The problem of Hindu-Muslim unity is the nightmare of Indian politicians at the present day. Even Mahatma Gandhi has confessed his failure to find a solution to this vital question. The growing antagonism between the two communities is more a result of this failure to evolve a scheme of co-operation than the emergence of any insurmountable evil forces or natural incompatibilities which some politicians think have been always smouldering in the hearts of the two peoples. The politics of nationalism has not achieved any outstanding success as a unifying influence in the modern world. But so long as nationalism represents the natural aspirations of a living people for wider co-operation, more efficient organisation and a richer life, it serves its purpose as a legitimate stage in the process of unification and helps the community to progress towards higher ideals of human brotherhood. In spite of the numerous shortcomings of their political ideology and programme and their tragic failure to achieve substantial contentment and peace, the nations of the West have kept on advancing in all directions. The very destructive conflagrations caused by their follies have served to stimulate their manliness and enabled them to carve success out of disheartening failures. They are certainly on the road to victory. But the people of India are not in their natural element. Modern political conceptions are alien to them and do not fit in with their traditional notions of society. Indians still live in a mediaeval world of castes, religious fanaticism and priestly domination, and are trying to put on the fashionable robe of political nationalism over the incongruities and superstitions which characterize their social existence.
The State can solve any problem in the West. There is no field which is denied to its legitimate operation. It tackles the whole of the nation’s life. In fact, it is the only force which can decide vital issues. But in India the State occupies only an inferior position in the estimate of the people. They recognize greater masters. Religious and social customs, laws and institutions have. a stronger hold and exercise greater authority over them than political considerations. The State is as yet a very inefficient instrument for solving the problems of unhappy India. Neither the Indian State nor the Indian politician has the will or the power to face the vital issues of national regeneration. Political manoeuvres have utterly failed to take the country hearer to the goal of true freedom and unity, although Mahatma Gandhi has succeeded to some extent in ‘redeeming politics from its unnatural alienation from the life of the people and has added to it a few social and religious values which it did not possess before.
The Hindu-Muslim problem is one which can never be solved on a purely political basis by party compromises or by administrative safeguards. We have to approach the problem from other sides, and think in terms of the people’s life past, present and future, and of abiding human feelings and aspirations: No doubt you may build a state on what you consider as existing facts. You may take for granted that the Hindus and the Muslims are two distinct peoples and represent two irreconcilable cultures and they have different’ social and religious ideals and institutions which are sacrosanct and beyond the pale of man’s interference, and on the basis of these and similar presumptions you may build a government. But such a structure founded on dead facts and uninspiring features cannot serve any useful purpose and will not stand the test of time. Life, individual as well as national, is a dynamic process and not a static phenomenon. The motive of all regeneration should be, not the preservation of al-ready acquired characteristics but the realization of unrealized dreams and ambitions. The success of true nation-building lies in the ability to visualize common ideals and popularize them among the citizens and inspire them with a zeal of making sacrifices for their fulfillment. Similarbr, Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be built on past history or present facts merely. A comprehensive and inspiring social goal is the more essential requisite of inter-communal co-operation.
The nations of the West are being judged by the ideals for which they are living and fighting. Russia, Germany, Italy, Britain and America are trying to justify themselves before the bar of world opinion on the principles for which they stand. Men and women face the most terrible sufferings bravely and with resignation for the sake of their national principles. They die in thousands, nay millions, in the name of those sacred aspirations. The only way to unite the different communities of India into a united nation is to hold up before them a glorious social ideal worthy of their highest dedication and willing sacrifices:
Hindu-Muslim unity can be achieved only if the Hindus and the Muslims evolve a scheme of collective life which will appeal to the intelligent sections of the two communities as a goal infinitely better than that of the past and the present. So far no earnest attempt has been made to evolve such a goal and popularize it. At present there is no inspiring common objective for which the two communities can willingly co-operate and endure sufferings except the hazy outline of political independence.
The meaning and content of political independence has to be supplied in the form of social liberty, equality of opportunities, economic justice, freedom of faith and other rights, equities and values of daily life which will make national unity a proud asset of every individual and will create in him the consciousness of a common destiny., The political parties of India have not succeeded in placing before the country any such constructive ideal comprehending all aspects of the nation’s life. On the other hand, there are millions of people of all parties and communities throughout the country who are sincerely afraid that independent India might relapse or be betrayed by her own leaders into all the ancient injustices, superstitions and mutual rivalries, which brought about the downfall of the country and its subjection to foreign powers. The imperfect programmes announced by some parties, instead of allaying these misgivings, have tended to strengthen and justify them.
Let us examine at closer quarters what are the points of divergence as well as of contact between the Hindus and the Muslims and how the differences may be eliminated or reduced to a minimum and the affinities multiplied and strengthened to the utmost.
