That no change in the constitution shall be valid unless the majority required for effecting such changes also includes a 66% majority of the Muslim members of the Legislature.

He further mentions that there are other representations of Muslims like Mr. Mir Akbar Ali Khan of the Nationalist Party and the Ajad Muslim Conference who are not in favor of partition, but eventually, their demands would be somewhat similar to what Dr. Ambedkar presented above. And it is in this backdrop he concluded “For the Muslim alternative is really a frightful and dangerous alternative”

Lessons from Abroad

Hindus who will not yield to the demand of the Muslims for the division of India into Pakistan and Hindustan and would insist upon maintaining the geographical unity of India without counting the cost, will do well to study the fate that has befallen other countries which, like India, harbored many nations and sought to harmonize them.

It is not necessary to review the history of all such countries. It is enough to recount here the story of two, Turkey and Czechoslovakia. A deeper study of the disruption of Turkey and Czechoslovakia shows that neither local autonomy nor the bond of religion is sufficient to withstand the force of nationalism once it is set on the go.

This is a lesson which the Hindus will do well to grasp. They should ask themselves: if the Greek, Balkan and Arab nationalism has blown up the Turkish State, and if Slovak nationalism has caused the dismantling of Czechoslovakia, what is there to prevent Muslim nationalism from disrupting the Indian State? If the experience of other countries teaches that this is the inevitable consequence of pent-up nationalism, why not profit from their experience, and avoid the catastrophe, by agreeing to divide India into Pakistan and Hindustan? Let the Hindus take the warning that if they refuse to divide India into two before they launch on their career as a free people, they will be sailing in those shallow waters in which Turkey, Czechoslovakia, and many others have foundered. If they wish to avoid shipwreck in mid-ocean, they must lighten the draught by throwing overboard all superfluous cargo. They will ease the course of their voyage considerably if they — to use the language of Prof. Toynbee — reconcile themselves to making jetsam of less cherished and more combustible cargo.

He finally concluded “The Muslim areas are an anomalous excrescence on Hindustan, and Hindustan is an anomalous excrescence on them. Tied together they will make India the sick man of Asia. Welded together, they will make India a heterogeneous unit. If Pakistan has the demerit of cutting away parts of India, it has also the merit of introducing harmony in place of conflict.

Severed into two, each becomes a more homogeneous unit. The homogeneity of the two areas is obvious enough. Each has a cultural unity. Each has a religious unity. Pakistan has a linguistic unity. If there is no such unity in Hindustan, it is possible to have it without any controversies to whether the common language should be Hindustani, Hindi or Urdu. Separated, each can become a strong and well-knit state. India needs a strong Central Government. But it cannot have it so long as Pakistan remains a part of India. Compare the structure of the Federal Government as embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935, and it will be found, that the Central Government as constituted under it is an effete ramshackle thing with very little life in it. As has already been pointed out, this weakening of the Central Government is brought about by the desire to placate the Muslim Provinces, who wish to be independent of the authority of the Central Government on the ground that the Central Government is bound to be predominantly Hindu in character and composition. When Pakistan comes into being, these considerations can have no force. Hindustan can then have a strong Central Government and a homogeneous population, which are necessary elements for the stability of the state, and neither of which will be secured unless there is the severance of Pakistan from Hindustan.

PART IV — PAKISTAN AND THE MALAISE

Dr. Ambedkar states

The Hindu-Muslim problem has two aspects to it. In its first aspect, the problem that presents itself is the problem of two separate communities facing each other and seeking adjustment of their respective right and privileges. In its other aspect, the problem is the problem of the reflex influences which this separation and conflict produce upon each of them. A study of the situation shows that the actions and reactions have produced a malaise which exhibits itself in three ways:

(l) Social Stagnation,

(2) Communal Aggression, and

(3) National Frustration of Political Destiny.

This malaise is a grave one. Will Pakistan be a remedy for the malaise? Or will it aggravate the malaise? The following chapters are devoted to the consideration of these questions.

Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is, states Dr. Ambedkar while talking about the Social Stagnation of Muslims in India

Dr. Ambedkar mentions Ms. Mayo who wrote a notorious book titled “Mother Earth” in 1927, which vividly catalogued all the social evils of Hindu society and gave an impression that Muslims are free from it and are progressive. Though in reality, it was far from it.

He said, “One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims”.

He wrote about the status of women and the prevalence of the caste system in Indian Muslims.

He first takes up the issue of marriage of females below the age of 15 and based on Government census questions if the position of Muslims can be considered better than Hindus in this regard. He then spoke about the position of women in Islamic society. Though certain Laws in Islam seem to favor women the general practical situation is extremely unfavorable for women.

Granting all these provisions of the law in her favor, the Muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world. To quote an Egyptian Muslim leader: —

“Islam has set its seal of inferiority upon her and given the sanction of religion to social customs which have deprived her of the full opportunity for self-expression and development of personality.”

In a practical sense, most of the marriage laws are heavily in favor of men especially when it comes to the ease of talaq for men, the sanction of polygamy for men, and even the allowance of concubinage and sex slaves. Though slavery is abolished in legal terms it does has Qur’anic sanction.

As John J. Pool observes,

“This latitude in the mailer of divorce is very greatly taken advantage of by some Mohamedans. Slohart, commenting on this subject in his book, Islam, and its Founder, says: ‘Some Mohamodans make a habit of continually changing their wives. We read of young men who have had twenty and thirty wives, a new one every three months: and thus it comes about that women are liable to be indefinitely transferred from one man to another, obliged to accept a husband and a home whenever they can find one, or in case of destitution, to which divorce may have driven them, to resort to other more degrading means of living. Thus while keeping the strict letter of the law, and possessing only one or certainly not more than four wives, unscrupulous characters may yet by divorce obtain in a lifetime as many wives as they please.

“In another way also a Mohammedan may really have more than four wives, and yet keep within the law. This is by means of living with concubines, which the Koran expressly permits. In that sura which allows four wives, the words are added, ‘of the slaves which ye shall have acquired.’ Then in the 70th sura, it is revealed that it is no sin to live with slaves. The very words are: ‘The slaves which their right hands possess, as to them they shall be blameless.’ At the present day, as in days past, in multitudes of Mohamedan homes, slaves are found; as Muir says, in his Life of Mahomet ‘so long as this unlimited permission of living with their female slaves continues, it cannot be expected that there will be any hearty attempt to put a stop to slavery in Mohamedan countries.’ Thus the Koran, in this matter of slavery, is the enemy of the mankind. And women, as usual, are the greater sufferers.’

He further talks about the caste system which owing to the concept of Islamic brotherhood should not be present, but it is deeply embedded in Islamic Society. They are broadly divided into the following lines

(1) Ashraf or Sharaf: Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus.

(2) Ajlaf. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, ‘Ajlaf ,’ ‘wretches’ or ‘mean people’: they are also called Kamina or Itar, ‘base’ or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, ‘worthless.’

(3) Arzal. In some places, a third class, called Arzal or ‘lowest of all,’ is added. With them, no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.

He further states

“There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women”

“These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India”

The emotional and physical effects of the Purdhah system are devastating for Muslim women and at the same time creates unnatural sexual tendencies amongst Muslim men as they don’t have any interaction with women. The Purdhas system does exist in some Hindu communities also, but unlike Islam, there is no religious sanction, and it is more of a social issue. But with Islam, it is a religious requirement, and any reform means conflict with religious injunctions.

He then makes an important point about the Political stagnation of Muslims other than Social Stagnation.

“The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast, and in other[s] if he agrees to buy votes for so much apiece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money, and is very seldom a matter of [a] social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community; and if they do find a place — and they must, because they are irrepressible — they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.”

The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them — namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence, and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils, and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.

