Sunday 17 February 2013

Day .36- JAWAHARLAL NEHRU - The Discovery of India (Continued)




The Techniques of British Rule: Balance and Counterpoise (Continued)

Ranjit Singh ruled in the Punjab. Mughal rule had ended in the north without any intervention of the British, and in the south also it had disintegrated. Yet the shadow emperor sat in the Delhi palace, and though he had become a dependant and pensioner of the Marathas and the British successively, still he was a symbol of a famous dynasty.
Inevitably, during the Revolt the rebels tried to take advantage of this symbol, in spite of his weakness and unwillingness. The ending of the Revolt meant also the smashing of the symbol. As the people recovered slowly from the horror of the Mutiny days, there was a blank in their minds, a vacuum which sought for something to fill it. Of necessity, British rule had to be accepted, but the break with the past had brought something more than a new government; it had brought doubt and confusion and a loss of faith in themselves. That break indeed had come long before the Mutiny, and had led to the many movements of thought in Bengal and elsewhere to which I have already referred. But the Moslems generally had then retired into their
shells far more than the Hindus, avoided western education, and lived in day-dreams of a restoration of the old order. There could be no more dreaming now, but there had to be something to which they could cling on. They still kept away from the new education. Gradually and after much debate and difficulty, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan turned their minds  towards English education and started the Aligarh College. That was the only  avenue leading to government service, and the lure of that service proved powerful enough to overcome old resentments and prejudices. The fact that Hindus had gone far ahead in education and service was disliked, and proved a powerful argument to do likewise. Parsis and Hindus were also going ahead in industry, but Moslem attention was directed to government service alone. But even this new direction to their activities, which was really confined to comparatively few, did not resolve the doubt and confusion of their minds. Hindus, in like straits, had looked back and sought consolation in ancient times. Old philosophy and literature, art and history, had brought some comfort. Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda, Vivekananda, and others had started new movements of thought. While they drank from the rich streams of English literature their minds were also full of ancient sages and heroes of India, their thoughts and deeds, and of the myths and traditions which they had imbibed from their childhood. Much of this was common to the Moslem masses, who were well acquainted with these traditions. But it began to be felt, especially by the Moslem upper classes, that it was not quite proper for them to associate themselves with these semi-religious traditions, that any encouragement of them would be against the spirit of Islam.
They searched for their national roots elsewhere. To some extent they found them in the Afghan and Mughal periods of India, but this was not quite enough to fill the vacuum. Those periods were common for Hindus and Moslems alike, and the sense of foreign intrusion had disappeared from Hindu minds. The Mughal rulers were looked upon as Indian national rulers, though in the case of Aurungzeb there was a difference of opinion. It is significant that Akbar, whom the Hindus especially admired, has not been approved of in recent years by some Moslems.
Last year the 400th anniversary of his birth was celebrated in India. All classes of people, including many Moslems, joined, but the Moslem League kept aloof because Akbar was a symbol of India's unity. This search for cultural roots led Indian Moslems (that is, some of them of the middle class) to Islamic history, and to the periods when Islam was a conquering and creative force in Baghdad, Spain, Constantinople, central Asia, and elsewhere. There had always been interest in this history and some contacts with neighboring Islamic countries. There was also the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca,which brought Moslems from various countries together. But all such contacts were limited and superficial and did not really affect the general outlook of Indian Moslems, which was confined to India. The Afghan kings of Delhi, especially Muhammad Tughlaq, had acknowledged theKhalifa (Caliph) at Cairo. The Ottoman emperors at Constantinople subsequently became the Khalifas, but they were not recognized as such in India. The Mughal Emperors in India recognized no Khalifa or spiritual superiors outside India. It was only after the complete collapse of the Mughal power early in the nineteenth century that the name of the Turkish Sultan began to be mentioned in Indian mosques. This practice was confirmed after the Mutiny. Thus Indian Moslems sought to derive some psychological satisfaction from a contemplation of Islam's past greatness, chiefly in other countries, and
in the fact of the continuance of Turkey as an independent Moslem power, practically the only one left. This feeling was not opposed to or in conflict with Indian nationalism; indeed, many Hindus admired and were well acquaintedwith Islamic history. They sympathized with Turkey because they considered the Turks as Asiatic victims of European aggression. Yet the emphasis was different, and in their case that feeling did not supply a psychological need as it did in the case of the Moslems.
