One country, two nations (Meerut, March 1888) SYED AHMED KHAN (1817–1898)

One country, two nations (Meerut, March 1888)
SYED AHMED KHAN (1817–1898)

The founding of the Indian National Congress had an immediate response

from the Muslims. Men like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, a Delhi-born

employee of the British government who rose to the position of a

subordinate judge and in 1875 founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental

College at Aligarh, saw the Congress as a body dominated by educated

Hindus. Muslims had been slow to take to English education and this set

them apart from those who were active in the Congress. Sir Syed argued

that Muslims in India had their own identity and that their interests would

be better served by cultivating the friendship of the British rather than

allying themselves with the INC. is was the first time that this

standpoint—that the Indian Muslim’s interests were separate from those of

the Hindus—was publicly voiced and it would continue to be raised until

Partition.

I think it expedient that I should first of all tell you the reason why I am

about to address you on the subject of to-night’s discourse. You know,

gentlemen, that, from a long time, our friends, the Bengalis have shown

very warm feelings on political matters. ree years ago they founded a very

big assembly, which holds its sittings in various places, and they have given

it the name ‘National Congress.’ We and our nation gave no thought to the

matter. And we should be very glad for our friends the Bengalis to be

successful if we were of opinion that they had by their education and ability

made such progress as rendered them fit for the claims they put forward.

But although they are superior to us in education, yet we have never

admitted that they have reached that level to which they lay claim to have

d N h l I h l h

attained. Nevertheless, I have never, in any article, or in any speech, or even

in conversation in any place, put difficulties or desired to put difficulties in

the way of any of their undertakings. It has never been my wish to oppose

any people or any nation who wish to make progress, and who have raised

themselves up to that rank to which they wish to attain and for which they

are qualified. But my friends the Bengalis have made a most unfair and

unwarrantable interference with my nation, and therefore it is my duty to

show clearly what this unwarrantable interference has been, and to protect

my nation from the evils that may arise from it. It is quite wrong to suppose

that I have girded up my loins for the purpose of fighting my friends the

Bengalis: my object is only to make my nation understand what I consider

conducive to its prosperity. It is incumbent on me to show what evils would

befall my nation from joining in the opinions of the Bengalis: I have no

other purpose in view.

e unfair interference of these people is this—that they have tried to

produce a false impression that the Mohammedans of these Provinces agree

with their opinions. But we also are inhabitants of this country, and we

cannot be ignorant of the real nature of the events that are taking place in

our own North-West Provinces and Oudh, however their colour may be

painted in newspapers, and whatever aspect they may be made to assume. It

is possible that the people of England, who are ignorant of the real facts,

may be deceived on seeing their false representations, but we and the people

of our country, who know ‘all the circumstances’, can never be thus imposed

on. Our Mohammedan nation has hitherto sat silent. It was quite

indifferent as to what the Babus of Bengal, the Hindus of these Provinces,

and the English and Eurasian inhabitants of India might be doing. But they

have now been wrongly tampering with our nation. In some districts they

have brought pressure to bear on Mohammedans to make them join the

Congress. I am sorry to say that they never said anything to those people

who are powerful and are actually Raises and are counted the leaders of the

nation; but they brought unfair pressure to bear on such people as could be

subjected to their influence. In some districts they pressed men by the

weight of authority, in others they forced them in this way, saying, the

business they had at heart could not prosper unless they took part—or they

led them to suppose that they could not get bread if they held aloof. ey

even did not hold back from offering the temptation of money. Where is

the man that does not know this? Who does not know who were the three

f M h d f h N h W P h k h

or four Mohammedans of the North-West Provinces who took part with

them, and why they took part? e simple truth is they were nothing more

than hired men. (Cheers) Such people they took to Madras, and having got

them there, said:

‘ese are the sons of Nawabs, and these are Rais of such-and-such

districts, and these are such-and-such great Mohammedans,’ whilst

everybody knows how the men were bought. We know very well the people

of our own nation, and that they have been induced to go either by pressure,

or by folly, or by love of notoriety, or by poverty. If any Rais on his own

inclination and opinion joins them, we do not care a lot. By one man’s

leaving us our crowd is not diminished. But this telling of lies that their

men are landlords and Nawabs of such-and-such places and their attempt

to give a false impression that the Mohammedans have joined them, this is

a most unwarrantable interference with our nation. When matters took

such a turn, then it was necessary that I should warn my nation of their

misrepresentations in order that others should not fall into the trap; and

that I should point out to my nation that the few who went to Madras,

went by pressure, or from temptation, or in order to help their profession,

or to gain notoriety, or were bought. (Cheers) No Rais from here took part

in it.

