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