Indian
Declaration of Independence and First Roundtable Conference 1930
The Indian National Congress, led by Gandhi
and Jawaharlal Nehru, publicly issued the Declaration of Independence, or Purna
Swaraj, in Lahore on 26 January 1930. The Salt March, concluding with the
making of illegal salt by Gandhi on April 6, 1930, launched a nationwide
protest against the British salt tax. On May 4, 1930, Gandhi wrote to Lord
Irwin, Viceroy of India, explaining his intention to raid the Dharasana Salt
Works. He was immediately arrested. The Indian National Congress decided to
continue with the proposed plan of action. Many of the Congress leaders were
arrested before the planned day, including Nehru and Sardar Patel.
The first Round Table Conference was opened
officially by King George V on November 12, 1930 at London and chaired by the
British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. It was the first time that British
and Indian political leaders and rulers of Indian princely states met at one
place.
Aga Khan III (leader of British-Indian
delegation), Maulana Mohammad Ali, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto (father of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto),
Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah and A. K. Fazlul Huq attended the First Round Table
Conference. There were sixteen delegates from the princely states. However, the Indian National Congress, along with Indian business
leaders, did not attend the conference. Many of them were in jail for their
participation in Civil Disobedience Movement.
Allama Iqbal made his famous speech at the
25th Session of the All-India Muslim League Allahabad on 29 December 1930: The
following is the full text:
Gentlemen,
I am deeply grateful to you for the honour you have conferred upon me in
inviting me to preside over the deliberations of the All-India Muslim League at
one of the most critical moments in the history of Muslim political thought and
activity in India. I have no doubt that in this great assembly there are men whose
political experience is far more extensive than mine, and for whose knowledge
of affairs I have the highest respect. It will, therefore, be presumptuous on
my part to claim to guide an assembly of such men in the political decisions
which they are called upon to make today. I lead no party; I follow no leader.
I have given the best part of my life to a careful study of Islam, its law and
polity, its culture, its history and its literature. This constant contact with
the spirit of Islam, as it unfolds itself in time, has, I think, given me a
kind of insight into its significance as a world fact. It is in the light of
this insight, whatever its value, that, while assuming that the Muslims of
India are determined to remain true to the spirit of Islam, I propose not to
guide you in your decisions, but to attempt the humbler task of bringing
clearly to your consciousness the main principle which, in my opinion, should
determine the general character of these decisions.
[[1]] Islam and Nationalism
[[1a]]
It cannot be denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain
kind of polity
– by which expression I mean a social
structure regulated by a legal system and animated by a specific ethical ideal
– has been the chief formative factor in the life-history of the Muslims of
India. It has furnished those basic emotions and loyalties which gradually
unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally transform them into a
well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of their own. Indeed it
is not an exaggeration to say that India is perhaps the only country in the
world where Islam, as a people-building force, has worked at its best. In
India, as elsewhere, the structure of Islam as a society is almost entirely due
to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by a specific ethical ideal. What
I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner
unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and
institutions associated with the culture of Islam.
[[1b]] The ideas set free by European
political thinking, however, are now rapidly changing the outlook of the
present generation of Muslims both in India and outside India. Our younger men,
inspired by these ideas, are anxious to see them as living forces in their own
countries, without any critical appreciation of the facts which have determined
their evolution in Europe. In Europe Christianity was understood to be a purely
monastic order which gradually developed into a vast church organisation. The
protest of Luther was directed against this church organisation, not against
any system of polity of a secular nature, for the obvious reason that there was
no such polity associated with Christianity. And Luther was perfectly justified
in rising in revolt against this organisation; though, I think, he did not
realise that in the peculiar conditions which obtained in Europe, his revolt
would eventually mean the complete displacement of [the] universal ethics of
Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and hence narrower systems of
ethics.
[[1c]] Thus the upshot of the intellectual
movement initiated by such men as Rousseau and Luther was the break-up of the
one into [the] mutually ill-adjusted many, the transformation of a human into a
national outlook, requiring a more realistic foundation, such as the notion of
country, and finding expression through varying systems of polity evolved on
national lines, i.e. on lines which recognise territory as the only principle
of political solidarity. If you begin with the conception of religion as
complete other-worldliness, then what has happened to Christianity in Europe is
perfectly natural. The universal ethics of Jesus is displaced by national
systems of ethics and polity. The conclusion to which Europe is consequently driven
is that religion is a private affair of the individual and has nothing to do
with what is called man’s temporal life.
[[1d]] Islam does not bifurcate the unity of
man into an irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter. In Islam God and the
universe, spirit and matter, Church and State, are organic to each other. Man
is not the citizen of a profane world to be renounced in the interest of a
world of spirit situated elsewhere. To Islam, matter is spirit realising itself
in space and time. Europe uncritically accepted the duality of spirit and
matter, probably from Manichaean thought. Her best thinkers are realising this
initial mistake today, but her statesmen are indirectly forcing the world to
accept it as an unquestionable dogma. It is, then, this mistaken separation of
spiritual and temporal which has largely influenced European religious and
political thought and has resulted practically in the total exclusion of
Christianity from the life of European States. The result is a set of mutually
ill-adjusted States dominated by interests not human but national. And these
mutually ill-adjusted States, after trampling over the moral and religious
convictions of Christianity, are today feeling the need of a federated Europe,
i.e. the need of a unity which the Christian church organisation originally
gave them, but which, instead of reconstructing it in the light of Christ’s
vision of human brotherhood, they considered fit to destroy under the
inspiration of Luther.
