Contrary to popular belief, Veer Savarkar was not the first proponent of the Two-Nation Theory
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar remains a topic of discussion in Indian politics even today. It is often claimed that he was the one who proposed the two-nation theory, the ideological foundation that eventually led to the partition of India.
Inderjeet Barak shared a graphic quoting historian Professor Ram Puniyani, where it is claimed, citing Puniyani, that Savarkar was the earliest proponent of the two-nation theory. In his post, Barak wrote, “Savarkar and his gang were the original supporters of the two-nation theory. Sanghis and Muslim Leaguers are two sides of the same coin, both represent the ideology of Partition.” (Archived link)
Journo Mirror also shared a video of historian Ram Puniyani, in which he says, “After Independence, it was often claimed that Muslims forcibly created Pakistan and that Gandhi’s weakness led to its creation. However, no one talks about the biggest force behind Partition, the British policy of divide and rule. Those who supported Partition were communal forces on both sides, Muslim communalism and Hindu communalism. The idea of two nations was first introduced by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, mistakenly honored with a portrait in Parliament. It’s a matter of shame. When Savarkar spoke of two nations, Jinnah responded by demanding a separate nation for Muslims. Yet, Muslims are the ones who are blamed for Partition.” (Archived link)
Rajkumar Bhati wrote that Jinnah first proposed the two-nation theory in 1940 at the Lahore session of the Muslim League. However, prior to that, in 1937, Savarkar had already presented the idea of the two-nation theory at the Hindu Mahasabha session in Ahmedabad. (Archived link)
Also Read: No, Gold Prices Aren’t High Due to Inflation — India’s Inflation Rate Is at a 6-Year Low of 3.34%
The two-nation theory implies that Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent have distinct identities, cultures and traditions and a way of life. Therefore, Muslims should form another nation where they can freely practice their religion and culture.
In our fact-check research to examine whether Veer Savarkar was the first proponent of the Two-Nation Theory, we looked through the archives and came across Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan or the Partition of India.”
According to this book, in a 1937 session of the Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar said, “Many naïve politicians commit a grave mistake in assuming that Hindustan has already been molded into a harmonious nation or that it can become one simply by wishing it to be. These well-meaning but unrealistic friends dream not of reality but of fantasy. Hence they become impatient with communal quarrels and blame communal organizations for them. But the harsh truth is that these so-called communal issues are the result of age-old cultural, religious and national conflicts between Hindus and Muslims which we have inherited. They can be resolved when the time is right, but refusing to acknowledge them will not make them disappear. It is better to treat and cure a deep-rooted ailment than to ignore it. We must face the unpleasant truths bravely. Today, Hindustan cannot be called a unitary and homogeneous nation; rather, on the contrary, there live two major nations here, the Hindus and the Muslims.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his book has also mentioned the speech given by Savarkar at the Hindu Mahasabha convention held in Calcutta in December 1939. In this speech Savarkar had said, “Once the Hindu Mahasabha accepts and remains committed to the principle of ‘one man, one vote’, and once government jobs are given on the basis of merit alone, and this principle is included in the fundamental rights and duties applicable to all citizens, irrespective of their religion or caste, then in principle there will be no need to mention minority rights separately. In fact, doing so would be contradictory, as it would once again raise the issue of majority and minority on communal basis.”
He further stated, “However, keeping in mind the practical needs of politics and the fact that Hindu nationalists do not want even a shadow of doubt to exist in the minds of non-Hindus, we are prepared to insist that the legitimate religious, cultural and linguistic rights of the minorities will be explicitly guaranteed, on one condition: that there should be no interference or abridgement of the similar rights of the majority. Each minority group may open separate schools to impart education in its own language, religion and culture, and may also receive Government aid, but strictly in proportion to the taxes paid by them into the State treasury. In fact, the same principle should apply to the majority as well.”
In this speech, Savarkar further said, “Apart from all this, if the Constitution is not based on a joint electorate and does not follow the purely national principle of ‘one man, one vote’, any minority group demanding separate electorates or reserved seats may be given that right, but always in proportion to their population, provided that the majority is not deprived of similar rights on the basis of their proportion of population.”
Savarkar believed that the minority Muslims in India should be given equal protection and civil rights in proportion to their population. However, in a democratic system, the Hindu majority should not be deprived of its due voice, and the minority should not have enough power to veto decisions taken by the majority.
