Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population?

[G.Subramaniam]

III
It is not that this blind spirit of conservatism which dose not recognize the need of repair to the social structure has
taken hold of the Muslims only. It has taken hold of the Hindus also. The Hindus atone time did recognize that without
social efficiency no permanent progress in other fields of activity was possible, that, owing to the mischief wrought by
evil customs Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these
evils. It was due to the recognition of this fact that the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by the
foundation of the Social Conference. While the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the political
organisation of the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the weak points in the social organisation
of the Hindu Society. For some time, the Congress and the Conference worked as two wings of one common body and
held their annual sessions in the same pandal. But soon the two wings developed into two parties, a Political Reform
Party and a Social Reform Party, between whom raged fierce controversy. The Political Reform Party supported the
National Congress and the Social Reform Party supported the Social Conference. The two bodies became two hostile
camps. The point at issue was whether social reform should precede political reform. For a decade the forces were
evenly balanced and the battle was fought without victory to either side. It was, however, evident that the fortunes of
the Social Conference were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the Social Conference
lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus were for political advancement and indifferent to social reform and
that while the number of those who attended the Congress was very large and the number who did not attend but who
sympathized with it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was very much smaller. This
indifference, this thinning of its ranks was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians, like the late Mr.
Tilak. In course of time, the party in favour of political reform won and the Social Conference vanished and was
forgotten,7 [f7] With it also vanished from the Hindu Society the urge for social reform. Under the leadership of Mr.
Gandhi, the Hindu Society, if it did not become a political mad-house, certainly became mad after politics.
Non-co-operation, Civil Disobedience, and the cry for Swaraj took the place which social reform once had in the
minds of the Hindus. In the din and dust of political agitation, the Hindus do not even know that there are any evils to
be remedied. Those who are conscious of it, do not believe that social reform is as important as political reform, and
when forced to admit its importance argue that there can be no social reform unless political power is first achieved.
They are so eager to possess political power that they are impatient even of propaganda in favour of social reform, as it
means so much time and energy deducted from political propaganda. A correspondent of Mr. Gandhi put the point of
view of the Nationalists very appropriately, if bluntly, when he wrote 8[f.8] to Mr. Gandhi, saying:—
" Don't 'you think that it is impossible to achieve any great reform without winning political power ? The present
economic structure has got to be tackled? No reconstruction is possible without political reconstruction and I am afraid
all this talk of polished and unpolished rice, balanced diet and so on and so forth is mere moonshine."
The Social Reform Party, led by Ranade, died leaving the field to the Congress. There has grown up among the Hindus
another party which is also a rival to the Congress. It is the Hindu Maha Sabha. One would expect from its name that it
was a body for bringing about the reform of Hindu Society. But it is not. Its rivalry with the Congress has nothing to
do with the issue of social reform vs. political reform. Its quarrel with the Congress has its origin in the pro-Muslim
policy of the Congress. It is organized for the protection of Hindu rights against Muslim encroachment. Its plan is to
organize the Hindus for offering a united front to the Muslims. As a body organized to protect Hindu rights it is all the
time engaged in keeping an eye on political movements, on seats and posts. It cannot spare any thought for social
reform. As a body keen on bringing about a united front of all Hindus, it cannot afford to create dissensions among its
elements which would be the case if it undertook to bring about social reforms. For the sake of the consolidation of the
Hindu rank and file, the Hindu Maha Sabha is ready to suffer all social evils to remain as they are. For the sake of
consolidation of the Hindus, it is prepared to welcome the Federation as devised by the Act of 1935 in spite of
its many iniquities and defects. For the same purpose, the Hindu Maha Sabha favours the retention of the Indian States,
with their administration as it is. ' Hands off the Hindu States ' has been the battle-cry of its President. This attitude is
stranger than that of the Muslims. Representative government in Hindu States cannot do harm to the Hindus. Why then
should the President of the Hindu Maha Sabha oppose it ? Probably because it helps the Muslims, whom he cannot
tolerate.
IV
To what length this concern for the conservation of their forces can lead the Hindus and the Musalmans cannot be
better illustrated than by the debates on the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act VIII of 1939 in the Central Assembly.