After the Mutiny the Indian Moslems had hesitated which way to turn. The British Government had deliberately repressed them to an even greater degree than it had repressed the Hindus, and this repression had especially affected those sections of the Moslems from which the new middle class,  the bourgeoisie, might have been drawn. They felt down and out and were intensely anti-British as well as conservative. British policy towards them underwent a gradual change in the seventies and became more favorable. This change was essentially due to the policy of balance and counterpoise which the British Government had consistently pursued. Still, in this process, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan played an important part. He was convinced that he could only raise the Moslems through co-operation with the British authorities. He was anxious to make them accept English education and thus to draw them out of their conservative shells. He had been much impressed by what he had seen of European civilization, and, indeed, some of his letters from Europe indicate that he was so dazed that he had rather lost his balance. Sir Syed was an ardent reformer and he wanted to reconcile modern scientific thought with Islam. This was to be done, of course, not by attacking any basic belief, but by a rationalistic interpretation of scripture. He pointed out the basic similarities between Islam and Christianity. He attacked purdah (the seclusion of women) among the Moslems. He was opposed to any allegiance to the Turkish Khalifat. Above all, he was anxious  to push a new type of education. The beginnings of the national movement frightened him, for he thought that any opposition to the British authorities would deprive him of their help in his educational programme. That help appeared to him to be essential, and so he tried to tone down anti-British sentiments among the Moslems artd to turn them away from the National Congress which was taking shape then. One of the declared objects of the Aligarh College he founded was 'to make the Mussulmans of India worthy and useful subjects of the British crown.'
He was not opposed to the National Congress because he considered it predominantly  a Hindu organization; he opposed it because he thought it was politically too aggressive (though it was mild enough in those days), and he wanted British help and co-operation. He tried to show that Moslems as a whole had not rebelled during the Mutiny and that many had remained loyal to the British power. He was in no way anti-Hindu or  communally separatist. Repeatedly he emphasized that religious differences should have no political or national significance. 'Do you not inhabit the same land?' he said. 'Remember that the words Hindu and Mohammedan are only meant for religious distinction; otherwise all persons, whether Hindu or Mohammedan, even the Christians who reside in this country, are all in this particular respect belonging to one and the same nation.'
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan's influence was confined to certain sections of the upper classes among the Moslems; he did not touch the urban or rural masses. These masses were almost completely cut off from their upper classes and were far nearer to the Hindu masses. While some among the Moslem upper classes were descendants of the ruling groups during Mughal times, the masses had no such background or tradition. Most of them had been converted from the lowest strata of Hindu society and were most unhappily situated, being among the poorest
and the most exploited. Sir Syed had a number of able and notable colleagues. In his rationalistic approach he was supported, among others, by Syed Chirag Ali and Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk. His educational activities attracted Munshi Karamat Ali, Munshi Zakaullah of Delhi,Dr. Nazir Ahmad, Maulana Shibli Nomani, and the poet Hali, who is one of the outstanding figures of Urdu literature. Sir Syed succeeded in so far as the beginnings of English education among the Moslems were concerned, and in diverting the Moslem mind from the political movement.
A Mohammedan educational conference was started and this attracted the rising Moslem middle class in the professions and services.None the less many prominent Moslems joined the National Congress. British policy became definitely pro-Moslem, or rather in favor of those elements among the Moslems who were opposed to the national movement. But early in the twentieth century the tendency towards nationalism and political activity became more noticeable among the younger generation of Moslems. To divert this and provide a safe
channel for it, the Moslem League was started in 1906 under the inspiration of the British Government and the leadership of one of its chief supporters, the Aga Khan.