Emphasizing this, Savarkar said, “The Muslim minority in Hindustan shall have the right to be treated as equal citizens and to receive protection and civil rights in proportion to their population. The Hindu majority shall not interfere with the legitimate rights of any non-Hindu minority. But under no circumstances shall the majority give up the rights which any democratic and legitimate constitution has given them by virtue of being a majority. Particularly in the case of the Muslim minority, being a minority, they have done no favor to the Hindus. Therefore, when they get their due share of civil and political rights in proportion to their numbers, they must be satisfied with that position. It would be utterly absurd to give the Muslim minority a practical veto over the legitimate claims of the majority and call it ‘swarajya’ (self rule). The Hindus do not want merely a change of rulers, they are not fighting and sacrificing to replace Edward with Aurangzeb simply because he was born within Indian borders. They want to become the real owners of their land and home.”
Dr. Ambedkar, alludes to Savarkar’s speech in his book and writes, “Though it may sound strange, the views of Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah on the question of one nation versus two nations are not opposed but completely aligned. Both accept, and not only accept but emphasize, that there are two nations in India: one Muslim and one Hindu. The only difference between Savarkar and Jinnah lies in how these two nations should coexist. Jinnah says India should be divided into two parts, Pakistan for Muslims and Hindustan for Hindus. On the other hand, Mr. Savarkar insists that although there are two nations in India, the country should not be divided into separate parts, one for Muslims and the other for Hindus. Instead, both communities should live within the same country under one constitution.”
Dr. Ambedkar further contended, “This constitution, however, must ensure that the Hindu nation retains the dominant position it rightfully deserves, while the Muslim nation must live with a spirit of subordinate cooperation under the Hindu nation. In the struggle for political power between these two nations, Savarkar advocates the rule of ‘one man, one vote’ for all, whether Hindu or Muslim. This system offers no advantage to Muslims that is not also available to Hindus. Denying minorities their rightful share is unjust. The state will guarantee Muslims the freedom to live according to their religion and culture, but it will not guarantee them reserved seats or jobs in the legislature and administration. If Muslims insist on such guarantees, the quota will not exceed their proportion in the total population.”
Dr. Ambedkar went on to write that, “Savarkar’s stance regarding Pakistan is far more clear, bold and decisive than the irregular, vague and uncertain declarations of the Congress about the rights of minorities. At least Savarkar’s plan has the merit of telling Muslims that they will not receive anything beyond what is stated. Muslims know exactly what their position is in the eyes of the Hindu Mahasabha. On the other hand, with Congress, Muslims remain unsure of their status, because the party is following, if not a double policy, then at least a diplomatic one when it comes to the question of Muslims and other minorities.”
In our further fact-check research, we analyzed additional speeches delivered by Savarkar.
Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, in his two-volume biography on Veer Savarkar, has cited several of Savarkar’s speeches to explain his vision of a Hindu Rashtra. In the book, it is mentioned that during a Hindu Mahasabha session, Savarkar said, “The Indian state should be completely Indian. There should be no discriminatory treatment in voting rights, public services, government offices, or taxation based on religion or caste. No one should be identified or judged as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Jew. All Indian citizens should be evaluated based on their individual merit rather than their religious or community percentage. The language and script of the Indian state should be the national language and script understood by the majority, just as in countries like England or the United States. No corrupt interference should be allowed in language or script on religious or communal grounds. The principle of ‘one person, one vote’ should apply, regardless of caste, community, or religion.
If such a vision of the Indian state is pursued, then Hindu nationalists would place their complete loyalty with it, even before their allegiance to Hindu organization. I, and thousands of Mahasabha members like me, have considered such an Indian state as our political goal since the beginning of our careers and will continue to work towards it until the end of our lives. Can there be any idea of the Indian state more national than this? Justice demands that, in the context of the Indian state, I must describe the Hindu Mahasabha’s aims and policies as more national than the current policies of the Indian National Congress.”
Savarkar reiterated, “The Hindu Rashtra does not seek to violate the legitimate rights of any community. It does not advocate giving preferential treatment or special privileges to a majority community solely based on numbers. Similarly, it opposes granting biased treatment, importance, or special privileges to a minority community over the majority. Hindus want to assure everyone that we do not hate anyone, neither Muslims, nor Christians, nor foreigners. However, we will remain vigilant to ensure that none of them hate Hindus or demean them.”
