4. At a critical juncture in the 1870’s came Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. He took upon himself the responsibility of bridging the gulf, bringing about a political rapprochement between the British and Muslims. On the other hand he persuaded the British that the Muslims were not disloyal to the crown. The Muslims got swayed in 1857 by leading the war against the British but a little tact, generous forgiveness by the British could change the Muslims into their supporters.

He conceived the idea of having a Muslim college like Oxford and Cambridge. The result was the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, the foundation stone of which was laid by Lord Lytton on 8/01/1877.

Sir Syed is entitled to credit for his endeavor to uplift his community. However one might interpret the speeches of Sir Khan in favor of the peoples of India forming but one nation, the two-nation theory formed the solid basis of the Aligarh Movement.

At a speech at Meerut on 16/03/1888 he refers to the Hindus and Muslims not only as two nations, but as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India. He said, “Now suppose that all the Brits were to leave India, and then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances these nations, the Muhammadan and the Hindu could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable”. History and Culture of Indian People published by the Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan volume 10 pg 309. To read others speeches Click Here

Super cop K PS Gill wrote something similar recently while commenting on Indo-Pak relations. He said “The conflict over Kashmir is not, as is widely believed, a quarrel over territory; it is, rather, an irreducible conflict between two fundamentally incompatible ideologies - a pluralistic democratic ideology, on India's part; and an authoritarian-fundamentalist-exclusionary Islamist ideology that asserts that different belief systems cannot coexist within the same political order. A permanent peace in South Asia will only result after one or the other of these ideologies succumbs - and these are crucial to national identity, consciousness, and even the existence of these two nation states”.

1888 and today! Has anything changed?

How did the British respond to the overtures made by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan? The appeal to these overtures came at a very opportune moment. After two generations the Hindus had imbibed Western ideas through English education, showed signs of political development regarded by the Government as anti-British. So they eagerly seized the opportunity offered by Sir Syed, of enlisting the support of the great but politically undeveloped Muslims and holding it as a counterpoise to the progressive Hindu community. This article gives one example in the context of Aligarh Muslim University.

5. The British Principal of AMU, Theodore Beck, accentuated the Hindu Muslim divide. He took charge of the Institute Gazette, the literary organ of the Aligarh College and edited it on behalf of SAK. The highlights of his speech were published in the Aligarh College Magazine of March, April, June 1895.
•  A friendship between the Muslims and the British people was possible but not between for e.g. the Marathas
   and Sikhs who would never agree with the Muslims in accepting Aurangzeb as their hero.
•  Muslims would never accept a system of government in which the Hindus would rule over them.
•  Muslim behavior before and after the Revolt of 1857 had warned them against the agitational policy of the
   Hindus and they were now on the advice of Sir Syed Khan following loyalty to the British.
•  Muslims were opposed to the holding of competitive examinations for they knew this step would mean the
   replacement of many impartial British officers by anti-Muslims Hindus.

The differences got accentuated in connection with the legislation for local self-government on elective basis. It is on this occasion that for the first time a demand was made for separate representation of the Muslims. The ball, now or later was set rolling by the British. Said Muhhammad Yusuf on 3/05/1883 “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the Bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community”.

From the above it is clear that the Hindu Muslim divide existed before the British came. They exploited the divide to suit their interests. Muslim apprehension of co-existence with Hindus in independent India existed before 1900 long before Jinnah and Nehru came on the national scene.

It is also reflected in the number and frequency of Hindu Muslim riots particularly between 1885 to 1893. There were riots in Lahore & Karnal in 1885, Delhi in 1886, Hoshiarpur, Ambala 1889 and Palakod in Salem, Tamil Nadu in 1891. 1893 was a bad year with grave outbreaks in Azamgarh of U.P., Mumbai lasted for six days. Also Swami Dayanand Saraswati founder of the Arya Samaj was in 1883, allegedly poisoned by a Muslim lady while he was a guest of the Maharaja of Jodhpur.

The British role in India’s division is best summed up by Sardar Patel. He said on August 9, 1945, “The British talk of Hindu Muslim quarrels but who has thrust the burden on their shoulders? If they are sincere let them hand over to the Congress, League or international arbitration. Give me just a week’s rule over Britain, I will create such disagreements that England, Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever”. Patel –A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi

If one were to accept that the Hindu Muslim divide existed before 1900, did a dominating and aggressive Hindu leadership force the Muslim leadership into demanding Pakistan starting the 1930’s or did the idea of Pakistan already exist?