[[1e]] A Luther in the world of Islam, however,
is an impossible phenomenon; for here there is no church organisation similar
to that of Christianity in the Middle Ages, inviting a destroyer. In the world
of Islam we have a universal polity whose fundamentals are believed to have
been revealed but whose structure, owing to our legists’ [=legal theorists']
want of contact with the modern world, today stands in need of renewed power by
fresh adjustments. I do not know what will be the final fate of the national
idea in the world of Islam. Whether Islam will assimilate and transform it, as
it has before assimilated and transformed many ideas expressive of a different
spirit, or allow a radical transformation of its own structure by the force of
this idea, is hard to predict. Professor Wensinck of Leiden (Holland) wrote to
me the other day: “It seems to me that Islam is entering upon a crisis through
which Christianity has been passing for more than a century. The great
difficulty is how to save the foundations of religion when many antiquated
notions have to be given up. It seems to me scarcely possible to state what the
outcome will be for Christianity, still less what it will be for Islam.” At the
present moment the national idea is racialising the outlook of Muslims, and
thus materially counteracting the humanizing work of Islam. And the growth of
racial consciousness may mean the growth of standards different [from] and even
opposed to the standards of Islam.
[[1f]] I hope you will pardon me for this
apparently academic discussion. To address this session of the All-India Muslim
League you have selected a man who is [=has] not despaired of Islam as a living
force for freeing the outlook of man from its geographical limitations, who
believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of
individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that Islam is itself
Destiny and will not suffer a destiny. Such a man cannot but look at matters
from his own point of view. Do not think that the problem I am indicating is a
purely theoretical one. It is a very living and practical problem calculated to
affect the very fabric of Islam as a system of life and conduct. On a proper
solution of it alone depends your future as a distinct cultural unit in India.
Never in our history has Islam had to stand a greater trial than the one which
confronts it today. It is open to a people to modify, reinterpret or reject the
foundational principles of their social structure; but it is absolutely
necessary for them to see clearly what they are doing before they undertake to
try a fresh experiment. Nor should the way in which I am approaching this
important problem lead anybody to think that I intend to quarrel with those who
happen to think differently. You are a Muslim assembly and, I suppose, anxious
to remain true to the spirit and ideals of Islam. My sole desire, therefore, is
to tell you frankly what I honestly believe to be the truth about the present
situation. In this way alone it is possible for me to illuminate, according to
my light, the avenues of your political action.
[[2]] The Unity of an Indian Nation
[[2a]]
What, then, is the problem and its implications? Is religion a private affair?
Would you like to see Islam as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same
fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it
possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity, in
favor of national polities in which [the] religious attitude is not permitted
to play any part? This question becomes of special importance in India, where
the Muslims happen to be a minority. The proposition that religion is a private
individual experience is not surprising on the lips of a European. In Europe
the conception of Christianity as a monastic order, renouncing the world of
matter and fixing its gaze entirely on the world of spirit, led, by a logical
process of thought, to the view embodied in this proposition. The nature of the
Prophet’s religious experience, as disclosed in the Quran, however, is wholly
different. It is not mere experience in the sense of a purely biological event,
happening inside the experient and necessitating no reactions on its social
environment. It is individual experience creative of a social order. Its
immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts
whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is
revelational.
[[2b]] The religious ideal of Islam,
therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The
rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other.
Therefore the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a
displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a
Muslim. This is a matter which at the present moment directly concerns the
Muslims of India. “Man,” says Renan, “is enslaved neither by his race, nor by
his religion, nor by the course of rivers, nor by the direction of mountain
ranges. A great aggregation of men, sane of mind and warm of heart, creates a
moral consciousness which is called a nation.” Such a formation is quite
possible, though it involves the long and arduous process of practically
remaking men and furnishing them with a fresh emotional equipment. It might
have been a fact in India if the teaching of Kabir and the Divine Faith of
Akbar had seized the imagination of the masses of this country. Experience,
however, shows that the various caste units and religious units in India have
shown no inclination to sink their respective individualities in a larger
whole. Each group is intensely jealous of its collective existence. The
formation of the kind of moral consciousness which constitutes the essence of a
nation in Renan’s sense demands a price which the peoples of India are not
prepared to pay.
[[2c]] The unity of an Indian nation,
therefore, must be sought not in the negation, but in the mutual harmony and
cooperation, of the many. True statesmanship cannot ignore facts, however
unpleasant they may be. The only practical course is not to assume the
existence of a state of things which does not exist, but to recognise facts as
they are, and to exploit them to our greatest advantage. And it is on the
discovery of Indian unity in this direction that the fate of India as well as
of Asia really depends. India is Asia in miniature. Part of her people have
cultural affinities with nations of the east, and part with nations in the
middle and west of Asia. If an effective principle of cooperation is discovered
in India, it will bring peace and mutual goodwill to this ancient land which
has suffered so long, more because of her situation in historic space than
because of any inherent incapacity of her people. And it will at the same time
solve the entire political problem of Asia.
[[2d]] It is, however, painful to observe that
our attempts to discover such a principle of internal harmony have so far
failed. Why have they failed? Perhaps we suspect each other’s intentions and
inwardly aim at dominating each other. Perhaps, in the higher interests of
mutual cooperation, we cannot afford to part with the monopolies which
circumstances have placed in our hands, and [thus we] conceal our egoism under
the cloak of nationalism, outwardly simulating a large-hearted patriotism, but
inwardly as narrow-minded as a caste or tribe. Perhaps we are unwilling to
recognise that each group has a right to free development according to its own
cultural traditions. But whatever may be the causes of our failure, I still
feel hopeful. Events seem to be tending in the direction of some sort of
internal harmony. And as far as I have been able to read the Muslim mind, I
have no hesitation in declaring that if the principle that the Indian Muslim is
entitled to full and free development on the lines of his own culture and
tradition in his own Indian home-lands is recognized as the basis of a
permanent communal settlement, he will be ready to stake his all for the
freedom of India.