Before 1939, the law was that apostasy of a male or a female married under the Muslim law ipso facto dissolved the
marriage with the result that if a married Muslim woman changed her religion, she was free to marry a person
professing her new religion. This was the rule of law enforced by the courts, throughout India at any rate, for the last
60 years.[f9] 9
This law was annulled by Act VIII of 1939, section 4 of which reads as follows:—
" The renunciation of Islam by a married Muslim woman or her conversion to a faith other than Islam shall not by
itself operate to dissolve her marriage:
Provided that after such renunciation or conversion the woman shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of
marriage on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2:
Provided further that the provision of' this section shall not apply to a woman converted to Islam from some other faith
who re-embraces her former faith."
According to this Act, the marriage of a married Muslim woman is not dissolved by reason of her conversion to
another religion. All that she gets is a right of divorce. It is very intriguing to find that section 2 does not refer to
conversion or apostasy as a ground for divorce. The effect of the law is that a married Muslim woman has no liberty of
conscience and is tied for ever to her husband whose religious faith may be quite abhorrent to her.
The grounds urged in support of this change are well worth attention. The mover of the Bill, Quazi Kazmi, M.L.A.
adopted a very ingenious line of argument in support of the change. In his speech 10[f.10] on the motion to refer the
Bill he said:—
" Apostasy was considered by Islam, as by any other religion, as a great crime, almost amounting to a crime against the
State. It is not novel for the religion of' Islam to have that provision. If we look up the older Acts of any nation, we
will find that similar provision also exists in other Codes as well. Fur the male a severer punishment was awarded, that
of death, and for females, only the punishment of imprisonment was awarded. This main provision was that because it
was a sin, it was a crime, it was to be punished, and the woman was to be deprived of her status as wife. It was not
only this status that she lost, but she lost all her suit us in society; she was deprived of her properly and civil rights as
well. But we find that as early as 1850 an Act was passed here, called the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850, Act
XXI of 1850.....
" .... by this Act, the forfeiture of civil rights that could be imposed on a woman on her apostasy has been taken away.
She can no longer be subjected to any forfeiture of properly or her right of inheritance or anything of the kind. The
only question is that the Legislature has come to her help, it has given her a certain amount of liberty of thought, some
kind of liberty of religion to adopt any faith she likes, and has removed the forfeiture clause from which she could
suffer, and which was a restraint upon her changing the faith. The question is how far we are entitled after that to
continue placing the restriction on her status as a wile. Her status as a wife is of some importance in society. She
belongs to some family, she has got children, she has got other connections too. If she has got a liberal mind, she may
not like to continue the same old religion. If she changes her religion, why should we, according to our modern ideas,
inflict upon her a further penalty that she will cease to be the wife of her husband. I submit, in these days when we are
advocating freedom of thought and freedom of religion, when we are advocating inter-marriages between different
communities, it would be inconsistent for us t support a provision that a mere change of faith or change of religion
would email forfeiture of her rights as the wife of her husband. So, from a modern point of view, I have got no
hesitation in saying that we cannot, in any way, support the contrary proposition that apostasy must be allowed to
finish her relationship with her husband. But that is only one part of the argument.
"Section 32 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, is to the effect that a married woman may sue for divorce on
the grounds 'that the defendant has ceased to be a Parsi ....'
" There are two things apparent from this. the first is, that it is a ground for dissolution, not from any religious idea or
religious sentiment, because, if two years have passed after the conversion and if plaintiff does not object, then either
the male or female has no right to sue for dissolution of marriage. The second thing is, that it is the plaintiff who has
got the complaint that the other party has changed the religion, who has got the right of getting the marriage
dissolved....... In addition to this Act, as regards other communities we can have an idea of the effect of conversion on
marriage tie from the Native Converts ' Marriage Dissolution Act, Act XXI of 1886 ........ It applies to all the
communities of India, and this legislation recognises the fact that mere conversion of an Indian to Christianity would
not dissolve the marriage but he will have the right of going to a law court and saying that the other party., who is not
converted, must perform the marital duties in respect of him...... then they are given a year's time and the judge directs
that they shall have an interview with each other in the presence of certain other persons to induce them to resume their
conjugal relationship, and if they do not agree, then on the ground of desecration the marriage is dissolved. The
marriage is dissolved no doubt, but not on the ground of change of faith. . . .. .So, every community in India has got
this accepted principle that conversion to another religion cannot amount to a dissolution of marriage."
