 |
||
|
||
|
||
Are Hindus and Muslims one nation? Or two different nations -
distinct and apart? Were they ever one nation in the past 1200
years of living together in one country - India? Can they ever be
one nation in the future? Reams of pages have been written on this
subject before and after 1947, but without the final answer. The
following extracts from a recent book (Lahore Resolution -
Arguments Against, by Dr Shafique Ali Khan, published by Royal Book
Company, P.O. Box 7737, Saddar, Karachi-3, Pakistan, in the year
1988) would suggest that the Hindu-Muslim fusion is impossible to
achieve. Those having a contrary view are welcome to join issue. -
Editor
-Islam is not merely a religious doctrine but a realistic and
practical code of conduct. I am thinking in terms of life, of
everything important in life. I am thinking in terms of our
history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our laws, our
music, our jurisprudence in all these things our outlook is not
only fundamentally different but often radically antagonistic to
the Hindus. We are different beings. There is nothing in life
which links us together with the Hindus. Our clothes, our food-
they are all different our economic life, our educational ideas,
our treatment of women, our attitude to animals-we challenge each
other at every point of the compass. Take one example the eternal
question of cow. We cat the cow, the Hindus worship it-but the cow
question is only one of a thousand.-Mr. Jinnah (P. 28)
-Mr Jinnah was of the opinion that the Hindus and the Muslims were
two major nations by any definition or test of 'nation'. The
Indian Muslims were a nation with their own distinct culture and
civilise language and literature, art and architecture. names and
nomenclature sense of value and proportion, legal laws and codes,
customs and clan history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions.
In short, they had their own peculiar outlook on life and of life.
By an canons of international law they were a nation. (P. 17-18)
-The slogan of secularism or socialism was fundamentally opposed to
the religious, historical, cultural and even socio-political ideals
of the Indian Muslim community. (P. 38)
-Iqbal once said-It is a fact Islam does not allow its followers to
identify themselves with the non-Muslims and at the same time
discourage them to mix with them in a way. (P. 44)
-The Hindus and Muslims meet each other only in the streets,
markets and on certain social occasions, otherwise they kept
themselves away and separate from each other. The failure of Bhakti
Movement and then the unsuccessful adventure of Deen-i-Illahi.
founded by Akbar, is a proof positive of the fact that Islam never
allowed its adherents to compromise or temporise on its
fundamentals. (P. 46)
-Maulana Thanvi, a great scholar and divine of his time, did not
only oppose the membership of the Muslims in the Congress, but he
also ruled out every sort of Hindu-Muslim friendship from purely
Islamic point of view. He was of the opinion that the Muslims
should close their ranks by strengthening their unity, instead of
joining any non-Muslim political party. (P. 48)
-In the light of Verse 28 of Al-Imran, in which the Almighty Allah
so eloquently prohibits the Muslims to take the non-Muslims as
friends and helpers, it was quite un-warranted on the part of the
Muslims to join hands with the Hindus. (P. 50)
-Iqbal, throughout his life, stressed on the distinct identity of
the Indian Muslims as a separate people on the basis of religion,
(Islam). He argued that the Muslims were not a nation only from
ideological point of view but also from the modern western
philosophy of nationalism. (P. 92)
-Iqbal argued that since the nature of Muslim polity was
revelational, therefore, it would not m any way of sense, afford to
be secular. It is why the Indians could not become a unified nation
in the past despite the message of Kabir and score of other mystics
and saints and sufis. (P. 94)
-Mr Jinnah very boldly and eloquently propounded the theory on
solid logical, political, constitutional, intellectual and rational
grounds that the Indian Muslims were neither a political minority,
nor a national or sub-national group, nor a mere religious sect or
community to be summarily disposed of, but a full-fledged and
full-blooded nation by any definition of the term nation. Needless
to say that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, (1817-1898) was the first ever
Muslim intellectual-cum-leader, who made aware the Indian Muslims
of their separate positive individuality away and apart from the
Hindus or the rest of the non-Muslims of India. And Iqbal
(1877-1938) on the basis of the Muslim individuality projected the
concept of a separate Muslim homeland. Agha Khan III (1877-1957)
during the course of his presidential address at the first all
parties conference, on the 31st December, 1928, held at Delhi,
observed that the Muslims of India are not a community but a
nation. (P. 108)
-No doubt, efforts were made at evolving a synthesis of a
Hindu-Muslim mode of life, but it was never a and could never go
deeper. Apart from ordinary houses, the religio-cultural
architectural designs always divergent. Moreover the special diets
of both the communities sharply differed. The Hindus never took the
beef while the Muslims never touched the pork. (P. 4)
-No doubt religious conversions were the order of the day but a
change in religion meant a change in one's outlook on life which
necessarily entailed a cultural metamorphosis in one's life, from
every point of view. To embrace a new religion meant to step into a
net cultural, social and even political domain, which cuts of a lot
of relationship with one's past, individual and collective both. So
far as the case of Islam is concerned, let it be observed that one
accepts Islam, has to dissociated oneself from one's entire past to
enable one adjust oneself with each and every aspect of its
ideological weltanschaung. (P. 9)
-Mr Jinnah observed-Notwithstanding a thousand years of close
contract, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever,
cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one
nation hereby subjecting them to a democratic constitution and
holding them forcibly together by an unnatural and artificial
methods of parliamentary statute. (P. 123)
-It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail
to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not
religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact,
different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that Hindus
and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this
misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits
and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to
destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus
and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social
customs, and literature. They neither intermarry nor interdine
together and indeed, they belong to two different civilisations
which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their
aspects Of life and on life are different. It is quite clear that
Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspirations from different
sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes,
and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the
other and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke
together two such nations a single state must lead to a growing
discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built
up for the Government of such a state. (P. 124)
-The plea of unity of India and that of one nation has not stood
the test of time. The history of last 1200 years has failed to
achieve unity. But the country has seen its vivisection in three
parts amply proving that the Hindus and Muslims are two nations
that cannot live harmoniously for ever under one government (P.