At the 1939 Hindu Mahasabha conference in Calcutta, Savarkar remarked, “We must rid our fellow countrymen of even the slightest doubt that the legitimate rights of minorities concerning religion, culture, and language will be ensured, on the condition that, under no circumstances, should the equal rights of the majority be encroached upon or nullified. Every minority will have the right to educate their children in their own language, and in their religious or cultural institutions, and may even receive government assistance for this, but only in proportion to the taxes they contribute to the public treasury. Naturally, the same principle will apply to the majority as well.”
In his book, Vikram Sampath mentions that on August 15, 1943, a news report quoted Savarkar as saying, “I have no disagreement with Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory. We Hindus are a nation in ourselves, and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”
However, on August 19, Savarkar clarified in the newspaper Dainik Kal that the report had either deliberately or due to lack of space misrepresented him as supporting the Two-Nation Theory. He explained that Muslims across the world have considered themselves a separate nation under the authority of the Caliph and, based on this belief, they view themselves as a distinct nation. But in reality, from the perspective of political democracy, Hindus, who have lived in this land since ancient times, are one nation, while Muslims are a militant minority group. It is this mindset of the Muslim community that poses a threat of partition, and he stood against such an idea.
The important point to note here is that the very statement which is often circulated as Savarkar’s endorsement of Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory was actually refuted by Savarkar himself.
The Hindu Mahasabha had also formed a committee to draft a constitution for independent India. Its first meeting was held on May 31, 1944. The committee studied various constitutions from around the world and prepared a hundred-page report titled “The Constitution of the Independent State of India.” The following includes parts of the draft:
On July 26, 1944, Savarkar sent a letter to Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India, stating, “The Hindu Mahasabha, as the sole representative of the Hindus in India, strongly opposes Gandhi’s proposal to partition India, which allows the formation of separate independent states for Muslims. Gandhi or the Congress cannot represent the Hindus. Thousands of resolutions and meetings held by the Hindu Mahasabha have condemned the demand of provinces to separate themselves from the central government at will. Hindu Mahasabha members can never tolerate the disintegration of their fatherland and holy land, the Indian Union.”
On September 7, several leaders issued a joint statement against the partition of the country. These included V.D. Savarkar, S.P. Mookerjee, Sir Jwala Prasad Srivastava, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, Sir Nripendra Nath Sarkar, Sir P.S. Sivaswami Iyer, V.S. Srinivasa Sastri, N.B. Khare, Sir Homi Mehta, Faiz B. Tyabji, N.C. Kelkar, Sir Sultan Chinoy, N.C. Chatterjee, L.B. Bhopatkar, Pandit Rajnath Kunzru, Sir C. Ramalinga Swamy, B.S. Kamat, Diwan Bahadur K.G. Brahma, Raja Maheshwar Dayal Seth, and several others.
The draft of the statement was as follows, “In our earnest desire to see India freed from foreign domination at the earliest, without bowing to anyone, it is our clear opinion that the idea of dividing India into two or more parts, without any central organization to safeguard the vital interests of the entire country, and with each part having its own armed forces, is not only against the country’s interests but will also have serious consequences in the future. It will endanger the very independence of the nation, which the proposed partition claims to protect. Such a division will not resolve the issues faced by minorities, but rather exacerbate them, and it will not be in the interest of Muslims either.
We believe that coalition governments should be formed at the centre and in the provinces and that effective safeguards should be provided for the special interests of the minorities. We therefore urge the leaders presently negotiating to prevent the partition of the country to examine the situation with patience and impartiality and arrive at a settlement which will ensure full protection of the interests of all concerned, maintain the unity of India, give strength to its voice, make it respected among the other nations of the world and protect it from the threat of foreign domination in future.”
The national records provided below indicate that Savarkar and the Hindu Mahasabha were opposed to the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. Readers can view them here, here, here, and here.
In one of his speeches, Mohammad Ali Jinnah had mentioned that Vinayak Savarkar was against the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah said, “What is the Hindu Mahasabha doing? Its objective is to make Hindus military and industrial, to encourage them to join the army, navy, and air force, and to support war. Whose militarization? Whose industrialization? The Hindu nation’s. I ask Savarkar and Field Marshal Monejee: Do you think everyone in this country is a fool? Do you think you can fool the British? Why this procrastination, and why this ostentatious loyalty behind recruiting Hindus into the army, navy, and air force? And then what will they do? The answer is clear. Then they say, ‘Pakistan will fly in the air, and the British will return to London and settle there.’ Don’t you think people who speak like this should be locked up somewhere?”