He dwells on the question that why does, Muslims are opposed to social and political change. It is said that this is largely due to the underlying Islamic ideology.

“The Musalman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a world of swiftly moving modern forces. It is, indeed, one of the salient features of Islam that it immobilizes in their native barbarism, the races whom it enslaves. It is fixed in a crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and political, social or economic changes have no repercussion upon it.”

But Dr. Ambedkar remarks that religion is not the only reason for Indian Muslims, but as per him, the primary reason is the peculiar position of Muslims in India.

“He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanizing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away, he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed, and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he must save himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts, in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost.

The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community”.

Some of the actions of Muslim leaders of supporting Muslim representation in Hindu ruled states, whereas refusing the same for Hindus in Muslim ruled states highlight that the dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them, or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim States, rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.

The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims, and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community — that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks.

The Hindus emphasize nationalist politics and ignore the need for social reform

Dr. Ambedkar talks about how the urge for political reform has overtaken the Hindu’s and, in the process,, the victim has been the social reform. He laments that how Social Reform party was as relevant as Congress which was more for Political Reforms, but the situation did not last long and after the leadership of Tilak followed by Gandhi, the urge for Political reform sustained and grew in magnitude. He also mentions Hindu Mahasabha who’s intention was to present a united front against the Muslim encroachment.

Towards the end of the chapter Dr. Ambekdkar concludes that because both Hindus and Muslims fear the dominance of each other, their entire focus is political power and not social or economic upliftment. And till the time they exist in one constitution, this will continue.

He Said

“It is obvious that so long as one community looks upon the other as a menace, there will be no social progress, and the spirit of conservatism will continue to dominate the thoughts and actions of both.

How long will this menace last? It is sure to last as long as the Hindus and Muslims are required to live as members of one country under the mantle of a single constitution. For it is the fear of the single constitution with the possibility of the shifting of the balance — for nothing can keep the balance at the point originally fixed by the constitution — which makes the Hindus a menace to the Muslims and the Muslims a menace to the Hindus. If this is so, Pakistan is the obvious remedy. It certainly removes the chief condition which makes for the menace. Pakistan liberates both the Hindus and the Muslims from the fear of enslavement of and encroachment against each other. It removes, by providing a separate constitution for each, Pakistan and Hindustan, the very basis which leads to this perpetual struggle for keeping a balance of power in the day-to-day life, and frees them to take in hand those vital matters of urgent social importance which they are now forced to put aside in cold storage, and improve the lives of their people, which after all is the main object of this fight for Swaraj.

Without some such arrangement, the Hindus and the Muslims will act and react as though they were two nations, one fearing to be conquered by the other. Preparations for aggression will always have precedence over social reform so that the social stagnation which has set in must continue. This is quite natural, and no one need be surprised at it. For, as Bernard Shaw pointed out: —

“A conquered nation is like a man with cancer; he can think of nothing else. . . .A healthy nation is as unconscious of’ its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again. It will listen to no reformer, to no philosopher, to no preacher until the demand of the nationalist is granted. It will attend to no business, however vital, except the business of unification and liberation.”

Unless there is the unification of the Muslims who wish to separate from the Hindus, and unless there is the liberation of each from the fear of domination by the other, there can be no doubt that this malaise of social stagnation will not be set right.”

Elaborating on Communal aggression of Muslims he remarked, British sympathy encourages ever-increasing, politically calculated Muslim demands

“The Muslim’s spirit of aggression is his native endowment, and is ancient as compared with that of the Hindu. It is not that the Hindu, if given time, will not pick up and overtake the Muslim. But as matters stand to-day, the Muslim in this exhibition of the spirit of aggression leaves the Hindu far behind.”