Syed Gulam Bikh Nairang, another Muslim member of the Assembly and a protagonist of the Bill, was brutally frank.
In support of the principle of the Bill he said 11[f.11] :—
" For a very long lime the courts in British India have held without reservation and qualification that under all
circumstances apostasy automatically and immediately puts an end to the married slate without any judicial
proceedings, any decree of court, or any other ceremony. That has been the position which was taken up by the Courts.
Now, there are three distinct views of Hanafi jurists on the point. One view which is attributed to the Bokhara jurists
was adopted and even that not in its entirely but in what I may call a mutilated and maimed condition. What that
Bokhara view is has been already stated by Mr. Kazmi and some other speakers. The Bokhara jurists say that marriage
is dissolved by apostasy. In fact, I should be more accurate in saying—1 have got authority for that—that it is,
according to the Bokhara view, not dissolved but suspended. The marriage is suspended but the wife is then kept in
custody or confinement till she repents and embraces Islam again, and then she is induced to marry the husband, whose
marriage was only suspended and not put an end to or cancelled. The second view is that on apostasy a married
Muslim woman ceases to be the wife other husband but becomes his bond woman. One view, which is a sort of
corollary to this view, is that she is not necessarily the bond woman of her ex-husband but she becomes the bond
woman of the entire Muslim community and anybody can employ her as a bond woman. The third view, that of the
Ulema of Samarkand and Baikh, is that the marriage lie is not affected by such apostasy and that the woman still
continues to be the wife of the husband. These are the three views. A portion of the first view, the Bokhara view, was
taken hold of by the Courts and rulings after rulings were based on that portion.
" This House is well aware that it is not only in this solitary instance that judicial error is sought to be corrected by
legislation, but in many other cases, too, there have been judicial errors or conflicts of judicial opinion or uncertainties
and vagueness of law. Errors of judicial view are being constantly corrected by legislation. In this particular mailer
there has been an error after error and a tragedy of errors. To show me those rulings is begging the question. Surely, it
should be realized that it is no answer to my Bill that because the High Courts have decided against me, I have no
business to come to this House and ask it to legislate this way or that way."
Having regard to the profundity of the change, the arguments urged in support of it were indeed very insubstantial. Mr.
Kazmi failed to realize that if there was a difference between the divorce law relating to Parsis, Christians and
Muslims, once it is established that the conversion is genuine, the Muslim law was in advance of the Parsi and the
Christian law and instead of making the Muslim law retrograde, the proper thing ought to have been to make the Parsi
and the Christian law progress. Mr. Nairang did not stop to inquire that, if there were different schools of thought
among the Muslim jurists, whether it was not more in consonance with justice to adopt the more enlightened view
which recognized the freedom of the Muslim woman and not to replace it by the barbaric one which made her a
bonds-woman.
Be that as it may, the legal arguments had nothing to do with the real motive underlying the change. The real motive
was to put a stop to the illicit conversion of women to alien faiths, followed by immediate and hurried marriages with
some one professing the faith she happened to have joined, with a view to locking her in the new community and
preventing her from going back to the community to which she originally belonged. The conversion of Muslim woman
to Hinduism and of Hindu woman to Islam looked at from a social and political point of view cannot but be fraught
with tremendous consequences. It means a disturbance in the numerical balance between the two communities. As the
disturbance was being brought about by the abduction of women, it could not be overlooked. For woman is at once the
seed-bed of and the hothouse for nationalism in a degree that man can never be.12 [f12] These conversions of women
and their subsequent marriages were there-fore regarded, and rightly, as a series of depredations practised by Hindus
against Muslims and by Muslims against Hindus with a view to bringing about a change in their relative numerical
strength. This abominable practice of woman-lifting had become as common as cattle-lifting and, with its obvious
danger to communal balance, efforts had to be made to stop it. That this was the real reason behind this legislation can
be seen from the two provisions to section 4 of the Act. In proviso I the Hindus concede to the Musalmans that if they
convert a woman who was originally a Muslim she will remain bound to her former Muslim husband notwithstanding
her conversion. By proviso 2 the Muslims concede to the Hindus that if they convert a Hindu married woman and she
is married to a Musalman, her marriage will be deemed to be dissolved if she renounces Islam and she will be free to
return to her Hindu fold. Thus what underlies the change in law is the desire to keep the numerical balance and it is for
this purpose that the rights of women were sacrificed.