The League had two principal objects: loyalty to the British Government and the safeguarding of Moslem interests.It is worth noting that during the post-Mutiny periodall the leading men among Indian Moslems, including Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, were products of the old traditional education, although some of them added knowledge of English later and were influenced by new ideas. The new western education had yet produced no notable figure among them. The leading poet in Urdu and one of the outstanding literary figures of the century in India, was Ghalib, who was in his prime before the Mutiny. In the early years of the twentieth century there were two trends among the  Moslem intelligentsia: one, chiefly among the younger element, was towards nationalism, the other was a deviation from India's past  and even, to some extent, her present,and a greater interest in Islamic countries, especially Turkey, the seat of the Khilafat. The Pan-Islamic movement, encouraged by Sultan Abdul Hamid of Turkey, had found some response in the upper strata of Indian Moslems, and yet Sir Syed had opposed this and written against Indians interesting themselves in Turkey and the Sultanate. The young Turk movement produced mixed reactions. It was looked upon with some suspicion by most
Moslems in India to begin with, and there was general sympathy for the Sultan who was considered a bulwark against the intrigues of European powers in Turkey.
But there were others, among them Abul Kalam Azad, who eagerly welcomed the young Turks and the promise of constitutional and social reform that they brought. When Italy suddenly attacked Turkey in the Tripoli War of 1911, and subsequently, during the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, an astonishing wave of sympathy for Turkey roused Indian Moslems. All Indians felt that sympathy and anxiety but in the case of Moslems this was keener and something almost personal. The last remaining Moslem power wasthreatened with extinction; the sheet-anchor of their faith in the future was being destroyed. Dr. M. A. Ansari led a strong medical mission to Turkey and even the poor subscribed; money came more rapidly than for any proposal for the uplift of the Indian Moslems themselves. World War I was a time of trial for the Moslems because Turkey was on the other side. They felt helpless and could do nothing. When the war ended their pent-up feelings were  to break out in the Khilafat movement.
The year 1912 was notable also in the development of the Moslem mind in India because of the appearance of two new weeklies, the Al-Hilal in Urdu and The Comrade in English. The Al-Hilal was started by Abul Kalam Azad (the present Congress President), a brilliant young man of twenty-four, who had received his early education in A1 Azhar University of Cairo and, while yet in his teens, had become well-known for his Arabic and Persian scholarship and deep learning. To this he added a knowledge of the Islamic world outside India and of the reform
movements that were coursing through it, as well as of European developments. Rationalist in outlook and yet profoundly versed in Islamic lore and history, he interpreted scripture from a rationalist point of view. Soaked in Islamic tradition and with many personal contacts with prominent Moslem leaders and reformers in Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Iraq and Iran, he was powerfully affected by political and cultural developments in these countries. Because of his writings he was known in the Islamic countries probably more than any other Indian
Moslem. The wars in which Turkey became involved aroused his intense interest
and sympathy; and yet his approach was different from that of the older Moslem leaders. He had a wider and more rationalist outlook which kept him away from the feudal and narrowly religious and separatist approach of these older leaders, and inevitably made him an Indian nationalist. He had himself seen nationalism growing in Turkey and the other Islamic countries and he applied that knowledge to India and saw in the Indian national movement a similar development. Other Moslems in India were hardly aware of these movements elsewhere and, wrapped up in their own feudal atmosphere, had little appreciation of what was happening
there. They thought in religious terms only and if they sympathised with Turkey it was chiefly because of that religious bond. In spite of that intense sympathy, they were not in tune with the nationalist and rather secular movements in Turkey.
Abul Kalam Azad spoke in a new language to them in his weekly Al-Hilal. It was not only a new language in thought and approach, even its texture was different, for Azad's style was tense and virile, though sometimes a little difficult because of its Persian background. He used new phrases for new ideas and was a definite influence in giving shape to the Urdu language, as it is to-day. The older conservative leaders among the Moslems did not react favorably to all this and criticized Azad's opinions and approach. Yet not even the most learned of them could easily meet Azad in debate and argument, even on the basis of scripture and old tradition, for Azad's knowledge of these happened to be greater than theirs. He was a strange mixture of mediaeval scholasticism, eighteenth century rationalism, and the modern outlook.There were a few among the older generation who approved of Azad's writings, among them being the learned Maulana Shibli Nomani, who had himself visited Turkey, and who had been associated with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in Aligarh College.
