Statement of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,
Criticizing Lord Zetland’s Speech and Muslim League’s Idea of Dividing India
and Supporting Congress
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 to 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 problem
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 Mussalamans 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 Mussalams. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment