11 November, 1888: Birth Anniversary Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

Maulana Sahib Statement

             Lord Zetland’s speech leaves things where they have been since the breakdown of the negotiations between Lord Linlithgow and Gandhiji in February last. I can only say that every difficulty that the Secretary of State raises is completely met by the proposed Constituent Assembly. The issue is simple. Is the British Government prepared to admit the right of self determination for India? If she is, then there can be only one proper method of finally deciding all the problems. They should be referred to the elected representatives of India. Only such an assembly can deal with problems relating to Hindus and Muslims and the Indian States. But if the British Government is not prepared to accept this position, then it is clear that they want to hold India by force. In such case there can be no common ground for mutual understanding.

            I therefore fail to understand why the Secretary of State continues to repeat the difficulty about the minorities and the Prince Who wants the British Government to coerce the minorities against their will, Who says that a decision should be forced on the unwilling Mussalmans? The Congress does not want dictate its own terms to others. It admits the fullest right of the minorities to formulate their own safeguards. It has no hesitation in admitting the right of the Muslims to determine their own method for safeguarding their rights and interests through their representatives. It only wants the recognition of a correct and democratic method of approach to the problems. The recognised minorities can send their representatives to this assembly through separate electorates if they choose to do so. So far as the settlement of their problems is concerned, it would not depend on the vote of the majority.

            The Muslim League has presented at its Lahore Session the idea of dividing India into Hindu and Muslim. This concept is so unreal, crude, fallacious and impracticable that on reconsideration the League itself would probably not insist on its realisation. But so far as the Congress is concerned, it has no hesitation in saying that this matter may also be entrusted to the Muslim representatives of the proposed assembly. The right to take such a step can vest only in the Mussalmans who are elected by Mussalmans themselves for such a purpose. The League can present any scheme but it cannot claim that the scheme is accepted by the totality or even the majority of the Mussalmans. I have no misgivings about the attitude of the Muslim members of such an assembly. They would never favour a vivisection of India.

The strangest portion of the speech of the Secretary of State is the one which he has chosen as his peroration. It ends thus: provided that Reuter’s Agency has reported the speech fully: - “Will the congress refrain from closing the door upon that unity of India which they themselves so passionately desire? It is not too much to say that upon the answer which the Congress Party will give to that question hangs the future fate of India.”

I tried to reach the meaning of these words but have to admit that I have failed. What action of the congress can be construed to bear the meaning given by the Secretary of State? The congress stands for complete Independence. This is clearly impossible without communal unity. But neither the one nor the other can be had without an assembly really representative of the people. There is no machinery which can give real unity.  The assembly and it alone can determine the way of unity and determine India’s status.

Lord Zetland’s speech seems to show that the British government do not wish to part with power. They will not recognise India’s right to determine for herself what she wants.

April 22, 1940

Source: M.K. Gandhi (Pyarelal) XV (Inst.), MSS, NMML