Source: The Present State of
Indian
Politics: Consisting of Speeches and Letters Reprinted from the
"Pioneer" (Allahabad: The Pioneer Press, 1888), pp. 54-62.
Very
long paragraphs have been broken into shorter ones, and these
numbered
in square brackets by FWP, for convenience in classroom use.
Punctuation has occasionally been adjusted for clarity
nnotations
in square brackets
have been added by FWP. The original spelling have been retained;
all
the
footnotes are original. NOTE: In virtually every place where the Pioneer's
translation
says "nation," the Urdu word is actually "qaum," or
"community."
LETTER BY MR. BUDRUDDIN TYABJI TO THE "PIONEER" [in 1888]
To the Editor:
[0] Sir,-- As a great deal of misapprehension seems to exist,
especially in
the minds of some of my co-religionists, in regard to the working of
the Congress, both past and future, I beg to address you these
lines,
for which I trust you will find a space in your valuable columns.
[1] The principle on which the Congress has been worked is that only
such questions of general public interest affecting the whole of
India
at large should be brought forward, in regard to which there is
either
absolute or at least practical unanimity on the part of the Hindus
and
Musalmans. Although there was no written rule expressly laid down to
this effect, yet when I had the honor of presiding at the last
Congress
held at Madras, I rigidly excluded all questions which were merely
of a
provincial character, or in regard to which the three Presidencies
were
not practically agreed, or where the Hindus were opposed to the
Musalmans as a body, or vice versa. I considered that the Congress
could not be rightly termed a "National" Congress where any
particular
resolution could be carried against the unanimous protest of either
the
Hindu or Musalman delegates.
[2] I understood, however, that many of my Musalman friends had
hesitated to join the Congress actively, under the belief that this
principle might not always be observed at future congresses; and
that
possibly some resolutions might be carried by virtue of the
numerical
majority of the Hindu delegates, which might be prejudicial to the
interests of the Musalman community as a whole. Though personally I
never entertained these fears, yet I thought it better that a
distinct
rule should be laid down; and I accordingly requested the General
Secretary to ascertain the views of the Congress Committees on the
subject. I am now happy to be in a position to announce that all the
twelve Standing Committees have accepted the rule drafted by me to
the
effect that any subject to which the Musalman delegates object,
unaninously or nearly unanimously, must be excluded from all
discussion
in the Congress. I trust, therefore, that the passing of this rule
will
be looked upon by
all my Musalman brethren who wish to act in harmony with their Hindu
fellow-countrymen on general questions of public interest, as at
least
removing all grounds for fear that by participating on the Congress
they might be committed to resolutions to which the Musalmans as a
body
are opposed.
[3] I have no desire to enter into a general discussion as to
the
propriety or benefit of holding a congress at all; and I therefore
studiously abstain from saying anything on that point. I would only
say
to my Musalman brethren:--"If you feel that there are [80] questions
affecting the whole of India which are common to you as well as to
your
Hindu fellow-subjects, come and discuss them at the Congress, and
help
to advance the cause in which you are all agreed. If, on the other
hand, anything is proposed which you dislike, come and oppose it;
and
under the rule above stated, it must be dropped. In that case your
opposition from within the Congress will be far more powerful and
effective than from without."
SIR SYED AHMED'S REPLY TO MR. BUDRUDDIN TYABJI.
To the Editor:
[0] Sir:-- I read in your paper, dated April 2nd, a letter from my
distinguished friend Mr. Budruddin Tyabji, about the National
Congress.
I think it fit that I should myself write a reply to it, and I ask
you
to be so good as to give it a place in your valuable columns.
[1] I was very glad to learn that when my distinguished friend
honoured
the Madras Congress by becoming its President, he "rigidly excluded
all
questions which were merely of a provincial character, or in regard
to
which the three Presidencies were not practically agreed, or where
the
Hindus were opposed to the Musalmans as a body, or vice versa." On
my
own behalf and on behalf of very many of our mutual co-religionists
I
thank him for this proceeding. I also agree with him in this-- "that
the Congress could not be rightly termed a 'National' Congress where
any particular resolution could be carried against the unanimous
protest of either the Hindu or Musalman delegates."
[2] But I go further: I first of all object to the word "delegate."
I
assure my friend that of the Mahomedans who went from the
North-Western
Provinces and Oudh, there is not one to whom the word "delegate" can
be
applied. I know well the condition of my own Province. Not ten
Mahomedans came together to elect any one of those Mahomedans who
went.
In those districts from which they went, there were not among the
Raises and influential Mahomedans, nor among the middle classes, ten
men who knew what the National Congress was, nor who had elected
whom.
Four days ago, a Mahomedan of liberal views, who went to Madras as a
delegate, boasted that his glory lay in this: that the Hindus, and
not
the Mahomedans, had elected him. Then how inappropriate and absurd
to
apply the word "delegate" to Mahomedans under such cirdumstances!
