HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY

 

 

 An important article by Mr. Gandhi on the Hindu-Muslim tension in the last issue of Navajivan is translated below for the benefit of the readers of Young India. I had occasion whilst addressing a public meeting at Surat to refer to the question of Hindu-Muslim unity in detail, as some friends there wanted to know my views about sangathan. After the meeting I had a letter from a Mussalman friend offering suggestions for the solution of the question. I now see that even Gujarat is not quite free from the dangers of communal disturbances. The Visnagar affair can hardly be said to be yet settled. There is some trouble in Mandal. There was fear of a little disturbance in Ahmadabad. Some trouble is apprehended in Umreth. Other parts (e.g., Bhagalpur in Bihar) are also in the same plight. The question of Hindu-Muslim unity is getting more and more serious every day. One thing should be made clear at the outset. In the case of many of these disturbances, we hear of Government agents being at the back of them. The allegation, if true, would be painful to me, not surprising.

It should not be surprising if the Government fomented the troubles, it being their policy to divide us. It would be painful because of the necessary implication that neither of the communities realizes wherein its interest lies. Only those can be set by the ears by a third party, who are in the habit of quarrelling. Government has never been heard of having fomented a quarrel, say, between the Brahmins and Banias, nor amongst the Sunni Mussalmans. The suspicion or fear of their having set the Hindus and Mussalmans by the ears is always entertained, because both have quarreled so often. It is this habit of quarrelling that needs to be abandoned if we want to have swaraj and retain it. Quarrels must break out so long as the Hindus continue to be seized with fear. Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards. The Hindus must understand that no one can afford them protection, if they go on hugging fear. Fear of man argues want of faith in God. Only he trusts to his physical strength that has no faith or very little faith in God’s omnipresence. The Hindu must cultivate either of these two faiths in God or faith in one’s physical might. If he does neither, it will spell the ruin of the community. The first, viz., reliance on God and shaking off the fear of man is the way of non-violence and the best way. The second, viz., reliance on one’s physical might is the way of violence. Both have a place in the world. It is open to us to choose either. One man cannot try both at the same time.

If all the Hindus and Mussalmans both elect the way of violence, we had better cease to talk of winning swaraj in the immediate future. Armed peace means not a little fighting that will end with the breaking of a few heads or of a dozen temples. It must mean prolonged fighting and rivers of blood. I am against sangathan, and I am not. If sangathan means opening akhadas and organizing the Hindu hooligans through them, I would regard it as a pitiable condition. You cannot defend yourself and your religion with the help of hooligans. It is substituting one peril for another, and even adding another. I would have nothing to say against akhadas, if they were used by the Brahmins, Banias and others for the development of their physique. Akhadas as akhadas are un-exceptionable. But I have no doubt that they are no good for giving a training to fight the Mussalmans.

It will take years to acquire the physical strength to fight. The akhadas is therefore not the way. We will have to go in for tapasya, for self-purification, if we want to win the hearts of Mussalmans. We shall have to cast off all the evil in us. If they attack us, we shall have to learn not to return blow for blow, but bravely to face death—not to die a craven death leaving wife and children behind, but to receive their blows and meet death cheerfully. I would tender the same advice to the Mussalmans. But it is unnecessary, as the average Mussalman has been assumed to be a bully. The general impression is that the Mussalmans can fight and fight well. I do not, therefore, need to tell them how they should defend themselves from the attacks of the Hindus; on the contrary I have to appeal to them to forbear. I have to appeal to them to get the goondas element under control and to behave peaceably. The Mussalmans may regard the Hindus as a menace in other matters. They do regard them as an economic menace. They do dread the Hindus’ interference with their religious rites on the Bakri-i-Id day. But they are in no fear of being beaten by the Hindus. I will therefore tell them only this:”You cannot protect Islam with the lathi or the sword. The age of the lathi is gone. A religion will be tested by the purity of its adherents. If you leave it to the goondas to defend your faith, you will do serious harm to Islam. Islam will, in that case, no longer remain the faith of the fakirs and worshipers of Allah.” I have up to now confined myself to giving general advice.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani told me that the Mussalmans ought to protect the cow for the sake of the Hindus, and Hindus should cease to regard the Mussalmans as untouchables, as he said they are regarded in North India. I told him:”I will not bargain with you in this matter. If the Mussalmans think it their duty to protect the cow for the sake of Hindus, they may do so, irrespective of how the Hindus behave towards them. I think it is sin for a Hindu to look upon a Mussalman as an untouchable, and the Hindu ought not to do so, irrespective of a Mussalman killing or sparing the cow. The Mussalman ought to be no more untouchable to a Hindu than a Hindu of any of the four castes is to one of the other. I regard these things as axiomatic. If Hinduism teaches hatred of Islam or of non-Hindus, it is doomed to destruction. Each community should then put its house in order without bargaining with the other. To nurse enmity against the Mussalman, for the sake of saving the cow, is a sure way to kill the cow, and doubly sinful. Hinduism will not be destroyed by a non-Hindu killing a cow. The Hindu’s religion consists in saving the cow, but it can never be his religion to save the cow by a resort to force towards a non-Hindu.

