Nationally is a social feeling. It is a feeling of a corporate sentiment of oneness which makes those who are charged with it feel that they are kith and kin. This national feeling is a double-edged feeling. It is at once a feeling of [fellowship for one’s own kith and kin and an anti-fellowship [feeling for those who are not one’s own kith and kin. It is a feeling of “consciousness of kind” which on the one hand binds together those who have it, so strongly that its over-rides all differences arising out of economic conflicts or social gradations and, on the other, severs them from those who-are not of their kind. It is a longing net to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling. Now apply this lest to the Muslim claim. Is it or is it not a fact that the Muslims of India are an exclusive group? Is it or is it not a fact that they have a consciousness of kind? Is it or is not a fact that every Muslim is possessed by a longing to belong to his own group and not to any non-Muslim group? If the answer to these questions is in the alloreactive, then the controversy must end and the Muslim claim that they are a nation must be accepted without cavil. What the Hindus must show is that notwithstanding some differences, there are enough alinidines between Hindus and Mailman’s constitute them into one nation, or, lo use plain language. which make Muslims and Hindus long to belong together. Hindus, who disagree with the Muslim view that |]; the Muslims are a separate nation by themselves, rely upon certain features of Indian social life which |F seem to form the bonds of integration between Muslim society and Hindu society (p.31) In the first place, it is said that there is no difference of race between the Hindus and the Muslims. |; Punjabi Musalman and the Punjabi Hindu, the UP Mailman and the UP Hindu, the Bihar Mus 1e Bihar Hindu, | the Bengal Musalman and the Bengal Hindu, the Madras Musalman and the as Hindu. and the Bombay Musalman and the Bombay Hindu are racially of one stock. Indeed, there is more racial salinity between the Madras Musalman and the Madras Brahmin than there is between the Madras Brahmin and the Punjab Brahmin. In the second place, reliance is placed upon linguistic unity between Hindus and Muslims. It is said that the mailman’s have ne common language of their own which Ean mark them off as a linguistic group separate from the Hindus. On the contrary, there is a complete linguistic unity between the two. In the Punjab, both Hindus and Muslims speak Punjabi. In Sind, both speak Sindhi. In Bengal, both speak Bengali. In Gujarat, both speak Gujarati. In Maharashtra, both speak Marathi. So, in every province. It is only in lawns that the mailman’s speak Urdu and the Hindus the language of the province. But outside, in the mofussil, there ‘is complete linguistic unity between Hindus and mailmen. Thistly. it is pointed out that India is the land which the Hindus and mailman’s have now inhabited together for centuries. It is not exclusively the land of the Hindus, nor is it exclusively the land of the Mahomedans (p-32) All this, no doubt, is true. That a large majority of the Muslims belong to the same race as the Hindus is beyond question. That all Mahomedans de not speak a common longue, that many speak the same language as the Hindus cannot be denied. That there are certain social customs which are common io both cannot be gainsaid. That certain religious rites and practices are common to both is also a matter of fact. But the question is: can all this support the conclusion that the Hindus and the Mahomedans on account of them constitute one nation or these things have fostered in them a feeling that they long to belong to each g other? There are many {laws in the Hindu argument. In the first place, what are pointed out as common features are not the result of a conscious attempt to adopt and adapt to each other’s ways and manners lo bring about social fusion. On the other hand, this uniformly is the result of certain purely mechanical causes. They are partly due to incomplete conversions. In a land like India, where the majority the Muslim population has been recruited from caste and out-caste Hindus, the Muslimizalion of lie convert was neither complete nor electoral, either from [ear of revolt or because of the method of persuasion or insufficiency of preaching due to insufficiency of priests. There is, therefore, little wonder if great sections of the Muslim community here and there reveal their Hindu origin in their religious and social life. Partly it is to be explained as the effect of common environment to which both Hindus and subjected for centuries. A common environment is bound to produce common reactions, and reacting constantly in the same way lo the same environment is bound to produce ae type. Partly are these common features to be explained as the remnants of a period of religious am; on between the Hindus and the Muslims inaugurated by the Emperor Akbar, the result of a dead past which has no present and no future (p.34).
(Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, Volume VII “Pakistan or Partition of E India”, 1990, Rs.40, Gout. of Maharashtra, Bombay). The book may be had from Director, Government Printing, Stationery and Publications, Netaji Subhash Road, Bombay – 400 004.
