UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW

B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) CRIMINAL/LABOUR LAW

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2019-2020               SESSION: JAN-MAY

PROJECT ON THE TOPIC- CRITICALLY ASSESS THE CONTEMPORARY

RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUES EXPLORED IN THE DEBATE BETWEEN GANDHI,

CHATTOPADHYAY AND JINNAH ON RELIGION.

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

Ms. SHRUTI DAS GUPTA

SUBMITTED BY:

MADHURA VALLI. K -049

PANKHUDI TRIPATHI - 058

MOOMAL SHARMA – 055

JASMINE SHEKHAWAT – 042

NEHA VIRMANI – 056

NITYA TRIVEDI – 057

PIYUSH JAIN – 060

PRANAV KAPOOR – 061

KHUSHBOO YADAV – 044

INTRODUCTION

Much has been painted in obnoxious colours on the equation between Gandhi and Jinnah.
Among all the Congress leaders if there was one person who made an everlasting impression
on the mind of Jinnah, he was none else but Gandhi. Most likely Gandhi was also aware of
Jinnah's weakness for him. And, thus more than often his soft feelings for Jinnah were too
visible. Even though both were seasoned politicians, and, at times to defend their position on
this or that issue a stormy debate followed but there was nothing personal about it: Gandhi's
approach vis-à-vis Jinnah more than often showed a human touch. A dispassionate treatment,
to begin with, of the essential aspects of the earlier life of both Gandhi and Jinnah is what we
require for tracing inter-connectivity during their later journey.1

On the other hand, Bankim came out in support of the ancient social system wherein
everything harmoniously occupied its place facilitating a smooth run of social institutions in
which individual was visualized as an ideal person performing his own dharma for the sake
of social system. He said through his novel, Anand Math that self- discipline along with
moral strength and organizational training is essential for the liberation of the country which
is even relevant now. The most important element of moral strength conveyed by him was the
infusion of religious feeling into patriotic work.

The universally recognized supreme service of Bankim to the nation lay in his providing a
vision of the mother. It can be said with justification that the bare intellectual idea of the
mother land in itself does not come as a driving force, the mere recognition of desirability of
freedom is insufficient as an inspiring motive; But, he let the motherland reveal to the eye of
the mind as something more than a stretch of earth or mass of individuals and let her take
shape as a great divine and material power in a form of beauty that can dominate the mind
and size the heart, the scenario is altered dramatically.2

GANDHI’S RELIGIOUS INCLINATIONS:

According to Gandhi religion and morality are inseparably bound up with each other. To
Gandhi, “There is no religion higher than truth and Righteousness”. Morality is prized by
almost all the great religions of the world. The emphasis on morality, by Gandhi helped his
ideas to acquire a universalistic outlook.
1
Zahoor Siddiqui, Jinnah Equation, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 74 (2013), pp. 629-639
2
Aurobindo, Collected Works, Vol.17, Pondicherry: Aurobindo Ashram,1972, p.345.
Mahatma Gandhi was deeply interested in the comparative study of religions since the days
of his youth. His interest in religious matters was due to the background of India, which was
saturated with religious ideas and spirituality. Religion, to Gandhi, was not a matter of
individual experience: Gandhi found God within creation. The meaning of the word 'Dharma'
is 'religion' in India. Gandhi's religion was spiritual humanism because he declared that the
service of the poor whom he called "Daridranarayana" is a true service of God. In other
words, Gandhi found God amidst his creation; this creation is confined not only to India, his
own land and not Hinduism alone, the religion to which he belonged. It consisted of men
belonging to different land and different religions. Gandhi's concept of religion, therefore,
brought under its fold people belonging to different religions.

He had many Christian and Muslim friends, as well as being heavily influenced by Jainism in
his youth. Gandhi probably took the religious principle of 'Ahimsa' (doing no harm) from his
Jain neighbours, and from it developed his own famous principle of Satyagraha (truth force)
later on in his life.

