And whenever they mention the intolerance or bigotry of the Muslims they make sure to generalize the matter and always slip in allusions to the Hindus also.
Our Historians work day and night to ensure that crimes of Muslims could be whitewashed by generalising the matter with Hindus.
All of us know what position Islamic fanatics held while partition of India, but to show them, especially Jinnah, in good light, ‘Caravan Daily’ published an article written by Professor Shamsul Islam aspiring to draw an image that it was ‘Hindu Nationalists’ who are to be cursed for India’s partition.
Basically, the point repeatedly emphasized by Prof. Shamsul Islam was that it was Hindu Nationalists who propounded the “Two-Nation Theory” before Muslims. He said:
Long-long before the appearance of Muslim advocates of the Two-Nation theory, Hindu nationalists had propounded this idea.
So let’s point by point examine Prof. Shamsul’s claims and provided evidence that point to the contrary.
First of all, as quoted above, Prof. Shamsul claims that it was Hindu nationalists who propounded Two-Nation Theory before Muslims.
And who were those Hindu nationalists according to Prof. Shamsul? They were:
- Raj Narain Basu
- Nabha Gopal Mitra
- Parmanand
- Lajpat Rai
- Dr B. S. Moonje
- Lala Har Dayal
- Veer Savarkar
Now, let me put forth this, none of these Hindu Nationalist propounded or even talked about “Two-Nation Theory” before Syed Ahmad Khan, who is known as “Father of Two-Nation Theory”. Syed Ahmad in 1888 said [2]:
Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?…. Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.
So it was first a Muslim, Syed Ahmad, who peddled that Hindus and Muslims can’t live together.
Not just that, Syed Ahmad went on to recall how Muslims helped Christians to rule over India. He said [3]:
then will one glorious fact stand out in prominent relief and become patent to the universe’—namely that ‘if in Hindustan there was one class of people above any other, who from the principles of their religion, from habits and associations, and from kindred disposition, were fast bound with Christians, in their dread hour of trial and danger, in the bonds of amity and friendship, those people were the Mohammedans, and they alone.
Henceforth, the claim of Prof. Shamsul that it was first Hindu Nationalists who propounded Two-Nation Theory falls apart.
Now let’s go through those names of Hindu Nationalists, who all according to Prof. Shamsul, propagated Two-Nation theory.
Raj Narain Basu
Regarding Raj Narain Basu, Prof. Shamsul said: “Basu not only believed in the superiority of Hinduism over other religions but also was a fervent believer in Casteism.” But Prof. Shamsul provided us with no ‘source’ of his information.
How Raj Narain Basu propagated Two-Nation Theory? Prof Shamsul quotes Narain Basu where he said:
The noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep and rushing headlong towards progress with divine prowess. I see this rejuvenated nation again illumining the world by her knowledge, spirituality and culture, and the glory of Hindu nation again spreading over the whole world.
But how is this quote propagating Two-Nation Theory? Has Narain Basu demanded any separate nation for Hindus? Absolute no. He just called India ‘A Hindu Nation’. So how does that, Prof. Shamsul, propagate Two-Nation Theory? Moreover, it was absolutely justified for anyone to call India ‘A Hindu Nation’ because ‘Hindu’ is a common geographical identity for all those people living beyond the river Sindhu.
So just because Narain Basu called India ‘A Hindu Nation’, Prof. Shamsul concluded that he was an advocate of Two-Nation Theory. The logic certainly doesn’t hold.
Nabha Gopal Mitra
Heard this name ever before? No? Even I haven’t heard this name. So for help, I googled this name. Even Google don’t know who was Nabha Gopal Mitra. I searched this name even on other search engines but none of them knew who was Nabha Gopal Mitra.
So why Prof. Shamsul is talking about someone who is so irrelevant?
Further, Prof. Shamsul says: “Long before V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966) and M. S. Golwalkar (1906-73), who laid down elaborate theories of Hindu Rashtra allowing no place for minorities”
So as per Prof. Shamsul, the Hindu Rashtra as stated by Savarkar had no place for minorities. This is a whopper! Because Veer Savarkar himself said [4]:
Although we want Swaraj, yet that Swaraj must mean the Hindusthani Swaraj in which Hindu, Moslem and all other citizens all have equal responsibilities, equal duties and equal rights.
