Jessica Ward

History 114B
Apri 28, 2015

Muslim Nationhood and Indian Independence: A Dialogue

Editors note: Below is a dialogue which I have collected from many conversations with many
esteemed individuals on the nature of the nations of India. The question of how an independent
India should be ruled is an important one, and it is one which deeply divides the subcontinent.
The political dialogue which has been created around this issue is one that is happening all
throughout India1. Imagine the following dialogue as a play, or a radio show, or in a film reel. It
could be set in a restaurant between two farmers sharing tea, two women cooking, or two
politicians debating in front of a crowd.
This is a dialogue in which we are all taking part in. It encompasses many important questions
which will need to be answered before India can achieve its independence, the chief of which is
the very question of the definition of nationhood itself. What is India? What is a nation?
Additionally, the question of representation is closely intertwined with the definition of
nationhood. Who may speak on behalf of a nation? It is my firm belief that Congress is wrong in
its belief that it is the sole representative of the Indian people, because I believe that there is no
single Indian nation. Muslims are, and always have been, a separate nation. In order to secure

In this vein, I have liberally borrowed the words of the leaders of the Muslim league, whose words illustrate the
dialogue as it is happening now.

!1

their own security Muslims must act for themselves, following the Muslim league, in order to
secure their own borders and not put themselves at the mercy of the Hindu majority.
Reader: I cannot understand why you think it is necessary to divide India, or what good it would
do for Muslims. Why can Hindus and Muslims not co-exist peacefully in a single independent
India?
Editor: This is a complicated question, and it is helpful to first think of the question itself. Lets
break down the assumptions of your question. Firstly, you assume that India as it is currently
exists is a single nation. You assume that Hindus and Muslims are citizens of a single nation. You
assume that an independent India would encompass the whole of British India, undivided. You
and I arrive at different answers not only because we have different arguments, but because we
are asking different questions entirely. Thus I find that your premises are wrong as you as you
start with the theory of an Indian nation that does not exist, and naturally, therefore, your
conclusions are wrong.2
Reader: Well then, what is India if not a nation?
Editor: What is India? India is not a nation, nor a country. It is a subcontinent composed of
nationalities, Hindus, and Muslims being the two major nations.3 India is, at the present, in
control of the British, who took their control from the Mughals and expanded it far beyond
Mughal borders. Without the British, South India would have its own Hindu kingdoms and North
India would have its Muslim kingdoms, and scattered throughout would be Hindu princes and
2. Jinnah, Mohammad Ali, Some Recent Speeches and Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Ahmad, Jamal-Ud-Din Ed., Sh.
Muhammad Ashraf Kashmiri Bazar, Lahore, 1942, pg 120
3

Jinnah 120

!2

Muslim princes who have loyalty to one king or another. Aside from a single colonizer, what
brings India together? Certainly not nationhood. [Gandhi] says that it is vivisection of India. It
gives you at once a feeling of horror. Is it really to frighten the Muslims not to commit the
vivisection of India? Is it really to frighten the Hindus that their motherland is vivisected by
those wretched Muslims? May I know when was India one?4
Reader: Look further back, to ancient times, before the British colonizers and the Mughal
invaders, surely that is what we as a nation could be. That was when we were one.
Editor: I assert again, that India is not, and never has been, a single united nation. We Muslims
live in this soil and are buried in this soil, certainly we have had sufficient time to become a
nation; after 500 years surely we are no long invaders or foreigners, but our own nation onto
ourselves.
Reader: What makes Muslims a nation? What makes a Muslim any different from his Hindu
neighbor? Certainly there is more difference between a Muslim in Kashmir and a Muslim in
Hyderabad then there are between the Muslim in Hyderabad and his Hindu neighbor. Isnt it
better to think as Muslims as a minority within a single, undivided state?
Editor: How do you define a nation? The Hindus and Muslims being to two different social
religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither neither intermarry nor inter-dine,
and indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas
and conceptions . It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different

