BY K. B. S.

It is high time somebody told Mr. Jinnah the truth about himself. The Congress has really humiliated itself by giving him an importance to which neither his political eminence nor his representative character entitles him. He is puffed up with infinite self-conceit, and, having worked his way up into position in a body where of late a capacity for bitter invective is the only passport to leadership, has ended by identifying that institution with himself, with the result that he can now feel nearly as big as he desires. If Mahatma Gandhi is at the head of the Congress, he is at the head of the Muslim League, and, by always insisting that the Congress is a Hindu body, can reduce Mahatmaji’s position (in his own mind) to that of leadership of a single religious community, to a position not greater than what he himself occupies. The fact is, and it must be stated boldly, Mr. Jinnah is not merely anti-Congress but definitely anti-Hindu and, in the result, anti-Indian. He does not care how by his actions he delays and even defeats the attainment of Indian freedom. He does not concern himself with the great national struggle for liberty. He is primarily and essentially pro-Jinnah, pro-Muslim-League, and, excluding, of course, those unfortunate Muslims who put their patriotism first, pro-Muslim, and these in an order of decreasing importance. British Imperialism gloats over his intransigeance. Just at present, he is in the position of a collector of disease-germs with which he threatens to infect the whole countryside, unless he is given what he wants. He is feeling all the importance he ever can feel in life in constituting a menace to the peace and political progress of India. Nationalist India must rise up and fight him. He is shouting at the top of his voice his opposition to everything that the Congress has done or tries hereafter to do, however desirable the enterprise may be on its merits. He has not hesitated to appeal to British Imperialism to settle his quarrel with the Hindus, although a few days before he resented Mahatmaji’s accusation that he looks to British assistance to attain his ends. His latest ‘thanksgiving’ resolution definitely, contains an appeal to the provincial satraps to back him up against the Congress. In one breath he claims for his community all the strength necessary to obtain and protect its so-called rights (he does not hesitate to threaten the ‘mild Hindoo’ with force); in another, he invites the Britisher pull him up. He has, apparently, no quarrel with the foreign power; all his pugnacity and heroism (in the shape of mere rhodomontade, of course) are reserved for the Hindu. How rarely during recent years has he spoken of his motherland or has used the language of manliness and love of freedom against the Britisher! Under his leadership, the Muslim League has nothing to say about the cause of India’s freedom, Freedom can wait. He ignores the accusation that, in not being willing to fight for freedom, he is acting contrary to the tenets of Islam and in opposition to the natural, normal and instinctive impulses of noble-minded humanity all the world over. He has now declared himself against democracy, and against the proposal for a Constituent Assembly. He is ‘agin’ everything that does not mean at once the full concession of his demands. His refusal to conduct unity talks with the Congress except on the basis of the recognition of the League as solely representative of Muslim opinion is at once ample proof of his colossal vanity and of his desire for the growth of trouble and tension until what he may consider the auspicious moment for settlement to his own entire satisfaction. He has treated every great fighter in the cause of India’s freedom, every noble sufferer for the cause of the country–if they were Congress-minded–with utter-most contempt and derision. He has used, without hesitation, the language of virulent recrimination against the Congress–and, by styling it a purely Hindu body, against the great Hindu community. He has been a protagonist of vulgarity on the political stage. We see in him not a sign, not a hint of that great art of refined urbanity and elegant courtesy for which Islam is so justly famous.

