A Vision of United India

Chapter 5

The British policy of divide and rule

Let us see how the British viewed the situation after 1857.

The British realized that if the Hindus and Muslims came together as they did in the Sepoy Mutiny, it would be difficult for them to continue to rule India. There was a reversal of British policy.

The policy of divide and rule was initiated. The first step in this process was the propping up of Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, who in his early life was a liberal, had a broad-minded approach to communal relations. He even remarked: "Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of India. Injure the one and you injure the other". But soon he changed his stance. First with the patronisation of the British, he founded the Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh. Then, the principal of the college, Mr Beck, convinced Sayyid Ahmad Khan that the Muslims should not support the Congress movement. Mr Beck wrote in 1893: "the objective of the Congress is to transfer the political control of the country from the British to the Hindus". Spurred on by Beck, Sayyid Ahmad Khan discouraged the Muslims from joining the newly formed Indian National Congress. His argument was that the setting up of democratic institutions would mean the permanent subservience of the Muslims to the Hindus. He, therefore, asked the Muslims to look up to the British administration for protection and help. At the same time in order to weaken the nationalist movement, the British encouraged Raja Shiv Prasad and other pro-British Indians to start an anti-Congress movement. They tried to drive a wedge between the Hindus and the Muslims. They fanned communal rivalries among the educated Indians on the question of jobs in Government service.

On the Muslim side, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan's (1819-98) effort to raise the Muslim community was the most sustained, wide-ranging and comprehensive; it was also more widely accepted by the mainstream Muslim community and was more consequential. Sir Sayyid's panacea for the Muslim situation in the post-1857 period was modern education. As already seen, he founded the college at Aligarh and schools at various places; he launched the Tahzib al Akhlaq to bring about moral and social reform; he fought against the prevalent feeling of despondency and resignation. And, "Aligarh, with all the forces it organized", to quote Kraemer, became "the starting point of a slow awakening of the Muslim community out of its listlessness". It was also "the most potent factor in the breaking down of the crushing feeling of backwardness and despondency". Sir Sayyid's movement at that time was considered mainly educational, because of his unending stress on Muslims acquiring modern education. He was also averse to Muslims participating in any sort of organized political activity, which, he feared, might revive British hostility towards them. That was why he opposed Ameer Ali's proposed Political Conference and why he advised Muslims against joining the Indian National Congress, when it was organized in 1885. However, in his policies and programme, he was, in part, guided and goaded by political considerations. For one thing, he believed that education was the passport to political power; for another, he seemed supremely conscious of the basic fact "that the political life of the Muslims could be saved from extinction by their participating in and not by discarding Western education". For instance, the Mohammedan Education Conference, helped to provide a common platform for the Muslims of various provinces to come together, "to formulate a centre of public opinion for the entire Mohammedan 'nation' and then to spread those ideas among the

Page 29

community" and to create communal consciousness and solidarity. The Aligarh School, which Sir Sayyid founded, says Dr. I.H. Qureshi, "gave the Muslim community a new hope, a new sense of mission. From the deepest despair it pulled the Muslims out into a new field of fruitful activity. Indeed Aligarh was the cradle of the feeling of nationalism among the Muslims because it kept alive the idea of a well-integrated Muslim community in the Subcontinent".

Muslims Enter Politics

The awakening among Hindus since the middle of the nineteenth century made the Aligarh movement increasingly politically oriented. Earlier in 1867 the Hindus in Banares had launched an agitation for the ouster of Urdu from courts. As years rolled by, Sir Sayyid also became increasingly fearful of the numerical, educational and economic superiority of the Hindus; this led to his demanding reservation of seats for Muslims and other important Indian elements in the Imperial Council. Otherwise, he felt, the Muslims stood no chance of getting elected by a predominantly Hindu electorate on the basis of sheer numbers. The Congress' demand for elections without reservations alarmed him and led him to oppose its claims and demands.

The Hindu agitation for making Hindi the court language in U.P., Bihar and Oudh succeeded in 1890. As a response to this agitation, the Muslims under Nawab Muhsin-ul-Mulk organized the Urdu Defence Association in 1900. Before long, this Association took on the complexion of a political platform; it also became the forerunner of the All-India Muslim League.

