There is a book of Dr. B R Ambedkar titled *Pakistan or the partition of India* published by Thacker and Co., Ltd, Bombay. This book was first published in December, 1940. This extract is from the third edition published in 1946.
Dr. Ambedkar covers a lot of ground in this book as the chapters themselves explain. There are 15 chapters divided into 5 parts of 3 chapters each. To make things simple will mention just the title of each part, just to show how balanced the book is.
Part – 1: Muslim case for Pakistan.
Part – 2: Hindu case against Pakistan.
Part – 3: What if not Pakistan?
Part – 4: Pakistan and the Malaise
The last part (part 5) does not have any heading but it is the concluding part and has three chapters, viz.
Chap 13: Must there be Pakistan?
Chap 14: The problems of Pakistan.
Chap 15: Who can decide?
The above would show that what i quote below is not a random extract used out of context. The whole book deals with interaction between Muslims and Hindus.
Extract from Chapter 11 – Communal Aggression of Part 4: Pakistan and the Malaise:
Even a superficial observer cannot fail to notice that a spirit of aggression underlies the Hindu attitude towards the Muslim and the Muslim attitude towards the Hindu. The Hindu’s spirit of aggression is a new phase which he has just begun to cultivate. The Muslim’s spirit of aggression is his native endowment and is ancient as compared with that of the Hindu. It is not that the Hindu, if given time, will not pick up and overtake the Muslim. But as matters stand to-day, the Muslim in this exhibition of the spirit of aggression leaves the Hindu far behind.
Enough has been said about the social aggression of the Muslims in the chapter dealing with communal riots. It is necessary to speak briefly of the political aggression of the Muslims. For this political aggression has created a malaise which cannot be overlooked.
Three things are noticeable about this political aggression of the Muslims.
First is the ever-growing catalogue of the Muslim’s political demands. Their origin goes back to the year 1892.
The second thing that is noticeable among the Muslims is the spirit*of exploiting the weaknesses of the Hindus. If the Hindus object to anything, the Muslim policy seems to be to insist upon it and give it up only when the Hindus show themselves ready to offer a price for it by giving the Muslims some other concessions.
Another illustration of this spirit of exploitation is furnished by the Muslim insistence upon cow-slaughter and the stoppage of music before mosques. Islamic law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Musalman when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. But in India they will not be content with the sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played before a mosque in all Muslim countries without any objection. Even in Afghanistan, which is not a secularized country, no objection is taken to music before a mosque. But in India the Musalmans must insist upon its stoppage for no other reason except that the Hindus claim a right to it.
The third thing that is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster’s method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics. They seem to be consciously and deliberately imitating the Sudeten Germans in the means employed by them against the Czechs.* So long as the Muslims were the aggressors, the Hindus were passive, and in the conflict they suffered more than the Muslims did. But this is no longer true. The Hindus have learned to retaliate and no longer feel any compunction in knifing a Musalman. This spirit of retaliation bids fair to produce the ugly spectacle of gangsterism against gangsterism.
Would he be free to say all these today? The Grammar of Secularism?