There have been numerous discussions on a supposed misstep done by Mahatma Gandhi-the
transgression of parcel. The opportunity holy person is seen to be resolutely Hindu. However,
many reprimanded him for disregarding the monstrosities on Hindu, and arguing for help of
Muslims. Allegorically, Nathuram Godse had implied that Gandhi's freedom belief system
had adhered to a meaningful boundary among Hindus and Muslims. That he to be sure was
answerable for the predicament of individuals, who endured ceaselessly. That he had
supported Muslims over Hindus and, that it was, the specific purpose for Gandhi's death as
Nathuram Godse was a fanatic Hindu and believed in Hinduism rigidly, has been a topic of
many debates.

Gandhi was an adherent to the Vedanta theory of Hinduism which advocates the basic
profound solidarity of all humankind. His Hinduism, in his own words, was "comprehensive.
It isn't hostile to Muslims, against Christian or hostile to some other religion. In any case, it is
genius Muslim, professional Christian and ace each other living confidence on the planet.
Gandhi's mixed perspective on religion was his confidence in Anekantavada (the Jain tenet of
relative pluralism).

CRITICISM AGISNT GANDHI’S VIEW ON RELIGION

He came to be seen as biased Hindu who could in way wish to accommodate Muslims for his
political gain, while the fanatic Hindus considered him as a man who is more titled towards
Muslims and give them extra concessions. It could, however, be a political propaganda by
both Hindus and Muslims where everyone would try to dislodge Gandhiji from either arms.
On the other hand, Dalit intellectuals criticize Gandhi for endorsing the Caste system in
Hindu religion.

The drift in ideology arose between Gandhi AND Jinnah when:

1. Things started changing in Indian politics by 1919. The main reason of this was Gandhi
gave support to khilafat movement and this made Muslims happy. But twist was that this
support was given by hidden motive. Gandhiji wanted support of all the people in
policy of non -violence non-cooperation.

Jinnah was not at all happy with this fusion of religion and politics. His ideology was that the
religion and politics should not be integrated. This move of Gandhiji left Jinnah in cold
wings. Hence, for retaliating such step by Gandhi, Jinnah left the congress and joined Muslim
league.

2. Till early 1937, Jinnah believed that Muslim rights and interests would be, and could be,
made safe in a truly federal constitution; So, he worked for a federation and for Hindu-
Muslim unity. But by the late thirties, chiefly as a result of the Congress policy and posture in
the provinces under its rule, he got convinced that the Congress would turn even a federal
constitution into a machinery for oppression of the Muslims and other minorities, so by 1937-
38, he began to oppose it tooth and nail. Increasingly and inexorably was he to Direct all his
energies hence forth towards building up Muslim unity.

JINNAH’S RELIGIOUS AGENDA:

Jinnah was influenced from the western lifestyle and education system. He was considered to
have secular thoughts. Despite the Congress Party's assertions of its secular values, many
Muslims were sceptical and feared that the Hindu majority would seek to marginalise them.
Jinnah himself was an advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity before becoming disillusioned with
the attitude of Congress. He worked for federation and Hindu- Muslim unity until 1937, as he
believed the safety of Muslims can only be achieved by respecting all religions  

Later his views differed from Gandhi’s ideology. Prior to the division of India in 1947,
Hindus and Muslims had lived together across the country. But Jinnah described them as two
separate nations. "It is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common
nationality," he said. "Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies,
social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed
they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and
conceptions. "This "Two Nation Theory", as it came to be known, has become the official
Pakistani narrative for the creation of the state and key to how Pakistan defines itself.
Pakistan was perhaps the first country to be formed on the basis not of a common ethnicity or
language, but religion. "Hindus and Muslims had nothing in common other than the fact that
they shared a land," one said. "Their religion, their values, and their culture were all different.
So that was why a new country was needed to get their rights." On 24th March, 1940 when at
the Lahore session, Jinnah called for a separate country that is; Pakistan. He was of the view
that areas where majority of Muslim population is living should be clubbed together and a
separate state i.e. Pakistan.

