It may seem odd to compare the inexorable march of communalism and the process of appeasement which led to the partition of the country in 1947 with what has been happening in the country today. The same level of arrogance, assault on religious sensibilities of Hindus and the soft-pedalling by congress which was seen in pre-partition days is being re-enacted by those who swear by secularism in their bid to stem the rise and acceptance of Hindu sentiments.

The country had never seen anything like it. At a remote distance of time now we can review the situation clearer and more impartially. On the Hindu-Muslim question, Mahatma Gandhi’s comments are found to be controversial. His consuming passion for Hindu-Muslim unity could not change the heart of Muslims when Jinnah looked at him as his arch-enemy. The Khilafat, communal representation, music before mosques, shuddhi, Tabligh or proselytisation, articulate and demanding minority – Mahatma Gandhi’s views on all these subjects could not reduce friction amongst communities.

The popular perceptions of the present generation put Mahatma Gandhi’s solutions in dim light. And there are many reasons cited. When Swamy Shradhanand was killed by one Abdul Rashid, Mahatma Gandhi made an appeal to spare him, putting forth the argument that he had acted as per his religious teachings and even called him ‘Rashid Bhai’.

The Khilafat movement was the biggest blunder he made as it encouraged Muslims and made them violent. It was also the root cause of partition. When there was widespread killings of Hindus by Moplahs, Mahatma Gandhi referred to them as ‘brave Moplahs’. He advised Hindus to be tolerant even in face of apparent narrow-mindedness and isolationist attitude of Muslims. Jinnah’s strident separatist call which put assimilation of Muslims on trial, drowned all talk of Ahimsa. That the partition would come about only over his dead body remained merely a statement. There was no will to call the bluff; the intimidating Muslim voice panicked the ranks of Congress. Jinnah'’ call of ‘Pakistan or Civil War’ was handled in a cowardly manner and it ultimately corroded the body politic of India. The attitude of secularist scribes on Kashmir today has become somewhat identical; it is apologetic and riven with guilt.

Well before partition, in early forties Gandhi advised Sind Hindus to migrate somewhere else if they were not able to protect themselves. The seeds of Pakistan were sown by this acquiescence. Such comments of Gandhi are strewn in back numbers of Harijan. The Hindus who were 30% of the total population in Sind owned 50% of the land scattered all over the province. Hindus of Sind had demanded its re-amalgamation with Bombay province which could restore rule of law to Sind. This advice however for migration was a sad admission and a public confession that wherever Hindus were in minority Mahatma Gandhi would not be able to pacify aggressive Muslim Community despite his pious wishes and professed large heartedness.

When Jinnah got the Muslim League to pass a resolution favouring partition of India into two nations, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Harijan on April 6, 1940: “I do not believe that Muslims, when it comes to a matter of actual decision, will ever want vivisection. Their good sense will prevent them. Their self-interest will deter them. Their religion will forbid the obvious suicide which the partition would mean”. This was an impractical, defeatist view which overlooked the realities.

In the next breath in the same article Mahatma Gandhi wrote: “I know no non-violent method of compelling the obedience of eight crores of Muslims to the will of the rest of India, however powerful majority the rest may represent. The Muslims must have the same right of self-determination that rest of India has. We are at present a joint family. Any member may claim a division”. It was a frustrating admission by him of Jinnah’s winning two-nation theory. Jinnah presented the Muslim view highlighting differences in communities. He said that Islam and Hinduism were “different and distinct social orders and they can never evolve a common nationality…. This misconcept of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to reverse our notions in time”, Jinnah said.

But insistence on Islam as an exclusive religion – with a distinct social order and philosophy highlighted – did the magic in forties. Jinnah brought in sharp focus two different philosophies, perceptions, social customs and ridiculed any talk of assimilated and composite heritage. He said with a great appeal to Muslims: “Hindus and Muslims neither inter-marry nor inter-dine together and indeed they belong to different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”. There are many secularists who voice the same concern for minority ethos, psyche, denominational identity with anxiety from the swallowing majority, only the language has changed.

The Congress was identified with Hindus and Jinnah repeatedly said : “To live under Hindu rule is a sin”. It is on record Gandhi reacted very mildly to this poison and sang praises of Islam before Hindus. Even this was resented by Muslim press because it heaped scorn on Gandhi for the reason that his appreciative comments about Islam did not mean anything to Muslims; it was political as long as he himself remained non-Muslim. Let us see the nature of rebuke which was received by Mahatma Gandhi (HarijanSept.29, 1940). “Your flattering words about Islam are of no avail. The fact stands out that you are a non-Muslim. By making references to Holy Qoran you seek to impress the Muslims, which cannot be source of your ideas and ideals. It is my friendly advice to you to stop forthwith all reference to the Qoran. The Muslims, of course, do not need a Mahatma to interpret their own Holy Book”. The reaction to this hurting comment by Mahatma was more humiliating when he replies in the same issue of Harijan. Mahatma Gandhi says: “Many pious Muslims have remarked that I am a better Muslim than most Muslims in that I act in the spirit of the Quran and know more of the life of the Prophet than most Muslims”. Despite all rebuke he surprisingly insisted that he was a better Muslim.

In Harijan (March 8,1942) Gandhi wrote an article entitled “An appeal to Quaid-e-Azam” when a virulent article was published against Hinduism in a Muslim League paper founded by Jinnah and published by Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, Secretary of the League. Let us see what was the extent of virulence against Hinduism: “Hinduism is the greatest curse of India and it is based on intolerance and inequality. To call one-self a ‘Hindu’ is to confess that one is reactionary and narrow-minded. A decent, civilized, honest and sincere human being, who knows what Hinduism is and what it stands for, would like to be known as a Hindu join this faith of primitive barbarians. For, it is on barbarity that this so-called religion is based…We would far rather suggest to the students to prepare in their laboratories of the mind deadly bombs which would completely smash and destroy Hinduism, the greatest menace to India’s welfare and well-being”. Against this naked provocation, Mahatma Gandhi pleads in the article in Harijan that Jinnah has no quarrel with the Hindus: He wants to live in peace with them. I fancy that Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan have not seen the article in question. I plead for a juster estimate of man and things in paper representing the policy and programme of the Muslim League”. Mahatma Gandhi had nothing more to offer as reaction to such a venomous article.

Is it an accident that, for the second time since Independence, the most conspicuous and systematic attack on Hindu sensibilities has been launched by those who feel that by appeasing Muslims they can shove dirt under the carpet for ever?