It is equally high time that the truth about the Muslim League (and the other so-called ‘minorities’) were told. It does not and cannot claim to represent a ‘political’ minority. Communities (in the sense of groups with a common religious faith) cannot constitute themselves into political parties. They have, as adherents of a particular religion, no special political rights or privileges. Indeed, the recognition of a religious bond as a basis for Political grouping lets in all the dangers of religious fanaticism into the domain of politics. Every such ‘community’ has, of course, with every other, the right to insist that it shall not be interfered with in the Peaceful Pursuit of its religious practices. Again, no ‘community,’ as such, should suffer any political disabilities. If a community is, for instance, generally speaking, poor and uneducated, it cannot ask that it should be fed and educated at the expense of other communities. Its Poor and uneducated members have only the right to be treated as the Poor and uneducated of any other social or religious group. No ‘community’ has the right strictly speaking, to claim the reservation of seats in the legislature or of jobs in the public services. The first encroaches on the democratic principle as well as cuts across the natural economic and political divisions of people. The second would result in penalising intelligence, industry and honesty. It may be, perhaps unjust in a sense that a man of competence for a job should be superseded by one of superior capacity. But apart from any kind of injustice that may be involved in ignoring higher merit, it is suicidal from the point of view of the nation that intelligence and industry should be discounted for the sake of recognising the privilege of mere birth. If, as is sometimes said, there are no very good standards of estimating merit, these are not to be abandoned, fallible as they may be, in favour of communal claims. It would be just as reasonable to select men by their complexion, height or girth. The general standards obtain every-where in the world and are those to the inadequacy of which all are equally exposed. Let the ingenuity of our communalists be engaged in devising better criteria for the appraisal of worth, in inventing better ‘safeguards’ in that direction. But the minorities do not want open competition in the matter of examinations for entrance into public service, even with the fullest guarantees of their being open and really competitive. They will not be content with fairly conducted elections on a perfectly democratic basis. They object, indeed, to everything that does not ensure and secure forever, for the community they pretend to represent, whatever percentage of jobs and seats in the legislature they deem fit to claim. They will not depend on their intelligence, industry, patriotism and the extent of their services to the country for obtaining those prizes. They pretend to be apprehensive of their virtues being overwhelmed by the cupidity, malice and the evil designs of other ‘communities.’ They only want their ends achieved, damning the means. They do not care to examine the justness and propriety of their demands in the context of the legitimate rights and needs of other classes and interests or in the light of the principles of democracy and patriotism. The British Government has, naturally enough, promoted the division of India into communities, classes and interests. Religion, race, economic interests, ownership of land, all these account for separate groups. And now the poor Princes are another ‘minority’!

It is high time, again, that the claim of the Congress to be representative of all freedom-loving Indians is examined and established. An organization which is not closed to any community, class or interest, which, on the other hand, eagerly seeks the enlistment on its rolls of members from every group, and which avows as its object the ultimate reconciliation of all conflicting claims, is necessarily, by its very nature, a better type of political organization. The only reason why members of particular communities or classes keep away from it is that it will not voice their selfish claims to the detriment of others. Almost every communal organization is in favour of freedom, provided, of course, it is conceded what it calls the ‘legitimate rights and interests’ of the community it represents. The only difference politically between the Congress and such communal organizations is that, while desiring freedom for India along with the Congress, they would first insure their selfish demands. And this difference naturally results in a difference of method as well. As the Britisher pats the communal organization on its back for its agitation, it does not want to lose his possible support and is therefore reluctant to fight him. It would rather fight the Congress and please the Britisher. Except the Congress, there is no political organization in India which can say that it speaks on behalf of the whole of India. If the Muslim League says that the Congress cannot claim to speak on behalf of the Muslims, they only mean that the Congress does not have the support of people who have purely selfish ends and whose main quarrel with the Congress is that it does not assure them the award of all they want. The Congress cannot identify itself, by its very nature, with the extravagant demands, unchecked and uncontrolled by larger national considerations, of purely communal bodies. It is perfectly clear that the congress stands for all communities, classes and interests, in the sense that it seeks to dissolve and merge narrow-minded jealousies in the larger effort for national freedom and the larger cause of the common weal.