The tradition of Aligarh College was, however, different and conservative, both politically and socially. Its trustees came from among the princes and big landlords, typical representatives of the feudal order. Under a succession of English principals, closely associated with government circles, it had fostered separatist tendencies and an anti-nationalist and anti-Congress outlook. The chief aim kept before its students was to enter government service in the subordinate ranks. For that a pro-government attitude was necessary and no truck with nationalism and sedition. The Aligarh College group had become the leaders of the new Moslem intelligentsia and influenced sometimes openly, more often from behind the scenes, almost every Moslem movement. The Moslem League came into existence largely through their efforts.
Abul Kalam Azad attacked this stronghold of conservatism and anti-nationalism not directly but by spreading ideas which undermined the Aligarh tradition. This very youthful writer and journalist caused a sensation in Moslem intellectual circles and, though the elders frowned upon him, his words created a ferment in the minds of the younger generation. That ferment had already started because of events in Turkey, Egypt, and Iran, as well as the development of the Indian nationalist movement. Azad gave a definite trend to it by pointing out that there was no
conflict between Islam and sympathy for Islamic countries and Indian nationalism.
This helped in bringing the Moslem League nearer to the Congress. Azad had himself joined the League, whilst yet a boy, at its first session in 1906.
The Al-Hilal was not approved of by the representatives of the British Government. Securities were demanded from it under the Press Act and ultimately its press was confiscated in 1914.
Thus ended the Al-Hilal after a brief existence of two years. Azad thereupon brought out another weekly, the Al-Balagh, but this, too, ended in 1916 when Azad was interned by the British Government. For nearly four years he was kept in internment, and when he came out at last he took his place immediately among the leaders of the National Congress. Ever since then he has been continuously in the highest Congress Executive, looked upon, in spite of his youthful years, as one of the elders of the Congress, whose advice both in national and political matters as well as in regard to the communal and minority questions is highly valued. Twice he had been Congress president, and repeatedly he has spent long terms in prison.
The other weekly that was started in 1912, some months before the Al-Hilal was The Comrade. This was in English and it influenced especially the younger English-educated generation of Moslems. It was edited by Maulana Mohammad Ali, who was an odd mixture of Islamic tradition and an Oxford education. He began as an adherent of the Aligarh tradition and was opposed to any aggressive politics. But he was far too able and dynamic a personality to remain confined in that static framework, and his language was always vigorous and striking. The annulment of the Partition of Bengal in 1911 had given him a shock and his faith in the bonafides of the British Government had been shaken. The Balkan Wars moved him and he
wrote passionately in favor of Turkey and the Islamic tradition it represented. Progressively he grew more anti-British and the entry of Turkey in World War I completed the process. A famous and enormously long article of his (his speeches and writings did not err on the side of brevity or conciseness) in The Comrade entitled 'The Choice of the Turks' put an end to The Comrade which was stopped by the government. Soon after, government arrested him and his brother Shaukat Ali and interned them for the duration of the war and a year after. They were
released at the end of 1919 and both immediately joined the National Congress. The Ali Brothers played a very prominent part in the Khilafat agitation and in Congress politics in the early twenties and suffered prison for it. Mohammad Ali presided over an annual session of the Congress and was for many years a member of its highest executive committee. He died in 1930.
The change that took place in Mohammad Ali was symbolic of the changing mentality of the Indian Moslems. Even the Moslem League, founded to isolate the Moslems from nationalist currents and completely controlled by reactionary and semi feudal elements, was forced to recognize the pressure from the younger generation. It was drifting, though somewhat unwillingly, with the tide of nationalism and coming nearer to the Congress. In 1913 it changed its creed of loyalty to government to a demand for self-government for India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had advocated this change in his forceful writings in the Al-Hilal.Kemal Pasha. Nationalism in Asia. Iqbal Kemal Pasha was naturally popular in India with Moslems and Hindus alike. He had not only rescued Turkey from foreign domination and disruption but had foiled the machinations of European imperialist powers, especially England. But as the
Ataturk's policy unfolded itself—his lack of religion, his abolition of the Sultanate and Khilafat, the building up of a secular state, and his disbandment of religious orders—that popularity waned so far as the more orthodox Moslems were concerned and a silent resentment against his modernist policy rose among them.