We further examined the statements of various prominent figures who were involved in the ideological discussions surrounding the two-nation theory and the division of India.
In 1930, Allama Iqbal, in his presidential address at the All-India Muslim League session in Allahabad, stated: “Islam is not only a religion but also a civilization. Both are interconnected. If one is abandoned, the other will also be lost. Forming a political system based on Indian nationalism would mean deviating from the principle of Islamic unity, which no Muslim can even think of.”
He went on to say, “No Muslim will accept a situation where, due to national identity, they are forced to abandon their Islamic identity. I wish to see Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Sindh, Kashmir, and Balochistan merged into a self-rule state, whether within or outside the British Empire. The establishment of a large Muslim state in the north-west is the destiny I foresee for the Muslims.”
On June 21, 1937, Iqbal wrote to Jinnah again, recalling, “I remember that before I left England, Lord Lothian told me that the only solution to India’s problems was partition, but it would take 25 years to materialize.”
On January 28, 1933, Rahmat Ali and his associates published a four-page booklet titled “Now Or Never”. In it, they wrote, “In its current state, India is neither the name of a single country nor a single nation. It is a state created for the first time by the British. In the five northern provinces, out of a population of around forty million, nearly thirty million are Muslims. Our religion and culture, our history and traditions, our social behavior and economic system, our laws regarding transactions, inheritance, and marriage, are completely different from the majority of the rest of India. These differences are not trivial. Our way of life is very distinct from that of the Hindus. There is neither inter-dining nor inter-marriage between us. Our customs, even our food and clothing, are different.”
In this booklet, Chaudhary Rahmat Ali first mentioned the name Pakistan for the proposed Muslim country. He started the Pakistan National Movement in 1933 and started publishing a weekly magazine called Pakistan on 1 August 1933. He also defined the word Pakistan as follows:
Rahmat Ali also printed a map in the booklet, which showed three proposed Muslim states within India: Pakistan, Bangistan (Eastern Bengal, now Bangladesh), and Dakshini Usmanistan (Hyderabad, the princely state ruled by the Nizam). However, neither Rahmat Ali’s idea of Pakistan nor Allama Iqbal’s concept of a separate Muslim state mentioned Bengal. Yet, when Pakistan was eventually formed, Eastern Bengal was included as East Pakistan, which later became Bangladesh.
In March 1888, in a speech delivered at Meerut, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, said, “The foremost question is: who will hold power in this country? Suppose the British leave with their army, cannons, weapons, and everything else, then who will be the ruler of this land? Is it possible that Hindus and Muslims will sit together on the same throne? Certainly not. For that to happen, each would have to conquer the other, defeat the other. The idea that both can be equal partners in power is not practical.”
He proceeded to say, “At the same time, you must remember that even if Muslims are fewer in number than Hindus, do not assume they are weak. They have the strength to retain their position. And if it seems they don’t, our Pathan brothers will emerge from the mountains and hills and spill rivers of blood from the frontiers to Bengal. Who will be victorious after the British leave is in Allah’s hands. But until one nation conquers the other and makes it submit, peace cannot prevail in this country. India cannot have a representative government, because such a government requires the rulers and the ruled to belong to the same community.”
Sir Syed asserted further, “Just as the British conquered this country, we too once ruled and enslaved it. Allah has appointed the British as our rulers. Whatever needs to be done to strengthen their rule, do it honestly. You may understand this, but those who never ruled this land, who never achieved victory (the Hindus), they will not understand this. I want to remind you that you have ruled many countries. You ruled India for 700 years. You held many lands under your dominion for centuries. And I must add, in the future too, we must never become the subjects of polytheist Hindus, rather than the subjects of the ‘people of the book.’”
He urged Muslims, “Think for a moment, who are you? What is your nation? We are the people who ruled India for six to seven centuries. Power passed from our hands to the British. Our (Muslim) nation is built on the blood of those who trampled not only Arabia but also Asia and Europe under their feet. Ours is the nation that conquered monotheistic India by the sword. If Muslims rise in protest against the government, it will not be like the soft protests of the Hindus. The government will have to summon the army, use guns, and enact new laws to fill the jails.”