The Partition of Bengal

The next step of the British in fostering the communal divide was the Partition of Bengal. This was a blatantly clear step in dividing the Hindus and Muslims in the name of administrative reforms. As already mentioned, the British not only encouraged the two communities to form political parties along religious lines, they also took various steps to create a situation whereby Hindus and Muslims would be forced to think that their religious identity was at peril. This effort culminated in the partition of Bengal in 1905. The Presidency of Bengal was divided into two parts, apparently for administrative reasons. It was argued that Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, which had formed a single province of British India since 1765, had grown too large to handle under a single administration; but it was quite clear that the partition was made along communal lines in order to divide the communities. Even Lord Curzon on a tour of East Bengal, confessed that his "object in partitioning was not only to relieve the Bengali administration, but to create a Mohammedan province, where Islam could be predominant and its followers in ascendancy." It thus provided an impetus to the religious divide and one of the results was the formation of the Muslim League.

The Reaction in Bengal

The people of Bengal were indignant and outraged. For them, the partition was not merely a fresh application of the British policy of divide-and-rule, but the sundering of the soul of a people. Sri Aurobindo who was then in Baroda, wrote about the partition: "This measure is no mere administrative proposal but a blow straight at the heart of the nation". This single event brought about united opposition from all groups, political and non-political. Poet Rabindranath Tagore, Sir Gurudas Banerjee, a judge, and the Maharajas of Mymensingh and Cossimbazar all joined in the protest. It triggered a tremendous awakening and it manifested in a sudden outburst of the genius of the

Page 30

Bengali race, flowering in the field of literature and music. So great was its impact that Ramsay Macdonald exclaimed: "Bengal is creating India by song and worship, it is clothing her in queenly garments". This led to the movement of the boycott of British goods.

Foundation of the Muslim League (1906)

In the meantime, the urge of the Muslims to organize themselves politically led to the founding of the All-India Muslim League at Dacca in 1906. With the Aga Khan (18771957) as the permanent President and Nawab Salimullah Khan (the Nawab of Dacca), Nawab Muhsin-ul-Mul, Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk and Mohammad Ali (1877-1931) as the core of its leadership, the League aspired to become the political mouthpiece of Indian Muslims. Its platform included safeguarding of Muslim interests, articulating their demands, building up public opinion in favour of a separate electorate, and countering Hindu propaganda and agitation against the partition of Bengal.

In 1906, another official of the Anglo-Oriental College, Mohsin-ul-Malik, encouraged, if not prompted, by its principal, Mr Archibald, took a step that would drive the wedge between Hindus and Muslims still deeper. Hearing that the Morley-Minto government was going to institute legislative reforms, Mohsin-ul-Malik convened a deputation of Muslim leaders to call on the Viceroy. They requested that the Muslims should be represented on the Councils as a separate community not merely on their numerical strength but in respect to the political importance of their community and the service it had rendered to the empire. Morley was against such an undemocratic proposal, but he let the Viceroy, Lord Minto, have his way.

At the same time, the Muslims began to circulate the Lal Ishtahãr (Red Pamphlet) all over Bengal in the wake of the first Muslim League meeting at Dacca in December 1906. The Ishtahãr was the handiwork of Samiullah, the Nawab of Dacca, and his henchmen who had hosted the delegates to the meeting of delegates from all over India. It was obvious that the anti-Congress crusade launched by Sir Sayyid Ahmed in the closing years of the 19th century was being converted quite fast into an all-out anti-Hindu jihad. The Ishtahãr proclaimed in ringing tones: "Ye Mussalmans, arise, awake! Do not read in the same schools with the Hindus. Do not touch any article manufactured by the Hindus. Do not give any employment to the Hindus. Do not accept any degrading office under a Hindu. You are ignorant, but if you acquire knowledge you can send all Hindus to Jahannum (Hell). You form the majority of the population in this province. The Hindu has no wealth of his own and has made himself rich only by despoiling you of your wealth. If you become sufficiently enlightened, the Hindus will starve and soon become Mohammedans."

The Muslim reaction to the Partition of Bengal was radically different from the nationalistic view. The Muslims considered the partition of Bengal as an important step in getting their legitimate right. According to them, the unwieldy Bengal Presidency was partitioned for purely administrative reasons; and it was only as a by-product that there came about the emergence of the Muslim majority province of East Bengal and Assam. According to the Muslim leaders, the anti-Urdu agitation in U.P., and Bihar; the cow-protection activities, the setting up of Shivaji Clubs, the demand for elections on a non-denominational basis which would preclude Muslims from getting elected without Hindu backing, and finally the agitation again the partition of Bengal - all these combined had

Page 31

pitted the Hindus against the Muslims, further embittering their relations and foreclosing the traditional avenues of cooperation between them.