Veer Savarkar made it crystal clear that the Swarajya he was aspiring for not just accepts minorities but also grant them equal rights.
Parmanand
Parmanand was an Arya Samaj scholar and Freedom fighter.
According to Prof. Shamsul, Parmanand said:
The territory beyond Sind should be united with Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province into a great Musalman kingdom. The Hindus of the region should come away, while at the same time Mussalman in the rest of India should go and settle in this territory.
Yes. Parmanand actually agreed that Muslims should be given a separate nation. But that doesn’t mean he was propagating Two-Nation Theory. One has to understand that in the end, entire India accepted that Muslims should be given a separate nation but it doesn’t mean that India was wishing her own division. Because of the kind violence which erupted, people agreed that it’s better to give Muslims their own nation.
Parmanand actually wanted a united India, for that, he along with Dayanand Saraswati went to Sir Syed Ahmad [Father of Two-Nation Theory] to hold talks about Hindu-Muslim unity, but then they understood that Syed Ahmad is not willing to accept their proposal. Hence, it seems, Parmanand shaped his view that holding talks about Hindu-Muslim unity is fruitless and agreed to give Muslims their own separate nation [5]:
Lala Lajpat Rai
Prof. Shamsul quotes that Lala Lajpat Rai said:
“Hindus are a nation in themselves because they represent all their own.”
Initially, I anticipated that Prof. Shamsul is just a biased intellectual, but after reading this, I conclude that he is not just biased but severely intellectually dishonest.
When we read only as much as Prof. Shamsul quoted, it appears that Lala Lajpat Rai was talking about “Hindus as a nation” but this is not the whole truth.
Lala Lajpat Rai himself clarified that he is calling “Hindus as a nation” in the sense of Germans. He illustrated that Germans use the term ‘Nation’ even for ‘People or civilization’, to give an example of what he illustrated, he said: “Hindus are a nation in themselves because they represent all their own“.
So by giving an example of Hindus, Lala Lajpat Rai was just explaining how Germans use the term ‘Nation’. But instead of citing the entire explanation of Lala Lajpat Rai, Prof. Shamsul just cited last two lines of his explanation to deceive people. Here is entire word-to-word explanation by Lala Lajpat Rai himself [6]:
It may be that the Hindus by themselves, cannot form themselves into a nation in the modern sense of the term, but that is only a play on words. Modern nations are political units. A political unit ordinarily includes all the peoples who live under one common political system and form a State. The words ‘nation’ and ‘state’ when thus considered are practically interchangeable phrases. That is the sense in which the expression n used connection wih the body called the
“Indian National Congress”. That is, no doubt, one use of the word and the one
which is commonly adopted in modern political literature. But that is not the
only sense in which it is or can be used. In fact, the German word ‘Nation’ did
not necessarily signify a political nation or a State. In that language it connoted
what is generally conveyed by the English expression “people” implying a
community in possessing a certain civilisation and cnlture. Using it in that sense, there can be no doubt that Hindus are a “nation” in themselves, because they represent a type of civilisation all their own.
After this, Prof. Shamsul played another deceiving tactic. He quoted that Lala Lajpat Rai said:
Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim States: (1) The Pathan Province of the North Western Frontier (2) Western Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a Province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear partition of India into a Muslim India and a non-Muslim India.
And also:
I would suggest that a remedy should be sought by which the Muslims might get a decisive majority without trampling on the sensitiveness of the Hindus and the Sikhs. My suggestion is that the Punjab should be partitioned into two provinces, the Western Punjab with a large Muslim majority, to be a Muslim-governed Province; and the Eastern Punjab, with a large Hindu-Sikh majority, to be a non-Muslim governed province.