THE RELIGIOUS – POLITICAL DEBATE BETWEEN GANDHI AND JINNAH

It is not out of the way to mention that right from the beginning of his interest in Indian
politics Jinnah sided with moderate nationalist leaders like Gokhle and Firoze Shah, but now
even Tilak did not show any reservation in associating himself with Jinnah and the Muslim
League to formulate Lucknow Pact in 1916. Gandhi was also impressed by Jinnah, and, in his
speech, words like 'learned', 'Gentleman', 'eminent lawyer' were used for him. So
overwhelming was the response that now onwards Jinnah earned the distinction of being
called 'An Ambassador of Hindu - Muslim Unity'. Definitely in Lucknow he emerged as an
eminent political leader; still he was not a mass leader. It goes to the credit of Gandhi who
brought Jinnah nearer to masses - overwhelming majority of those consisted of peasants.
Gandhi brought Jinnah to Godhra where a provincial session of Gujarat Congress was held in
1918. Here for the first time Jinnah, himself a Gujarati, witnessed unprecedented response
from a massive native crowd. The people, present there were thrilled to see Jinnah amongst
themselves.3

3
Frederick Puckle, The Gandhi-Jinnah Conversations, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jan., 1945), pp. 318-323
Gandhi more than often boosted the image of his colleagues and in case of Sardar Patel,
Jinnah and Nehru he went all out. He started addressing Jinnah as ' Quaid-t - Azam '. Besides,
Gandhi also realized that if Jinnah was won over his own position in the National Movement
would be doubly strengthened as the latter's very presence would encourage more energetic
young men and women to come forward for the cause of Freedom. However, at a crucial
phase of Indian politics when the National Movement was gaining strength day by day, and,
the unfolding this very new situation brought with it new problems. In March, 1919 the
passing of the Rowlett Act pushed the people to mass action - really 'a new element entered
politics: the people'. Gandhi was quick enough to sense the mood of the people, and,
therefore, he initiated 'civil disobedience'. The response was unprecedented and obviously
this caused serious headache to the British officialdom; but unfortunately, it also became a
bone of contention between Gandhi and some other leaders, including Jinnah. And then
emerged the Khilafat Movement. Gandhi was for active association; his move was duly
endorsed by the Congress Working Committee. The controversial issue was the troublesome
situation in Turkey that was picked up by some emerging young Muslim leaders led by Ali
Brothers - Mohammad Ali and Shaukat Ali. Even though no authentic version was available
to the exact happenings in Turkey the very intensions of British imperialists were seriously in
doubt. Any move to harm ' Khilafat ' in Turkey was construed as an insult to Islam and
Muslim community. Emotions were surcharged and a wave of anti-imperialism was visible.
Khilafat Movement started gaining the support of the common Muslims. At this forced
Gandhi to be one with them; he was able to convince most of the Congress leaders for this
togetherness. But Gandhi failed to convince Jinnah and Ansari. Particularly Jinnah was
disgusted to fight for an issue on which even the very enthusiastic leaders did not have
sufficient facts and in his opinion, they also lacked a proper perspective - surging
participation of the Mullahs was a disturbing factor for his secular mental make-up.

The Khilafat Movement with its massive support and the spread of Non- Cooperation
movement even in the unexpected quarters changed Gandhi's tone, and the words that he was
using in his speeches were reflecting militancy. He was again and again reminding the
officialdom of the brute force that was let loose in Amritsar on the peaceful gathering by
Dyer. Though still a believer of non-violence Gandhi candidly said, 4 Proclaim to the
Government: “You may hang us on the gallows, you may send us to prison but you will get
no cooperation from us”.
An entirely new situation developed before the British rulers but still they were seasoned
politicians. They did not show any inclination for settling this burning problem politically.
The most effective weapon that proved effective time and time again was sharply edged
communalism; they engineered riots everywhere. And ultimately the unity thus forged by the
people of two communities was shattered.