There are two other features of this malaise which have not been sufficiently noted.
One such feature is the jealousy with which one of them looks upon any reform by the other in its social system. If the
effect of such reform is to give it increase of strength for resistance, it at once creates hostility.
Swami Shradhanand relates a very curious incident which well illustrates this attitude. Writing in the Liberator
13[f.13] his recollections, he refers to this incident. He says :—
" Mr. Ranade was there. . . . to guide the Social Conference to which the title of ' National ' was for the first and last
lime given. It was from the beginning a Hindu Conference in all walks of life. The only Mahomedan delegate who
joined the National Social Conference was a Mufti Saheb of Barreily. Well! The conference began when the resolution
in favour of remarriage of child-widows was moved by a Hindu delegate and by me. Sanalanist Pandits opposed it.
Then the Mufti asked permission to speak. The laic Baijnalh told Mufti Saheb that as the resolution concerned the
Hindus only, he need not speak. At this the Mufti flared up.
" There was no loophole left for the President and Mufti Saheb was allowed to have his say. Mufti Saheb's argument
was that as Hindu Shastras did not allow remarriage, it was a sin to press for it. Again, when the resolution about the
reconversion of those who had become Christians and Musalmans came up. Mufti Saheb urged that when a man
abandoned the Hindu religion he ought not to be allowed to come back."
Another illustration would be the attitued of the Muslims towards the problem of the Untouchables. The Muslims have
always been looking at the Depressed Classes with a sense of longing and much of the jealousy between Hindus and
Muslims arises out of the fear of the latter that the former might become stronger by assimilating the Depressed
Classes. In 1909 the Muslims took the bold step of suggesting that the Depressed Classes should not be enrolled in the
census as Hindus. In 1923 Mr. Mahomed Ali in his address as the President of the Congress went much beyond the
position taken by the Muslims in 1909. He said:—
"The quarrels about ALAMS and PIPAL trees and musical processions are truly childish ; but there is one question
which can easily furnish a ground for complaint of unfriendly action if communal activities are not amicably adjusted.
It is the question of the conversion of the Suppressed Classes, if Hindu society does not speedily absorb them. The
Christian missionary is already busy and no one quarrels with him. But the moment some Muslim Missionary Society
is organized for the same purpose there is every likelihood of an outcry in the Hindu press. It has been suggested to me
by an influential and wealthy gentleman who is able to organize a Missionary Society on a large scale for the
conversion of the Suppressed Classes, that it should be possible to reach a settlement with leading Hindu gentlemen
and divide the country into separate areas where Hindu and Muslim missionaries could respectively work, each
community preparing for each year, or longer unit of lime if necessary, an estimate of the numbers it is prepared to
absorb or convert. These estimates would, of course, be based on the number of workers and funds each had to spare,
and tested by the actual figures of the previous period. In this way each community would be free to do the work of
absorption and conversion, or rather, of reform without chances of collision with one another. I cannot say in what
light my Hindu brethren will lake it and I place this suggestion tentatively in all frankness and sincerity before them.
All that I say for myself is that I have seen the condition of the ' Kali Praja ' in the Baroda Slate and of the Gonds in the
Central Provinces and I frankly confess it is a reproach to us all. If the Hindus will not absorb them into their own
society, others will and must, and then the orthodox Hindu loo will cease to treat them as untouchables. Conversion
seems to transmute them by a strong alchemy. But does this not place a premium upon conversion ?"
The other feature is the " preparations " which the Muslims and Hindus are making against each other without
abatement. It is like a race in armaments between two hostile nations. If the Hindus have the Benares University, the
Musalmans must have the Aligarh University. If the Hindus start Shudhi movement, the Muslims must launch the
Tablig movement. If the Hindus start Sangathan, the Muslims must meet it by Tanjim. If the Hindus have the R. S. S.
