These rights they do have. That only means that they are entitled to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the community, to stand for any seat anywhere without being trammelled, without being ineligible for any particular post or office. By all Means, let them win the confidence of the entire community. That is the only way in which they can come together. What is the other method, I ask the Honourable Member. The germs of his complaint were sold since 1916, not by us, but by the Britishers. Let me go back into the history of our land a little earlier, though it may take some time of the House. Hindus and Muslims fought shoulder to shoulder as early as 1857. Let us not forget that we wanted to reinstate in our country the rule by our own people, whether Hindus or Muslims, wherever they were, in various parts of the country. They joined in a strenuous fight for the release of this country and for its independence. By whatever names the western historians might call it, it was a battle for independence. Then, the British Government wanted to play one community against the other. Sometimes they favoured the Hindus and sometimes the Muslims. It is no doubt true that some respectable and patriotic Europeans were the authors who put the idea of starting the Indian National Congress in our minds. It is no doubt true, but, what did their successors do? They found in a short time of fifteen years that the ideas of independence had come to stay in this country. It was dangerous for them and therefore in 1903 Lord Curzon wanted to separate the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal. No man or woman, not even a child, would sleep until the arrangement for partition of that province was annulled. Once again we came together and to-day on account of separate electorates we are separate again. I am told, Sir, that one day in 1916 a European who was responsible for separate electorates in this country wrote to his friend in England that he had achieved one of the best things in the world, viz., separating the Hindus and Muslims. There is no doubt that difference between the Hindus and Muslims do exist. One prays towards the East and the other toward the West. But there is also a common bond. Mohammad started his religion to bring the various warring elements together under a common banner. Religion in ancient days was an integrating power. There must be a common platform on which all could stand. I look forward to that day when humanity will be one, when all castes and creeds will disappear, (Chieer) when children are asked as to what religion they belonged, they may-say, “I do not belong to any religion but I am an Indian and do take pride in being one”. I look forward to the day when there will be no difference. Even a child knows that the sex of the mother is different from that of the father. Though one electric bulb may be white and the other red, the current that is running through is one and the same. A philosopher is necessary to come and say amidst all these happenings, ‘Let us bring millenium on earth’. In my part of the world, the Madras Presidency, though the Muslims are in a minority, they also joined in this move for separating the country. Have you a paralleled to this carriage that is going on in the Punjab whoever may be responsible for it ? It is a disgrace to our ancient religion and the religion of the Prophet. Neither the Seers nor Maharishis, if they will be looking on, will be satisfied with what is going on in the country. Is it not time for us wisely to consider what is responsible for this? We are all brothers. Can it be said that Mr. Pocker is different from myself? He speaks Tamil and I also speak Tamil. He cannot speak in Hindustani whereas I am able to understand and speak Hindustani in a smattering way. If tomorrow I become a Muslim do you think I will become less of a Madrasi? Unfortunately the country has been cut up and those people who may be responsible for it may be Proud of it. After all it is like a fight between two brothers. I am a lawyer and I know of cases where a younger brother files a suit against the elder brother and where the elder brother says that the younger brother was not born to his father. After the case is over if there was marriage in elder brother’s house the younger brother refuses to attend the same and the eider brother says. It is no doubt true that we fought, but I am not going to celebrate the marriage if my younger brother does not attend it? Similarly some day Pakistan also may come back to us. What will be the effect of my friend Mr. Pocker’samendment? You go in the morning to the mosque and I go to the temple. But there will have to be a common platform where we have to join together on many matters. If there is famine we will all have to fight it. We expect if there is to be joint electorates, we will come together some time. Under the joint electorate system a Hindu can represent the Muslims and a Muslim the Hindus. I will represent much more than you do because I know I am not a Muslim and as such I will always have an inferiority complex and so look after your interests well. So why not take advantage of that? My friend Mr. Pocker says “I want a good, honest representative”. What is the definition of goodness? Goodness does not come by being a Muslim or a Hindu. I believe he wants a man who effectively supports the Muslims cause. When there was carnage in Bengal, we did not bother to enquire how many were Hindus and how many were Muslims and we do not know even to this day. Unfortunately Hindus also sometimes feel “we are still human beings; when the country has been divided, why should they be protected still? Let this business, be done away with”. For Heaven sake avoid all this. Now he says that he is not the proper representatives of the Muslims who has not got their confidence. Even a Hindu or a Muslim Priest will run the show if India is to become a Religious State instead, of a Secular State. Nothing more than that. Therefore these are not the things that will bring us together. I am a Hindu and if you allow me to represent you, I will come to you at least every, 4 years. Similarly a Muslim can come to the Hindus. Ultimately we will come together. This is possible only if we have joint electorates. If I do not come on his vote, if I am not his representative, what on earth is there to bind me to him? From the practical point of view, I ask my friend who moved this amendment if he is, one or five or twenty in a House of two hundred, what is it that he can do without the co-operation of the others? Is he going to preach here Islam or read the Quran? Will I be allowed to the Vedas here? In this House, what is it one can do without the help of the majority? I expect very soon a secular State will arise here. Are you going to stand between us and the establishment of a secular State? Will you not profit by the events recorded history? What was America 150 years ago? Will you not take a leaf out of their history books? 150 years ago, persons who were driven from their soil, sailed in S. S. May flower in search of other lands and reached “West India”. That is the present America. Today they are the masters of the world in the economic field. They are the persons who today do this and that. They are teaching our people, who knew these things 5,000 years ago, how to clean our teeth and wash our faces. They do not know the fact that we do not take our food without first taking a bath. They come and tell us these things because, on account of the disintegrating forces working in our country, they have stolen a march over us. Did not the Italians, the Frenchmen, the Spaniards and others come together in the continent of America? Therefore it is up to to us to create a secular State. It would no be wrong for me to quote Mr. Jinnah in this connection, whatever, he might have said before Partition. He said: ‘My idea is to have a secular State here’. Somebody asked :”Religious or secular?” He said: ‘Hindus and Muslim are alike to me. They must have equal opportunities’. I am trying to make a common nation for both of us. Why should our Muslim friends who owe allegiance to Mr. Jinnah and whom they revere as I do, think differently in this matter? I am not prepared to call a single individual a minority. I do not like the word ‘minority’ at all. Therefore I am saying that I am opposed to this amendment.