is was the cause of my giving a speech at Lucknow, contrary to my wont,

on the evils of the National Congress; and this is the cause also of today’s

speech. And I want to show this that except Badruddin Tyabji who is a

gentleman of very high position and for whom I have great respect, no

leading Mohammedan took part in it. He did take part, but I think he

made a mistake. He has written me two letters, one of which was after the

publication of my Lucknow speech. I think that he wants me to point out

those things in the Congress which are opposed to the interests of

Mohammedans in order that he may exclude them from the discussion. But

in reality the whole affair is bad for Mohammedans. However, let us grant

that Badruddin Tyabji’s opinion is different from ours; yet it cannot be said

that his opinion is the opinion of the whole nation, or that his sympathy

with the Congress implies the sympathy of the whole community. My

friend there, Mirza Ismail Khan, who has just come from Madras, told me

that no Mohammedan Rais took part in the Congress. It is said that Prince

Humayun Jah joined it. Let us suppose that Humayun Jah, whom I do not

know, took part in it, yet our position as a nation will not suffer simply

b d d N h b h R

because two men stand aside. No one can say that because these two Rais

took part in it therefore the whole nation has joined it. To say that the

Mohammedans have joined it is quite wrong and is a false accusation

against our nation. If my Bengali friends had not adopted this wrong course

of action, I should have had nothing to do with the National Congress, nor

with its members, nor with the wrong aspirations for which they have raised

such an uproar. Let the delegates of National Congress become the stars of

heaven, or the sun itself—I am delighted. But it was necessary and

incumbent on me to show the falsity of impression which, by taking a few

Mohammedans with them by pressure or by temptation, they wished to

spread that the whole Mohammedan nation had joined them. (Cheers)

Gentlemen, what I am about to say is not only useful for my own nation,

but also for my Hindu brothers of these provinces, who from some wrong

notions have taken part in this Congress. At last they also will be sorry for

it, although perhaps they will never have occasion to be sorry; for it is

beyond the region of possibility that the proposals of the Congress should

be carried out fully. ese wrong notions which have grown up in our

Hindu fellow-country-men, and on account of which they think it

expedient to join the Congress, depend upon two things.

e first thing is that they think that as both they themselves and the

Bengalis are Hindus, they have nothing to fear from the growth of their

influence. e second thing is this: that some Hindus—I do not speak of all

the Hindus but only of some—think that by joining the Congress and by

increasing the power of the Hindus they will perhaps be able to suppress

those Mohammedan religious rites which are opposed to their own, and, by

all uniting, annihilate them. But I frankly advise my Hindu friends that if

they wish to cherish their religious rites they can never be successful in this

way. If they are to be successful, it can only be by friendship and agreement.

e business cannot be done by force; and the greater the enmity and

animosity the greater will be their loss. I will take Aligarh as an example.

ere Mohammedans and Hindus are in agreement. e Dushera and

Moharrum fell together for three years, and no one knows what took place.

It is worth notice how, when an agitation was started against cow-killing,

the sacrifice of cows increased enormously, and religious animosity grew on

both sides, as all who live in India know well. ey should understand that

those things which can be done by friendship and affection cannot be done

by any pressure or force. If these ideas which I have expressed about the

H d f h P b d h d b l h

Hindus of these Provinces be correct and their condition be similar to that

of the Mohammedans, then they ought to continue to cultivate friendship

with us. Let those who live in Bengal eat up their own heads. What they

want to do, let them do it. What they don’t want to do, let them not do it.

Neither their disposition nor their general condition resembles that of the

people of this country. en what connection have the people of this

country with them? As regards Bengal, there is, as far as I am aware in

Lower Bengal, a much larger proportion of Mohammedans than Bengalis.

And if you take the population of the whole of Bengal, nearly half are

Mohammedans and something over half are Bengalis. ose

Mohammedans are quite unaware of what sort of thing the National

Congress is. No Mohammedan Rais of Bengal took part in it; and the

ordinary Bengalis who live in the district are also as ignorant of it as the

Mohammedans. In Bengal the Mohammedan population is so great that if

the aspirations of those Bengalis who are making so loud an agitation be

fulfilled, it will be extremely difficult for the Bengalis to remain in peace

even in Bengal. ese proposals of the Congress are extremely inexpedient

for the country which is inhabited by two different nations, who drink from

the same well, breathe the air of the same city, and depend on each other for

its life. To create animosity between them is good neither for peace, nor for

the country, nor for the town.

After this long preface I wish to explain what method my nation, nay, rather

the whole people of this country, ought to pursue in political matters. I will

treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you

may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. e first of all is

this—in whose hands shall the Administration and the Empire of India

rest? Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to

leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons

and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under

these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans 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. At the same time you must remember that although the

number of Mohammedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although

they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education,

yet they must not be considered insignificant or weak. Probably they would

b b h l h h B h

be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they

were not. en our Musalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a

swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to

flow from their frontier on the north to the extreme end of Bengal.

is thing—who, after the departure of English would be conquerors—

would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the

other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land. is conclusion

is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it. Now, suppose that

the English are not in India and that one of the nations of India has

conquered the other, whether the Hindus the Mohammedans, or the

Mohammedans the Hindus. At once some other nation of Europe, such as

the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, or the Russians, will attack India.

eir ships of war, covered with iron and loaded with flashing cannons and

weapons, will surround her on all sides. At that time who will protect India?