It is high time, too, that the preposterous claim of the British Government that they are merely engaged in an honest attempt just to safeguard and protect the rights of minorities is investigated and exploded. A careful study of the policy of British Imperialism in India during the last half a century or so reveals a dishonest and disingenuous attempt to foment and foster communal and class jealousies. The much-vaunted sense of fairness on the part of the British is so perfectly logical that it says to every kind of group organization, (and it is very quick to recognize the existence and representative character of such organizations), ‘We realize your difficulties as a political minority. We appreciate and sympathize with your grievances. But it is for the other communities in India mainly to settle your problems completely. We shall, of course, reserve residuary powers in our hands to exercise them to redress the balance, to the best of our capacity.’ And they further tell the Congress: ‘What are we to do? Look at the myriad communities into which your countrymen are divided! Each community is afraid that the others will swamp it, if we walk out without first settling all these disputes. There is no use ignoring communal feeling. You must face it and give in to it.’ This is, of course, ridiculously weak as an argument but it is immeasurably strong as an age-old weapon of imperialism. What, one may ask, are the reasons for the rampancy at present of communal feeling in India? Firstly, the natural selfishness of the communities themselves. Secondly, the reluctance of the Congress to oppose such claims on the part of a powerful section of the Indian population, the Muslims. Its timid acquiescence in their exaggerated and extravagant claims without protest has enabled other so-called ‘communities’ to seek to advance their own cause. Last but not least in importance is the cheerful welcome extended to internal dissensions by a Government anxious to obstruct political progress and to create and perpetuate, if possible, conditions favourable for its own continued existence. The only logical and democratic way of dealing with communal claims is neither to ignore nor to concede them, but to fight them tooth and nail.

A good deal of the foregoing discussion has been occasioned by the perusal of a most excellent book with the title, ‘The Problem of Minorities or Communal Representation in India,’ by Mr. K. B. Krishna.¹ It is a book that every patriotic and politically-minded Indian should read. It analyses with great clarity and with perfect historical truth the genesis, the growth and the present conditions of the problem. It exposes the hollow pretensions of the British to impartiality. It seeks to define and the real political minorities and the religious groups and caucuses that now set themselves up for minorities. It seems to us, indeed, to be the best, if not the first, objective and scientific study of a major Indian political problem by an Indian. It is well-documented and reflects great credit on the pains-taking industry and capacity of the author. There is evidence of close and careful research which is characteristic of American academic training. One may hope it will help to dispel the confusion to which even eminent Congress politicians are prone on this important subject.

[Mr. Jinnah’s latest demand for a Royal Commission is yet another proof of his attitude. He knows that such a demand, apart from other considerations, is not likely to be met in the midst of war. He knows that the Congress will object, on principle, to the nominees of British Imperialism deciding a purely domestic dispute. He wants his proposal to be rejected, for he can very well say the Congress burked an inquiry. He objects that the Congress Working Committee has no constitutional position. He does not deign to explain why, when it is attacked, the Congress High Command should not ask, like any other body, for proof of the charges against it, or how its ‘constitutional’ position will be altered by the appointment of a Royal Commission. Does he not know that ultimately the findings will have to be accepted, endorsed and if need be acted upon only by Indian opinion? He speaks glibly of punishment. Are unfounded charges to be made because, in his opinion, there is no body to punish the accused, even if the charges are finally established? What of the strength of his own League? In any case, he is seeking to punish the wrong persons, assuming his charges to be true. The present constitution makes Provincial Governors the special custodians of the rights of the ‘minorities’ and there would have been no ‘atrocities’ against minorities, had the Governors been alive to their responsibilities. Has Mr. Jinnah the courage to rise up against these agents of British Imperialism? He has not a single harsh word to say against them. On the other hand, he appeals to them now to inquire into such ‘atrocities.’ The time, in Mr. Jinnah’s opinion, is not yet ripe for the settlement of his and his League’s dispute with the Congress. There must be more trouble. Grievances will have to be multiplied: not grievances to be redressed but to be paraded and to be exploited for his ultimate ends. His present grievances are only a means.]