This very policy, however, made him more popular among the younger generation of both Hindus and Moslems. The Ataturk partly destroyed the dream structure that had gradually grown up in the Indian Moslem mind ever since the days of the Mutiny. Again a kind of vacuum was created. Many Moslems filled this vacuum by joining the nationalist movement, many had of course already joined it previously; others stood aloof,hesitant and doubtful. The real conflict was between feudal modes of thought and modern tendencies. The feudal leadership had for the moment been swept away by the mass Khilafat movement, but that movement itself had no solid basis in social and economic conditions or in the needs of the masses. It had its
centre elsewhere, and when the core itself was eliminated by the Ataturk the superstructure collapsed, leaving the Moslem masses bewildered and disinclined to any political action. The old feudal leaders, who had lain low, crept back into prominence, helped by British policy, which had always supported them. But they could not come back to their old position of unquestioned leadership for conditions had changed. The Moslems were also throwing up, rather belatedly, a middle class, and the very experience of a mass political movement, under the leadership of the National Congress, had made a vital difference.
Though the mentality of the Moslem masses and the new growing middle class was shaped essentially by events, Sir Mohamad Iqbal played an important part in influencing the latter and especially the younger generation. The masses were hardly affected by him. Iqbal had begun by writing powerful nationalist poems in Urdu which had become popular. During the Balkan Wars he turned to Islamic subjects. He was influenced by the circumstances then prevailing and the mass feeling among the Moslems, and he himself influenced and added to the
intensity of these sentiments. Yet he was very far from being a mass leader; he was a poet, an intellectual and a philosopher with affiliations to the old feudal order; he came from Kashmiri Brahmin stock. He supplied in fine poetry, which was written both in Persian and Urdu, a philosophic background to the Moslem intelligentsia and thus diverted its mind in a separatist direction. His popularity was no doubt due to the quality of his poetry, but even more so it was due to his having fulfilled a need when the Moslem mind was searching for some anchor to hold on to. The old pan-Islamic ideal had ceased to have any meaning; there was no Khilafat and
every Islamic country, Turkey most of all, was intensely nationalist, caring little for other Islamic peoples. Nationalism was in fact the dominant force in Asia as elsewhere, and in India the nationalist movement had grown powerful and challenged British rule repeatedly. That nationalism had a strong appeal to the Moslem mind in India, and large numbers of Moslems had played a leading part in The struggle for freedom. Yet Indian nationalism was dominated by Hindus and had a Hinduised look. So a conflict arose in the Moslem mind; many accepted that nationalism, trying to influence it in the direction of their choice; many sympathised with it and yet remained aloof, uncertain; and yet many others began to drift in a separatist direction for which Iqbal's poetic and philosophic approach had prepared them. This, I imagine, was the background out of which, in recent years, arose the cry for a division of India. There were many reasons, many contributory causes, errors and mistakes on every side, and especially the deliberate separatist policy of the British Government. But behind all these was this psychological background, which itself was produced, apart from certain historical causes, by the delay in the development of a Moslem middle class in India. Essentially the internal conflict in India, apart from the nationalist struggle against foreign domination, is between the remnants of the feudal order and modernist ideas and institutions. That conflict exists on the national plane as well as within each major group, Hindu, Moslem, and others. The national movement, as represented essentially by the National Congress, undoubtedly represents the historic process of growth towards these new ideas and institutions, though it tries to adapt these to some of the old foundations. Because of this, it has attracted to its fold all manner of people,
differing widely among themselves.