Yes. Lala Lajpat Rai agreed for partition. But why? He agreed because he could sense a ‘civil war’ as a consequence of what Jinnah was doing. Next, he also said that Muslims are seeking help from foreign Muslim states to establish Muslim rule in India, which is generating fear among Hindus [7]:
So, Prof. Shamsul, the truth is far contradicting from what you are suggesting. You suggested that it was Two-Nation Theory of Lala Lajpat Rai which was accepted later by Jinnah, but Truth is just opposite. It was Two-Nation Theory of Jinnah which forced Lala Lajpat Rai and later entire India to accept the demand of partition.
Dr B. S. Moonje, Lala Har Dayal and Veer Savarkar.
Prof. Shamsul cited what these people said, and after reading them, you will acknowledge that though they may sound quite communal, but they don’t promote Two-Nation Theory in any sense.
Here is what Dr B. S. Moonje said:
Just as England belongs to the English, France to the French, and Germany to the Germans, India belongs to the Hindus. If Hindus get organized, they can humble the English and their stooges, the Muslims…The Hindus henceforth create their own world which will prosper through shuddhi.
Prof. Shamsul cited Lala Har Dayal saying:
I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Muslims, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhiof Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu Nation does not accomplish these four things, the safety of our children and great grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogenous. But the Mussalman and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab, and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam […] Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj.
Next Prof. Shamsul quoted that Veer Savarkar said:
Christians and Mohamedan [sic] communities, who were but very recently Hindus and in majority of cases had been at least in their first generation most willing denizens of their new fold, claim though they might a common fatherland, and an almost pure Hindu blood and parentage with us cannot be recognized as Hindus; as since their adoption of the new cult they had ceased to own Hindu Sanskriti[culture] as a whole. They belong, or feel that they belong, to a cultural unit altogether different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and their hero-worship their fairs and their festivals, their ideals and their outlook on-life, have now ceased to be common with ours.
Readers, just ponder! How three above-quoted statements of Hindu Nationalists promote Two-Nation Theory? Yes! In some sense, those statements could be referred as communal but in no sense, they promote Two-Nation Theory. And how could we expect Hindu Nationalist not to sound anti-Islamic when Muslim ulema was repeatedly calling Hindus ‘kafir’? And when Muslim league was threatening Hindus of bloodshed?
Next, Prof. Shamsul quoted Veer Savarkar as saying:
As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. 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 cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and Moslems. When 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 homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.
Now how is this supporting Two-Nation Theory? Veer Savarkar said Two Nations [Veer Savarkar used the word ‘Nation’ in the same as it was used Lala Lajpat Rai, which is ‘community’] i.e. Hindus and Muslims, are living in India and are not united. That was true! But where did Savarkar demanded any partition?
In fact, Veer Savarkar opposed partition of India is the most strict words. He said [8]:
Some of our wise men also are labouring under the misconception that the question or Pakistan is just like the Ulster phase in Ireland. But the fact is that they are committing a grievous error in comparing the two and suggesting that just as the Irish accepted an Ulster we Hindus should accept the Pakistan. In Ireland there was a question of only a small corner to be set aside as Ulster. But the Pakistani demand seeks to break up India into a number of separate Moslem States and insist that there should be no Central Government of India at all; worst than that the principle been not accepted or tolerated by the Irish there would have been no integral Ireland today. This principle of provincial secession if accepted by the Hindus would sound the death-knell of our national cohesion, integrity and unity.
After this, Prof. Shamsul found that even RSS supported Two-Nation Theory. He quoted RSS organ, Organiser, which notes:
Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.
Now, it is utter rubbish of Prof. Shamsul to quote above statement because RSS made that statement on 14th August 1947. So RSS demanded to build a complete Hindu Nation when Pakistan already became independent. So there arises no question of Two-Nation Theory here. Moreover, I find nothing wrong with the statement of RSS because the division of India was done on the religious ground, Pakistan became Islamic so it was absolutely justified for RSS to demand a Hindu Nation.
Next, Prof. Shamsul raised the question of an alliance between Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League.
Hindu Mahasabha is often criticised for collation with Muslim league. But why they did that? Many would simply call it, selfishness. But let me present the argument laid down by Veer Savarkar himself in the defence of Hindu Mahasabha.