He talks about the following three features of the political aggression of the Muslims

First is the ever-growing catalog of the Muslim’s political demands. Since the year 1892 when the then Government let Muslims represent as a group since then Muslim parties have kept on asking for political concessions. After 1982 it was in 1909 when the demand of a separate electorate was acceded to. Then in 1927, Mohamad Ali Jinnah came up with a 14-point program a list of political demands for Muslims. When this was settled by about 1932, in 1938 they came up with other lists of demands. He went as far as saying that The Muslims are now speaking the language of Hitler and claiming a place in the sun as Hitler has been doing for Germany. It is also important to note that while they were insistent on their right as the minorities at the same time their demands were not only unreasonable for Hindu majority but was eating up space for other minorities as well. In this chapter, he also gave instances of how Muslim demands somehow found a ready audience in the British Government, though many Indian leaders think it was part of their ploy to keep Hindu nationalism in check by having a potent counterforce

- The second thing that is noticeable among the Muslims is the spirit of exploiting the weaknesses of the Hindus. If the Hindus object to anything, the Muslim policy seems to be to insist upon it and give it up only when the Hindus show themselves ready to offer a price for it by giving the Muslims some other concessions. For example, the Muslim insistence upon cow-slaughter and the stoppage of music before mosques. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman, when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India, they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played before a mosque in all Muslim countries without any objection. Even in Afghanistan, which is not a secularized country, no objection is taken to music before a mosque. But in India, the Musalmans must insist upon its stoppage for no other reason except that the Hindus claim a right to it.

- The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are sufficient indication gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics.

He then talks about approaches of various political outfits and then what he thinks about the issue of Muslim Communal Aggression. He rubbished Hindu Mahasabha’s ideas of getting rid of Musalmans from India and for Congress, this is what he said “ there are the Congress Hindu Nationalists whose policy is to tolerate and appease the Musalmans by political and other concessions, because they believe that they cannot reach their cherished goal of independence unless the Musalmans back their demand”

He found Hindu Mashaba’s views nonsense and found congress’s plan faulty on two accounts.

“The first thing which the Congress has failed to realize is that there is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation. Appeasement will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a settlement. If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquillity of a settlement to the insecurity due to the growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus”

NATIONAL FRUSTRATION

- Can Hindus count on Muslims to show national rather than religious loyalty?

One of the major concerns, of many Hindu leaders was with regards to Muslim loyalty towards the nation. There was clear evidence in speech and action, of Muslim leaders wherein there were clear indications of where the Muslim loyalty lies.

Dr Ambedkar while elaborating on this gave the following reference of DR Rabindra Nath Tagore. “. . .another very important factor which, according to the poet, was making it almost impossible for the Hindu-Mohamedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohamedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country. The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohamedans whether, in the event of any Mohamedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even such men as Mr. Mahomed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohamedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohamedan.”

- Hindus really want Dominion status, Muslims really want independence

Here again, Dr. Ambedkar mentions that it seemed to many that Muslims wanted Dominion status whereas Hindus wanted Independence. He clarifies that this was much further from the truth and Muslim leaders have always wanted Independence, whereas Hindus as represented by Congress especially under the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru had always insisted upon dominion status as, as per them India was not ready for complete Independence and would rather settle with dominion status.

- The necessary national political loyalty is not present among Muslims

Dr. Ambedkar mentions Muslim tenets and ideology which in his view will never allow a Muslim to be loyal towards India.

He mentions that though as a country we are looking forward towards a Parliamentary form of Government which has found success in the West, he asks if that can be successfully applied in the case of India. He opines, that for Parliamentary Democracy the fundamental condition is that the people at large want it to be successful, they want to stay together as one nation. Whereas in his view with Islam that is not a feasible proposition owing to some of the fundamental tenets of Islam.

“Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land”

The other tenet is about when a Muslim can consider a country as his motherland or not

“According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans — but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.’ Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb”.

Now when any land becomes Dar-ul-Harb as per Muslim law there care two options:

1) Hijrat or Migration to the lands ruled by Muslims and

2) Jihad or Holy War to change the Dar-ul-Harb to Dar-ul-Islam

He interestingly mentions that even the 1957 Mutiny was more of a Jihad to reclaim the land lost by Islamic rulers to the British. Jihad can be done by the Muslims of the country or they can even invite or help an alien Islamic ruler to attack their own country and establish Dar-ul Islam.

