RELATION BETWEEN THE HINDUS AND MUSLIMS

Research & Review: “History of Khaksar Movement in India” Thoroughly research and written by Prof. Amalendu De.

Next Inayatullah pointed out that under the present political circumstances the greatest problem in India was the relations between the Hindus and the Muslims. He was of opinion that the British have created this problem and have taken recourse to ‘divide and rule’ policy. The British thought that when the Hindus .and the Muslims would fight each other it would be easier for them to keep their dominion in India intact. They have taught little children through history books prescribed for the schools that the Muslims were very bad, that they had suppressed the Hindus, cut their tuft and torn their sacred thread.
Thus the Hindus were the victims of religious fanaticism. There was no peace and civilized atmosphere under the Muslim rulers. Moreover, canals, roads, bridges and schools were not constructed for the benefit of the common people. In short, the rule of the Muslims was a reign of terror. So, it was not worthwhile to stay even for a moment. In these circumstances, the Englishmen appeared and released the people from this intolerable condition. Exposing the unsoundness of this line of argument Inayatullah stated that the Hindus have come to know the truth and have become conscious of this false propaganda They have realized that it was the British who have destroyed the roots of religion in India within fifty years of the acquisition of political power for their own benefit. But under the Muslim rulers, which lasted over eight hundred years in India, the Hindus lost nothing. The British have interfered in their social and domestic affairs for which they have cut tufts and torn sacred threads by their own hands. It is a fact that the British are mainly concerned with earning money, i.e., through trade and commerce. Where as the Muslim rulers ruled this country keeping always in mind the welfare of their subjects. Naturally, there was no complaint against them. But the Hindus and the Congress bitterly resent the British rule. This reveals that “the Muslim rule was excellent”. Inayatullah also pointed out that the long period of Muslim rule in India was not disturbed by any movement like the Mutiny of 1857 and the present unrest. At that time the Muslims had full faith on the Hindus and the Hindus were equally faithful to the Muslims. Instances of real love and affection among each other are still available in the true history books.
In this connection Inayatullah referred to a book written on Indian history by a teacher from Ambala, published in 1867. The author of that book clearly exposed and condemned the ‘divide and rule policy of the British’ and commented that a time would come when both the Hindus and the Muslims would be treated as enemies by the British. Thus for pursuing this policy the government would be involved in such a complicated position that it would be very difficult for the government to come out of it. Inayatullah was surprised to note that long after sixty-four years of publication of that work the arguments of the author proved correct. Anyway, Inayatullah felt that the present Hindu-Muslim dispute, which has taken a complex form along with the growing strength of the Congress, is the most important and dangerous problem of Indian politics. ‘Unfortunately, the Charkha has failed to solve this problem. Inayatullah, of course, admitted that the Charkha has exposed the British economic policy which completely ruined India by draining out her wealth to England. It is also true that had it been possible to restrain the Hindu capitalists from purchasing foreign goods, India would not have been converted into a beggar country So, at first the Hindus committed crime.
Now through the Charkha movement they are performing penance. But this movement has generated ill-will against the British. It is a kind of economic weapon in the hands of a capitalist nation (the Hindus) against another capitalist nation (the British). It is an offensive arm in the hands of those who have taken part in the civil disobedience movement, in picketing and in courting arrests. In a sense this is a policy of wreaking vengeance.’
Naturally, under the influence of Charkha movement no one has resigned from his service, no title holders have relinquished their titles, no pleaders have given up their professions, the police and military personnel have not been affected at all, the law courts which are uprooting the moral character of the nation are working normally and the schools and colleges are functioning normally. Anyway, the Charkha movement could not weaken the governmental machinery and could not attract common people to cultivate Charkha seriously.
According to Inayatullah Charkha was a woman’s instrument and generally they used it. Men felt shy to ply it and it was always hidden in the houses. On account of its being ugly and heavy it could not be the symbol of the nation.
The Charkha movement solely depended on true faith and on one man. Explaining his opinion on the Charkha movement Inayatullah observed:
The Charkha has no capacity to liberate the country. It is impossible for a helpless and unarmed nation to achieve freedom by the instrument of revenge.’
Inayatullah clearly stated in the Isharat that in his programme of self-reform movement there would be no civil disobedience movement against the government, no jail yatra (going to jails) and no Khaddar wearing as instruments of revenge. He stood for self-reform, i.e., service of God, removal of the disunity of Muslims through impressive prayer in a military way and taming the hearts of proud people. And this cannot be done merely by lectures, meetings, parties, newspapers, advertisements and religious controversies, as uptil now these have produced only bad and negative effects.’