[[2e]] The principle that each group is
entitled to its free development on its own lines is not inspired by any feeling
of narrow communalism. There are communalisms and communalisms. A community
which is inspired by feelings of ill-will towards other communities is low and
ignoble. I entertain the highest respect for the customs, laws, religious and
social institutions of other communities. Nay, it is my duty, according to the
teaching of the Quran, even to defend their places of worship, if need be. Yet
I love the communal group which is the source of my life and behaviour; and
which has formed me what I am by giving me its religion, its literature, its
thought, its culture, and thereby recreating its whole past as a living
operative factor, in my present consciousness. Even the authors of the Nehru
Report recognise the value of this higher aspect of communalism. While
discussing the separation of Sind they say, “To say from the larger viewpoint
of nationalism that no communal provinces should be created, is, in a way,
equivalent to saying from the still wider international viewpoint that there
should be no separate nations. Both these statements have a measure of truth in
them. But the staunchest internationalist recognises that without the fullest
national autonomy it is extraordinarily difficult to create the international
State. So also without the fullest cultural autonomy – and communalism in its
better aspect is culture – it will be difficult to create a harmonious nation.”
[[3]] Muslim India Within India
[[3a]]
Communalism in its higher aspect, then, is indispensable to the formation of a
harmonious whole in a country like India. The units of Indian society are not
territorial as in European countries. India is a continent of human groups
belonging to different races, speaking different languages, and professing
different religions. Their behaviour is not at all determined by a common
race-consciousness. Even the Hindus do not form a homogeneous group. The
principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognising
the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India
within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the
All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this
noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective
individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working
out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have no doubt that this
House will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution.
[[3b]] Personally, I would go farther than the
demands embodied in it. I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier
Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government
within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a
consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final
destiny of the Muslims, at least of North-West India. The proposal was put
forward before the Nehru Committee. They rejected it on the ground that, if
carried into effect, it would give a very unwieldy State. This is true in so
far as the area is concerned; in point of population, the State contemplated by
the proposal would be much less than some of the present Indian provinces. The
exclusion of Ambala Division, and perhaps of some districts where non-Muslims
predominate, will make it less extensive and more Muslim in population – so
that the exclusion suggested will enable this consolidated State to give a more
effective protection to non-Muslim minorities within its area. The idea need
not alarm the Hindus or the British. India is the greatest Muslim country in
the world. The life of Islam as a cultural force in the country very largely
depends on its centralisation in a specified territory. This centralisation of
the most living portion of the Muslims of India, whose military and police
service has, notwithstanding unfair treatment from the British, made the
British rule possible in this country, will eventually solve the problem of
India as well as of Asia. It will intensify their sense of responsibility and
deepen their patriotic feeling.
[[3c]] Thus, possessing full opportunity of
development within the body politic of India, the North-West Indian Muslims
will prove the best defenders of India against a foreign invasion, be that
invasion one of ideas or of bayonets. The Punjab with 56 percent Muslim
population supplies 54 percent of the total combatant troops in the Indian
Army, and if the 19,000 Gurkhas recruited from the independent State of Nepal
are excluded, the Punjab contingent amounts to 62 percent of the whole Indian
Army. This percentage does not take into account nearly 6,000 combatants
supplied to the Indian Army by the North-West Frontier Province and
Baluchistan. From this you can easily calculate the possibilities of North-West
Indian Muslims in regard to the defence of India against foreign aggression.
The Right Hon’ble Mr. Srinivasa Sastri thinks that the Muslim demand for the
creation of autonomous Muslim states along the north-west border is actuated by
a desire “to acquire means of exerting pressure in emergencies on the
Government of India.” I may frankly tell him that the Muslim demand is not
actuated by the kind of motive he imputes to us; it is actuated by a genuine
desire for free development which is practically impossible under the type of
unitary government contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politicians with a
view to secure permanent communal dominance in the whole of India.
[[3d]] Nor should the Hindus fear that the
creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of
religious rule in such states. I have already indicated to you the meaning of
the word religion, as applied to Islam. The truth is that Islam is not a
Church. It is a State conceived as a contractual organism long before Rousseau
ever thought of such a thing, and animated by an ethical ideal which regards
man not as an earth-rooted creature, defined by this or that portion of the
earth, but as a spiritual being understood in terms of a social mechanism, and
possessing rights and duties as a living factor in that mechanism. The
character of a Muslim State can be judged from what the Times of India pointed
out some time ago in a leader [=front-page article] on the Indian Banking
Inquiry Committee. “In ancient India,” the paper points out, “the State framed
laws regulating the rates of interest; but in Muslim times, although Islam
clearly forbids the realisation of interest on money loaned, Indian Muslim
States imposed no restrictions on such rates.” I therefore demand the formation
of a consolidated Muslim State in the best interests of India and Islam. For
India, it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power;
for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism
was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to
bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit
of modern times.
[[4]] Federal States
[[4a]]
Thus it is clear that in view of India’s infinite variety in climates, races,
languages, creeds and social systems, the creation of autonomous States, based
on the unity of language, race, history, religion and identity of economic
interests, is the only possible way to secure a stable constitutional structure
in India. The conception of federation underlying the Simon Report necessitates
the abolition of the Central Legislative Assembly as a popular assembly, and
makes it an assembly of the representatives of federal States. It further
demands a redistribution of territory on the lines which I have indicated. And
the Report does recommend both. I give my wholehearted support to this view of
the matter, and venture to suggest that the redistribution recommended in the
Simon Report must fulfill two conditions. It must precede the introduction of
the new constitution, and must be so devised as to finally solve the communal
problem. Proper redistribution will make the question of joint and separate
electorates automatically disappear from the constitutional controversy of
India. It is the present structure of the provinces that is largely responsible
for this controversy.
