Date: 14 February 1909
Location: London
Speaker: Aga Khan III
Source: Speeches of Aga Khan III – K K Aziz
Full Text
The ideal remains of a united people of one nationality – but differences between Hindus and Muslims must be recognized unifying tendency introduced by British rule – one element in the population should not be placed in a position where it can dictate to the other – separate Muslim electorate means sending represen tatives to an exclusively Muslim electoral college – the principle of minority representation should be applied to other small communi ties and extended to local government – a Muslim member in the Executive Council – Hindus cannot speak for the whole of India.
The ideal for my country to which I look forward is that of an eventually united people of one nationality among whom religious differences, now so acute, will have the minor signifi cance in social and political life they have, for instance, in the United States between Christians and Jews. There can never be, perhaps, so close an affinity between the various communities in India as between Catholics and Protestants in England, who, after all, are both believers in the main tenets of the Christian faith.
But while holding the ideal of a united people in India with strength and earnestness, I hold no less strongly that in framing the new political order of things statesmanship must take account of the wide differences which separate Hindus and Musulmans at the present time. These differences are not only religious, they are historical and physical, and in the latter respect, at least, they soon become marked, even in the case of recent converts to the Moslem faith. The changes of dietary habits, outlook, and social life generally consequent upon such conversion soon tell upon body and mind, as has often been pointed out. When I reflect upon the great distinctions between the two races distinctions more or less known to every one familiar with India _ I have to admit that fulfilment of the ideal of homogeneity lies in a future so distant that it is quite beyond me to predict the date of its arrival. If there is some tendency in the desired direction, it is the result of the unifying change wrought in India by British rule – of internal peace and security unknown before; of resources of civilization, such as railways and municipal water supplies, compelling some abrogation of the fetters of caste; of economic developments involving the co-operative work of different elements of the population; and of equality in law of all classes, in regard to the protection of person and property. These factors, though met by strong opposing forces, will, with other favouring conditions, slowly but surely do the work of unification, always provided there is no forcing of the pace by artificial stimulus prescribed from above, or, in other words, by political machinery created by the Sovereign Power.
The British Government has hitherto been most careful to maintain a neutral attitude as between one religion and another, and it has thus been in a position, moral as well as physical, to keep the peace when conflict, involving public disorder, has been threatened or has broken out. In this way the Government has created an atmosphere favourable to the spread of the spirit of real intellectual toleration. But the growth of this spirit is a work of time, and existing divisions will be widened instead of being bridged if at the present stage, by political machinery provided by the Sovereign power, one element in the population is placed in a position to dictate its will to the other elements. An Act of Parliament cannot weld into one, by electoral machinery, two nationalities so distinct as the Hindus and the Mahomedans. The former is a vast conservative and widely-varying federation, while Islam is a proselytizing and unifying faith, so closely corre sponding in doctrine and ritual with Judaism that it is much nearer in spirit and origin to Christianity than it is to Hinduism.
With such vast differences existing, it is certain that if one element gets excessive political power, or is in a position to dictate its will on the other, it will always not only be liable but compelled by religious and social circumstances to exert that authority. It is not that the leaders of the Hindu majority want to do us injustice, but they will be compelled by circumstances to use to the full the political supremacy over us they may possess. They have to take into account the crude and often fanatical notions of the unlettered throng. Even now, with the control of the executive authority entirely in neutral British hands, there are occasional L
outbreaks of rioting between the two communities, and such out breaks in all probability would be much more frequent and much more serious if an idea prevailed that political power held by one of the contending parties was being turned to racial account.
It has to be remembered that while educated men may be expected to have no real sympathy with riotous intolerance, pres sure may be brought to bear upon them by less-instructed family connexions and other co-religionists, and that usually, owing to neglect of female education, their own wives belong to the uneducated, and sometimes to the fanatical, portions of the population. Under ordinary conditions this liability to pressure might not greatly matter, but at times of stress these unhappy social influences will be felt. Thereby the gulf would be widened.
So from the very point of view of promoting a united India eventually, and the happiness of the country now and hereafter, we Mahomedans must protest against any features of the pro posed constitutional reforms which may work injustice. [I have] read with keen interest and appreciation the speeches on the subject of Mr. Ali Imam at the Amritsar Conference [of the All India Muslim League] and of Mr. Ameer Ali in London, as also the communications the latter had made to The Times.
I can cordially endorse their respective statements of the Maho medan position, and I am glad it has been put so clearly to Lord Morley. I trust his lordship will take an early opportunity of making definitive his intimation that he may be willing to concede the principle of an exclusively Mahomedan electorate sending their representatives to an exclusively Mahomedan elec toral college. Unless this modification of the original plan is effected there cannot be a fulfilment of the pledge given to the deputation I introduced to Lord Minto more than two years ago, that the rights and interests of the Moslem community would be safeguarded in any administrative reconstruction in which his Excellency might be concerned. As to the suggestion that Maho medans should be at liberty to elect members of other communities to represent them in the electoral colleges, the same right being given to Hindu and other electors, I am of opinion that while this might be done eventually without grave disadvantage, such a step would be most premature in existing conditions, and having regard to the business and social pressure which might in that case be put upon electors. For some years to come it should be laid down that members of the Mahomedan electoral colleges (I assume that the colleges are to be separate) should themselves be Mahomedans. [The Aga Khan went on to express keen regret that Lord Morley, while admitting the necessity for taking into account modifying local circumstances, desires to adhere to numerical strength as the main factor in determining the number of rep resentatives of the different communities.] Upon a strict proportional basis the Musulman representation will be absol utely inadequate. It must be sufficient, taking into account the balance of parties, to be of real importance as a political factor.