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar records in Pakistan or the Partition of India that Sir Syed Ahmad had urged Indian Muslims not to consider India as Dar-ul-Harb (Land of War) merely because it was under British rule instead of Muslim rule. He urged Muslims to regard India as Dar-ul-Islam (Land of Islam), since they were free to observe their essential religious customs and festivals according to their faith. Although the movement for Hijrat (migration) eventually faded away, the belief that India is Dar-ul-Harb was never fully abandoned. Around 1920, during the Khilafat Movement, Muslim patriots began to revive this idea. This belief did not go unnoticed among the Muslim masses. Not only did many Muslims express a desire to act according to Islamic law, but they even left their homes and migrated to Afghanistan.”
Ambedkar continues, “It is important to note that for Muslims who find themselves in Dar-ul-Harb, migration is not the only solution. The second directive under Islamic religious law is Jihad (holy war). According to this, it is the duty of every Muslim ruler to continue expanding Islamic rule until the entire world comes under Muslim control. Due to the world being divided into two spheres, every country is classified either as Dar-ul-Islam (Land of Islam) or Dar-ul-Harb (Land of War). Technically, every capable Muslim ruler is obligated to convert Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. And in India, just as there were instances of Muslims choosing migration (Hijrat), there were also instances where they did not hesitate to declare Jihad.”
Ambedkar subsequently notes, “The fact remains that, according to Islamic principles, India, even if not under Muslim rule, is still considered Dar-ul-Harb, and therefore, declaring Jihad by Muslims is justified. Not only can they declare Jihad, but they are also permitted to seek assistance from foreign Muslim powers for its success, and if a foreign Muslim power declares Jihad, Indian Muslims can help it succeed.”
He elaborates, “According to the doctrines of the Muslim religion, the world is divided into two parts, Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb. A Muslim-ruled country is Dar-ul-Islam. A country where Muslims merely live but do not rule is Dar-ul-Harb. Because of this doctrine under Islamic law, India cannot be the motherland of both Hindus and Muslims. It can be a land for Muslims, but not a land where both Hindus and Muslims live together as equals. When Muslims rule over it, then it can be a land for Muslims. But currently, as this land is under non-Muslim authority, it cannot be considered a land of Muslims. Rather than being Dar-ul-Islam, it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.”
He adds, “We should not assume that this view is merely theoretical. It has had a very profound effect on the behaviour of Muslims. When the British took over India, the Hindus did not express any concern. But the Muslims raised the question whether India was still a place fit for them to live in. A debate began within the Muslim community, which according to Dr. Titus lasted for half a century, whether India was Dar-ul-Harb or Dar-ul-Islam. Some of the more religious people led by Sir Syed Ahmad declared Jihad in the true sense, preached the need for migration (Hijrat) to Muslim-ruled areas and spread their movement throughout India.”
In his book, Dr. Ambedkar cites a 1928 manifesto by Hasan Nizami, in which he stated, “Muslims are different from Hindus. They cannot mingle with them because Muslims conquered India through bloody wars, and the British took India from them (the Muslims). Muslims are a distinct nation and the only rightful rulers of India. They will never give up their identity or individuality. They ruled over the Hindus for centuries, and hence their right over this land is undiminished.
Hindus are a minority community in the world. They are constantly engaged in internal quarrels. They believe in Gandhi and worship the cow. They consider themselves polluted by drinking water from the hands of others. Hindus neither have the will nor the time to think about self-government. Let them keep fighting among themselves. Do they even have the capacity to rule others? Muslims have ruled and will continue to rule.”
On December 30, 1906, when the All-India Muslim League was founded, ‘Lal Ishtihars‘ (Red Declarations) were distributed among the representatives. The historian R.C. Majumdar, in his book History of Freedom Movement in India, has published the contents of this declaration. The Red Declaration stated:”
As documented in Dr. Ambedkar’s book, Maulana Azad Subhani, in response to a question posed by another Maulana during a gathering in Sylhet on 27 January 1939, expressed the following views.
“If there is any prominent leader in India who wishes to drive the British out of this country, it is me. Despite this, I do not want the Muslim League to fight the British. Our real fight is against the 220 million Hindu enemies, who are in the majority. Only 4.5 million British have managed to capture the entire world and become powerful. If these 220 million Hindus, who are ahead in education, intellect, wealth, and numbers, also become powerful, then they will not only capture all of India but will eventually swallow up Egypt, Turkey, Kabul, Mecca, Medina, and other Muslim nations just like Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog), who according to the Quran, will appear before the end of the world and consume everything they come across.
