04-10-2004, 02:46 PM
One is the categorical assertion that the Hindus are a nation by themselves. This, of course, means
that the Muslims are a separate nation by themselves. That this is his view, Mr. Savarkar does not
leave to be inferred. He insists upon it in no uncertain terms and with the most absolute emphasis
he is capable of. Speaking at the Hindu Maha Sabha Session held at Ahmedabad in 1937, Mr.
Savarkar said :â
" Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded
into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our
well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient
of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the
so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural,
religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. When the time is ripe you
can solve them; but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. It is safer to
diagnose and treat deep-seated disease than to ignore it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they
are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary
these are two nations in the main, the Hindus and the Muslims in India. "
Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on
the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only
agree but insist that there are two nations in Indiaâone the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu
nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live.
Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to
occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists
that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for
Muslims and the other for the Hindus ; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live
under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation
will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to
live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political
power between the two nations the rule of the game, which Mr. Savarkar prescribes, is to be one
man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which
a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no
ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in
the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in
the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims,
16[f.16] such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by
confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political
privileges it has secured so far.
This alternative of Mr. Savarkar to Pakistan has about it a frankness, boldness and definiteness
which distinguishes it from the irregularity, vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes the
Congress declarations about minority rights. Mr. Savarkar's scheme has at least the merit of telling
the Muslims, thus far and no further. The Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu
Maha Sabha. On the other hand, with the Congress the Musalmans find themselves nowhere
because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game in
diplomacy, if not in duplicity.
At the same time, it must be said that Mr. Savarkar's attitude is illogical, if not queer. Mr. Savarkar
admits that the Muslims are a separate nation. He concedes that they have a right to cultural
autonomy. He allows them to have a national flag. Yet he opposes the demand of the Muslim
nation for a separate national home. If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he
refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home ?
It would not have been a matter of much concern if inconsistency was the only fault of Mr.
Savarkar. But Mr. Savarkar in advocating his scheme is really creating a most dangerous situation
for the safety and security of India. History records two ways as being open to a major nation to
deal with a minor nation when they are citizens of the same country and are subject to the same
constitution. One way is to destroy the nationality of the minor nation and to assimilate and absorb
it into the major nation, so as to make one nation out of two. This is done by denying to the minor
nation any right to language, religion or culture and by seeking to enforce upon it the language,
religion and culture of the major nation. The other way is to divide the country and to allow the
minor nation a separate, autonomous and sovereign existence, independent of the major nation.
Both these ways were tried in Austria and Turkey, the second after the failure of the first.
Mr. Savarkar adopts neither of these two ways. He does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation.
On the contrary he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language and
culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time he does not consent to
divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each
sovereign in its own territory. He wants the Hindus and the Muslims to live as two separate nations
in one country, each maintaining its own religion, language and culture. One can understand and
even appreciate the wisdom of the theory of suppression of the minor nation by the major nation
because the ultimate aim is to bring into being one nation. But one cannot follow what advantage a
theory has which says that there must ever be two nations but that there shall be no divorce between
them. One can justify this attitude only if the two nations were to live as partners in friendly
intercourse with mutual respect and accord. But that is not to be, because Mr. Savarkar will not
allow the Muslim nation to be co-equal in authority with the Hindu nation. He wants the Hindu
nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be the servient nation. Why Mr.
Savarkar, after sowing this seed of enmity between the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation should
want that they should live under one constitution and occupy one country, is difficult to explain.
One cannot give Mr. Savarkar credit for having found a new formula. What is difficult to
understand is that he should believe that his formula is the right formula. Mr. Savarkar has taken
old Austria and old Turkey as his model and pattern for his scheme of Swaraj. He sees that in
Austria and Turkey there lived one major nation juxtaposed to other minor nations bound by one
constitution with the major nation dominating the minor nations and argues that if this was possible
in Austria and Turkey, why should it not be possible for the Hindus to do the same in India.
That Mr. Savarkar should have taken old Austria and old Turkey as his model to build upon is
really very strange. Mr. Savarkar does not seem to be aware of the fact that old Austria and old
Turkey are no more. Much less does he seem to know the forces which have blown up old Austria
and old Turkey to bits. If Mr. Savarkar instead of studying the pastâof which he is very
fondâwere to devote more attention to the present, he would have learnt that old Austria and old
Turkey came to ruination for insisting upon maintaining the very scheme of things which Mr.
Savarkar has been advising his " Hindudom " to adopt, namely, to establish a Swaraj in which there
will be two nations under the mantle of one single constitution in which the major nation will be
allowed to hold the minor nation in subordination to itself.
The history of the disruption of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Turkey is of the utmost importance to
India and the members of the Hindu Maha Sabha will do well to peruse the same. I need say
nothing here about it because I have drawn attention to lessons from their fateful history in another
chapter. Suffice it to say that the scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the
Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfy their vanity. and their pride in being an
imperial race. But it can never ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple
reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative.
III
Mr. Savarkar is quite unconcerned about the Muslim reaction to his scheme. He formulates his
scheme and throws it in the face of the Muslims with the covering letter ' take it or leave it '. He is
not perturbed by the Muslim refusal to join in the struggle for Swaraj. He is quite conscious of the
strength of the Hindus and the Hindu Maha Sabha and proposes to carry on the struggle in the
confident hope that, alone and unaided, the Hindus will be able to wrest Swaraj from the British.
Mr. Savarkar is quite prepared to say to the Musalmans :
"If you come, with you, if you don't, without you; and if you oppose, in spite of youâthe Hindus
will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can. "
that the Muslims are a separate nation by themselves. That this is his view, Mr. Savarkar does not
leave to be inferred. He insists upon it in no uncertain terms and with the most absolute emphasis
he is capable of. Speaking at the Hindu Maha Sabha Session held at Ahmedabad in 1937, Mr.
Savarkar said :â
" Several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded
into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These our
well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient
of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the
so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural,
religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Muslims. When the time is ripe you
can solve them; but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. It is safer to
diagnose and treat deep-seated disease than to ignore it. Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they
are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary
these are two nations in the main, the Hindus and the Muslims in India. "
Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on
the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only
agree but insist that there are two nations in Indiaâone the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu
nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live.
Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to
occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar on the other hand insists
that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for
Muslims and the other for the Hindus ; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live
under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation
will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to
live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political
power between the two nations the rule of the game, which Mr. Savarkar prescribes, is to be one
man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which
a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no
ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in
the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in
the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims,
16[f.16] such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population. Thus by
confiscating its weightages, Mr. Savarkar would even strip the Muslim nation of all the political
privileges it has secured so far.
This alternative of Mr. Savarkar to Pakistan has about it a frankness, boldness and definiteness
which distinguishes it from the irregularity, vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes the
Congress declarations about minority rights. Mr. Savarkar's scheme has at least the merit of telling
the Muslims, thus far and no further. The Muslims know where they are with regard to the Hindu
Maha Sabha. On the other hand, with the Congress the Musalmans find themselves nowhere
because the Congress has been treating the Muslims and the minority question as a game in
diplomacy, if not in duplicity.
At the same time, it must be said that Mr. Savarkar's attitude is illogical, if not queer. Mr. Savarkar
admits that the Muslims are a separate nation. He concedes that they have a right to cultural
autonomy. He allows them to have a national flag. Yet he opposes the demand of the Muslim
nation for a separate national home. If he claims a national home for the Hindu nation, how can he
refuse the claim of the Muslim nation for a national home ?
It would not have been a matter of much concern if inconsistency was the only fault of Mr.
