Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? M… - Syed Ahmed Khan

I ask my friends honestly to say whether out of two such nations whose aims and objects are different, but who happen to agree in some small points, a "National" Congress can be · created? No. In the name of God- No. I thank my friend for inducing the twelve Standing Committees to sanction the rule "that any subject to which the Mussalman delegates object, unanimously or nearly unanimously, must be excluded from all discussion in the Congress." But I again object to the word "delegate", and would suggest that instead of that word be substituted "Mussalman taking part in the Congress." But if this principle which he has laid down in his letter and on which he acted when President, be fully carried out, I wonder what there will be left for the Congress to discuss. Those questions on which Hindus and Mohammedans can unite, and on which they ought to unite, and concerning which it is my earnest desire that they should unite, are social questions. We are both desirous that peace should reign in the country, that we two nations should live in a brotherly manner, that we should help and sympathise with one another, that we should bring pressure to bear, each on his own people, to prevent the arising of religious quarrels, that we should improve our social condition, and that we should try to remove that animosity which is every day increasing between the two communities. The questions on which we can agree are purely social. If he Congress had been made for these objects, then I would myself have been its President, and relieved my friend from the troubles which he incurred. But the Congress is a political Congress, and there is no one of its fundamental principles, and especially that one for which it was in reality founded, to which Mohammedans are not opposed. We may be right or we may be wrong; but there is no Mohammedan, from the shoemaker to the Rais who would like that the ring of slavery should be put on us by that other nation with whom we live. Although in the present time we have fallen to a very low position, and there is every probability we shall sink daily lower (especially when even our friend Badruddin Tyabji thinks it an honour to be President of the Congress), and certainly we shall be contented with our destiny, yet we cannot consent to work for our own fall. 241-2

In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mahomedans and the Hindus—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.

The English have conquered India and· all of us along with it. And just as we made the country obedient and our slave, so the English have done with us. Is it then consonant witl1 the principles of empire that they should ask us whether they should fight Burma or not? Is it consistent with any principle of empire? In the times of the Mohammedan empire, would it have been consistent with the principles of rule that, when the Emperor was about to make war on a Province _of India, he should have asked his subject-peoples whether he should conquer that country or not? Whom should he have asked? Should he have asked those whom he had conquered and had made slaves, and whose brothers he also wanted to make his slaves? Our nation has itself wielded empire, and people of our nation are even now ruling. Is there any principle of empire by which rule over foreign races may be maintained in this manner? 187