"This House recommends to Government to convey to His Majesty’s Government through His Excellency the Viceroy, the sentiments and wishes of the Muslims of this Province that whereas Muslims of India are a separate nation possessing religion, philosophy, social customs, literature, traditions, political and economic theories of their own, quite different from those of the Hindus, they are justly entitled to the right, as a single, separate nation, to have independent national states of their own, carved out in the zones where they are in majority in the sub-continent of India.
‘Wherefore they emphatically declare that no constitution shall be acceptable to them that will place the Muslims under a Central Government dominated by another nation, as in order to be able to play their part freely on their own distinct lines in the order of things to come, it is necessary for them to have independent National States of their own and hence any attempt to subject the Muslims of India under one Central Government is bound to result in Civil War with grave unhappy consequences".
The world is on the threshold of a new era which promises equal opportunities, equal rights to every nation in the world and the long cherished dream of independent India is about to be realized a dream for the early and full realization whereof all Indians, Muslims and Hindus have sincerely worked, suffered and sacrificed.
Let me assure you, Sir, that the Muslim Nation of India, who until the advent of the British rule had for full eight centuries been the ruling power, is by tradition, by its psychological make-up and by its character, the champion of the cause of India’s freedom, and it has ever eagerly aspired for the achievement of this freedom with a burning zeal by no means less than the Hindus or any other nation of India.
The demand for Pakistan is based on the theory that Muslims are a separate nation as distinct from Hindus, and that what is known as India is and was never one geographical unit.
I shall first deal with the geographical aspect of the question. Great deal is being made of geographical position. To start with, calling India a country is a misnomer. England apart, Europe could be called a country from that point of view with much more justification. Yet Europe is a conglomeration of different nations who have not yet reached the stage of federation.
Taking in view the geographical position of this Province and Gujarat between which a whole desert intervenes that could not be traversed within 24 hours and position of France and Germany whose borders are coterminous and could be crossed over in 5 minutes, it becomes obvious how little those people understand who speak of the geographical position of India as a national unit.
India in fact is not a country at all but in every sense as good a continent as Europe, Africa or North and South America. The United States could easily argue that Mexico and Canada should by natural division be included in it. Brazil, Peru and Chile have no reason to be apart. Canadians and people of (United States are not only the same people but speak the same language, have the same religion, dress in the same way, have the same social customs, enjoy the same literature, and inter marry; in short, everything is common between them and they both are geographically one unit, yet Canada retains its integral national entity.
Likewise South American States which are parts of one geographical unit are inhabited by more or less one people of Spanish extraction, speaking almost the same language, dress in the same way, inter marry and have very little to distinguish them one from the other, and yet they are evolving along their own lines, getting more and more defined in separation and there is no sign or talk of amalgamation or federation amongst them.
There is no excuse for Siberia and China being separates either. Why should Siberia connect itself with the people living on the side of the Urals when they could be the natural part of China, ethnologically and otherwise?
So far the geographical argument does not carry us an inch further as far as nation forming is concerned. Let us now consider it from the meaning of the word ‘ Nation’ itself. Nation arises from the root ‘Natus’ meaning ‘born’: originally pointing to the race connection. It has been proved without doubt that Germanic and Keltic peoples belong to the same race, that France of Charlemagne included them both. We have already observed that geographically France and Germany should be one We have found that racially they are the same people; linguistically, they belong to the same stock called Indo Germanic or Indo European. Could combining these two peoples form a democracy? Will France submits to it or will the Germans?
I would not like you to lose sight of the fact that French literature was read arid appreciated by Germans for 2 centuries and that it considerably conduced to the creation of their own literature, Also they are peoples that have been freely inter-marrying and there is very little in their social habits and ways of thought that could be called different. Nay, as French literature formed a national reading at one time in Germany. so German philosophy has been taught in French Universities for a century and yet again we ask, could a democratic Government govern them if they were thrown into a combination? The natural consequences will be swamping to 30 million French, by 80 million Germans and France in a short time will begin to lose its individuality, Some people might consider this illustration of these two rival peoples as not sufficiently convincing, But they can be easily reminded of Holland and Belgium or Sweden and Norway. One glance at European history will show that national and democratic order did not make even in Europe for combination and amalgamations but separation and individuation. It was not a pell mell union, it was not a spatial juxta position but an organic unity at all points that was a basic condition of national and democratic Government. The utmost they have arrived at within themselves after a hundred years of national conception is nor even socialistic Government leaves alone organic. The laws that nature has set on man and along which he alone can progress, can neither be hurried nor set at naught without destructive consequences. A man who aims at a fruit becoming yellow before it has matured to full size or aims at sweetness before it has become completely sour, is destroying the life of the fruit and will never achieve his purpose. Tension, however unpalatable, is a necessary condition of progress at a certain stage of evolution and can be avoided only at the peril of stagnation and death.