[[4b]] The Hindu thinks that separate
electorates are contrary to the spirit of true nationalism, because he
understands the word nation to mean a kind of universal amalgamation in which
no communal entity ought to retain its private individuality. Such a state of
things, however, does not exist. Nor is it desirable that it should exist. India
is a land of racial and religious variety. Add to this the general economic
inferiority of the Muslims, their enormous debt, especially in the Punjab, and
their insufficient majorities in some of the provinces as at present
constituted, and you will begin to see clearly the meaning of our anxiety to
retain separate electorates. In such a country and in such circumstances
territorial electorates cannot secure adequate representation of all interests,
and must inevitably lead to the creation of an oligarchy. The Muslims of India
can have no objection to purely territorial electorates if provinces are
demarcated so as to secure comparatively homogeneous communities possessing
linguistic, racial, cultural and religious unity.
[[5]] Federation As Understood in the Simon
Report
[[5a]]
But in so far as the question of the powers of the Central Federal State is
concerned, there is a subtle difference of motive in the constitutions proposed
by the pundits of India and the pundits of England. The pundits of India do not
disturb the Central authority as it stands at present. All that they desire is
that this authority should become fully responsible to the Central Legislature
which they maintain intact and where their majority will become further
reinforced on the nominated element ceasing to exist. The pundits of England,
on the other hand, realising that democracy in the Centre tends to work
contrary to their interests and is likely to absorb the whole power now in
their hands, in case a further advance is made towards responsible government,
have shifted the experience of democracy from the Centre to the provinces. No
doubt, they introduce the principle of Federation and appear to have made a
beginning by making certain proposals; yet their evaluation of this principle
is determined by considerations wholly different to those which determine its
value in the eyes of Muslim India. The Muslims demand federation because it is
pre-eminently a solution of India’s most difficult problem, i.e. the communal
problem. The Royal Commissioners’ view of federation, though sound in
principle, does not seem to aim at responsible government for federal States.
Indeed it does not go beyond providing means of escape from the situation which
the introduction of democracy in India has created for the British, and wholly
disregards the communal problem by leaving it where it was.
[[5b]] Thus it is clear that, in so far as
real federation is concerned, the Simon Report virtually negatives the
principle of federation in its true significance. The Nehru Report, realising
[a] Hindu majority in the Central Assembly, reaches a unitary form of
government because such an institution secures Hindu dominance throughout
India; the Simon Report retains the present British dominance behind the thin
veneer of an unreal federation, partly because the British are naturally
unwilling to part with the power they have so long wielded and partly because
it is possible for them, in the absence of an inter-communal understanding in
India, to make out a plausible case for the retention of that power in their
own hands. To my mind a unitary form of government is simply unthinkable in a
self-governing India. What is called “residuary powers” must be left entirely
to self-governing States, the Central Federal State exercising only those
powers which are expressly vested in it by the free consent of federal States.
I would never advise the Muslims of India to agree to a system, whether of
British or of Indian origin, which virtually negatives the principle of true
federation, or fails to recognise them as a distinct political entity.
[[6]] Federal Scheme As Discussed in the Round
Table Conference
[[6a]]
The necessity for a structural change in the Central Government was seen
probably long before the British discovered the most effective means for
introducing this change. That is why at rather a late stage it was announced
that the participation of the Indian Princes in the Round Table Conference was
essential. It was a kind of surprise to the people of India, particularly the
minorities, to see the Indian Princes dramatically expressing their willingness
at the Round Table Conference to join an all-India federation and, as a result
of their declaration, Hindu delegates – uncompromising advocates of a unitary
form of government – quietly agreeing to the evolution of a federal scheme.
Even Mr. Sastri who only a few days before had severely criticised Sir John
Simon for recommending a federal scheme for India, suddenly became a convert
and admitted his conversion in the plenary session of the Conference – thus
offering the Prime Minister of England an occasion for one of his wittiest
observations in his concluding speech. All this has a meaning both for the
British who have sought the participation of the Indian Princes, and for the
Hindus who have unhesitatingly accepted the evolution of an all-India
federation. The truth is that the participation of the Indian Princes, among
whom only a few are Muslims, in a federation scheme serves a double purpose. On
the one hand, it serves as an all-important factor in maintaining the British
power in India practically as it is; on the other hand, it gives [an]
overwhelming majority to the Hindus in an All-India Federal Assembly.
[[6b]] It appears to me that the Hindu-Muslim
differences regarding the ultimate form of the Central Government are being
cleverly exploited by British politicians through the agency of the Princes who
see in the scheme prospects of better security for their despotic rule. If the
Muslims silently agree to any such scheme, it will simply hasten their end as a
political entity in India. The policy of the Indian federation thus created,
will be practically controlled by [the] Hindu Princes forming the largest group
in the Central Federal Assembly. They will always lend their support to the
Crown in matters of Imperial concern; and in so far as internal administration
of the country is concerned, they will help in maintaining and strengthening
the supremacy of the Hindus. In other words, the scheme appears to be aiming at
a kind of understanding between Hindu India and British Imperialism – you
perpetuate me in India, and I in return give you a Hindu oligarchy to keep all
other Indian communities in perpetual subjection. If, therefore, the British
Indian provinces are not transformed into really autonomous States, the
Princes’ participation in a scheme of Indian federation will be interpreted
only as a dexterous move on the part of British politicians to satisfy, without
parting with any real power, all parties concerned – Muslims with the word
federation; Hindus with a majority in the Centre; the British Imperialists –
with the substance of real power.