The British are gradually weakening and in the near future, they will leave India. Therefore, if we do not fight the Hindus, the greatest enemies of Islam, and weaken them now, they will not only establish Ram Rajya (a Hindu ideal state) in India but will gradually spread throughout the world.
It now depends on the 90 million Indian Muslims to decide whether they want to let Hindus become strong or keep them weak. Hence, it becomes the supreme religious duty of every devout Muslim to join the Muslim League and wage a struggle so that Hindus cannot establish dominance, and once the British leave, Muslim rule can be established in India.
Although the British are enemies of Muslims, our current battle is not with them. First, through the Muslim League, we must settle things with the Hindus. Only after that can we easily drive out the British and establish Muslim rule in India. Beware! Do not fall into the trap of the Congress-backed Maulvis, because the Muslim world can never be safe in the hands of 220 million Hindu enemies.”
Readers should note that in 1937, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar stated in his speech that the communal question between Hindus and Muslims is the result of centuries-old cultural, religious, and national conflicts inherited over time. These issues can be resolved when the right time comes, but by refusing to acknowledge them, you cannot suppress them.
Dr. Ambedkar reflects on Hindu-Muslim relations in Pakistan or the Partition of India by writing, “They have remained like armed battalions struggling against each other. No cycle of collective contribution toward any common achievement has ever existed. Their past is a past of mutual destruction, a past of mutual hostility, both in political and religious spheres. As Bhai Parmanand pointed out in his pamphlet titled ‘Hindu National Movement’ in history, Hindus respectfully remember Prithviraj, Pratap, Shivaji, and brave ascetics who fought against the Muslims for the honor and freedom of this land, whereas Muslims consider as their national heroes invaders like Muhammad bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb. In the religious domain, Hindus draw inspiration from the Ramayana, Mahabharata, and the Gita, while Muslims draw theirs from the Quran and Hadith. In this way, dividing factors outweigh those that unite.”
While reflecting on Islamic invaders, Dr. Ambedkar wrote, “The Muslim invasions of India were not only attacks against India, but also mutual wars among Muslims themselves. This fact is often concealed because all invaders are collectively labeled as Muslims without distinction. They were mortal enemies of each other, and the aim of their wars was also to eliminate one another. However, what is important to keep in mind is that despite all these disputes and conflicts, they were all driven by one common objective, the destruction of Hinduism.”
Dr. Ambedkar also asserted, “The tactics employed by the invaders left behind consequences that continued to unfold in the future. One such consequence is the bitterness between Hindus and Muslims, which is a direct outcome of those methods. This bitterness has taken such deep root that even a century of political life has neither succeeded in calming it nor have people been able to forget it. Since these invasions were accompanied by the destruction of temples, forced conversions, devastation of property, massacres and slavery, and the humiliation of men, women, and young girls, is it any wonder that these attacks have always remained in memory? They became a source of pride for Muslims and of humiliation for Hindus.”
In his analysis of the Hindu-Muslim riots from 1920 to 1940, Dr. Ambedkar stated, “If we consider the tireless efforts made by Mr. Gandhi to establish Hindu-Muslim unity, a very tragic and heart-wrenching picture emerges. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it is a record of a twenty-year-long civil war between Hindus and Muslims in Hindustan, interrupted only by brief periods of armed peace.”
Dr. Ambedkar emphasized further, “Without any remorse and without any shame, people committed such beastly atrocities against women, and their own community members did not even condemn them. This incident reflects the extent of mutual hatred and hostility between the two communities. The intensity of rage on both sides gives the impression that two nations were at war with each other. Hindus committed violence, looted, and destroyed religious places of the Muslims, and Muslims did the same to Hindus. All kinds of atrocities were committed, perhaps Muslims committed more against Hindus, and Hindus less against Muslims.
There were several incidents of arson in which Muslims set Hindu houses on fire in such a manner that entire families, men, women, and children were burnt alive. And the Muslims watching these scenes felt great pleasure. What is astonishing is that this deliberate and ruthless cruelty was not considered an atrocity that needed to be condemned, but simply regarded as a method of warfare for which there was no need to apologize.
