Why Was There No Tranfer Of Population?

[G.Subramaniam]

IV
Must there be Pakistan because the Muslims have lost faith in the Congress majority ? As reasons
for the loss of faith Muslims cite some instances of tyranny and oppression practised by the Hindus
and connived at by the Congress Ministries during the two years and three months the Congress
was in office. Unfortunately Mr. Jinnah did not persist in his demand for a Royal Commission to
inquire into these grievances. If he had done it we could have known what truth there was in these
complaints. A perusal of these instances, as given in the reports 4[f.4] of the Muslim League
Committees, leaves upon the reader the impression that although there may be some truth in the
allegations there is a great deal which is pure exaggeration. The Congress Ministries concerned
have issued statements repudiating the charges. It may be that the Congress during the two years
and three months that it was in office did not show statesmanship, did not inspire confidence in the
minorities, nay tried to suppress them. But can it be a reason for partitioning India ? Is it not
possible to hope that the voters who supported the Congress last time will grow wiser and not
support the Congress ? Or may it not be that if the Congress returns to office it will profit by the
mistakes it has made, revise its mischievous policy and thereby allay the fear created by its past
conduct ?
V
Must there be Pakistan because the Musalmans are a nation ? It is a pity that Mr. Jinnah should
have become a votary and champion of Muslim Nationalism at a time when the whole world is
decrying against the evils of nationalism and is seeking refuge in some kind of international
organization. Mr. Jinnah is so obsessed with his new-found faith in Muslim Nationalism that he is
not prepared to see that there is a distinction between a society, parts of which are disintegrated,
and a society parts of which have become only loose, which no sane man can ignore. When a
society is disintegrating—and the two nation theory is a positive disintegration of society and
country—it is evidence of the fact that there do not exist what Carlyle calls " organic filaments
"—i.e., the vital forces which work to bind together the parts that are cut asunder. In such cases
disintegration can only be regretted. It cannot be prevented. Where, however, such organic
filaments do exist, it is a crime to overlook them and deliberately force the disintegration of society
and country as the Muslims seem to be doing. If the Musalmans want to be a different nation it is
not because they have been but because they want to be. There is much in the Musalmans which, if
they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn't there enough that is common to both Hindus and
Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people ? Nobody can deny
that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can
deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and
Musalmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized. If the emphasis is laid on things
that are common, there need be no two nations in India. If the emphasis is laid on points of
difference, it will no doubt give rise to two nations. The view that seems to guide Mr. Jinnah is that
Indians are only a people and that they can never be a nation. This follows the line of British
writers who make it a point of speaking of Indians as the people of India and avoid speaking of the
Indian nation. Granted Indians are not a nation, that they are only a people. What of that ? History
records that before the rise of nations as great corporate personalities, there were only peoples.
There is nothing to be ashamed if Indians are no more than a people. Nor is there any cause for
despair that the people of India—if they wish—will not become one nation. For, as Disraeli said, a
nation is a work of art and a work of time. If the Hindus and Musalmans agree to emphasize the
things that bind them and forget those that separate them there is no reason why in course of time
they should not grow into a nation. It may be that their nationalism may not be quite so integrated
as that of the French or the Germans. But they can easily produce a common state of mind on
common questions which is the sum total which the spirit of nationalism helps to produce and for
which it is so much prized. Is it right for the Muslim League to emphasize only differences and
ignore altogether the forces that bind ? Let it not be forgotten that if two nations come into being it
will not be because it is predestined. It will be the result of deliberate design.
The Musalmans of India as I have said are not as yet a nation in the de jure or de facto sense of the
term and all that can be said is that they have in them the elements necessary to make them a
nation. But granting that the Musalmans of India are a nation, is India the only country where there
are going to be two nations ? What about Canada ? Everybody knows that there are in Canada two
nations, the English and the French. Are there not two nations in South Africa, the English and the
Dutch ? What about Switzerland ? Who does not know that there are three nations living in
Switzerland, the Germans, the French and the Italians ? Have the French in Canada demanded
partition because they are a separate nation ? Do the English claim partition of South Africa
because they are a distinct nation from the Boers ? Has anybody ever heard that the Germans, the
French and the Italians have ever agitated for the fragmentation of Switzerland because they are all
different nations ? Have the Germans, the French and the Italians ever felt that they would lose
their distinctive cultures if they lived as citizens of one country and under one constitution ? On the
contrary, all these distinct nations have been content to live together in one country under one
constitution without fear of losing their nationality and their distinctive cultures. Neither have the
French in Canada ceased to be French by living with the English, nor have the English ceased to be
English by living with the Boers in South Africa. The Germans, the French and the Italians have
remained distinct nations notwithstanding their common allegiance to a common country and a
common constitution. The case of Switzerland is worthy of note. It is surrounded by countries, the
nationalities of which have a close religious and racial affinity with the nationalities of Switzerland.
Notwithstanding these affinities the nationalities in Switzerland have been Swiss first and Germans,
Italians and French afterwards.
Given the experience of the French in Canada, the English in South Africa and the French and the
Italians in Switzerland, the questions that arise are, why should it be otherwise in India ? Assuming
that the Hindus and the Muslims split into two nations, why cannot they live in one country and
under one constitution ? Why should the emergence of the two-nation theory make partition
necessary ? Why should the Musalmans be afraid of losing their nationality and national culture by
living with the Hindus ? If the Muslims insist on separation, the cynic may well conclude that there
is so much that is common between the Hindus and the Musalmans that the Muslim leaders are
afraid that unless there is partition whatever little distinctive Islamic culture is left with the
Musalmans will eventually vanish by continued social contact with the Hindus with the result that
in the end instead of two nations there will grow up in India one nation. If the Muslim nationalism
is so thin then the motive for partition is artificial and the case for Pakistan loses its very basis.