70. INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Partition Un-Islamic

I AM firmly convinced that the Pakistan demand as put forth by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possibly warring groups are enemies alike of India and Islam. (H, 6-10-1946, p. 339)

Two-Nations’ Theory Untrue

There may be arguable grounds for maintaining that Muslims in India are a separate nation. But I have never heard it said that there are as many nations as there are religions on earth. (H, 11-11-1939, p. 336)

The ‘two-nations’ theory is an untruth. The vast majority of Muslims of India are converts to Islam or descendants of converts. They did not become a separate nation as soon as they became converts. (H, 6-4-1940, p. 76)

I have always held that there is no distinction between the two [Hindus and Muslims]. Even though their observances differ, these do not separate them. They undoubtedly profess different religious, but they, like others, come from the same root. (H, 9-11-1947, p. 400)

No Forcible Resistance to Partition

As a man of nonviolence, I cannot forcibly resist the proposed partition if the Muslims of India really insist upon it. But is can never be a willing party to the vivisection. (H, 13-4-1940, p. 92)

My life is made up of compromises, but they have been compromises that have brought me nearer the goal …. If God so desires it, I may have to become a helpless witness to the undoing of my dream. (H, 4-5-1940, p. 115)

…. If the eight cores of Muslim desire it, no power on earth can prevent it, notwithstanding opposition violent or nonviolent. (ibid, p. 117)

To undo Pakistan by force will be to undo Swaraj. (H, 5-10-1947, p. 355)

It is possible to turn Pakistan, which I have declared an evil, into unadulterated good, if all the forebodings are dispelled and enmities are turned into friendship and mutual distrust gives place to trust. (H, 13-7-1947, p. 236)

Protection of Minorities

I cannot understand a Pakistan where no non-Muslims can live in peace and security, nor a Hindustan where the Muslims are unsafe. (H, 27-4-1947, p. 123)

I am working to this end. I am working in such a manner that the majority community in each State should go forward and create the necessary conditions of freedom. (H, 14-9-1947, p. 323)

My nonviolence bids me dedicate myself to the service of the minorities. It would be like a new birth and give me additional strength if the Hindus and the Mussalmans of both these places began to live at peace with each other and shed their animosity. (H, 11-5-1947, p. 146)

It is the bounden duty of the majority in Pakistan, as of the majority in the Union, to protect the small minority whose honor and life and property are in their hands….

To drive every Muslim from India and to drive every Hindu and Sikhs from Pakistan will mean war and eternal ruin for the country. (H, 28-9-1947, p. 352)

Settlement of Difference: No War

India and Pakistan should settle their differences by mutual consultations and, failing that, fall back upon arbitration. (H, 5-10-1947, p. 363)

If Pakistan persists in wrong doing, there is bound to be war between India and Pakistan. (H, 28-9-1947, p. 349)

If India and Pakistan are to be perpetual enemies and go to war against each other, it will ruin both the Dominions and their hard-won freedom will be soon lost. I do not wish to live to see that day. (ibid, p. 339)

It is true that there should be no war between the two Dominions. They have to live as friends or die as such. The two will have to work in close cooperation. In spite of being independent of each other, they will have many things in common. If they are enemies, they can have nothing in common. If there is genuine friendship, the people of both the States can be loyal to both. They are both members of the same Commonwealth of Nations. How can they become enemies of each other? (H, 5-10-1947, p. 356)