Then came the elections of 1937 that gave a resounding victory to the Congress Party and but
Muslim League, under the leadership of Jinnah, was badly outnumbered. Consequently, all
these developments provided overwhelming confidence to the Congress and as such in a
position to lay its claim to be called by the British rulers for any vital decision in regard to the
future. Gandhi was, though still outside the organization, somehow preferred a flexible line
just to win the political opponents. 4

Not sure about the situation Jinnah was no more an advocate of peaceful means; his political
instinct took the form of 'direct action'. He resorted to such violent action for establishing his
claim that for any solution to the future of India no political power can ignore him. And one
more reason that pushed him to 'direct action' was the proximity of the British to the big
landowners and nawabs. In the past the British rulers used them consistently and again in the
absence of a powerful democratic movement in the dominant Muslim areas they could be
persecuted to form many Pakistans headed by this or that Nawab. With a view to making the
transition smooth Gandhi suggested to the Cabinet Mission and later to Mountbatten that
Jinnah be offered the office of the Prime Minister there was no support from any quarter to
this suggestion - 'quixotic in the eyes of other Congress leaders.' And it is equally true that
Jinnah did not make any special effort to win the heart of Congress leaders or the Indian
masses as a whole; he wanted them just to crown him on his own terms. Unfortunately,
Jinnah never realised that things simply would not happen as he desired, and that too in a
complex society in which he and other contemporary leaders were born. On his part he was
not prepared to re-examine the limitations of the concrete situation. Ultimately to achieve
what was best in his perception Jinnah became victim of divisive politics.5

Ultimately what was not considered desirable by many became a reality. In the end Jinnah
was victorious in achieving Pakistan, and, finally he established himself as the head of a
newly carved state but the cost was heavy and brutal too. Never before India saw the killing
of her own daughters and sons on such a massive scale that too on a fanatical basis. Even
4
3. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, 15 October, 1938 - 28 February 1939, New Delhi, 1977, pp.3
5
Rajmohan Gandhi, Mohan
though Jinnah promised to save the interest of the minorities and but in action he failed to
stop the large- scale migration of the Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. On the contrary
Gandhi though could not give his country what so earnestly he desired.6

BANKIM CHANDRA CHATTOPADHYAY’S RELIGIOUS PROMINENCE:

Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay is considered a Hindu fundamentalist by a section of Hindu

and Muslim intellectuals. He was certainly a devout Hindu by birth, but he did not pen any
religious treatise. Some people project his books, Krishna Charitra, Anushilantatwa
and Dharmatatwa as his religious creations. But none of these was written to propagate the
Hindu religion.7

Durgeshnandini, Bankim's first novel in Bengali written in 1865 is not much considered in
the context of discussing his representations of Hindu-Muslim differences. The main thematic
preoccupation of the novel is love and emotion; yet, contours of cultural differences exist
largely at a passive and implicit level.

Bankim's Later Writings' is yet another attempt to trace present day communalism (of the
present government) to Bankim Chandra. Bankim Chandra was a conservative Hindu, and in
a way ultra nationalist. He believed, like most of the intellectuals of his time (under the
influence of the British orientalists), in the golden days of India and possibility of its revival.
Since the golden days pre- dated the Islamic period of Indian history, what was to be revived
was Hindu in origin. If his espousal of revival of Hindu religion makes him the fountainhead
of communalism of today, then the British orientalists were as much responsible. Nowhere
did Bankim Chandra try to find out the culpability of the Muslims in Indian history as alleged
by Sarkar. Sarkar refers to Bankim Chandra's view of Mughals having looted the riches of
Bengal. Torn out of context this shows Bankim Chandra's anti-Muslim bias. But Bankim
Chandra was in fact comparing the Pathan rule in Bengal (during which, according to him
Bengal reached the height of her glory) with Moghul rule, when he felt the decline of Bengal
started.8

If he was perceived to be a fundamentalist, then why is Chattopadhyay considered a

proponent of Hindutva and a communal personality?