[[6c]] The number of Hindu States in India is
far greater than Muslim States; and it remains to be seen how the Muslim demand
for 33 percent [of the] seats in the Central Federal Assembly is to be met
within a House or Houses constituted of representatives taken from British
India as well as Indian States. I hope the Muslim delegates are fully aware of
the implications of the federal scheme as discussed in the Round Table
Conference. The question of Muslim representation in the proposed all-India
federation has not yet been discussed. “The interim report,” says Reuters’
summary, “contemplates two chambers in the Federal Legislature, each containing
representatives both of British India and States, the proportion of which will
be a matter of subsequent consideration under the heads which have not yet been
referred to the Sub-Committee.” In my opinion the question of proportion is of
the utmost importance and ought to have been considered simultaneously with the
main question of the structure of the Assembly.
[[6d]] The best course, I think, would have
been to start with a British Indian Federation only. A federal scheme born of
an unholy union between democracy and despotism cannot but keep British India
in the same vicious circle of a unitary Central Government. Such a unitary form
may be of the greatest advantage to the British, to the majority community in
British India, and to the Indian Princes; it can be of no advantage to the
Muslims, unless they get majority rights in five out of eleven Indian provinces
with full residuary powers, and one-third share of seats in the total House of
the Federal Assembly. In so far as the attainment of sovereign powers by the
British Indian provinces is concerned, the position of His Highness the Ruler
of Bhopal, Sir Akbar Hydari, and Mr. Jinnah is unassailable. In view, however,
of the participation of the Princes in the Indian Federation, we must now see
our demand for representation in the British Indian Assembly in a new light.
The questions is not one of [the] Muslim share in a British Indian Assembly,
but one which relates to representation of British Indian Muslims in an
All-India Federal Assembly. Our demand for 33 per cent must now be taken as a
demand for the same proportion in the All-India Federal Assembly, exclusive of
the share allotted to the Muslim states entering the Federation.
[[7]] The Problem of Defence
[[7a]]
The other difficult problem which confronts the successful working of a federal
system in India is the problem of India’s defence. In their discussion of this
problem the Royal Commissioners have marshalled all the deficiencies of India
in order to make out a case for Imperial administration of the Army. “India and
Britain,” say the Commissioners, “are so related that India’s defence cannot,
now or in any future which is within sight, be regarded as a matter of purely
Indian concern. The control and direction of such an army must rest in the
hands of agents of Imperial Government.” Now, does it [not] necessarily follow
from this that further progress towards the realisation of responsible
government in British India is barred until the work of defence can be
adequately discharged without the help of British officers and British troops?
As things are, there is a block on the line of constitutional advance. All
hopes of evolution in the Central Government towards the ultimate goal
prescribed in the declaration of 20th August 1917, are in danger of being
indefinitely frustrated, if the attitude illustrated by the Nehru Report is
maintained, that any future change involves the putting of the administration
of the army under the authority of an elected Indian Legislature. Further to
fortify their argument they emphasize the fact of competing religions and rival
races of widely different capacity, and try to make the problem look insoluble
by remarking that “the obvious fact that India is not, in the ordinary and
natural sense, a single nation is nowhere made more plain than in considering
the difference between the martial races of India and the rest.” These features
of the question have been emphasised in order to demonstrate that the British
are not only keeping India secure from foreign menace but are also the “neutral
guardians” of internal security.
[[7b]] However, in federated India, as I
understand federation, the problem will have only one aspect, i.e. external
defence. Apart from provincial armies necessary for maintaining internal peace,
the Indian Federal Congress can maintain, on the north-west frontier, a strong
Indian Frontier Army, composed of units recruited from all provinces and
officered by efficient and experienced military men taken from all communities.
I know that India is not in possession of efficient military officers, and this
fact is exploited by the Royal Commissioners in the interest of an argument for
Imperial administration. On this point I cannot but quote another passage from
the Report which, to my mind, furnishes the best argument against the position
taken up by the Commissioners. “At the present moment,” says the Report, “no
Indian holding the King’s Commission is of higher army rank than a captain.
There are, we believe, 39 captains of whom 25 are in ordinary regimental
employ. Some of them are of an age which would prevent their attaining much
higher rank, even if they passed the necessary examination before retirement.
Most of these have not been through Sandhurst, but got their Commissions during
the Great War.” Now, however genuine may be the desire, and however earnest the
endeavour to work for this transformation, overriding conditions have been so
forcibly expressed by the Skeen Committee (whose members, apart from the
Chairman and the Army Secretary, were Indian gentlemen) in these words:
Progress…must be contingent upon success being secured at each stage and upon
military efficiency being maintained, though it must in any case render such
development measured and slow. A higher command cannot be evolved at short
notice out of existing cadres of Indian officers, all of junior rank and
limited experience. Not until the slender trickle of suitable Indian recruits
for the officer class – and we earnestly desire an increase in their numbers –
flows in much greater volume, not until sufficient Indians have attained the
experience and training requisite to provide all the officers for, at any rate,
some Indian regiments, not until such units have stood the only test which can
possibly determine their efficiency, and not until Indian officers have
qualified by a successful army career for the high command, will it be possible
to develop the policy of Indianisation to a point which will bring a completely
Indianised army within sight. Even then years must elapse before the process
could be completed.”
[[7c]] Now I venture to ask: who is
responsible for the present state of things? Is it due to some inherent
incapacity of our martial races, or to the slowness of the process of military
training? The military capacity of our martial races is undeniable. The process
of military training may be slow as compared to other processes of human
training. I am no military expert to judge this matter. But as a layman I feel
that the argument, as stated, assumes the process to be practically endless.
This means perpetual bondage for India, and makes it all the more necessary
that the Frontier Army, as suggested by the Nehru Report, be entrusted to the
charge of a committee of defence, the personnel of which may be settled by
mutual understanding.