The Hindus want swaraj in India and not a Hindu Raj. Even if there was a Hindu Raj, and toleration one of its features, there would be place in it for Mussalmans as well as Christians; it would redound to the credit of Hinduism, if stopping of cow-slaughter was brought about not by force, but as deliberate voluntary act of self-denial on the part of Mussalmans and others. I would therefore deem it unpatriotic even to nurse a dream of a Hindu Raj.” Then there is the trouble about music. It is fast growing every day. A letter I had in Surat says that, as it is not obligatory on a Hindu to play music, he should stop it before mosques to spare the feelings of the Mussulmans. I wish the question was as simple as the correspondent thinks. But it is the opposite of simple. Not a single Hindu religious ceremony can be performed without the accompaniment of music. Some ceremonies require the accompaniment of continuous music. No doubt, even here due regard ought to be had for the feelings of the Mussalmans. The music may in such cases be less noisy. But all this can be and ought to be done on the basis of “give and take”. Having talked with a number of Mussalmans in the matter, I know that Islam does not make it obligatory for a Mussalman to prevent a non-Mussalman from playing music near mosques. Nor is such a thing on the part of a non-Mussalman calculated to injure Islam. Music should never, therefore, be a bone of contention. In many places, however, the Mussalmans have forcibly sought to stop Hindus from playing music. This is clearly intolerable.

What is readily yielded to courtesy is never yielded to force. Submission to a courteous request is religion, submission to force is irreligion. If the Hindus stop music for fear of a beating from the Mussalmans, they cease to be Hindus. The general rule in this respect may be said to be this, that where the Hindus have long been deliberately observing the custom to stop music before mosques, they must not break it. But where they have been playing music without interference, the practice should continue. Where trouble is apprehended and facts are disputed, both communities ought to refer the matter to arbitration. Where a court of law has prohibited music, the Hindus should not take the law in their own hands. And the Mussalmans should not insist on stopping music by force. Where the Mussalrnans refuse to yield, or where the Hindus apprehend violence, and where there is no prohibition by a court of law the Hindus must take out their processions with music accompanying, and put up with all the beating inflicted on them. All those who join processions or who form the musical band must thus sacrifice themselves. They will thereby defend their Faith and their self-respect.

Where the Hindus are unequal to this soul-force, it is open to them to resort to force in self-defence. Where death without resistance or death after resistance is the only way, neither party should think of resorting to law-courts or help from Government. Even if one of the parties resorts to such aid, the other should refrain. If resort to law-courts cannot be avoided, there ought to be at least no resort to false evidence. It is the rule of honourable combat that, after having heartily given and taken blows both the parties quiet down, and seek no reinforcement from outside. There should be no bitterness or feeling of revenge behind. A quarrel should in no case be carried from one street to another. The fair sex, the aged and the infirm, children and all, non-combatants ought to be free from molestation. Fighting would be regarded as sportsmanlike if these rules are observed. I hope that the Hindus and Mussalmans in Gujarat will keep their heads cool and keep the peace.

I hope also that the fear of a possible trouble in Umreth is unjustified. Let both the communities there hold mutual consultations and settle their differences amicably running away for fear of death leaving one’s dear ones, temples or music to take care of them. Is irreligion, it is cowardice. It is not manly, it is unmanly. Non-violence is the virtue of the manly. The coward is innocent of it. It will take some time before the average Hindu ceases to be a coward and the average Mussalman ceases to be a bully. In the meantime, the thinking section of both the communities should try their best, on all occasions of trouble, to refer matters to arbitration. Their position is delicate, but they should expend all their energy in keeping the peace.