The history of the last 30 years shows that Hindu-Muslim unity has not been achieved. On the contrary, there exists a vast gulf between them. Continuous and sincere efforts have been made toward unity, and now nothing remains to be done except that one party completely surrenders to the other. If a person, who is not an optimist, and for whom being optimistic is not justified says that Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage and the idea of unity should be abandoned, no one can have the courage to call him a pessimist or an impatient idealist. It is now for the Hindus to decide whether they will still strive for unity in spite of all the unfortunate efforts or abandon this struggle and seek some other basis for co-existence.”
Dr. Ambedkar noted further in his writings, “The religious beliefs, social outlook, ultimate destiny, and their communal and political expressions of the Hindus and Muslims are such that they indicate the mental state of both communities with regard to their future, whether they will continue to fight or be able to live with love and cooperation. Past experiences indicate that harmony is not possible. There are such vast differences and disparities between them that they can never live in an atmosphere of love and goodwill either as one nation or as two communities of one nation.
These mutual differences and disagreements do not just lead to separation; rather, they keep both communities in a state of conflict. These differences are permanent, and the Hindu-Muslim problem is a permanent one.
To try to solve this problem by assuming that Hindus and Muslims are one, or if not now, they will become one in the future, is a futile effort, as futile as was proven in the case of Czechoslovakia. Therefore, the time has come when we must accept certain facts indisputably, even if doing so is painful. First of all, we must accept that all possible efforts have been made to unite Hindus and Muslims, but all of them have failed.”
Dr. Ambedkar stated, “What is the true explanation for the failure of efforts made for Hindu-Muslim unity and the tragic developments in the ideology of Muslims? The principal reason for the failure of Hindu-Muslim unity is the lack of realization that the differences between Hindus and Muslims are not mere differences, and that the feelings of mutual resentment are not caused solely by material reasons.
The source of this divergence lies in historical, religious, cultural, and social animosities, political hostility is merely a reflection of these. All these factors form a river of discontent, nourished by various streams that overflow and flood the main current. Any stream of water, no matter how pure, when it merges into this main current, does not change its nature but instead becomes like it.
This sediment of ill-will that has settled into the stream has now become deep and solid. As long as this animosity persists, expecting unity between Hindus and Muslims is unnatural.”
In his book, Ambedkar further wrote, “Just like in the Turkish Empire, where Christians and Muslims have fought many battles and stood against each other as enemies, similar conflicts have occurred between Hindus and Muslims in India. Following such events, their relations turned into those of victors and the vanquished. Despite the deep chasm between them, there existed a forced political unity, whether under Muslim rule, British rule, or any other, yet instead of improving relations, dissatisfaction continued to grow.
Neither religion nor social codes could bridge this gulf. These two religions are fundamentally opposed to each other, and despite whatever forced harmonization may have been attempted for social order, no internal harmony has been achieved. A natural antagonism exists between the two, which centuries have failed to eliminate.
Despite the efforts of reformers like Akbar and Kabir, who tried to bring both communities together, certain moral realities still exist between the two that suggest they can never be brought to the same level. A Hindu may convert to Christianity without any social upheaval or shock, but the same Hindu cannot adopt Islam without communal riots or hesitation. This indicates the deep resistance between Hindus and Muslims that separates them.
If Islam and Hinduism divide Hindus and Muslims in matters of personal belief, they also prevent them from social interaction. It is well known that Hinduism prohibits intermarriage with Muslims. This exclusivity is not unique to Hinduism, Islam also prohibits marriage between Hindus and Muslims. With such social codes in place, there can be no social intercourse between the two. As a result, there can be no unity in their outlook or way of life, nor can the age-old stream of beliefs flowing through each ever be changed.
There are further flaws in both Hinduism and Islam which prevent the healing of the wounds between Hindus and Muslims. One may say that Hinduism divides people, while Islam unites them, but this is a half-truth, for Islam also divides people as much as Hinduism does. Islam is like a closed corporation. The distinction it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is concrete and unmistakable. The fraternity of Islam is not the fraternity of mankind. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. For those outside its corporate body, it offers only hatred and enmity.
The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government. Because the loyalty of Muslims is not to the country in which they live but to the religious faith to which they belong. It is difficult for a Muslim to think otherwise. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there lies its faith. In other words, Islam does not permit a true Muslim to accept India as his motherland or regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. Perhaps this is the reason why a great Indian but true Muslim like Maulana Mohammad Ali preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.”