[[7d]] Again, it is significant that the Simon
Report has given extraordinary importance to the question of India’s land
frontier, but has made only passing references to its naval position. India has
doubtless had to face invasions from her land frontier; but it is obvious that
her present masters took possession of her on account of her defenceless sea
coast. A self-governing and free India will, in these days, have to take
greater care of her sea coast than [of her] land frontiers.
[[7e]] I have no doubt that if a Federal
Government is established, Muslim federal States will willingly agree, for
purposes of India’s defence, to the creation of neutral Indian military and
naval forces. Such a neutral military force for the defence of India was a reality
in the days of Mughal rule. Indeed in the time of Akbar the Indian frontier
was, on the whole, defended by armies officered by Hindu generals. I am
perfectly sure that the scheme for a neutral Indian army, based on a federated
India, will intensify Muslim patriotic feeling, and finally set at rest the
suspicion, if any, of Indian Muslims joining Muslims from beyond the frontier
in the event of an invasion.
[[8]] The Alternative
[[8a]] I
have thus tried briefly to indicate the way in which the Muslims of India
ought, in my opinion, to look at the two most important constitutional problems
of India. A redistribution of British India, calculated to secure a permanent
solution of the communal problem, is the main demand of the Muslims of India.
If, however, the Muslim demand of a territorial solution of the communal
problem is ignored, then I support, as emphatically as possible, the Muslim
demands repeatedly urged by the All-India Muslim League and the All-India
Muslim Conference. The Muslims of India cannot agree to any constitutional
changes which affect their majority rights, to be secured by separate
electorates in the Punjab and Bengal, or [which] fail to guarantee them 33
percent representation in any Central Legislature. There were two pitfalls into
which Muslim political leaders fell. The first was the repudiated Lucknow Pact,
which originated in a false view of Indian nationalism and deprived the Muslims
of India of chances of acquiring any political power in India. The second is
the narrow-visioned sacrifice of Islamic solidarity, in the interests of what
may be called Punjab ruralism, resulting in a proposal which virtually reduces
the Punjab Muslims to a position of minority. It is the duty of the League to
condemn both the Pact and the proposal.
[[8b]] The Simon Report does great injustice
to the Muslims in not recommending a statutory majority for the Punjab and
Bengal. It would make the Muslims either stick to the Lucknow Pact or agree to
a scheme of joint electorates. The despatch of the Government of India on the
Simon Report admits that since the publication of that document the Muslim
community has not expressed its willingness to accept any of the alternatives
proposed by the Report. The despatch recognises that it may be a legitimate grievance
to deprive the Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal of representation in the
councils in proportion to their population merely because of weightage allowed
to Muslim minorities elsewhere. But the despatch of the Government of India
fails to correct the injustice of the Simon Report. In so far as the Punjab is
concerned – and this is the most crucial point – it endorses the so-called
“carefully balanced scheme” worked out by the official members of the Punjab
Government which gives the Punjab Muslims a majority of two over Hindus and
Sikhs combined, and a proportion of 49 percent of the House as a whole. It is
obvious that the Punjab Muslims cannot be satisfied with less than a clear
majority in the total House. However, Lord Irwin and his Government do recognise
that the justification for communal electorates for majority communities would
not cease unless and until by the extension of franchise their voting strength
more correctly reflects their population; and further unless a two-thirds
majority of the Muslim members in a provincial Council unanimously agree to
surrender the right of separate representation. I cannot, however, understand
why the Government of India, having recognised the legitimacy of the Muslim
grievances, have not had the courage to recommend a statutory majority for the
Muslims in the Punjab and Bengal.
[[8c]] Nor can the Muslims of India agree to
any such changes which fail to create at least Sind as a separate province and
treat the North-West Frontier Province as a province of inferior political
status. I see no reason why Sind should not be united with Baluchistan and
turned into a separate province. It has nothing in common with Bombay
Presidency. In point of life and civilization the Royal Commissioners find it
more akin to Mesopotamia and Arabia than India. The Muslim geographer Mas’udi
noticed this kinship long ago when he said: “Sind is a country nearer to the
dominions of Islam.” The first Omayyad ruler is reported to have said of Egypt:
“Egypt has her back towards Africa and face towards Arabia.” With necessary
alterations the same remark describes the exact situation of Sind. She has her
back towards India and face towards Central Asia. Considering further the
nature of her agricultural problems which can invoke no sympathy from the
Bombay Government, and her infinite commercial possibilities, dependent on the
inevitable growth of Karachi into a second metropolis of India, it is unwise to
keep her attached to a Presidency which, though friendly today, is likely to
become a rival at no distant period. Financial difficulties, we are told, stand
in the way of separation. I do not know of any definite authoritative
pronouncement on the matter. But assuming there are any such difficulties, I
see no reason why the Government of India should not give temporary financial
help to a promising province in her struggle for independent progress.
[[8d]] As to the North-West Frontier Province,
it is painful to note that the Royal Commissioners have practically denied that
the people of this province have any right to reform. They fall far short of
the Bray Committee, and the Council recommended by them is merely a screen to
hide the autocracy of the Chief Commissioner. The inherent right of the Afghan
to light a cigarette is curtailed merely because he happens to be living in a
powder house. The Royal Commissioners’ epigrammatic argument is pleasant
enough, but far from convincing. Political reform is light, not fire; and to
light every human being is entitled, whether he happens to live in a powder
house or a coal mine. Brave, shrewd, and determined to suffer for his
legitimate aspirations, the Afghan is sure to resent any attempt to deprive him
of opportunities of full self-development. To keep such a people contented is
in the best interest of both England and India. What has recently happened in
that unfortunate province is the result of a step-motherly treatment shown to
the people since the introduction of the principle of self-government in the
rest of India. I only hope that British statesmanship will not obscure its view
of the situation by hoodwinking itself into the belief that the present unrest
in the province is due to any extraneous causes.