Neither Hindus can save nor Mohammedans; neither the Rajputs nor my

brothers the Pathans. And what will be the result? e result will be this—

that foreigners will rule India, because the state of India is such that if

foreign powers attack her, no one has the power to oppose them. From this

reasoning it follows that of necessity an empire, not of any Indian race, but

of foreigners, will be established in India. Now, will you please decide which

of the nations of Europe you would like to rule over India? I ask if you

would like Germany, whose subjects weep for heavy taxation and the

stringency of their military service? Would you like the rule of France?

Stop! I fancy you would, perhaps, like the rule of the Russians, who are very

great friends of India and of Mohammedans, and under whom the Hindus

will live in great comfort, and who will protect with the tenderest care the

wealth and property which they have acquired under English rule?

(Laughter) Everybody knows something or other about these powerful

kingdoms of Europe. Everyone will admit that their governments are far

worse, nay, beyond comparison worse, than the British Government. It is,

therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of

everything in India the English Government should remain for many years

—in fact for ever!

When it is granted that the maintenance of the British Government, and of

no other, is necessary for the progress of our country, then I ask whether

there is any example in the world of one nation having conquered and ruled

over another nation, and that conquered nation claiming it as a right that

h h ld h  l f

they should have representative government? e principle of representative

government is that it is government by a nation, and that the nation in

question rules over its own people and its own land. Can you tell me of any

case in the world’s history in which any foreign nation after conquering

another and establishing its empire over it has given representative

government to the conquered people? Such a thing has never taken place. It

is necessary for those who have conquered us to maintain their empire on a

strong basis. When rulers and ruled are one nation, representative

government is possible. For example, in Afghanistan, of which Amir Abdur

Rahman is the ruler, where all the people are brother-Afghans, it might be

possible. If they want they can have representative government. But to think

that representative government can be established in a country over which a

foreign race rules, is utterly vain, nor can a trace of such a state of things be

discovered in the history of the world. erefore to ask that we should be

appointed by election to the Legislative Council is opposed to the true

principles of government, and no government whatever, whether English or

German or French or Russian or Musalman, could accept this principle.

e meaning of it is this: ‘Abandon the rule of the country and put it in our

hands.’ Hence, it is in no way expedient that our nation should join in and

echo these monstrous proposals.

e next question is about the budget. ey say: ‘Give us power to vote on

the budget. Whatever expenses we may grant shall be granted, whatever

expenses we do not grant shall not be granted.’ Now, consider to what sort

of government this principle is applicable. It is suited to such a country as

is, according to the fundamental principles of politics, adapted also for

representative government. e rulers and the ruled must be of the same

nation. In such a country the people have also the right of deciding matters

of peace and war. But this principle is not adapted to a country in which

one foreign race has conquered another. e 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 consistent with 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

h h k d h h h h d d d h d d l d

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?

e right to give an opinion on the budget depends also on another

principle, which is this: that in a country in which the people accept the

responsibility for all the expenses of government, and are ready with their

lives and property to discharge it—in such a country they have a right to

give their opinion on the budget. ey can say, ‘undertake this expense or

leave that alone.’ And whatever the expense, it is then their duty to pay it.

For example, in England in a time of necessity the whole wealth and

property of everyone, from the Duke to the cobbler, is at the disposal of the

government. It is the duty of the people to give all their money and all their

property to the government, because they are responsible for giving

government all that it may require. And they say: ‘Yes, take it! Yes, take it.

Spend the money. Beat the enemy. Beat the enemy.’ ese are conditions

under which people have a right to decide matters about the budget. e

principle that underlies the Government of India is of a wholly different

nature. In India, the Government has itself to bear the responsibility of

maintaining its authority and it must, in the way that seems to it fittest,

raise money for its army and for the expense of the empire. Government has

a right to take a proportion of the produce of the land as land-revenue, and

is like a contractor who bargains on this income to maintain the empire. It

has not the power to increase the amount settled as land-revenue. However

great its necessity, it cannot say to the Zamindars: ‘Increase your

contribution.’ Nor do the Zamindars think that, even in a time of necessity,

government has any right to increase its fixed tax on land. If at this time

there were a war with Russia, would all the Zamindars and Taluqdars be

willing to give double their assessment to government? ey would not give

a pice more. en what right have they to interfere and say: ‘So much

should be spent and so much should not be spent?’ e method of the

British Government is that of all kings and Asiatic empires. When you will

not, even in time of war, give a pice more of your land-revenue, what right

have you to interfere in the budget?

e real motive for scrutinizing the budget is economy. Economy is a thing

of such a nature that everyone has a regard for it in his household

I d h h d f

arrangements. It is a crude notion that government has no regard for

economy and squanders its money. Government practices economy as far as

possible. Our government is so extremely miserly that it will not uselessly

give anyone a single pice. Until great necessity arise and great pressure is

brought to bear on it, it will not spend a pice. It has completely forgotten

the generosity of the former emperors. e kings of later times presented

poets and authors with estates and lakhs of rupees. Our government does

not spend a pice in that way. What greater economy can there be than this?

