Pan Islamism 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

 

Pan Islamism and Mahatma Gandhi

 

Mr. Sohraworthy, the retiring Secretary, has had a distinguished career in London. He is a much-travelled man and is the author of Malki Law, as also the Sayings of Mahomed. He has made Pan- Islamism his life work, and in his striking, though somewhat lengthy speech, he clearly showed that the object of Pan-Islamism was to bring together under its fold the different sects of Mahomedans and carry on a peaceful propaganda of the faith of the Prophet with a view to promote universal brotherhood. 1 Addressing the Hindus, the Mahatmaji said there was no cause for them to suspect that the Ali Brothers would deceive them, having expressly said that they were Mohammedans first and everything else afterwards. They had pledged themselves to fight against the whole world for the freedom of India. Suspicion of that sort showed a lack of self-reliance. It was said that the Ali Brothers were pan-Islamists. If to sympathize with Mohammedans in other parts of the world was pan-Islamism for a Mohammedan, then the Hindus were also pan-Hinduisms, as the feeling of sympathy for co-religionists was a natural feeling and common to all nations. He appealed to them therefore to be manly and give up these suspicions which were fit only for cowards. It was time that they should all unite and take up the country’s cause in right earnest but even if there was no response from the people in general he with 4 or 5 others that had taken up the cause would continue the struggle to the end. 2 

Pan-Islamism, which Mr. Pal fears, is an admirable doctrine in so far as a Mussulman wishes the solidarity of all Muslim states. It would be a dangerous doctrine, if it were to mean a combination of Islamic powers for the purpose of exploiting the world or converting it to Islam by force. No sane Mussulman of my acquaintance has ever entertained the latter idea. The world is growing sick of the domination of brute force. 3 If we mean really well by our Mussulman brethren, we must sympathize with them over the movement going on in Europe to destroy Turkish nationalism. It is a thousand pities that the British Government is secretly or openly leading the movement. Let Hindus not be frightened by Pan-Islamism. It is not—it need not be anti- Indian or anti-Hindu. Mussulmans must wish well to every Mussulman state, and even assist any such state, if it is undeservedly in peril. And Hindus, if they are true friends of Mussulmans, cannot but share the latter’s feelings. We must therefore co-operate with our Mussulman brethren in their attempt to save the Turkish Empire in Europe from extinction. Hindus may not then be agitated when Mussulmans become alarmed at the slightest hint that the British Government might openly join the Greeks against the Turkish Government in Angora. If Britain should go so mad, India cannot possibly help the British Government in any such design upon Turkey.

It would be tantamount to a war with Islam. England has her choice. She can no longer hold the awakened Hindus and Mussulmans as slaves. If India is to remain equal partner with every other member of the Empire, India’s voting strength must be infinitely superior to that of any other member. In a free commonwealth, every partner has as much right to retire if the rest go wrong, as it is his duty to remain so long as the rest are faithful to certain common principles. If India votes wrong, England can retire from partnership, as every other partner can. Thus, the centre of equilibrium must shift to India rather than to England, when India has come into her own. That is my meaning of swaraj within the Empire. Brute force must be ruled out of account in all deliberations. Reference must be had always to reason and never to the sword and as with England, so with India.

The latter, too, has her choice. Today, we are striving for swaraj within the Empire in the hope that England will in the end prove true, and for independence if she fails but when it is incontestably proved that Britain seeks to destroy Turkey, India’s only choice must be independence. For Mussulmans, when Turkey’s existence, such as it is, is threatened, there is no looking back. They would draw the sword if they could, and perish or rise victorious with the brave Turks. But if, as is certain, thanks to the policy of the Government of India, they cannot declare war against the British Government, they can at least forswear allegiance to a Government which wickedly goes to war against Turkey. The duty of the Hindus is no less clear. If we still fear and distrust the Mussulmans, we must side with the British and prolong our slavery. If we are brave and religious enough not to fear the Mussulmans, our countrymen, and if we have the wisdom to trust them, we must make common cause with the Mussulmans in every peaceful and truthful method to secure Indian independence.

For a Hindu, as I conceive Hinduism to be, whether for independence or for swaraj within the Empire, there is no road but non-violent non-cooperation. India can have dominion or independent status today if India learns and assimilates the secret and the invincible power of non-violence. When she has learnt that lesson, she is ready to take up all the stages of non-co-operation including non-payment of taxes. India is not ready today, but if we would be prepared to frustrate every plot that may be hatched for the destruction of Turkey or for prolonging our subjection, we must secure an atmosphere of enlightened non-violence as fast as possible, not the non-violence of the weak but the non-violence of the strong, who would disdain to kill but would gladly die for the vindication of truth. 4 Yes I am. Perhaps you do not know how deep the Muslim feeling about it is. I had evidence of that even while I was a student in England many years ago. What is then your objection to a voluntary federation of different countries professing the same religion?

 

References:

 

1. Indian Opinion, 15-12-1906
2. The Bombay Chronicle, 1-12-1920  
3. Young India, 1-6-1921
4. Young India, 29-6-1921 
5. My Days with Gandhi, pp. 227