It was against this backdrop that the Muslims demanded a separate electorate in 1906, in order to ensure their representation through genuine representatives. The demand also implied that the Indian Muslims, though a minority, were yet a distinct entity by themselves in Indian's body politic, and that they were determined to keep their identity intact in any future constitutional arrangement. Thus, from this time onwards the separate electoral plank became the sheet anchor of Indian Muslim politics.

As we shall see later in this chapter, this was conceded by the British in the Minto-Morley Reforms (1909), and by the Congress in the Lucknow Pact (1916).

Hindu-Muslim Riots

Another ploy used by the British to divide the Hindus and Muslims was to subtly encourage Hindu-Muslim riots. There is evidence to believe that the British incited the Muslims to violence against the Hindus. For example, in Jamalpur in Bengal, there were terrible riots in 1907 in which the Hindus were butchered and the women threatened. Muslim hooligans had let loose a reign of terror against defenceless Hindus in the countryside of East Bengal. H.W. Nevison who visited India as a representative of The Manchester Guardian, reported: "Priestly Mullahs went through the country preaching the revival of Islam and proclaiming to the villagers that the British Government was on the Mohammedan side, that the Law Courts had been specially suspended for three months and no penalty would be exacted for violence done to the Hindus, or for the loot of Hindu shops or the abduction of Hindu widows. A Red Pamphlet was everywhere circulated maintaining the same wild doctrine... In Comilla, Jamalpur and a few other places, rather serious riots occurred. A few lives were lost, temples desecrated, images broken, shops plundered, and many widows carried off. Some of the towns were deserted, the Hindu population took refuge in any pukka houses, women spent nights hidden in tanks, the crime known as 'group-rape' increased and throughout the country districts, there reigned a general terror, which still prevailed at the time of my visit."

There were two reactions to these riots. The moderate Congress leaders, having full faith in British justice appealed to the British to intervene and stop the riots. The other reaction was that of the Nationalist section of the Congress. They demanded that the Hindus should fight back. Here is an illustration from an article in the Bandemataram: 'from all parts of East Bengal comes the terrible news of violation and threatened violence of women by budmashes. Bengal is then dead to all intents and purposes. Nowhere is the honour of women so much valued as in India. And as our people do not lift their finger or court death when seeing women violated before their eyes, they have morally ceased to exist. Long subjugation has crushed the soul and left the mere corpse. If Bengal has been seized with such a severe palsy as not to strike a blow even for the honour of our women, it is better for her people to be blotted from the earth than encumber it longer with their disgrace.' 6

Minto-Morley Reforms

The next step in the British game was the reforms proposed by the Viceroy Lord Minto. These were known as the Minto-Morley reforms. What exactly were these reforms? First proposed in 1906, they were finally passed by the British Parliament in 1909. In 1906, even as the Boycott struggle was raging and was being crushed with a heavy hand, the Secretary of State Morley called in the "moderate Congress" leaders for discussions on

Page 32

possible reforms of the Councils. By 1907, these Moderate leaders led by Gokhale were quivering with anticipation at the imminent reforms and by 1908, they were joyous at the Minto-Morley proposals; they expressed "deep and general satisfaction", and praised "the high statesmanship which dictated this act of the Government", and tendered "sincere and grateful thanks" personally to Morley and Minto. These reforms were officially known as the Government of India Act 1909. Its aim was to specifically see how the system of government could be better adapted to meet the requirements and promote the welfare of the different provinces without impairing its strength and unity. It attempted to enlarge the legislative councils and make them more representative. However, it would not be wrong to say that the Indian Councils Act was actually a farcical exercise in mass deception. It pompously introduced the principle of "elections". What this amounted to was merely a minority of indirectly elected members in the Central Legislative Council and a majority of indirectly elected members in the Provincial Councils. The Councils themselves allowed only some powers of discussion, putting of questions, and sponsoring of resolutions. These Councils had no control over administration or finance, let alone defence or foreign policy. The reforms were made with the express intent of isolating the growing nationalist movement. Lord Morley indeed explained this in a most telling manner to the House of Lords: "There are three classes of people whom we have to consider in dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the extremists who nurse fanatic dreams that some day they will drive us out of India.... The second group nourishes no hopes of this sort, but hope for autonomy or self-government of the colonial species and pattern. And then the third section of this classification asks for no more than to be admitted to co-operation in our administration. I believe the effect of the Reforms has been, is being, and will be to draw the second class, which hope for colonial autonomy, into the third class, which will be content with being admitted to a fair and full cooperation.