6
Zahoor Siddiqui, Jinnah Equation, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 74 (2013), pp. 629-639
7
Ranjana Das, The Nation and The Community: Hindus And Muslims In the Novels of Bankim Chandra
Chatterjee, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 73 (2012), pp. 578-587
8
R.P. Goswamy, Letters to Editor, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 47 (Nov. 19, 1994), p. 2946
Much of this has to do with the fact that he is the creator of Vande Mataram, the invocation
to the nation imagined as Mother Goddess and not Devi Durga as is commonly, and
mistakenly, believed.

Vande Mataram was composed by Chattopadhyay in 1857, the year of the Sepoy Uprising.
Most likely, he was then posted at Berhampore near Murshidabad in Bengal. Some experts,
however, believe it was composed at Chinsurah, where Chattopadhyay was then posted as
deputy magistrate. There is some evidence that he had based Vande Mataram on a Sanskrit
hymn he had come across in an old manuscript. The song was later used in the
novel, Anandamath.

The song gained immense popularity during the freedom movement. Rabindranath Tagore
composed the music for it and sang it at a session of the Indian National Congress (INC) in
1896. Rahimtulla Mahomed Sayani, a Western-educated Muslim politician, presided over
that particular session held at Calcutta. Later, at the Calcutta Congress session of 1901, the
same where Gandhi appeared on a Congress platform for the first time, Dakshinaranjan Sen
sang the hymn to the accompaniment of a piano. It was Gandhi who first proposed in an
article published in the journal, Opinion, that Vande Mataram be made India's national
anthem.9

When British administrators realised that the song was being used by freedom fighters, the
Carlyle Circular - a secret circular sent by R.W. Carlyle, chief secretary to the government of
Bengal - banned the song from being sung in all schools and colleges. That was in 1904.

Aurobindo Ghose started a weekly English newspaper in 1906, which he called Bande

Mataram. In the editorial of the inaugural issue, he wrote that the song was a mantra for true
patriots. When one sings it, one feels electrified, filled with a surge of patriotism, Ghose had
written.

It is well documented that Tagore sang this song as he led a Swadeshi procession. In 1906, he
also sang this at the annual session of the INC. In the same year, H. Bose Records had this
song recorded by Tagore. Freedom fighters like Khudiram Bose and Kanailal sang this very
hymn as they embraced their death sentence.

Most probably the Congress Working Committee took the decision to turn Vande
Mataram into India's national anthem on September 7, 1906. In 2006, the then human

9
Chittabrata Palit, The bunkum about Bankim, Telegraph India, 15 Jul, 2018.
resource minister, Arjun Singh, had decided to celebrate September 7 as the centennial of the
song. But there is no evidence that the song was indeed composed then.

It was in 1920 that the song was given the status of India's national anthem. But the Muslim
League resisted this as it considered it a Hindu fundamentalist hymn. To counter the
allegation, the Congress, led by Nehru, decided to adopt only the first two stanzas. Much
later, in 1951, Tagore's Jana Gana Mana was adopted as the national anthem. Vande
Mataram was relegated to the status of one of the national songs of India.

Between 1930 and 1940, the Muslim League whipped up a protest movement around the
song. Hindu nationalists countered in 1947. They described it as an expression of collective
national emotion. The fight over the song continues but it has proven to be fruitless.10

CONCLUSION

It may therefore be concluded that in today’s times, as readers of our constitutional history, it
has been much convenient for us to understand and empathise with each and every person in
history when read about their thoughts, and political inclinations in depth. It isn’t everyday
that persons such as Gandhi, Jinnah, or Chattopadhyay make their mark in history, and as
objective learners of the history, and our constitution, it is our responsibility to not only
portray our past leaders in white light, but to also learn from their mistakes so as to ensure not
repeating them in our future.