Jinnah 219

!3

sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes.5 It is also
the universalistic nature of Islam which has formed Muslim society and binds all Muslims in
unity across the entire subcontinent. Muslim society, with its remarkable homogeneity and inner
unity, has grown to be what it is, under the pressure of the laws and institutions associated with
the culture of Islam.6
You ask me what is the difference between the Muslim and his Hindu neighbor, and I ask you,
where is the similarity? If a Hindu family and a Muslim family cannot be joined in marriage,
then how can a Hindu and a Muslim be joined in nationhood? These are two communities with
two completely different customs, societies, and ways of thought, two communities who can live
side but side, but not under one roof. It makes no difference if that roof is a house or a nation.
That is how I define a nationhood. So, to me, the logical conclusion is that it is as clear as
daylight that we are not a minority. We are a nation, and a nation must have territory. What is the
use of merely saying we are a nation? A nation does not live in the air. it lives on the land, it must
govern, and it must have territorial state and this what you want to get it.7
Reader: But even if one accepts the idea of Muslims and Hindus being two separate nations, why
is territorial division necessary? Under a democracy, shouldnt this be reflected in the results of
elections? Shouldnt then, Muslims naturally, without any separation of electorate or territory,
vote for their fellow Muslim?

Jinnah 153

Iqbal, Sir Muhammad, 1930 Presidential alAddress to the 25th Session of the All-India Muslim League, Allahabad,
December 29, 1930, pg 1
7

Jinnah 213

!4

Editor: There are two principle arguments against democracy on its own being a solution, the
first being the size of the Hindu population compared to the Muslim one, and the second being
that we are in a state which has not fully received its rights yet, and Muslims must be represented
properly at the building of the constitution.
Regarding the difference in the size of our populations, democracy can only mean Hindi Raj all
over India. This is a position to which Muslims will never submit. 8 What does it matter if a
Muslim sits in the legislature if the Hindus outnumber him three to one? The Muslim can speak
all he wants, but it means nothing if he is outvoted on everything. What is the difference between
a delegation of Muslims who are powerless and no representation at all? I submit that here the
fascism of Hindus can continue to go undeterred because they are pre-determined to have a
majority. It is not the same to say a community has representation and a community is
empowered to make decisions for themselves. There are large parts of the country in which we
are the majority, in Punjab, in Bengal, in Baluchistan. Muslims should control the territory in
which we now live, but with Nehrus plan, we will be forced to bow down to the Hindus in the
center. Here, it is only power that matters, which is why the Hindus are content to give
representation to us as a concession, because it will mean nothing in the end.
Similarly, this is why we should not participate in the constituent assembly. If we are to bow
down to the Hindus, accept their authority and participate in this constituent assembly simply
because they give us weak concessions, then it will mirror the future of all Indian politics.
Muslims can never have real power in such a vastly Hindu majority state and by accepting the

Jinnah 86

!5

legitimacy of the constituent assembly this will surely entrench the power dynamics. We shall
never have a voice again.
Reader: But we can both agree that the ultimate goal is independence from the British. How will
we ever be able to accomplish this if the Muslims do not participate in our independence?
Editor: Here too, we must remember the question of the idea of India. There is no reason that
there needs to be a single India. Such a thing will only benefit Hindus. When thinking about
independence, it is not necessary for us to be singularly together. Those who support an singular
India have the wrong belief that India in someway is wholly a homeland to the Hindus. Our
demand is not from Hindus because the Hindus never took the whole of India. It was the
Muslims who took India and ruled for 700 years. It was the British who took India from the
Muslims, so we are not asking the Hindus to give us anything. Our demand is made to the
British, who are in possession. It is utter nonsense to say that Hindustan belongs to the Hindus.9
Reader: But the Indian National Congress is a secular organization, comprised of Hindus and
Muslims working together.
Editor: The INC claims to be for all Indians, but they do not care about ensuring rights for
Muslims. They wish for nothing but to dictate to us form New Delhi. It has in the last two and
half years not only declared itself as a fascist and authoritarian body but has actually translated
this principle into actual practice.10 Its time in office has shown that despite what ever they
claim, the INC is nothing but a collection of Hindus who will never work for Muslims. It is