125)
-Dr. Ambedkar speaking from religio-historical point of view
observed that there was nothing common to share, beliefs and
practices, both, between the Hindus and the Muslims. Are there any
historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to
share together as matters of pride or as matters of sorrow? That
is the crux of the problem. They have been just two armed
battalion warring against each other. Their past is a past of
mutual destruction, a past of mutual animosities, both in political
and religious fields. In history the Hindus rever the memory of
Prithvi Raj, Rana Pratap Singh, Shivaji, Beragi Bir who fought for
the honour and freedom of this land, (against the Muslims), while
the Mohammedans look upon the invaders of India, like Mohmad Bin
Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heros. In the
religious field, the Hindus draw their inspirations from the
Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Gita. The Mohammedans on the
other hand, drive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis.
Thus the things that divide are for more vital than the things that
unite. In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and
Mohammedan social life, in relying upon common language, common
race and common country, the Hindu is mistaking what is accidental
and superficial for what is essential and fundamental. The
religious and political antagonism divide, the Hindus and
Mussalmans far more deeply than the so-called common things are
able to bind them together. The prospectus might perhaps be
deferent if the past of the two communities can be forgotten by
both. Again the pity of it is that the two communities can never
forget their past. Their past is imbedded in their religions and
for each to give up its past is to give up its religion. To hope
for this is to hope for vain. In the absence of common historical
antecedents, the Hindu view that the Hindus and Muslims form one
nation fails to ground. To maintain it is to keep up a
hallucination. There is no such longing between the Hindus and the
Muslims to belong together. It is no use saying that this claim of
the Muslims being a nation is an after thought of their leaders. As
an accusation it is true. The Muslims were hitherto quite content
to call themselves a community. It is only recently that they have
come to style themselves a nation. But, an accusation attacking the
motive of a person, does not amount to a refutation of his thesis.
To say that Muslims once called themselves a community, they are,
therefore, now debarred from calling themselves a nation is to
misunderstand the mysterious working of the psychology of national
feeling. Such an argument presupposes that where there exists a
people, who posses the elements that go to the making up of a
nation, there must be manifested that sentiment of nationality
which is their natural consequence and that if they fail to
manifest it for some time, then that failure is to be used as
evidence showing the un-reality of the claim of being a nation, if
made afterwards. There is no historical support for such a
contention. (P. 30)
-Further commenting on geographical unity of the subcontinent Dr
Ambedkar observed - if it is geographical unity then it is no
unity. Geographical unity is unity intended by nature. In building
up a nationality on geographical unity, it must be remembered that
it is a case where nature proposes and man disposes. If it is
unity in external things, such as ways and habits of life, that is
no unity. Such unity is the result of exposure to a common
environment. if it is administrative unity, that again is no unity.
The instance of Burma is in point (The example of Europe-though
geographically one country is divided into many nationalities.) If
unity is to be of any abiding character, it must be founded on a
sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindered. In short, it
must be spiritual. Dr Ambedkar has further given genuine reasons
as to how unity of any kind could not be maintained or created
between the Hindus and the Muslims. He says : "The real failure of
unity is not a matter of difference, and that this antagonism is
not to be attributed to material causes, it is spiritual in its
character. It is formed by the causes which take their origin in
historical, religions cultural and social antipathy, of which
political antipathy is only a reflection. (P. 32)
-The Muslims of India, in spite of all that is said loosely about
their being the same people as the Hindus, can be distinguished
from the latter not only by their dress, speech and manners, but
even by their features and expressions. Further, no adjustments
between these two societies took place except in matters, and
therefore, with the Muslim conquest the country also saw the
emergence of the second basic ethnic cleavage in Its population.
In its emotional aspect the new division was infinitely more
embittered than the old opposition between the primitives and the
civilised Hindus.-Nirad C. Chaudhary (P. 6)
-Muslims were not barbarous at a low level of culture, who would
consider admission to the Hindu fold as a promotion, on the contra
not only were they themselves the creators oiled defenders of a new
aggressive culture, they had a fanatical conviction of its
superiority to all others and though it was there duty to propagate
it even by force. This religion did, in fact, make this one of the
essentials though optional duties of a Muslim. They were the first
people in history to put forward the idea of an irreconcilable
conflict a particular way of life and all others, and to formulate
a theory of permanent revolution. There could be no peace on earth,
they declared, until the whole world was converted to their faith.
(P. 9)
-Nirad C. Chaudhary again says that the antagonism increase in
direct proportion to the intensity of the cultural consciousness.
The Hindus and the Muslim were and are acutely self-conscious in
this way and the enmity between the two has also been greatest. (P.
10)
-Yet in India itself, because, Hinduism and Islam were extreme
opposits, fusion of the two never occurred. A amount of overlaying
did develop, but the two groups settled down in an uneasy mutual
accommodation with the seeds of potential conflict always present.
- American demographer Mr Kingsley Davis (P. 7)
-Toynbee, the famous historian said : - The communal division of
India into a Hindu and a Muslim milat was as old as the Iranian
Muslim conquests of Hindustan towards the close of the twelfth
century of Christian era. (P. 29)
-Hindus and Muslims, separated as they are not only by yawning
abyss between. two violently opposite religions and by the enduring
ban on inter-marriage but also by the whole web of custom food,
dress, association history and to a great extent language.-Lionel
Fieldon.
"Nine centuries of association have produced no sensible fusion
between the Hindus and the Muslims!
-Stanley Lane-Pole, a wellknown historian on Medieval India. (P.
128-9)
|
||
|
||
|
||