Hindu-Muslim Unity and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]    

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

Hindu-Muslim Unity and Mahatma Gandhi

 

After the prayers were over at Madhav Baug, Jamnadas Dwarkadas announced that their Mahomedan brethren were holding a meeting at Grant Road and he asked those present to proceed there to show their friendship towards their great sister community. No less than five thousand Mahomedans were present at the meeting, which was held on the open space in front of the Mosque, and the vast concourse of Mahomedans got up and cordially received their Hindu brethren... Mahatma Gandhi, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, Mr. Jamnadas Dwarkadas and other leaders were taken to the balcony of the Mosque and accommodated there amid scenes of utmost enthusiasm... Mahatma Gandhi also dwelt on the unique spectacle of the meeting. He appealed to his Mahomedan brethren to join the Satyagraha movement in large numbers. He said Satyagraha was like a banyan tree, the roots and branches of which went deep into the ground and in course of time it became such a mighty tree that nobody on earth could uproot it. Satyagraha was the essence of human life and conduct, and he was sure that the movement would unite the two great communities of India as nothing else could do. Hindus and Mahomedans should treat each other as their own brothers.

The Hindus must sympathize with the Mahomedans in their troubles and the Mahomedans should feel the same pain as their Hindu brethren did in their troubles. They should by every means in their power strengthen their friendship and reduce to a nullity any cause of difference of opinion among them. He, however, did not think that the fraternization which they witnessed there that morning and that which had taken place at Delhi the other day meant that the Mahomedans and Hindus all over the country had fraternized. In order to cement the bond of friendship which now existed, he suggested that they would in the near future meet at a mosque or some other place of worship or any other place and take a vow of eternal friendship. He concluded by thanking the Mahomedans for the opportunity they had given the Hindus that morning of meeting them and showing them their friendship. 1             

If, merely through fear, we have been making a show of Hindu-Muslim friendship, we cannot possibly remain together till the last and our insincerity will be betrayed at the critical time. How can we win swaraj without being tested to the utmost? Even if British officials are deceived, Hindus and Muslims will, in such circumstances, start fighting amongst themselves. We shall never be able to make a beginning with swaraj. Right from the start the two communities will hate and fear each other. We shall, therefore, go forward only if our friendship is genuine. 2 Hindu-Muslim friendship is not a bargain. The very word friendship excludes any such idea. If we have acquired the national habit, the Moplahs is every whit a countryman as a Hindu. Hindus may not attach greater weight to Moplahs fanaticism than to Hindu fanaticism. If instead of the Moplahs, Hindus had violated Hindu homes in Malabar, against who would the complaint be lodged? Hindus have to find out a remedy against such occurrences, as much as the Mussulmans. When a Hindu or a Mussulman does evil, it is evil done by an Indian to an Indian, and each one of us must personally share the blame and try to remove the evil. There is no other meaning to unity than this. Nationalism is nothing, if it is not at least this. Nationalism is greater than sectarianism. And in that sense we are Indians first and Hindus, Mussulmans, Parsis, Christians after. 3 

The fear of Hindu-Muslim friendship has not disappeared from the minds of minorities like the Parsis, the Christians and others. Swaraj necessarily means the rule of the majority. If, however, a large mass of people get more power and misuse their increased power that will not be swaraj that will be oppression or tyranny. If that happens, the tyrants are sure to be destroyed. What is happening in the country today is quite the opposite of this. A handful of men are tyrannizing over crores. The tyranny of the English, however, is bearable. When a handful of Englishmen tyrannize over crores of Indians, then these crores also co-operate to make that tyranny possible. If we had power in our hands, I do not think that we, too, would not oppress small and weak communities exactly as the British oppress us. 4

He did not know, for instance, what the implications of the Hindu-Muslim friendship were and where the minorities stood and whether the movement could remain non-violent to the end. We had long discussions over all these and other matters and he certainly left on me the impression that for a religious man there was no course left open. The greatest difficulty undoubtedly is about the masses keeping non-violent to the end. With men nothing may be possible, for God nothing is impossible. I would have avoided any reference whatsoever to our conversation. But the friends who have brought the matter to my notice tell me that Sadhu Sunder Singh is on the waters and that the paragraph in question is being exploited to wean Indian Christians from the movement. It has to stand or fall on its own merits. No certificate can save it if its professors betray their trust; no condemnation can injure it permanently if the professors remain true to it to the end. But I felt that I could not withhold from the public what I knew about Sadhu Sunder Singh’s views. 5

The thing is for the leaders to see to it whether the lessons of the mighty deluge can be made permanent. Will the Hindu-Muslim friendship outlast the immediate need? Will the yoke of the suppressed be lifted forever? Will the self be used to subserve the benefit of all in everyday transactions? Will the predeluge avarice remain under check in the face of the charity that is freely flowing Gujarat-ward? Will the stewards in charge of relief funds resist the temptation to steal or misappropriate trust funds? Will there be no feigning of distress and no needless applications for relief? 6 I know nothing of the incident referred to by you but assuming that some Sikhs and some Hindus misbehaved themselves that is no reason why it should be a bar against Hindu-Muslim friendship or that the sins of a few should be imputed to the whole people. 7

 

References:

 

1. The Bombay Chronicle, 7-4-1919
2. Navajivan, 4-12-1921
3. Young India, 26-1-1922
4. Navajivan, 2-2-1922
5. Young India, 9-2-1922
6. Young India, 25-8-1927
7. Letter to Ali Mohamed A. Aladdin, November 14, 1929