The 3rd tenet is that Islam does not recognize territorial affinities. It only recognizes the affinities of Islam and nothing else.

Dr. Ambedkar says

“This is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which leads every Musalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterward. It is this sentiment that explains why the Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has spent himself to exhaustion by taking up the cause of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first place and India occupies the second place in his thoughts”.

He moves on and discusses that for the Parliamentary Government to succeed Citizens must be willing to obey the government rules and regulations. “Will a Muslim obey the Government which has Hindus in it, after all to the Muslim a Hindu is a kaafir. 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”.

He gave some glaring examples to support his disposition, some of them are mentioned below

- In the middle of the Khilafat movement when Hindu’s under the leadership of Gandhi’s were supporting the Khilafat movement with much enthusiasm an Islamic paper called Insaf was writing this

“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 power ‘and is equivalent to ‘Ruh-i-aazam’, and the supreme spirit.”

Mohmmad Ali the leader of the Khilafat Movement said the following about Gandhi Ji

- “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.”

- “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.”

Infact far from showing obedience and deference to Hindus, Muslims were willing to wage unnecessary wars on them. Their state of mind can be gauged from the following statement of one Maulana Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad on the controversy regarding who won 3rd battle of Panipat

“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 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.”

- Muslim leaders’ views, once nationalistic, have grown much less so over time

This chapter starts with a gloomy but candid admittance by Dr. Ambedkar about the irreconcilable nature of Hindus and Muslims

“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 cooperative or conflicting. Past experience shows that they are too irreconcilable and too incompatible to permit [of] Hindus and Muslims ever forming one single nation or even two harmonious parts of one whole.

He goes on to mention that over the last 30 years every possible attempt has been made to bring about Hindu Muslim unity. In his opinion, the history of attempts started from 1909, when the demands of Muslim deputation was though granted by the British, but was accented to by Hindus. Gopalkrishna Ghokle a prominent Hindu leader was criticized by a lot of Hindus for accenting the demands of Muslim deputation.

But the concessions given by Hindus did not result in Hindu Muslim unity, then came the Lucknow pact of 1916 wherein Hindus agreed to all the demands of Muslims. Again it didn’t result in any peace between the two. Since then many pacts and concessions were offered to Muslims but nothing resulted in peace between the two.

Dr. Ambedkar mentions how some of the Muslim leaders who were staunchly nationalistic became the most vocal voices of separation — the most prominent being Mohmad Ali Jinnah

His initial thinking can be gauged from the following statements

“The object was to organize the Muslim community, not with a view to quarrel with the Hindu community, but with a view to unite and cooperate with it for their motherland. He was sure once they had organized themselves they would join hands with the Hindu Maha Sabha and declare to the world that Hindus and Mahomedans are brothers.”

On 33% reservation for Muslims

“Repudiated the charge that he was standing on the platform of the League as a communalist. He assured them that he was, as ever, a nationalist. Personally he had no hesitation. He wanted the best and the fittest men to represent them in the Legislatures of the land (Hear, Hear and Applause). But unfortunately his Muslim compatriots were not prepared to go as far as he. He could not be blind to the situation. The fact was that there was a large number of Muslims who wanted representation separately in Legislatures and in the country’s Services. They were talking of communal unity, but where was unity? It had to be achieved by arriving at some suitable settlement. He knew he said amidst deafening cheers, that his fellow-religionists were ready and prepared to fight for Swaraj, but wanted some safeguards. Whatever his view, and they knew that as a practical politician he had to take stock of the situation, the real block to unity was not the communities themselves, but a few mischief makers on both sides.”

In 1924

“If we wish to be free people, let us unite, but if we wish to continue slaves of Bureaucracy, let us fight among ourselves and gratify petty vanity over petty matters, Englishmen being our arbiters.”

