The differences on which the British harp upon have been created by them. They were not in existence before their advent. Hindus and Muslims had a common civilization and lived amicably. Can the British say that the situation now obtained in India is not of their creation and is not backed by them? Those who are opposing us under the instigation of the British are our brethren and we certainly desire their co-operation; but in order to have them on our side, we cannot sacrifice these basic principles to which we have been wedded till now and which go to make a nation. Sir Stafford warns us of civil war and advises us to co-operate with each other to avoid it. No patriot would like civil war and shedding the blood of his own countrymen. Congress has always tried to unite all the sections of the population to fight for the freedom of their country. Our leaders have never indulged in communal bickerings. Congress is the only body in which Hindus, Muslims, Parsees, Jains and Buddhists can unite. In politics it refuses to recognize any difference on account of religion. To say that such and such sections be separated from the country on religious basis, is no religion but pure politics–politics which destroy the unity of a country. We ask Sir Stafford and other British leaders: “If a hundred years or, for that matter, twenty years ago, the right of separate elections were given to different sects of your country what sort of Government you would have had today?” Again, we ask America: “if the right of separate elections was given to different communities and Christian sects of your country, would you have had the same form of government as you now have? Would you not have had continuous civil wars in your countries?” The possibility of civil war in our country has been created by the British Government. The British Government is playing the old game. The Cabinet’s Statement shows the same mentality. The interpretation given by them stresses the point that the different groups of the Indian Federation shall have full power to frame whatever constitution they liked for them. They say, as they said before, that a province will have full option to remain in a group or not; but at the same time they qualify this statement with conditions which preclude the possibility of a province using that right. You tell a province that it was free to remain in a group or not but at the same time you say that all the people of a group should join together to frame its constitution. The North-West Frontier Province will have to attach itself to the Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan, and Assam to Bengal. Their constitutions will be framed by ‘B’ and ‘C’ groups. The group consisting of Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan will frame constitutions for N.W. F. Province and Bengal for Assam. Is it honest? You say that a province has the right to go out of a group but you frame a constitution that precludes its going out of it. In the Cabinet Mission’s Statement, it was clearly said that a province will have option to join a group. The option to go out is given at the end of the Statement. The meaning of the first part is that at the time of the formation of groups a province will have free option to be in the group or not. We understood it as such and so the Congress accepted it; but now it is said that a province has no option ,even at the time of formation of groups to remain out of its group not does it have the right to frame its constitution. It will be framed by the delegates of the whole group. This means that we should accept the division of India and deliver the N.W. F. Province and Assam into the hands of persons who openly assert that they are out to divide India into two parts. If civil war is unavoidable, let it come. We cannot be coerced to do a wrong thing by threats of civil war. It is quite possible that civil war may occur in a comer of India and we may have to fight the British, too. They threaten us with civil war; but the fact is that they are sowing the seeds of civil war among us. They wish that we should fight so that they may rule over us. I feel pained when I say these things. I have a great regard for the British people. They are far advanced in the field of politics and they are wise and freedom-loving. We have learnt many things from them. I have not a trace of hatred in my mind for them. I was happy that a new era had dawned in England, that the Government had passed to the Labour Party who would reverse the old policy. For the last hundred years the policy of the British Government had been one of selfishness and cunning towards countries, while in their own country they are very liberal and have a great regard for each other. For the benefit of their own people they consider it expedient to coerce and exploit other people. It was expected that with the advent of this new government and the defeat of the old Tories their policy would be entirely reversed and the foreign policy of England would be based on honesty but I am disappointed to see that some of the recent statements aimed only at creating a breach among the people of India.