Jinnah 217-218

10

Jinnah 85

!6

reviving throughout India the Hindu renaissance and domination and supremacy of Hinduism
over the entire subcontinent.11
Reader: Why cannot one single group represent both Muslims and Hindus?
Editor: Muslims and Hindus have a primordial conflict. What is good for Hindus cannot be good
for Muslims. Muslims require special representation by other Muslims and only other Muslims
because of the special need to create protections for the Muslim community. There may come a
time in which other political parties may flourish within out respective nations in which we come
together, but now is a special time because now we must ensure our rights are constitutionally
protected and to ensure that we get the territory and nation to which we are entitled. Until that
happens we cannot trust the future of our nation to the hands of Hindus who claim to represent
everyone, but will surely put the needs of their own people first when the time comes to make
decisions. Muslims cannot trust Hindus. We must stand up for ourselves and show the world that
we will only accept a future which is entirely in our own hands.
Reader: Why can the Muslim League not work with Congress?
Editor: Firstly, Congress exists under the rule of Mr. Gandhi, who, in no unclear terms, has
stated that he is not willing to work with us. Mr. Gandhi said: I would not accept any party
except the Congress. Damn it by whatever ahem you may, there can only be one party in
India, and that is the Congress.12 See, this is when Congress and Gandhi have clearly stated that
they are the sole representatives of Indians, all while ignoring the Muslim question. Mr. Gandhi,

11

Jinnah 85

12

Jinnah 105

!7

who is the sole interpreter and dictator of the Congress creates the impression that the
Congress is suffering from the inability to face realities and is obsessed that it alone
represents India.13
Reader: You bring up the case of Mahatma Gandhi, who goes against his Hindu brethren by
violating restrictions on intermingling with untouchables, one of the strongest taboos of Hindu
society. If he is willing to stand up for them, then why will he not be willing to stand up for any
injustice done to Muslims?
Editor: Firstly, I stand by my principle that it is Muslims and only Muslims who have the right
and the duty to speak for the Muslim community. Secondly, any Muslim who follows Gandhi or
the INC is foolish. Mr. Gandhis notion of justice to to follow what he advises, then alone it can
be just.14 To my knowledge, nowhere within Mr. Gandhis extensive writings acknowledges the
Muslim nationality. In fact, he is quite adamantly acknowledged to be against the idea. Just as he
acts in the stead of the aforementioned untouchable community, who are more than capable of
acting on their own behalf, so to will he decide what he believes to be just in the name of the
Muslim community. We Muslims cannot trust Mr. Gandhi to act for us. We have seen how
dictatorial he can be with his unilateral calling off the independence movement in 1922. We
could have been independent for twenty years, if not for the whim of Gandhi.

13

Jinnah 85

14

Jinnah 108

!8

Reader: So it is your belief that the Muslims can only be represented by the Muslim League?
How is this different from your criticism of Congress claim to be the sole representative of India
into account?
Editor: Congress claims to represent an India that does not exist. The Muslim League serves to
protect the rights of a nation which does exist, the Muslim nation. Additionally, the Congress can
make these broad claims to appeal to voters, but it is important to remember who holds the
power here? Who is trying to protect Muslims rights and who is trying to take away the right of
Muslims to speak for themselves. I believe that Muslims cannot be secure without special
protections and the Muslim league seeks to provide these. I think I am correctly stating that
today the Muslim League has raised the Muslims of India to a dignity; it has raised the Muslims
of India to have an honorable place in the affairs of the country and the national life of this
country. It has created amongst Muslims, rank and file, a spirit of discipline. It has given the
Muslims the most wanted self-respect and self-reliance. It has given Muslim India a correct
picture mirrored before you, a correct perspective of the great issues which are affecting the
Muslim nation today.15
Editors Note: As I hope you have seen here, Muslims have a duty. In order to secure our own
future, we must not fall prey to the Congress rhetoric of unitary nationalism. The Congress wants
nothing but to take control out of Muslim hands and place it into the hands of Hindus like
Gandhi and Nehru. We must not accept the ideas of promotional democracy or center ruled
government because doing so would undermine the Muslim cause. We must stand together, to

15

Jinnah 212

!9

question their ideas, to assert our identity as a unified nation of Muslims, and to fight for the
territory we are entitled to as a nation.

!10