To summarise the main contentions of the 3 leaders in this discussion:

1. The common point among them is that all 3 of them believed in the concept of religion
though their perception is different.
2. Gandhiji focussed on traditional aspects of religion while Jinnah was more influenced by
the western education and the way of living of them.
3. Chattopadhyay’s views cannot be traced from one area but his views are scattered and can
be traced from his different works on literature. Also while Jinnah and Gandhiji viewed
religion from the point of view of whole India but Chattopadhyay s work focussed on
whole of Bengal only.

10
Chittabrata Palit, The bunkum about Bankim, Telegraph India, 15 Jul, 2018.
4. Initially Jinnah and Gandhijis viewpoints were same regarding religion but later with time
and changing situations, Jinnah drifted from the ideology of Gandhiji.
5. Later gandhiji more focussed on Hindu religion and further worked in the upliftment of
the Hindu Minority, while Jinnah always focussed on secularism.
6. Till early 1937, Jinnah believedthat Muslim rights and interests would be, and could be,
made safe in a truly federal constitution; so he worked for a federation and for Hindu-
Muslim unity. But by the late thirties, chiefly as a result of the Congress policy and
posture in the provinces under its rule, he got convinced that the Congress would turn
even a federal constitution into a machinery for oppression of the Muslims and other
minorities, so by 1937-38 he began to oppose it tooth and nail. Increasingly and
inexorably was he to direct all his energies hence forth towards building up Muslim unity,
a single political platform, and a uniform all-India policy to be followed loyally by 21
Muslims throughout the subcontinent. He was thus to establish himself, with the passage
of time, as the unquestioned leader of Indian Muslims.11
7. But due to the differences coming between Jinnah and Gandhiji, Jinnah shifted his focus
from whole India to now creating a strong Muslim league and started working for its
welfare. The differences increased to such an extent that at the Lahore session on 24th
March, 1940 he demanded a separate country for Muslims i.e. Pakistan and also
demanded that parts of India like Punjab, Baluchistan, North- Front provinces should be
separated from India and joined to Pakistan. Hence a demanded separation on the basis of
religion. He drifted from his own ideology of secularism to following only one religion
due to the ongoing circumstances and Britishers divide and rule policy.
8. Viewing religion in a very different, though in a modern perspective Chattopadhyay
focused on Dharma. He viewed Dharma in a very different way unlike today’s definition
of dharma where nowadays people relate dharma with caste and religion differences. He
related dharma to more about individual’s potential for development. He viewed dharma
in a more modern form.12
9. For Gandhi, no good thing could grow out of bad and truth is indivisible” or “Gandhi
excelled as an active protestor, Jinnah was the most skilful of passive opponents” and
again, “Gandhi was a leader by example, Jinnah, was leader by inspiration”.13
11
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/21117/2/03_abstract.pdf

12
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/21117/2/03_abstract.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290804982_THE_CONCEPT_OF_RELIGION_AND_THE_DEBAT
E_ON_THE_RIGHTS_OF_WOMEN_IN_THE_CONSTITUTIONAL_DEBATES_OF_INDIA
13
https://www.freepressjournal.in/book-reviews/jinnah-vs-gandhi
10. While Gandhiji had tremendous religious orientation, it was almost none for Jinnah. In
social environment while Gandhiji had tremendous influence on the lower and middle
strata of the society, M.A. Jinnah was deeply attached with the higher strata of the society
and had the wit of language and conviction to prevail upon higher classes.
11. Jinnah abhorred and detested violence of any form and he always believed that any form
of movement whether civil disobedience a non-cooperation which was opted by his
political counterpart Mahatma Gandhi, could always turn into uncontrollable violence
which subsequently would give the government a plea to resort to ruthless repression. Not
surprising that Gandhi’s methods were always questioned by Jinnah and though he was
shouted down when he called upon Gandhi to retract and had said that the constitutional
way is the only right way. If constituted authority is to be overthrown what will happen to
the country, was the question Jinnah posed repeatedly. It was his blatant disregard to
M.K. Gandhi’s principles and methods perhaps which made him repugnant to the
Congress leadership undoubtedly his aversion to the Congress. 14

14
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/21117/2/03_abstract.pdf