In 1927

“I am not wedded to separate electorates, although I must say that the overwhelming majority of the Musalmans firmly and honestly believe that it is the only method by which they can be sure.”

What has been his thinking and what are they now — an diametrically opposite view of what it was before and what it is now

He finally raises an important question about understanding the Muslim ideology when looked at from the perspective of a community or a nation.

“A state either consists of a series of communities or it consists of a series of nations. In a state which is composed of a series of communities, one community may be arrayed against another community and the two may be opposed to each other. But in the matter of their ultimate destiny they feel they are one. But in a state which is composed of a series of nations, when one nation rises against the other, the conflict is one as to differences of ultimate destiny. This is the distinction between communities and nations, and it is this distinction which explains the difference in their political rights. There is nothing new or original in this explanation. It is merely another way of stating why the community has one kind of right and the nation another of quite a different kind. A community has a right of insurrection because it is satisfied with it. All that it wants is a change in the mode and form of government. Its quarrel is not over any difference of ultimate destiny. A nation has to be accorded the right of disruption because it will not be satisfied with mere change in the form of government. Its quarrel is over the question of ultimate destiny. If it will not be satisfied unless the unnatural bond that binds them is dissolved, then prudence and even ethics demands that the bond shall be dissolved and they shall be freed each to pursue its own destiny.”

— The vision of Pakistan is powerful and has been implicitly present for decades

He starts by mentioning that the efforts for Hindu Muslim Unity has failed and there is a complete transformation in Muslim ideologues, he points that that the usual explanation given that it was due to the British government’s divide and rule policy is not correct. As for the British to be able to use Hindu-Muslims as tools in their hand there has to be elements of it already present for this policy of British to be successful the elements have to be deep-rooted and permanent. The Hindus also say that Jinnah was being used by the British to which Dr. Ambedkar says is incorrect. Rather, he goes on to say

“It is doubtful if there is a politician in India to whom the adjective incorruptible can be more fittingly applied. Anyone who knows what his relations with the British Government have been, will admit that he has always been their critic, if indeed he has not been their adversary. No one can buy him. For it must be said to his credit that he has never been a soldier of fortune.”

Then what is the real issue between Hindus and Muslims? On this he states

“The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection.”

The two communities have never come together socially. And it is important to note Dr. Ambedkar’s submission on this

“There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”

As per Dr. Ambedkar the seed of partition has always been there in the Muslim mind, it is perhaps only in the last few years that it has assumed the name of Pakistan and is completely visible.

- Mutual antipathies have created a virus of dualism in the body politic

“Summing up the whole discussion, it appears that an integral India is incompatible with an independent India or even with India as a dominion” — states Dr. Ambedkar.

Neither Hindus nor Muslims can live in a state which has a dominance of any one group. He mentions a united India is only possible by a forced and incompatible union joint together artificially by political force. There would be sustained clashes to rip apart the forced union having a heavy mental and material impact on the countrymen. This kind of India will be “an anemic and sickly state, ineffective, a living corpse, dead though not buried.”

On the other hand, if there is a separation both of them can move on to pursue their destinies. It is important to note is that an integral India provides a platform to play out the differences between the two communities. If they are separate there would be no such platform to act out those differences.

“Freed from the trammels which one imposes upon the other by reason of this forced union, Pakistan and Hindustan can each grow into a strong stable State with no fear of disruption from within. As two separate entities, they can reach their respective destinies, which as parts of one whole they never can.”

He talks about the Mass contact plan of congress calling it mischievous and futile. The plan was to reach out to the Muslim populace by circumventing or ignoring the Muslim leaders. They over-estimated the value of economic well-being and under-estimated the extent of the communal problem and the need for political power amongst the community. As analyzed by Dr. Ambedkar this ill-devised plan not only didn’t meet its stated objective but ended by furthering the cause of Pakistan.

He further mentions that the social wall between Hindus and Muslims is too thick and high to be broken.