The defence laid down by Veer Savarkar is this that Congress was utterly unable to control the members of Muslim league. Congress was submissive in front of them. So the sole purpose of collation with Muslim league was to ensure the welfare of both communities [Hindu & Muslim] by controlling members of Muslim league. And according to Veer Savarkar, they did that job successfully for 1 year in Sindh [9]. Anyway, whether we believe in what Veer Savarkar said or not, we can’t accuse them [Hindu Mahasabha] of supporting partition because Veer Savarkar and Hindu Mahasabha opposed partition in utmost strict words.
Now comes the most interesting part.
Prof. Shamsul says that it is Hindutva gang which spreads the falsehood that all Muslims supported Pakistan. He says though Muslim league was able to influence large mass, a large number of Muslims were even opposing Pakistan. In support of his argument, he put forth names of few organisations and individuals who opposed Pakistan.
How absurd. Just because few organisations opposed Pakistan, does that mean Muslims were not willing for the creation of Pakistan? But rather making such absurd arguments and we need to look at the facts.
To understand what majority of Muslims wanted, let’s look at the outcome of General Elections of 1945 which was done to elect members of Central Legislative Assembly. In this election, Congress was fighting with the aim of united India and Muslim league was fighting for the creation of Pakistan. In this election, there were 30 Muslim constituencies and out of them, Muslim league won all those 30. And Muslim league was unable to score a single out of Muslim constituencies [10].
By that, it is very evident what Muslims wanted at that point in time! They wanted Pakistan, which India was unable to resist.
Moreover, even among those very few Muslims who opposed Pakistan, many like Mufti Kifayatullah, did it because they didn’t want Muslims to get a piece of land but wanted entire India to be ruled by Islam [11].
Prof. Shamsul went on to say: “Muslim League practitioners of the Two-Nation theory were latecomers. In fact, in this case, they borrowed heavily from the Hindutva school of thought.”
So Prof. Shamsul says that Muslim league adopted the Idea of Two-Nation Theory from Hindutva school of thought. Nothing could be a more baseless allegation. Because the senior leader of Muslim league, Maulana Ashraf Ali and many other members of Muslim league themselves believed that idea of Two-Nation Theory lies in Quran. Below is the picture from “Creating a New Medina, p. 362”:
Few Lessons for Prof. Shamsul Islam:
- It was first Islamist fanatics who propagated Two-Nation Theory, not Hindu Nationalists.
- Just because somebody called India a Hindu Land, doesn’t mean that they are propagating Two-Nation Theory. Because Hindu Nationalists like Veer Savarkar and Parmananda Bhai made it very cogent that Hindu is everybody living in India.
- There exist a difference between ‘accepting’ and ‘propagating’. Hindu leaders like Parmananda and Lala Lajpat Rai who agreed to allow Muslims their separate land, first made attempts of unity but when they recognised that Islamic fanatics are not going to listen to them, they had no other option than to accept partition. And this was the fate of not just Hindu Nationalists but of entire India. In the end, India ‘accepted’ partition but that doesn’t mean India was willing or ‘propagating’ that.
Conclusion:
India’s eminent historians make every possible attempt to whitewash Islamic fanaticism and bigotry. This has been the unfortunate history of our Historians. And the most effective way in which they whitewash the crimes of Islam is by bringing other religions into the picture. As Imam Tawhidi said in one of his interview [12], “It’s somewhat fashionable to whitewash Islamic extremism by arguing that it’s not unique to Islam”. How relevant to our current scenario.
References:
[1]: Eminent Historians, chapter 14
[2]: Speech of Sir Syed Ahmad At Meerut [1888]
[3]: Political Profile of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan: A Documentary Record, p.194
[4]: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, p.145
[5]: The Story of My Life, Bhai Parmanand, p.153
[6]: THE INDIAN ANNUAL REGISTER, January-June 1941, Vol 1, p.277
[7]: Political Thinkers of Modern India: Lala Lajpat Rai, Vol 15, p.217
[8]: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, p.144
[9]: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, p.138
[10]: Scwartzberg
[11]: Mufti Kifayatullah Ke Fatwai, Vol 9, p.422