Savarkar. But Mr. Savarkar in advocating his scheme is really creating a most dangerous situation
for the safety and security of India. History records two ways as being open to a major nation to
deal with a minor nation when they are citizens of the same country and are subject to the same
constitution. One way is to destroy the nationality of the minor nation and to assimilate and absorb
it into the major nation, so as to make one nation out of two. This is done by denying to the minor
nation any right to language, religion or culture and by seeking to enforce upon it the language,
religion and culture of the major nation. The other way is to divide the country and to allow the
minor nation a separate, autonomous and sovereign existence, independent of the major nation.
Both these ways were tried in Austria and Turkey, the second after the failure of the first.
Mr. Savarkar adopts neither of these two ways. He does not propose to suppress the Muslim nation.
On the contrary he is nursing and feeding it by allowing it to retain its religion, language and
culture, elements which go to sustain the soul of a nation. At the same time he does not consent to
divide the country so as to allow the two nations to become separate, autonomous states, each
sovereign in its own territory. He wants the Hindus and the Muslims to live as two separate nations
in one country, each maintaining its own religion, language and culture. One can understand and
even appreciate the wisdom of the theory of suppression of the minor nation by the major nation
because the ultimate aim is to bring into being one nation. But one cannot follow what advantage a
theory has which says that there must ever be two nations but that there shall be no divorce between
them. One can justify this attitude only if the two nations were to live as partners in friendly
intercourse with mutual respect and accord. But that is not to be, because Mr. Savarkar will not
allow the Muslim nation to be co-equal in authority with the Hindu nation. He wants the Hindu
nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be the servient nation. Why Mr.
Savarkar, after sowing this seed of enmity between the Hindu nation and the Muslim nation should
want that they should live under one constitution and occupy one country, is difficult to explain.
One cannot give Mr. Savarkar credit for having found a new formula. What is difficult to
understand is that he should believe that his formula is the right formula. Mr. Savarkar has taken
old Austria and old Turkey as his model and pattern for his scheme of Swaraj. He sees that in
Austria and Turkey there lived one major nation juxtaposed to other minor nations bound by one
constitution with the major nation dominating the minor nations and argues that if this was possible
in Austria and Turkey, why should it not be possible for the Hindus to do the same in India.
That Mr. Savarkar should have taken old Austria and old Turkey as his model to build upon is
really very strange. Mr. Savarkar does not seem to be aware of the fact that old Austria and old
Turkey are no more. Much less does he seem to know the forces which have blown up old Austria
and old Turkey to bits. If Mr. Savarkar instead of studying the pastâof which he is very
fondâwere to devote more attention to the present, he would have learnt that old Austria and old
Turkey came to ruination for insisting upon maintaining the very scheme of things which Mr.
Savarkar has been advising his " Hindudom " to adopt, namely, to establish a Swaraj in which there
will be two nations under the mantle of one single constitution in which the major nation will be
allowed to hold the minor nation in subordination to itself.
The history of the disruption of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Turkey is of the utmost importance to
India and the members of the Hindu Maha Sabha will do well to peruse the same. I need say
nothing here about it because I have drawn attention to lessons from their fateful history in another
chapter. Suffice it to say that the scheme of Swaraj formulated by Mr. Savarkar will give the
Hindus an empire over the Muslims and thereby satisfy their vanity. and their pride in being an
imperial race. But it can never ensure a stable and peaceful future for the Hindus, for the simple
reason that the Muslims will never yield willing obedience to so dreadful an alternative.
III
Mr. Savarkar is quite unconcerned about the Muslim reaction to his scheme. He formulates his
scheme and throws it in the face of the Muslims with the covering letter ' take it or leave it '. He is
not perturbed by the Muslim refusal to join in the struggle for Swaraj. He is quite conscious of the
strength of the Hindus and the Hindu Maha Sabha and proposes to carry on the struggle in the
confident hope that, alone and unaided, the Hindus will be able to wrest Swaraj from the British.
Mr. Savarkar is quite prepared to say to the Musalmans :
"If you come, with you, if you don't, without you; and if you oppose, in spite of youâthe Hindus
will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can. "