In the system of election that was introduced most cynically, a separate electorate for the Muslims was brought in. But despite all the show of reforms, no real responsibility was handed over to the Indian people. In fact, Morley was quite clear as to what his objective was. He said: "If I were attempting to set up a parliamentary system in India, or it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I for one would have nothing to do with it".

 But far more serious was the Anglo-Muslim rapprochement. According to M.N. Das: "the Viceroy's philosophy, in terms of his advocacy of communal electorates, was to weaken Indian nationalism and in this objective he was singularly successful for when communal conservatism united with an apprehensive imperialism, still at its height, insurmountable obstacles arose to national unity and revolutionary programmes. This was the beginning of the tragedy of Indian nationalism."

The National Congress Party's reaction

While the moderate Congress leaders were all praise for the reforms, there was a section of the Congress party, which saw the danger in these reforms. This section was the National Congress Party led by Sri Aurobindo, Tilak and others. Here is an extract from the writings of Sri Aurobindo on these reforms. This was in stark contrast to the view of the Moderate wing of the Congress party.

Sri Aurobindo wrote in the Karmayogin on the Nov. 11, 1909.

Page 33

"The question of separate representation for the Mohammedan community is one of those momentous issues raised in haste by a statesman unable to appreciate the forces with which he is dealing, which bear fruit no man expected and least of all the ill-advised Frankenstein who was responsible for its creation..... The Reform scheme is the second act of insanity, which has germinated from the unsound policy of the bureaucracy. It will cast all India into the melting pot and complete the work of Partition. Our own attitude is clear. We will have no part or lot in reforms, which give no popular majority, no substantive control, no opportunity for Indian capacity and statesmanship, no seed for Indian democratic expansion. We will not for a moment accept separate electorates or separate representation, not because we are opposed to a large Mohammedan influence in popular assemblies when they come but because we will be no party to a distinction which recognizes Hindu and Mohammedan as permanently separate political units and thus precludes the growth of a single and indivisible Indian nation. We oppose any such attempt at division whether it comes from an embarrassed Government seeking for political support or from an embittered Hindu community allowing the passions of the moment to obscure their vision of the future." 7

Again, he wrote:

"But the country, the swadesh, which must be the base and fundament of our nationality, is India, a country where Mohammedan and Hindu live intermingled and side by side. The Mohammedans base their separateness and their refusal to regard themselves as Indians first and Mohammedans afterwards on the existence of great Mohammedan nations to which they feel themselves more akin, in spite of our common birth and blood, than to us. Hindus have no such resource. For good or evil, they are bound to the soil and to the soil alone. They cannot deny their Mother nor can they mutilate her. Our ideal therefore is an Indian Nationalism, largely Hindu in its spirit and traditions, because the Hindu made the land and the people and persists by the greatness of his past, his civilization and his culture and his invincible virility, in holding it, but wide enough also to include the Moslem and his culture and traditions and absorb them into itself. 8

Regarding the Hindu-Muslim problem that was threatening to take alarming proportions, Sri Aurobindo wrote:

"Of one thing we may be certain, that Hindu-Muslim unity cannot be effected by political adjustments or Congress flatteries. It must be sought deeper down in the heart and in the mind, for where the causes of disunion are there the remedies must be sought. We shall do well in trying to solve the problem to remember that misunderstanding is the most fruitful cause of our differences, that love compels love and that strength conciliates the strong. We must strive to remove the causes of misunderstanding by a better mutual knowledge and sympathy; we must extend the unfaltering love of the patriot to our Mussulman brother, remembering always that in him too Narayana dwells and to him too our Mother has given a permanent place in her bosom; but we must cease to approach him falsely or flatter out of a selfish weakness and cowardice. We believe this to be the only practical way of dealing with the difficulty. As a political question the Hindu-Muslim problem does not interest us at all, as a national problem it is of supreme importance. We shall make it a main part of our work to place Mohammed and Islam in a new light before our readers to spread juster views of Mohammedan history and civilization, to appreciate the Musulman's place in our national development and the means of harmonizing his communal life with our own, not ignoring the difficulties that stand in

Page 34

the way of the possibilities of brotherhood and mutual understanding. Intellectual sympathy can only draw together; the sympathy of the heart can alone unite. But the one is a good preparation for the other".9

The Hindu Mahasabha

The policy of support given by the British to the Muslims and their aggressiveness naturally invited a reaction from the Hindus. The Hindu Mahasabha and other Hindu organizations were formed in the second half of the nineteenth century and gave their first expression in Bengal. They emphasized such items as cow protection, Hindi in Devanagari script and caste reforms. The leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha were alarmed by the entry of the Muslim 'ulema' into politics for the ulema had expressed the need for a holy war in order to fulfil their Pan-Islamic aims. The Hindu organizations felt that they had to create an effective organization to defend Hinduism against militant Islam.