On the Hindu side, an exclusive and rigid social order has come in the way of growth, and what is more, frightened other groups. But this social order itself has been undermined and is fast losing its rigidity and, in any event, is not strong enough to obstruct the growth of the national movement in its widest political and social sense, which has developed enough impetus to go ahead in spite of obstacles. On the Moslem side, feudal elements have continued to be strong and have usually succeeded in imposing their leadership on their masses. There has been a
difference of a generation or more in the development of the Hindu and Moslem middle classes, and that difference continues to show itself in many directions, political, economic, and other. It is this lag which produces a psychology of fear among the Moslems.
Pakistan, the proposal to divide India, however much it may appeal emotionally to some, is of course no solution for this backwardness, and it is much more likely to strengthen the hold of feudal elements for some time longer and delay the Economic progress of the Moslems. Iqbal was one of the early advocates of Pakistan and yet he appears to have realized its inherent danger and absurdity.
Edward Thompson has written that, in the course of a conversation, Iqbal told him that he had advocated Pakistan because of his position as president of the Moslem League session, but he felt sure that it would be injurious to India as a whole and to Moslems specially. Probably he had changed his mind, or he had not given much thought to the question previously, as it had assumed no importance then. His whole outlook on life does not fit in with the subsequent developments of the idea of Pakistan or division of India.
During his last years Iqbal turned more and more towards socialism. The great progress that Soviet Russia had made attracted him. Even his poetry took a different turn. A few monthsbefore his death, as he lay on his sick bed, he sent for me and I gladly obeyed the summons. As I talked to him about many things I felt that how much we had in common, in spite of differences,and how easy it would be to get on with him. He wasin reminiscent mood and wandered .from one subject to another,and I listened to him, talking little myself. I admired him
and his poetry, and it pleased me greatly to feel that he liked me and had a good opinion of me. A little before I left him he said to me: 'What is there in common between Jinnah and you? He is a politician, you are a patriot.' I hope there is still much in common between Mr. Jinnah and me. As for my being a patriot I do not know that this is a particular qualification in these days, at least in the limited sense of the word. Greatly attached as I am to India, I have long felt that
something more than national attachment is necessary for us in order to understand and solve even our own problems, and much more so those of the world as a whole. But Iqbal was certainly right in holding that I was not much of a politician, although politics had seized me and made me their victim.

Heavy Industry Begins. Tilak and Gokhaie Separate Electorates
In  my desire to explore the background of the Hindu-Moslem problems and understand what lay behind the new demand for Pakistan and separation, I have jumped over half a century. During this period many changes came, not so much in the external apparatus of government as in the temper of the people.Some trivial constitutional developments took place and these are often paraded, but they made no difference whatsoever to the authoritarian and all-pervasive character of British rule; nor did they touch the problems of poverty and
unemployment. In 1911 Jamshedji Tata laid the foundations of heavy industry in India by starting steel and iron works in what came to be known as Jamshedpur. Government looked with disfavour on this and other attempts to start industries and in no way encouraged them. It was chiefly with American expert help that the steel industry was started. It had a precarious childhood but the war of 1914-18 came to its help. Again it languished and was in danger of passing into the hands of British debenture holders, but nationalist pressure saved it.
An industrial proletariat was growing up in India; it was unorganized and helpless, and the terribly low standards of the peasantry, from which it came, prevented wage increases and improvement. So far as unskilled labor was concerned, there were millions of unemployed persons who could be drawn upon and no strike could succeed in these conditions. The first Trade Union Congress was organized round about 1920. The numbers of this new proletariat were not sufficient to make any difference to the Indian political scene; they were a
bucketful in a sea of peasants and workers on the land. In the 'twenties the voice of industrial labor began to be heard, but it was feeble. It might have been ignored but for the fact that the Russian Revolution had forced people to attach importance to the industrial proletariat.
Some big and well-organized strikes also compelled attention.The peasant, though he was everywhere and his problem was the supreme problem of India,was even more silent and forgotten by the political leaders and Government alike.
The early stages of the political movement were dominated by the ideological urges of the upper middle classes, chiefly the professional classes and those looking forward to a place in the administrative machine. With the coming-of-age of the National Congress, which had been founded in 1885, a new type of leadership appeared, more aggressive and defiant and representing the much larger numbers of the lower middle classes as well as students and young men.