[3] Secondly, I object to the implication that the only condition
under
which the Congress cannot be termed "national" is if any resolution
be
carried against the unanimous protest of either the Hindu or the
Mahomedan members. The fact of any resolution being carried
unanimously
does not make the Congress a "national" one. A Congress can only be
called "national" when the ultimate aims and objects of the people
of
which it is composed are identical. My distinguished friend himself
admits that some of the aims and objects of Mahomedans are different
from those of Hindus, while some are similar; and he desires that
the
Congress should put aside those in which they differ, and confine
itself to those in which they agree. But under these circumstances,
how
can the Congress be a National Congress?
[4] Moreover, my friend has not pointed out what plan both sides
should
adopt for accomplishing those aims on which Hindus and Mahomedans
differ. Should Mahomedans and Hindus each have their own Congress
for
their special objects in which they differ from one another? If so,
as
their aims are conflicting and contradicting, these two Congresses
will
go on fighting each other to the death; but when they meet in that
Congress which my friends call the National Congress, they will then
say:-- "No doubt you are my nation; no doubt you are my brother; no
doubt your aims and my aims are one. How do you do, my brother? Now
we
are united on one point."
[5] I ask my friends honestly to say whether out of two such nations
whose aims and objects are different, but who happen to agree in
some
small points, a "National" Congress can be created? No. In the name
of
God-- No. I thank my friend for inducing the twelve Standing
Committees
to sanction the rule "that any subject to which the Musalman
delegates
object, unanimously or nearly unanimously, must be excluded from all
discussion in the Congress." But I again object to the word
"delegate,"
and would suggest that instead of that word be substituted "Musalman
taking part in the Congress." But if this principle which he has
laid
down in his letter, and on
which he acted when President, be fully carried out, I wonder what
there will be left for the Congress to discuss.
[6] Those questions on which Hindus and Mahomedans can unite, and on
which they ought to unite, and concerning which it is my earnest
desire
that they should unite, are social questions. We are both desirous
that
we two nations should live in a brotherly manner, that we should
help
and sympathise with one another, that we should bring pressure to
bear,
each on his own people, to prevent the arising of religious
quarrels,
that we should improve our social condition, and that we should try
to
remove that animosity which is every day increasing between the two
communities. The questions on which we can agree are purely social.
If
the Congress had been made for these objects, then I would myself
have
been its President, and relieved my friend from the troubles which
he
incurred. But the Congress is a political Congress, and there is no
one
of its fundamental principles, and especially that one for which it
was
in reality founded, to which Mahomedans are not opposed.
[7] We may be right or we may be wrong; but there is no Mahomedan,
from
the shoemaker to the Rais, who would like that the ring of slavery
should be put on us by that other nation with whom we live. Although
in
the present time we have fallen to a very low position, and there is
every probability we shall sink daily lower (especially when even
our
friend Budruddin Tyabji thinks it an honour to be President of the
Congress), and certainly we shall be contented with our destiny; yet
we
cannot consent to work for our own fall. I ask my friend Budruddin
Tyabji to leave aside those insignificant points in the proposals of
the Congress in which Hindus and Mahomedans agree (for there are no
things in the world which have no points in common-- there are many
things in common between a man and a pig), and to tell me what
fundamental political principles of the Congress are not opposed to
the
interests of Mahomedans.
[8] The first is that members of the Viceroy's Council should be
chosen
by election, on which stress was laid in the recent Congress of
Madras,
over which our friend Budruddin Tyabji presided. I proved in my
Lucknow
Speech that whatever system of election be adopted, there will be
four
times as many Hindus as Mahomedans, and all their demands will be
grqatified, and the power of legislation over the whole country will
be
in the hands of Bengalis or of Hindus of the Bengali type, and the
Mahomedans will fall into a condition of utmost degradation. Many
people have heaped curses and abuses on me on account of my Lucknow
Speech; but no one, not even my friend Budruddin Tyabji, has
answered
it. I do not like to see my nation fall into this degraded
condition;
and at any rate I do not wish to join in proposals which will have
this
result.
[9] If I were not afraid of making this letter too long, I would
discuss all the principles of the Congress in detail, and point out
that they are all opposed to the interests of Mahomedans, and would
bring them loss. But I will state briefly that as a general rule all
political questions which can be discussed are dangerous and
prejudicial to the interests of Mahomedans, and that they should
take
part in no political Congress.
[10] Leaving this aside, it is not expedient that Mahomedans should
take part in proceedings like that of the Congress, which holds
meetings in various places in which people accuse Government before
crowds of common men of withholding their rights from her subjects,
and
the result of which can only be that ignorant and foolish men will
believe Government to be tyrannical of at least unjust. They will
suffer greater misfortunes from doing so than the Hindus and the
Bengalis. What took place in the Mutiny? The Hindus began it; the
Mahomedans with their eager disposition rushed into it. The Hindus,
having bathed in the Ganges, became as they were before. But the
Mahomedans and all their noble families were ruined. This is the
result
which will befall Mahomedans, from takiong part in political
agitation.
[11] In America first this kind of political agitation began. By
degrees the minds of men grew more excited. The last words which
came
from their mouths were "no taxation without representation." Let
those
people who have the strength to say and act on these words join the
Congress and the political agitation. If they join it without this
strength, it is but the clapping of impotent hands. We have not that
strength. The Bengalis and those obscure Mahomedans who joined it at
Madras may possess such strength. For them it may be a blessing; but
the participation in it by our nation would be for us a curse.