S.,14[f.14] the Muslims must reply by organizing the Khaksars.t This race in social armament and equipment is run
with the determination and apprehension characteristic of nations which are on the war path. The Muslims fear that the
Hindus are subjugating them. The Hindus feel that the Muslims are engaged in reconquering them. Both appear to be
preparing for war and each is watching the " preparations " of the other.
Such a state of things cannot but be ominous. It is a vicious circle. If the Hindus make themselves stronger, the
Musalmans feel menaced. The Muslims endeavour to increase their forces to meet the menace and the Hindus then do
the same to equalize the position. As the preparations proceed, so does the suspicion, the secrecy, and the plotting. The
possibilities of peaceful adjustment are poisoned at the source and precisely because everyone is fearing and preparing
for it that " war " between the two tends to become inevitable. But in the situation in which they find themselves, for
the Hindus and the Muslims not to attend to anything, except to prepare themselves to meet the challenge of each
other, is quite natural. It is a struggle for existence and the issue, that counts, is survival and not the quality or the plane
of survival.
Two things must be said to have emerged from this discussion. One is that the Hindus and the Muslims regard each
other as a menace. The second is that to meet this menace, both have suspended the cause of removing the social evils
with which they are infested. Is this a desirable state of things ? If it is not how then can it be ended ?
No one can say that to have the problems of social reform put aside is a desirable state of things. Wherever there are
social evils, the health of the body politic requires that they shall be removed before they become the symbols of
suffering and injustice. For it is the social and economic evils which everywhere are the parent of revolution or decay.
Whether social reform should precede political reform or political reform should precede social reform may be a
matter of controversy. But there can be no two opinions on the question that the sole object of political power is the
use to which it can be put in the cause of social and economic reform. The whole struggle for political power would be
a barren and bootless effort if it was not justified by the feeling that, because of the want of political power, urgent and
crying social evils are eating into the vitals of society and are destroying it. But suppose the Hindus and the Muslims
somehow come into possession of political power, what hope is there that they will use it for purposes of social reform
? There is hardly any hope in that behalf. So long as the Hindus and the Muslims regard each other as a menace, their
attention will be engrossed in preparations for meeting the menace. The exigencies of a common front by Musalmans
against Hindus and by Hindus against Musalmans generate—and is bound to generate—a conspiracy of silence over
social evils. Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus will attend to them even though the evils may be running sores and
requiring immediate attention, for the simple reason that they regard every measure of social reform as bound to create
dissension and division and thereby weaken the ranks when they ought to be closed to meet the menace of the other
community. It is obvious that so long as one community looks upon the other as a menace there will be no social
progress and the spirit of conservatism will continue to dominate the thoughts and actions of both.
How long will this menace last ? It is sure to last as long as the Hindus and Muslims are required to live as members of
one country under the mantle of a single constitution. For, it is the fear of the single constitution with the possibility of
the shifting of the balance—for nothing can keep the balance at the point originally fixed by the constitution—which
makes the Hindus a menace to the Muslims and the Muslims a menace to the Hindus. If this is so, Pakistan is the
obvious remedy. It certainly removes the chief condition which makes for the menace. Pakistan liberates both the
Hindus and the Muslims from the fear of enslavement of and encroachment against each other. It removes, by
providing a separate constitution for each, Pakistan and Hindustan, the very basis which leads to this perpetual struggle
for keeping a balance of power in the day-to-day life and frees them to take in hand those vital matters of urgent social
importance which they are now forced to put aside in cold storage, and improve the lives of their people, which after
all is the main object of this fight for Swaraj.
Without some such arrangement, the Hindus and the Muslims will act and react as though they were two nations, one
fearing to be conquered by the other. Preparations for aggression will 'always have precedence over social reform, so
that the social stagnation which has set in must continue. This is quite natural and no one need be surprised at it. For,
as Bernard Shaw pointed out:—
" A conquered nation is like a man with cancer ; he can think of nothing else . . . . A healthy nation is as unconscious
of' its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but
getting it set again. It will listen to no reformer, to no philosopher, to no preacher until the demand of the nationalist is
granted. It will attend to no business, however vital, except the business of unification and liberation."
Unless there is unification of the Muslims who wish to separate from the Hindus and unless there is liberation of each
from the fear of domination by the other, there can be no doubt that this malaise of social stagnation will not be set
right.