Later, the Hindu Mela organization was formed to revive the pride in Hindu civilization. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar founded the Mitra Mela in 1899 in Bombay. It was later known as the Abhinava Bharat Society (Young India Society). It advocated armed struggle to throw off the shackles of foreign rule. But the most famous of these organizations was the Arya Samaj formed by Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. The Arya Samaj, a movement that was popular in Northern India, especially in Punjab, tried to go back to the Vedic roots of Indian culture. At the same time, it tried to correct some of the distortions that had crept into the Hindu religion, for example, the hereditary aspect of the caste system, the excessive stress on rituals and child marriage.

The British were thus faced with pressures from both the Hindu and Muslim communities. They had to tread a narrow and careful path but they were careful to see that their self-interest was never compromised; it was always kept paramount. Faced with the tremendous reaction from the people of Bengal in particular, and the people of India in general, they annulled the partition of Bengal in 1911.

.

The annulment gave the Muslims a rude shock. The British complicity in the spoilation of the Ottoman Empire and in the strangulation of Iran about the same time caused further alienation. The British had refused Turkish troops access to Libya through Egypt in 1911, when Libya was raided by Italy, and during the subsequent Balkan wars of 1912-13, which brought the Balkan powers to the gates of Adrianopole, the British sympathies, as usual, were with the aggressors and against the aggrieved Turks.

Then, in 1912, the British refused to grant the Aligarh Muslim University Scheme, on which Muslim India had set its heart, and which was designed not only to strengthen Muslim community consciousness throughout the subcontinent, but also to further strengthen the concept of an integrated pan-Indian Muslim communal sentiment. Finally, in 1913, a portion of a mosque in Kanpur was demolished to make room for building a road. These events, coming one after another in barely two years, hurt Muslim susceptibilities grievously and completely eroded Muslim faith in the British promises, justice and conduct. Thus the Muslims launched an anti-British campaign. The Congress and the Muslim League joined together in their fight against British imperialism.

The Lucknow Congress

It was at that time that the Congress party took a step that was to have the most serious consequences for the future. This step was taken at the Congress session at Lucknow. It was here that a pact was made between the Hindus and Muslims. The Lucknow Pact made in December 1916 was an agreement made by the Indian National Congress and the

Page 35

All-India Muslim League and adopted by the Congress at its Lucknow session on December 29 and by the League on Dec. 31, 1916. The Congress agreed to separate electorates for Muslims in provincial council elections. This pact was aimed at greater Hindu-Muslim cooperation and unity. However, it proved to be just the opposite and was, in fact, the first step in creating a permanent divide between the Hindus and Muslims. The later history of India amply proves this. Sri Aurobindo had been repeatedly warning of the dangers of communal representation. We are quoting again what he wrote in 1909. "The question of separate representation for the Mohammedan community is one of those momentous issues raised in haste by a statesman unable to appreciate the forces with which he is dealing, which bear fruit no man expected and least of all the ill-advised Frankenstein who was responsible for its creation.... We will not for a moment accept separate electorates or separate representation, not because we are opposed to a large Mohammedan influence in popular assemblies when they come but because we will be no party to a distinction which recognizes Hindu and Mohammedan as permanently separate political units and thus precludes the growth of a single and indivisible Indian nation. We oppose any such attempt at division whether it comes from an embarrassed Government seeking for political support or from an embittered Hindu community allowing the passions of the moment to obscure their vision of the future."

Much later Sri Aurobindo wrote: "What has created the Hindu-Muslim split was not Swadeshi, but the acceptance of the communal principle by the Congress, (here Tilak made his great blunder).

A very important point to note is the attitude of Mohamed Ali Jinnah. At this time, most interestingly and somewhat ironically, he opposed the idea of a separate electorate for the Muslims. In the words of Krishna Iyer: "He opposed the Muslim League's stand of favouring separate electorate for the Muslims and described it 'as a poisonous dose to divide the nation against itself.'" He collaborated with the Congress and actively worked against the Muslim communalists, calling them enemies of the nation. He had been much influenced by the speeches of Naoroji, Mehta and Gokhale whom he adored. Naoroji as Congress President had emphasised the need for "a thorough union of all the people" and pleaded with Hindus and Muslims to "sink or swim together. Without this union, all efforts will be in vain", he added. Jinnah was in full agreement with this view. He deprecated the "contrary separatist policy advocated by the League".