Race. No one can contend that the Hindus and the Muslims of India form two distinct racial groups. The Hindus cannot trace their origin to any single racial source nor can the Muslims claim any homogeneous racial ancestry. There is no racial difference between them.
Language. Although in the last few years the leaders of the two communities have started a dispute about the claim of Hindi to be the common language of the country and are trying to pitch the two communities against each other in that dispute, the Hindu and the Muslim masses talk and study the language of their respective provinces without any ill feeling. Language does not create any barrier between them.
Economic Structure. Economically the two communities form one group with the same economic outlook subject to the variations that are natural to a vast country like India.
History.—If some politicians have succeeded in propagating a belief that historically the Hindus and the Muslims have always existed as two irreconcilable groups, it is not the truth. 4 No doubt they have fought with each other in many a battlefield. But it is also true that Hindus have fought along with Muslims against Hindus, and Muslims have fought along with Hindus against Muslims. Hindu warriors and princes have fought for Muslim rulers, And Muslim soldiers and chiefs have fought for Hindu Rajas. Muslims and Hindus have stood shoulder to shoulder and opposed their common foes; Muslim saints and rulers have made glorious attempts to bring about a cultural fusion of the two peoples. Hindu teachers and saints have similarly preached their social and spiritual comradeship. Where politicians did not exploit the differences, the two communities have always shown an earnest desire to live side by side in amity in spite of the provocative social harriers which forcibly kept them apart. History can show not only records of frightful conflicts but also the noble spirit of patriotism ‘ and glorious examples of mutual goodwill. It is as full of successes and hopes as that of any other country in the world.
Political Ideology.–For many centuries now India has been looked upon as one country or one empire by both the Hindus and the Muslims, and they have recognized the right of the successful suzerain state to control the whole of the country.
There have been religious fanaticism and consequent persecutions in India as in other countries, but those have not prevented the growth of political commonsense. Both the Hindu and the Muslim peoples have learnt to look upon the state and the sovereign as being above religious differences and as representing the unity and prosperity of all the subjects irrespective of caste and creed. They have certainly outgrown the medieval conception of fanatical theocracies, though some of their leaders have recently begun frantic attempts to revive it.
Religious Ideals and Religious Practices. The two spheres ii which the Hindus and the Muslims are accustomed to array themselves as avowed enemies are the religious and the social. So far as their religious ideals are concerned, although the philosophers and thinkers of the two religions agree in essentials, as do those of other great religions, there is a fundamental difference in the outlook of the two peoples. The Hindus represent a spirit of the wildest tolerance and freedom amounting almost to chaos and absence of true faith in anything definite. The Muslims stand for a fanatical devotion to a narrow creed and even uncompromising hatred of other creeds. These are two hereditary mentalities which have to be overcome if the communities should be able to appreciate each other. The Hindus have to impart some sort of orderliness and clarity to their fundamental religious beliefs, and redeem them from the wilderness of vices and superstitions which have always shrouded them in darkness. The Muslims have to imbibe a spirit of free thought and sweet reasonableness and toleration in their attitude both towards their own faith and the faiths of others. The saints and teachers of the past used to preach such a rapprochement. But for many decades now these efforts seem to have been completely given up by both the parties. This unfortunate situation can be altered if the leaders of the two peoples, instead of exploiting their differences for political advantages would seek the permanent welfare of their followers.
In the sphere of religious practices the Hindus are the worst sinners. The Muslim practices, except that of cow-slaughter, do not provoke anybody. But on the Hindus side there are many things which no devotee of God can ever tolerate. The entire system of organised Hindu religion represented by the temples and their priests is so revoltingly untrue, and is such an unmitigated prostitution and exploitation of all true religion that .no Muslim can ever think of it except with the fiercest abhorrence,. Nor can a true Christian or a true Buddhist view it with anything but contempt and pity for its victims. In the foregoing chapters we liale seen that Hindu thinkers and teachers too have condemned the religion of rank idolatry, bloody sacrifices, deliberate deceptions, disgusting superstitions and immorality which the Hindu temples and their priests preserve and propagate throughout the country. If the Hindus cling to these abominations there can be no lasting peace between the Hindus and any other religious community in the world. The Hindus themselves cannot acquire the capacity for true vision and honest thinking and living, so long as they are not redeemed from the falsehood of their priest-imposed religion.
Social Ideals and Practices. The Muslims stand for the widest brotherhood. They – invite all mankind into their social fraternity. They are prepared to share the benefits of their religion and society with any believer in the world. The Hindus represent the most arrogant form of social exclusiveness. They refuse to share the advantages of their social order with any but those who are born within their isolated fold. In this respect the Hindu social system is an insult not only to the Muslims but to all non-Hindus. This intolerant social attitude