After this general survey of more or less homogeneous and geographically, socially, economically, religiously, politically one people and yet impossible either to unite or be governed as one national unit, let us revert to Indian conditions. I have already pointed out the impossibility of considering 2 provinces in India, say, five Sindh and Gujarat, not to speak of Bengal, Central Provinces, Madras etc. as one geographical unit. How do they stand linguistically? One cannot possibly understand the other. But if we consider them religiously, one community refuses to have any social connection with the other. A Gujarati Brahmin not only dresses absolutely different to a Muslim, but also would throw his food away as polluted it a Musalman passed by and his shadow fell over his food. Question of intermarriage between them does not arise. Entire social separation is the only arrangement arrived at between the two communities by which they can peacefully exist at all side by side. Slightest approach to any further intercourse would cause Pitched battles between the members of the communities as witness the record of communal riots that have broken out from time to time all over the country.
Naturally one would ask, what is the cause of that fundamental difference? That is not far to seek. In earlier times that which we call ideology today went under the name of religion. Entire society was built on and by that conception. Those communities like the Europeans that were more progressive and could assimilate and adapt to newer notions (brought about by the necessary law of evolution could get over the fundamental differences quicker. The conservative communities on the other hand persisted in retaining their ancient institutions, defying the law of the revolution and taking pride in non-surrender to change, remaining strictly apart and despising assimilation and adaptation. The proof of that Hindu conservatism in India is furnished by the fact that Buddhism that was a natural evolutionary advance an Brahminism was successful beaten out of India by the Brahminism and had to seek home on the Indian Frontiers viz.: Ceylon, Burma, China, Tibet, Etc. The Brahmins insist note today that Gautama was a demon who came to destroy. In the strictest sense Brahminism was and Most remain by the very nature of it a non-missionary religion. A Brahmin is born and not made, I might knew all the "srutis" and "smritis’ by heart and be an Aryan in the bargain, but can I become a Brahmin or even a Kshatriya? No. Only a Sudra, and that also by grace and not by right! When a constitution of any race of community is so adamant, there is no place for even a mechanical mixture, leaving alone an organic unity, without that a truly democratic national state cannot exist.
Now let us examine the two big nations, or communities as you may call them, namely, Hindus and Muslims, in @India and see whether they can possibly form one nation. They differ from each other in every aspect of life. Their social customs are separate and different. Their literature and even economical conception differ from each other, While Muslim philosophy of life accepts man as a free agent untrammeled by limitations and handicaps in his march on the path of evolution, the Hindu philosophy is based on the theory of "Karma" making man’s life dependent upon and restricted by the supposed actions of previous life. The Muslims believe in equality and brotherhood of man, while Hindus take the diversity of the human beings as an article of their faith upon which is built their "caste system", SO Much so that their greatest book the ‘Bhagvad Gita’ lays it down that when the castes are confounded, then will the "Dharma" be lost!
Apart from the religious and philosophical differences, there are social barriers that in spite of their thousand years’ stay together the two nations have continued to retain. There is not no inter-marriage, interdining and intercourse possible, but they keep scrupulously apart, even the shadow of a Muslim across the Brahmin’s path or food being supposed to pollute the Brahmin’s sacred person and wholesome food’ Similarly in the matter of their food, what is allowed to one is forbidden to the other, so that the difference is not only one of a class but a material, solid fact which is felt and lived every moment in the day-to-day life of the two communities.
Thus so long as Hindus remain as Hindus, there can be no possible basis of one nationality which according to the most authoritative sources implies a sense to kinship which is impossible and unpermissible under the Hindu philosophy, Renan, a great authority on the subject, says "Nationality is a Subjective psychological feeling. It is a feeling of corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those that are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of reserve for those who are not one’s own kith and kin. It is a longing to belong to one’s own group and a longing not to belong to any other group.
It has been sometimes said that what really matters to the masses is the problem of bread and that as soon as the economic problem is solved, the communal—we would maintain the national differences will vanish. But such a hope is only self-delusion.
The Honorable Dr. HEMANDAS R. WADHWANI: Sir, I rise to a point of order. My Honorable friend Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Shah is going into the merits of religion. I do not think he is relevant in this connection. He is attacking the Hindu religion pointing out the defects of the Hindu religion. THE HONORABLE THE SPEAKER: He should avoid that.
Mr. G.M. Saved: How can I avoid it? I want to slow how we differ. I must show the differences between the two societies. The ideologies of each other are different. I must quote how they are different. I am attacking no religion. I am not saying anything against them. I do not think anybody on earth will deny what I am saying. I am not doing injustice to other religions. I have great regard for other religions. I am only showing different ideologies.