This step of creating separate electorates was a turning point in the history of the nation. In 1906 when the Muslim League was formed, it was a mere political entity but after the separate electoral arrangement was formalized, it became a distinct political force. From then on, the Muslim League played a more and more active part in fighting for the so-called Muslim rights and dividing the nation.

Summary

Let us take a look at the forces in play at this time in regard to Hindu-Muslim relations. The British policy of divide and rule

The definite willingness of the Muslim intellectuals to support this policy

The reaction of the Indian National Congress of going along with the British as they had

great faith in the British sense of justice.

The reaction of one section of the Hindus like the Hindu Mahasabha

The reaction of the Nationalist wing of the Congress led by Sri Aurobindo and Tilak.

Page 36

It was quite natural and understandable, though regrettable that the British wanted to retain their hold on India; therefore, the policy of divide and rule does not come as a surprise at all. All imperial nations have used this stratagem to remain in power and the British had perfected this strategy in all their colonies.

The Muslim intelligentsia supported this policy in their self-interest. After all, they had been the rulers of India for the last few centuries before the British replaced them. The work then before them was to convert the Muslim masses to the same idea. It is clear that they were becoming a force.

The Indian National Congress, which was formed in 1885, despite working for the Independence of India, did not have a clear vision of the role and destiny of India. It adopted basically Western models for political and social change in India. Led by the moderates it failed to acquire any roots among the common people. The politics of the moderates was "halting and half-hearted" because they had great faith in the British system and justice. This section of the Congress party was constantly flattering the Muslims in order to bring about unity.

The Hindu Mahasabha and allied organizations, as a reaction to the Muslim aggressiveness, tried to assert the Hindu way of life. But their main stress was more on the externals of Hinduism, on the social and ritualistic plane rather than on the deeper elements of Hinduism.

Last but not least, was the Nationalistic Congress party led by Sri Aurobindo; it too sought to return to Hinduism; but its whole concentration was on the deeper and eternal elements of the Hindu religion. This was inspired by what may be called the religion of patriotism. It was made up of, first, the identification of Mother India as a soul; second, the attempt to introduce the Kshatriya element in the Hindu psyche; and third, the conviction that India was destined to be the leader of the human race in the spiritual progress. This approach was stressed both by Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo. On his return to India from the meeting of the Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893, Vivekananda declared that the indebtedness of the universe to India knew no bounds. While civilizations had come and gone, the civilization of India was 'indestructible and eternal'. And the message of this civilization had to be spread throughout the world.

Sri Aurobindo reiterated this in all his political writings in the Bandemataram. On his release from the Alipore jail, Sri Aurobindo made his famous Uttarpara speech. Here are some extracts from that speech: "I realised what the Hindu religion meant. We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatan Dharma, but few of us really know what that religion is. Other religions are preponderatingly religions offaith and profession, but the Sanatan Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not so much to be believed as lived. ... This is the Dharma that for the salvation of humanity was cherished in the seclusion of this peninsula from of old. It is to give this religion that India is rising. She does not rise as other countries do, for self or when she is strong, to trample on the weak. She is rising to shed the eternal light entrusted to her over the world. India has always existed for humanity and not for herself and it is for humanity and not for herself that she must be great. ...But it is not circumscribed by the confines of a single country; it does not belong peculiarly and for ever to a bounded part of the world. That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion, because it is the universal religion, which embraces all others. If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal. A narrow religion, a

Page 37

sectarian religion, an exclusive religion can live only for a limited time and a limited purpose. This is the one religion that can triumph over materialism by including and anticipating the discoveries of science and the speculations of philosophy.

It is the one religion, which impresses on mankind the closeness of God to us and embraces in its compass all the possible means by which man can approach God. It is the one religion which insists every moment on the truth which all religions acknowledge that He is in all men and all things and that in Him we move and have our being. It is the one religion, which enables us not only to understand and believe this truth but to realise it with every part of our being. It is the one religion, which shows the world what the world is, that it is the Lila of Vasudeva. It is the one religion which shows us how we can best play our part in that Lila, its subtlest laws and its noblest rules. It is the one religion, which does not separate life in any smallest detail from religion, which knows what immortality is and has utterly removed from us the reality of death". 10

Page 38