“It cannot but be matter of the deepest regret to every Indian that there is no social tie to draw them together. There is no inter-dining and no inter-marriage between the two. Can they be introduced? Their festivals are different. Can the Hindus be induced to adopt them or join in them? Their religious notions are not only divergent but repugnant to each other, so that on a religious platform, the entry of the one means the exit of the other. Their cultures are different; their literatures and their histories are different. They are not only different, but so distasteful to each other that they are sure to cause aversion and nausea. Can anyone make them drink from the same fount of these perennial sources of life? No common meeting ground exists. None can be cultivated. There is not even sufficient physical contact, let alone their sharing a common cultural and emotional life. They do not live together. Hindus and Muslims live in separate worlds of their own. Hindus live in villages and Muslims in towns in those provinces where the Hindus are in a majority. Muslims live in villages and Hindus in towns in those provinces where the Muslims are in a majority. Wherever they live, they live apart. Every town, every village has its Hindu quarters and Muslim quarters, which are quite separate from each other. There is no common continuous cycle of participation. They meet to trade or they meet to murder. They do not meet to befriend one another. When there is no call to trade or when there is no call to murder, they cease to meet. When there is peace, the Hindu quarters and the Muslim quarters appear like two alien settlements. The moment war is declared, the settlements become armed camps. The periods of peace and the periods of war are brief. But the interval is one of continuous tension. What can mass contact do against such barriers? It cannot even get over on the other side of the barrier, much less can it produce organic unity.”

PART V — Conclusions and Recommendations

This is the culmination of the book and here Dr. Ambedkar talks in detail about his views on the issue of partition, if there is a partition then what can be the possible issues and finally he talks about who has the power to decide whether there would be partition and the nuances of it.

- Must There Be Pakistan

Dr. Ambedkar gives his views in detail about the issue of partition and he starts with his arguments in opposition to the partition, followed by arguments in favor and then his conclusion.

The first argument opposing the partition was that India has always been one country and is a division the only way to solve the Hindu Muslim problem. India may not have been politically one and we have been quarreling with each other for a long but that just makes us a quarrelsome nation. In his words “Indians are a quarrelsome people. It does not destroy the fact that India is a single geographical unit. Her unity is as ancient as Nature. Within this geographic unit and covering the whole of it there has been a cultural unity from time immemorial. This cultural unity has defied political and racial divisions.”

Secondly, he gave examples of a few other countries in which diverse communities have been staying without breaking p the country — British and French in Canada. Germans, Italians, and French in Switzerland. British and Bowers in South Africa. He further mentioned that different communities living in the same nation are no exception and that cannot be a sufficient reason for partition.

Thirdly, it is a fact that Hindus and Muslims have past grievances but is there no other way to solve the grievances than the partition?

Fourth, he states that there are innumerable commonalities between Hindu and Muslims, which can be emphasized instead of harping on the differences as the reason for separation

Fifth and one of the most important justifications for partition is that if there is no Pakistan for Muslims then there is a danger of Hindu Raj, which Muslims have to live with.

On this Dr Ambedkar says “it is very strange objection as there are many Hindu Princely Kingdoms wherein Muslims are living without any objection to them being ruled by Hindu Kings. In British India where they enjoy many constitutional concessions, which are not applicable for Kingdoms but despite that this objection has never been there.”

Lastly, one of the Political objections for United India is that Hindus are not democratic. Concerning the Hindu community being undemocratic Dr. Ambedkar agreed but he said it is the Muslims who been benefited from this instead of being wronged. It is the Untouchables and Shudras who faced the brunt of the undemocratic nature of the Hindu ruling class who control education, politics, and commerce.

He says,

“Is not Mr. Gandhi, who is determined to oppose any political concession to the Untouchables, ready to sign a blank cheque in favour of the Muslims? Indeed, the Hindu governing class seems to be far more ready to share power with the Muslims than it is to share power with the Shudras and the Untouchables. Surely, the Muslims have the least ground to complain of the undemocratic character of Hindu society”

Another political reason given is that of numbers in terms of Muslims being a minority and Hindus being a majority community. This again is not a sufficient condition as he again gave examples of many countries wherein minority and majority communities were living together.