[[8e]] The recommendation for the introduction
of a measure of reform in the North-West Frontier Province made in the
Government of India’s despatch is also unsatisfactory. No doubt, the despatch
goes farther than the Simon Report in recommending a sort of representative
Council and a semi-representative cabinet, but it fails to treat this important
Muslim province on [an] equal footing with other Indian provinces. Indeed the
Afghan is, by instinct, more fitted for democratic institutions than any other
people in India.
[[9]] The Round Table Conference
[[9a]] I
think I am now called upon to make a few observations on the Round Table
Conference. Personally I do not feel optimistic as to the results of this
Conference. It was hoped that away from the actual scene of communal strife and
in a changed atmosphere, better counsels would prevail and a genuine settlement
of the differences between the two major communities of India would bring
India’s freedom within sight. Actual events, however, tell a different tale.
Indeed, the discussion of the communal question in London has demonstrated more
clearly than ever the essential disparity between the two great cultural units
of India. Yet the Prime Minister of England apparently refuses to see that the
problem of India is international and not national. He is reported to have said
that “his government would find it difficult to submit to Parliament proposals
for the maintenance of separate electorates, since joint electorates were much
more in accordance with British democratic sentiments.” Obviously he does not
see that the model of British democracy cannot be of any use in a land of many
nations; and that a system of separate electorates is only a poor substitute
for a territorial solution of the problem. Nor is the Minorities Sub-Committee
likely to reach a satisfactory settlement. The whole question will have to go
before the British Parliament; and we can only hope that the keen-sighted
representatives of [the] British nation, unlike most of our Indian politicians,
will be able to pierce through the surface of things and see clearly the true
fundamentals of peace and security in a country like India. To base a
constitution on the concept of a homogeneous India, or to apply to India
principles dictated by British democratic sentiments, is unwittingly to prepare
her for a civil war. As far as I can see, there will be no peace in the country
until the various peoples that constitute India are given opportunities of free
self-development on modern lines without abruptly breaking with their past.
[[9b]] I am glad to be able to say that our
Muslim delegates fully realise the importance of a proper solution of what I
call [the] Indian international problem. They are perfectly justified in
pressing for a solution of the communal question before the question of
responsibility in the Central Government is finally settled. No Muslim
politician should be sensitive to the taunt embodied in that propaganda
word – communalism – expressly devised to exploit what the Prime Minister
calls British democratic sentiments, and to mislead England into assuming a
state of things which does not really exist in India. Great interests are at
stake. We are 70 millions, and far more homogeneous than any other people in
India. Indeed the Muslims of India are the only Indian people who can fitly be
described as a nation in the modern sense of the word. The Hindus, though ahead
of us in almost all respects, have not yet been able to achieve the kind of
homogeneity which is necessary for a nation, and which Islam has given you as a
free gift. No doubt they are anxious to become a nation, but the process of
becoming a nation is kind of travail, and in the case of Hindu India involves a
complete overhauling of her social structure.
[[9c]] Nor should the Muslim leaders and
politicians allow themselves to be carried away by the subtle but fallacious
argument that Turkey and Persia and other Muslim countries are progressing on
national, i.e. territorial, lines. The Muslims of India are differently
situated. The countries of Islam outside India are practically wholly Muslim in
population. The minorities there belong, in the language of the Quran, to the
‘people of the Book’. There are no social barriers between Muslims and the
‘people of the Book’. A Jew or a Christian or a Zoroastrian does not pollute
the food of a Muslim by touching it, and the law of Islam allows intermarriage
with the ‘people of the Book’. Indeed the first practical step that Islam took
towards the realisation of a final combination of humanity was to call upon
peoples possessing practically the same ethical ideal to come forward and combind.
The Quran declares: “O people of the Book! Come, let us join together on the
‘word’ (Unity of God), that is common to us all.” The wars of Islam and
Christianity, and later, European aggression in its various forms, could not
allow the infinite meaning of this verse to work itself out in the world of
Islam. Today it is being gradually realised in the countries of Islam in the
shape of what is called Muslim Nationalism.
[[9d]] It is hardly necessary for me to add
that the sole test of the success of our delegates is the extent to which they
are able to get the non-Muslim delegates of the Conference to agree to our
demands as embodied in the Delhi Resolution. If these demands are not agreed
to, then a question of a very great and far-reaching importance will arise for
the community. Then will arrive the moment for independent and concerted
political action by the Muslims of India. If you are at all serious about your
ideals and aspirations, you must be ready for such an action. Our leading men
have done a good deal of political thinking, and their thought has certainly
made us, more or less, sensitive to the forces which are now shaping the
destinies of peoples in India and outside India. But, I ask, has this thinking
prepared us for the kind of action demanded by the situation which may arise in
the near future?
[[9e]] Let me tell you frankly that, at the
present moment, the Muslims of India are suffering from two evils. The first is
the want of personalities. Sir Malcolm Hailey and Lord Irwin were perfectly
correct in their diagnosis when they told the Aligarh University that the
community had failed to produce leaders. By leaders I mean men who, by Divine
gift or experience, possess a keen perception of the spirit and destiny of
Islam, along with an equally keen perception of the trend of modern history.
Such men are really the driving forces of a people, but they are God’s gift and
cannot be made to order.
[[9f]] The second evil from which the Muslims
of India are suffering is that the community is fast losing what is called the
herd instinct. This [loss] makes it possible for individuals and groups to
start independent careers without contributing to the general thought and
activity of the community. We are doing today in the domain of politics what we
have been doing for centuries in the domain of religion. But sectional
bickerings in religion do not do much harm to our solidarity. They at least
indicate an interest in what makes the sole principle of our structure as a
people. Moreover, the principle is so broadly conceived that it is almost
impossible for a group to become rebellious to the extent of wholly detaching
itself from the general body of Islam. But diversity in political action, at a
moment when concerted action is needed in the best interests of the very life
of our people, may prove fatal.