The further passage in the book states that the ideological transformation seen in Muslim leaders cannot be termed a deceitful change of mind. This transformation points to a new destiny under a new light, which they have given a new name ‘Pakistan’.
With the separation of Pakistan from Hindustan, Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, etc., are forming a union that will stretch from Constantinople to Lahore. A Muslim would truly be a fool if, after seeing the map of his new destiny, he did not completely change his thinking about what place Muslims hold in India. The goal of Muslims is so clear that one often wonders why it took them so long to adopt it. There is evidence that some Muslims had already grasped this ultimate goal as early as 1923. N.M. Samarth, of the Committee on the North-West Frontier Province, has especially drawn attention to this in his report on minorities.
In response to a question in this report, Khan Sahib Sardar said that Hindu-Muslim unity would never become a reality. Let us then accept the division between Hindus and Muslims. To the south, 230 million Hindus, and to the north, 80 million Muslims. From Kanyakumari to Agra should be given to the Hindus, and from Agra to Peshawar to the Muslims. What I mean is: the transfer of people from one place to another. It is the idea of population exchange, not massacre.
The Russian Revolution was against private property. It was about the nationalization of all property. But this idea is limited only to population exchange. It may not seem practical. However, if it were practical, we would definitely prefer it over any other arrangement.
Dr. Ambedkar wrote that “In 1924, at the Bombay session of the Muslim League, Mr. Muhammad Ali, in a resolution regarding the application of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms to the North-West Frontier Province, proposed that Muslims of the frontier province should have the right of self-determination, whether to remain with India or to align with Kabul. He even quoted an Englishman who said that if a straight line were drawn from Constantinople to Delhi, it would show that the Muslim corridor extends up to Saharanpur. Perhaps Mr. Muhammad Ali was already aware of the full plan of Pakistan, which inadvertently came to light during the evidence, as noted by Mr. Samarth, and that is, the ultimate linkage of Pakistan with Afghanistan.”
Writing about Hindu-Muslim unity, Ambedkar noted that “The harm of forced unity is that it will necessitate finding a basis to settle the Hindu-Muslim problem. There is no need to explain how difficult it would be to solve this problem. What else can be done except to divide India into Hindustan and Pakistan? Considering the other interests of the country, it is difficult to think of anything more that could be done to resolve this issue without causing harm elsewhere. There is no doubt that as long as this forced unity remains, as long as communalism is not resolved, India will not be able to make any political progress. Between Hindus and Muslims, who we must now consider two separate nations there must be a communal agreement, rather an international agreement. This has become essential for the politics of forced unity.”
According to Dr. Ambedkar’s book in 1924, the editor of a Bengali newspaper interviewed poet Dr. Rabindranath Tagore. In this interview, Rabindranath Tagore said, “What makes Hindu-Muslim unity impossible is the nature of Muslim patriotism, which they are unable to uphold for any one nation.”
The poet said that he had asked several Muslims candidly, that if any Muslim power attacked India, would they stand alongside their Hindu neighbors to defend their country? The answers he received did not satisfy him. He said he could assert with certainty that the statement by a person like Mr. Muhammad Ali, that under no circumstance can a Muslim, wherever he may reside, stand against a fellow follower of Islam, proves the impossibility of such unity.”
Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan III, the 48th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims, founding member and first president of the Muslim League, wrote in The Memoirs of Aga Khan, “By accepting our demands, Lord Minto laid the foundation of all the constitutional proposals which were later presented by British governments in relation to India, and the inevitable final result of that was the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan.”
(The Act of 1909 is known as the Morley-Minto Reforms. Under this Act, for the first time, a system of separate electorates for Muslims was introduced. It created constituencies where only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates.)
Aga Khan further wrote that “At that time, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was our critic and opponent, but later he emerged victorious as the undisputed leader of nearly eighty million Muslims and succeeded in the creation of a separate and independent nation, Pakistan. For this cause, we were initially working unknowingly and indirectly, but in the end, he advanced toward the same goal with full consciousness, clarity, and with the entirety of his will and intellect.”
Also Read: Viral Graphic Falsely Claims 150 Accused in Murshidabad Violence Gave Statements in Hindi
This website uses cookies.