I quite agree with Mr. Ameer Ali that the many millions of outcast Hindus whose very touch and even their presence is defilement for the “twice-born” Brahmin cannot with justice be reckoned among the peoples whom high-caste Hindus can properly claim to represent. Moreover, in fixing electoral proportions regard must be had to the tendency revealed in the last three decennial census reports for the Moslem ratio to total population to increase while the huge Hindu ratio tends to diminish. For my part I see no reason whatever why the principle of minority representation should not be applied to minor communities as well as to the Mahomedans. On the contrary, I strongly favour such representation as an act of justice, and had health and strength permitted I would have drawn earnest attention to this respect of the subject. The difficulties in the way are not so great as has been suggested, for it so happens that in almost all cases the great bulk of the smaller communities are collected in provin cial areas, where their distinct representation can be easily arranged for. To give but two examples, the Sikhs are mainly centred in the Punjab, and the Buddhists in Burma or on its confines. No one who studies the subject can fail to be struck by the wide divergencies in ethnographic characteristics between one province and another. In view of these conditions, it seems to me that the only procedure by which the interests of authori ties can be safeguarded is for the legislative seats in the respective provinces to be apportioned not by mandate from Whitehall, but by the executive authority of the Viceroy in Council and the respective local Governments, nor should such apportionments be confined to the seats on the Legislatures. The principle should be extended to local self-government in all its forms; and all the way through, on rural boards, on municipalities and on the Councils there should be representation of Mahomedans by Mahomedans. [His Highness went on to say that he had noted with disap pointment Lord Morley’s statement that he could not assent to the proposition that if a Hindu is appointed to the Executive Council a Mahomedan should also be appointed, and vice versa.] The Secretary of State has said that in making any recommenda tions to the Crown he will go upon the principle of appointing an Indian as such, and not as a Hindu or Mahomedan. This is all very well in theory, and would be satisfactory if there were to be found qualified men able to represent and trusted by both communities; but bearing in mind the enormous differences between them at this stage, it is scarcely too much to say that the Indian who could represent both has yet to be born. As to the objection that to give two out of six “ordinary” seats to Indians would be a serious step, I consider that this difficulty might be met by appointing both a Hindu and a Mahomedan to be advisers of the Viceroy and the Council without portfolio, but with the same emoluments as the members of the Council. Such appoint ments would, of course, be additional to the existing Council, and the arrangement would be more analogous to the precedent of two Indian appointments to the Council of the Secretary of the State to which Lord Morley referred as an advantage. The presence among the Viceroy’s colleagues of two Indians not absorbed in the charge of a department, but able to give advice from their knowledge of the Hindu and the Mahomedan mind respectively, would give to the deliberations of the Government of India a leisured element such as exists in the Englisp Cabinet, wherein men whose experience and knowledge is valued but who are free from heavy departmental work are available as holders of such offices as those of Lord Privy Seal, Lord President of the Council, and Chancellor of the Duchy. For my own part, I feel it would be better to have no Indian representation on the Execu tive Council than that it should be representative of only one of the leading communities.
The fact is that no reform scheme for India can yield satisfac tory results which does not deal with conditions as they exist today. It is futile to introduce methods that might be appropriate to the conditions of 50 years hence. They are bound to break down and to retard the growth of that national feeling which is to be desiderated. If present conditions are duly recognized, Hindus and Mahomedans will more and more come to see that they have many common interests, and thus will be evolved a spirit of homogeneity which can only be checked by premature and artificial methods of unification imposed by legislative and executive mandate. Now is the opportunity for leading Hindus to show a true spirit of patriotism and good will by recognizing that Mahomedan misgivings as to the original scheme are just and reasonable. They should frankly abandon the untenable claim that they speak for the whole of India, and they should recognize that the minority representation to which many of them agree in theory can [sic] be real and effective without the changes for which the Mahomedans have asked. By adopting such an attitude they will do far more to lay the foundations of eventual Indian nationality than by clamouring for adhesion to methods which, designed no doubt to advance that end, will in reality greatly retard it.
Source: The Times, London, 15 February 1909, and The Civil and Military Gazette, Lahore, 14 March 1909.
The making of the Morley-Minto reforms is described and analysed in the following works: Papers Relating to an Imperial Advisory Council and Provincial Advisory Councils, London, 1907, Cd. 3710; Advisory and Legislative Councils … , London, 1908, 3 vols, Cd. 4426, 4435 and 4436; &presentation of Muhammadans on Legislative Councils, London, 1909, Cd. 4652; London Muslim League, The Indian Muhammadans and the &forms, London, n.d. (? 1909); John, Viscount Morley, &collections, London, 1917,2 vols; Mary, Countess of Minto, India: Minto and Morley, 1905-1910, London, 1934; K K Aziz, Britain and Muslim India, London, 1963; S. R. Wasti, Lord Minto and the Indian Nationalist Movement, 1905 to 1910, Oxford, 1964; and Stanley A. Wolpert, Morley and India, 1906-1910, Berkley and Los Angeles, 1967.