[[9g]] How shall we, then, remedy these two
evils? The remedy of the first evil is not in our hands. As to the second evil,
I think it is possible to discover a remedy. I have got definite views on the
subject; but I think it is proper to postpone their expression till the
apprehended situation actually arises. In case it does arise, leading Muslims
of all shades of opinion will have to meet together, not to pass resolutions,
but finally to determine the Muslim attitude and to show the path to tangible
achievement. In this address I mention this alternative only because I wish
that you may keep it in mind and give some serious thought to it in the
meantime.
[[10]] The Conclusion
[[10a]]
Gentlemen, I have finished. In conclusion I cannot but impress upon you that
the present crisis in the history of India demands complete organisation and
unity of will and purpose in the Muslim community, both in your own interest as
a community, and in the interest of India as a whole. The political bondage of
India has been and is a source of infinite misery to the whole of Asia. It has
suppressed the spirit of the East and wholly deprived her of that joy of
self-expression which once made her the creator of a great and glorious
culture. We have a duty towards India where we are destined to live and die. We
have a duty towards Asia, especially Muslim Asia. And since 70 millions of
Muslims in a single country constitute a far more valuable asset to Islam than
all the countries of Muslim Asia put together, we must look at the Indian
problem not only from the Muslim point of view, but also from the standpoint of
the Indian Muslim as such. Our duty towards Asia and India cannot be loyally
performed without an organised will fixed on a definite purpose. In your own
interest, as a political entity among other political entities of India, such
an equipment is an absolute necessity.
[[10b]] Our disorganised condition has already
confused political issues vital to the life of the community. I am not hopeless
of an intercommunal understanding, but I cannot conceal from you the feeling
that in the near future our community may be called upon to adopt an
independent line of action to cope with the present crisis. And an independent
line of political action, in such a crisis, is possible only to a determined
people, possessing a will focalised by a single purpose. Is it possible for you
to achieve the organic wholeness of a unified will? Yes, it is. Rise above
sectional interests and private ambitions, and learn to determine the value of
your individual and collective action, however directed on material ends, in
the light of the ideal which you are supposed to represent. Pass from matter to
spirit. Matter is diversity; spirit is light, life and unity.
[[10c]] One lesson I have learnt from the history
of Muslims. At critical moments in their history it is Islam that has saved
Muslims and not vice versa. If today you focus your vision on Islam and seek
inspiration from the ever-vitalising idea embodied in it, you will be only
reassembling your scattered forces, regaining your lost integrity, and thereby
saving yourself from total destruction. One of the profoundest verses in the
Holy Quran teaches us that the birth and rebirth of the whole of humanity is
like the birth and rebirth of a single individual. Why cannot you who, as a
people, can well claim to be the first practical exponents of this superb
conception of humanity, live and move and have your being as a single
individual? I do not wish to mystify anybody when I say that things in India are
not what they appear to be. The meaning of this, however, will dawn upon you
only when you have achieved a real collective ego to look at them. In the words
of the Quran, “Hold fast to yourself; no one who erreth can hurt you, provided
you are well guided” (5:104).
Iqbal’s insistence on “a solution of the
communal question before the question of responsibility in the Central
Government“, that is, independence stood in stark contrast to the defiant tone
and message of the “Indian Declaration of Independence” made by the Congress on
January 26, 1930. The following is the full text.
“We believe that it is the inalienable right
of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the
fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have
full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a
people of these rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to
alter it or to abolish it. The British government in India has not only
deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the
exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically,
culturally, and spiritually. We believe, therefore, that India must sever the
British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence.
”India has been ruined economically. The
revenue derived from our people is out of all proportion to our income. Our
average income is seven pice (less than two pence) per day, and of the heavy
taxes we pay, twenty per cent are raised from the land revenue derived from the
peasantry and three per cent from the salt tax, which falls most heavily on the
poor.
”Village
industries, such as hand-spinning, have been destroyed, leaving the peasantry
idle for at least four months in the year, and dulling their intellect for want
of handicrafts, and nothing has been substituted, as in other countries, for
the crafts thus destroyed.
”Customs and currency have been so
manipulated as to heap further burdens on the peasantry. The British
manufactured goods constitute the bulk of our imports. Customs duties betray
clear partiality for British manufactures, and revenue from them is used not to
lessen the burden on the masses but for sustaining a highly extravagant
administration. Still more arbitrary has been the manipulation of the exchange
ratio, which has resulted in millions being drained away from the country.
”Politically, India’s status has never
been so reduced as under the British regime. No reforms have given real
political power to the people. The tallest of us have to bend before foreign
authority. The rights of free expression of opinion and free association have
been denied to us, and many of our countrymen are compelled to live in exile
abroad and cannot return to their homes. All administrative talent is killed,
and the masses have to be satisfied with petty village offices and clerkships.
”Culturally, the system of education has
torn us from our moorings, and our training has made us hug the very chains
that bind us.
”Spiritually,
compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army
of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of
resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves or put up a
defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families from
the attacks of thieves, robbers and miscreants.
”We hold it to be a crime against man
and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this fourfold disaster
to our country. We recognize, however, that the most effective way of gaining
our freedom is not through violence. We will therefore prepare ourselves by
withdrawing, so far as we can, all voluntary association from the British
Government, and will prepare for civil disobedience, including nonpayment of
taxes. We are convinced that if we can but withdraw our voluntary help and stop
payment of taxes without doing violence, even under provocation, the end of
this inhuman rule is assured. We therefore hereby solemnly resolve to carry out
the Congress instructions issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing
Purna Swaraj.”
No comments:
Post a Comment