The Honorable Dr. Hemandas R. Wadhwani: He has been going into the merits of religions, The Honorable the speaker: Honorable Member should not compare the religions. He can compare social customs and economic theories.
Mr. G.M. Sayed: Sir, I was explaining the economic position and pointing out that Hindu philosophy has no room for labor; it is looked down upon by it. Money is worshipped as a deity and gambling including speculation, the bane of modern economy and usury which enable one to lead a luxurious life without having to labor for it, are not only permitted, but form part of Hindu ritual. Islam on the other hand not only acknowledges but actually sanctifies manual labor, forbids easy moneymaking such as usury.
Mr. G.M. Saved: Thus if the ultimate object in the freedom of a democratic unit is the free, unrestricted growth of a nation on its own individualistic lines based on its culture, philosophy and traditions, not to speak of other accidental factors such as climatic, geographical, linguistic and racial characteristics, then Muslims and Hindus can never expect to attain that common growth, as the growth of one precludes that of the other, the very basis of such growth being opposed one to the other. It is idle to expect that when the hero of one community is the tyrant of the other, when a historic victory of one is the shameful defeat of the other, then in a United India, where the Hindus will by the strength of their numbers always command the lion’s share in the Government of the country, Muslims will have any the slightest chance of attainment of their ideals.
I must further point out that democracy means rule of people. But these people must be homogeneous and not heterogeneous. There cannot be any Government unless it has got some common ideals before it, which are acceptable to all the people of the land. Now let us see whether a common ideal in a United India can ever be possible. It is quite clear that their ideals being different, Hindus and Muslims cannot run smoothly in the same direction with the result that there will not be democracy but there will be a rule of tyrant majority. Today we blame Hitler and other tyrant states for forcing their will upon others and coercing the people to act against their free will . What would be the differences between them and the people of India if unity was forced upon them? If 300 million people force 100 million people to be subordinate to them and follow the ideals of the 300 million people, quite contrary to the wishes and sentiments of the minority, what will be the result of such rule?
The two major communities are rivals for political power and rivalry between them is bound to continue so long as one is not completely absorbed by the other or they are not given separate national states, No power in the world can establish the necessary understanding between them, at the same time keeping them as Hindus and Muslims with in one national unit. Their traditions have been built on each other’s cost. The history of the last one thousand years is dolled with incidents, which do not signify the same thing to them both. What one has recorded as its brilliant success, the other has registered as a wrong perpetrated against it.
Some people again argue that Muslim nationalists will not be self-sufficient economically and financially. That way no state in the world is entirely self-dependent in every aspect of life and rich enough to satisfy its entire requirements. Whatever its economical position, no nation will be prepared to lose its independence and liberty for the sake of money and other luxuries of life. Can a bird prefer all sorts of food in a cage to the free rambling life in the woods where it often does not get sufficient food? Will Afghanistan lose its independence for the sake of the rich grains and other amenities of life in India? It is therefore idle to raise the bogy of economical insufficiency in respect of Pakistan States.
I hope better sense will prevail and our Hindu friends who claim to be so anxious about the independence of India will understand and realize that there is no other solution for the salvation of the country than the one embodied in the Lahore Resolution of the All India Muslim League commonly known as Pakistan Resolution, if the problem of India is ever satisfactorily to be solved.
Sir, I cannot do better than wind up my speech by referring to a happy coincidence. Today when I moved in this Honorable House this Pakistan Resolution, that great Hindu leader Mr. Gandhi who has tried in the past for Hindu-Muslim Unity will break his fast, It is our earnest hope that Mr. Gandhi will now more than ever become convinced that any attainment at artificial unity is foredoomed to failure. Independence of India, freedom from foreign domination, riddance of imperialistic rule can only be achieved when the Hindu-Muslim question has been settled in an honorable manner to the satisfaction of the great Muslim Nation by conceding its Pakistan demand. It is therefore that I venture to hope that his inner light will reveal to him the imperative need to concede to the Muslim Nation the right of self determination and thereby he will spare us all the tragedy that will inevitably happen leading to disastrous consequences if this fair demand of the Muslims is oppose and any constitution that does not confer this right upon Muslims is thrust upon us against our wishes.
Shaikh Abdul Majid: Sir, I wish to move two amendments to the resolution moved by my friend Mr. G.M. Saved. I do not know whether you will allow me to move these amendments at the same time, or after you have dealt with one, The Honorable the Speaker: Which are the amendments?
Shaikh Abdul Majid: Sir, I move my first amendment that in lines 3 from the bottom, after the word "own" the words .. with safeguards for minorities" should be added. My second amendment is this, viz.: "Drop the words "Civil war with grave" in the last line, and substitute the word "disastrous".