He further mentions the safeguards already given to Muslims under the constitution which were significant than the safeguards given to minorities in other counties.

“Confining ourselves to British India and taking account only of the representation granted to the territorial constituencies, Hindu and Muslim, in the Lower House in the Central Legislature under the Government of India Act, 1935, it is clear that out of a total of 187, the Hindus have 105 seats and the Muslims have 82 seats. Given these figures one is forced to ask, where is [any cause for] the fear of the Hindu Raj?”

Dr Ambedkar now moves on to argue in favor of Partition

His argument can be summed up in the question he raises — What will Non-Muslim of India choose : The Freedom of India or the Unity of India?

He says for a country it is not only important to achieve freedom, but it is even more important to sustain it. And sustain freedom, the role of the army is of paramount importance. In undivided India, the large proportion of the army is made up of Muslim soldiers and he placed a large degree of doubt on their loyalty, especially in case the country was attacked by their co-religionists. If the Muslim soldiers or part of them subscribe to the two-nation theory, how will they stay loyal to united India?

“An army which is not loyal is worse than having no army at all.”

“The army is the ultimate sanction which sustains Government in the exercise of its authority inside the country when it is challenged by a rebellious or recalcitrant element. Suppose the Government of the day enunciates a policy which is vehemently opposed by a section of the Muslims. Suppose the Government of the day is required to use its army to enforce its policy. Can the Government of the day depend upon the Muslims in the army to obey its orders and shoot down the Muslim rebels? This again depends upon to what extent the Muslims in the army have caught the infection of the two-nation theory. If they have caught it, India cannot have a safe and secure Government.”

The other argument was about the sentiment of Pakistan amongst Muslims. He said Non-Muslims do not seems to place too much value on this aspect, which to him was a silly notion. “The Muslim case for Pakistan is founded on sentiment is far from being a matter of weakness; it is really its strong point. It does not need deep understanding of politics to know that the workability of a constitution is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of sentiment.”

After stating his arguments on the grounds of defence of country and Muslim sentiments he answers the question, he raised in unequivocal terms

“I prefer the Freedom of India to the Unity of India. I prefer the partitioning of India into Muslim India and non-Muslim India as the surest and safest method of providing for the defence of both”

And he finally concludes, “Once it becomes certain that the Muslims want Pakistan there can be no doubt that the wise course would be to concede the principle of it.”

THE PROBLEMS OF PAKISTAN

Dr. Ambedkar talks about the problem of boundaries and transfer of population if partition were to happen. He mentioned how these are important but solvable issues and should not come into the way of deciding about the issue of partition. With regards to population transfer, he cited the example of Bulgaria and Greece and Turkey and Greece.

WHO CAN DECIDE?

In the last chapter, he gave a framework on how the process of incorporating the wishes of the people to decide about the fate of Pakistan. He concluded saying

“What is the procedure which is best suited for the realization of this end? Everyone will agree that the procedure must be such that it must not involve victory to one community and humiliation to the other. The method must be of peace with honour to both sides. I do not know if there is another solution better calculated to achieve this end than the decision by a referendum of the people. I have made my suggestion as to which is the best course. Others also will come forth with theirs. I cannot say that mine is the best. But whatever the suggestion be, unless good sense, as well as a sense of responsibility, is brought to bear upon the solution of this question, it will remain a festering sore.”

Thank you very much for reading and I hope my attempt of bringing out Dr. Ambedkar’s seminal work on the socio-political environment in the backdrop of partition was useful to you.

Jai Hind!

Twitter: @AshishSethiya21 | Email: ashish.sethiya@zohomail.in | Medium: @ashishsethiya

Link of the original book: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/index.html#contents