The powerful agitation against the partition of Bengal had thrown up many able and aggressive leaders there of this type, but the real symbol of the new age was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, from Maharashtra. The old leadership was represented also by a Maratha, a very able and a younger man, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Revolutionary slogans were in the air, tempers ran high and conflict was inevitable. To avoid this the old patriarch of the Congress, Dadabhai Naoroji, universally respected and regarded as the father of the country, was brought out of his retirement. The respite was brief and in 1907 the clash came, resulting apparently in a victory for the old moderate section. But this had been won because of organizational control and the then narrow franchise of the Congress. There was no doubt that the vast majority of politically minded people in India favored Tilak and his group. The Congress lost much of its importance
and interest shifted to other activities. Terroristic activity appeared in Bengal.
The example set by Russian and Irish revolutionaries was being followed. Moslem young men were also being affected by these revolutionary ideas. The Aligarh College had tried to check this tendency and now, under Government inspiration, the Aga Khan and others started the Moslem League to provide a political platform for Moslems and thus keep them away from the Congress.
More important still, and of vital significance to India's future development, it was decided to introduce separate electorates for Moslems. Henceforward Moslems could only stand for election and be elected by separate Moslem electorates. A political barrier was created round them isolating them from the restof India and reversing the unifying and amalgamating process which had been going on for centuries, and which was inevitably being speeded up by technological developments. This barrier was a small one at first, for the electorates were very
 limited, but with every extension of the franchise it grew and affected the whole structure of public and social life, like some canker which corrupted the entire system. It poisoned municipal and local self government and ultimately it led to fantastic divisions. There came into existence (much later) separate Moslem trade unions and students' organizations and merchants' chambers. Because the Moslems were backward in all these activities, these organizations were not real organic growths from below, but were artificially created from above, and  their leadership was held by the old semi-feudal type of person. Thus, to some
extent, the Moslem middle classes and even the masses were isolated from the currents of growth which were influencing the rest of India.
There were vested interests enough in India created or preserved by the British Government. Now an additional and powerful vested interest was created by separate electorates. It was not a temporary evil which tended to fade away with developing political consciousness. Nurtured by official policy, it grew and spread and obscured the real problems before the country, whether political, social, or economic. It created divisions and ill-feeling where there had been none previously, and it actually weakened the favored group by increasing a tendency
to depend on artificial props and not to think in terms ofself-reliance.
The obvious policy in dealing with groups or minorities which were backward educationally and economically was to help them in every way to grow and make up these deficiencies, especially by a forward educational policy. Nothing of this kind was done either for the Moslems or for other backward minorities, or for the depressed classes who needed it most. The whole argument centred in petty appointments in the subordinate public services, and instead of raising standards all round, merit was often sacrificed. Separate electorates thus weakened the groups that were already weak or backward, they encouraged separatist tendencies and prevented the growth of national unity, they were the negation of democracy, they created new vested interests of the most reactionary kind,  they lowered standards, and they diverted attention from the real economic problems of the country which were common to all. These electorates, first  introduced among the Moslems, spread to other minorities and groups till
India became a mosaic of these separate compartments. Possibly they may have done some good for a little while, though I am unable to spot it, but undoubtedly the injury they have caused to every department of Indian life has been prodigious. Out of them have grown all manner of separatist tendencies and finally the demand for a splitting up of India.
Lord Morley was the Secretary of State for India when these separate electorates were introduced. He resisted them, but ultimately agreed under pressure from the Viceroy. He has pointed out in his diary the dangers inherent in such a method and how they would inevitably delay the development of representative institutions. Probably this was exactly what the Viceroy and his colleagues intended. In the Montague-Chelmsford Report on Indian Constitutional Reform  (1918) the dangers of these communal electorates were again emphasized:
 'Division by creeds and classes means the creation of political camps organized against each other, and teaches men to think as partisans and not as citizens ... .We regard any system of communal electorates, 1 therefore, as a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principle.'


No comments:

Post a Comment