Instead of rewards it gives authors copyright. at also it does after taking

two rupees for registering. It writes a letter as a sanad, and says that, for

forty years, no other man may print the book. Print it, sell it, and make your

profit: this is a reward to you from government.

People look at the income of the government and say it is much greater

than that of former empires, but they don’t think of the expenses of

government and how much they have increased. In the old days, a sword of

fifteen or twenty rupees, a gun of ten or fifteen rupees, a cardboard

ammunition bag, and a coil of fuse was enough equipment for a soldier.

Now look and see how the expenses of the army have increased in modern

times, and what progress has been made in arms, and how they are daily

improving, and the old becoming useless. If a new kind of gun or cannon be

invented in France or Germany, is it possible for government not to

abandon all its old kinds of guns or cannons and adopt the new? When the

expenses have grown so much, the wonder is how on earth government

manages to carry on its business on the small tax which it raises. (Cheers)

Perhaps many people will not like what I am going to say, but I will tell

them openly a thing which took place. When after the Mutiny, the Hon’ble

Mr Wilson was Financial Minister, he brought forward a law for imposing

a tax, and said in his speech that this tax would remain for five years only.

An honourable English friend of mine showed me the speech and asked me

if I liked it. I read it and said that I had never seen so foolish a Financial

Minister as the Hon’ble Mr Wilson. He was surprised. I said that it was

wrong to restrict it to five years. e condition of India was such that it

ought to be imposed for ever. Consider for a moment that government has

to protect its friends the Afghans, and their protection is necessary. It is

necessary for government to strengthen the frontier. If in England there

had been any need for strengthening a frontier, then the people would

themselves have doubled or trebled (sic) their taxes to meet the necessity. In

B h b b l h h h h f

Burma there are expenses to be borne, although we hope that in future it

will be a source of income. If under such circumstance, government

increases the salt-tax by eight annas per maund, is this thing such that we

ought to make complaints? If this increase of tax be spread over everybody

it will not amount to half or quarter of a pice. On this to raise an uproar, to

oppose government, to accuse it of oppression—what utter nonsense and

injustice! And in spite of this they claim the right to decide matters about

the budget.

When it has been settled that the English Government is necessary, then it

is useful for India that its rule should be established on the firmest possible

basis. And it is desirable for government that for its stability it should

maintain an army of such a size as it may think expedient, with a proper

equipment of officers; and that it should in every district appoint officials in

whom it can place complete confidence, in order that if a conspiracy arises

in any place they may apply the remedy. I ask you, is it the duty of

government or not to appoint European officers in its empire to stop

conspiracies and rebellions? Be just, and examine your hearts, and tell me if

it is not a natural law that people should confide more in men of their own

nation. If any Englishman tells you anything which is true, you remain

doubtful. But when a man of your own nation, or your family, tells you a

thing privately in your house, you believe it at once. What reason can you

then give why the government, in the administration of so big an empire,

should not appoint as custodians of secrets and as givers of every kind of

information, men of her own nationality, but must leave all these matters to

you, and say: ‘Do what you like?’ ese things which I have said are such

necessary matters of State administration that, whatever nation may be

holding the empire, they cannot be left out of sight. It is the business of a

good and just government, after having secured the above mentioned

essentials, to give honour to the people of the land over which it rules, and

to give them as high appointments as it can. But, in reality, there are certain

appointments to which we can claim no right; we cannot claim the post of

head executive authority in any zila. ere are hundreds of secrets which

government cannot disclose. If government appoint us to such responsible

and confidential posts, it is her favour. We will certainly discharge the duties

faithfully and without divulging her secrets. But it is one thing to claim it as

a right and another for government, believing us to be faithful and worthy

of confidence, to give us the posts. Between these two things there is a

d ff b H d E h H bl l

difference as between Heaven and Earth. How can we possibly claim as a

right those things on which the very existence and strength of the

government depends? We most certainly have not the right to put those

people in the Council whom we want, and to keep out those whom we don’t

want, to pass those laws that we want, and to veto those laws that we

dislike. If we have the right to elect members for the Legislative Council,

there is no reason why we should not have the right to elect members for

the Imperial Council. In the Imperial Council thousands of matters of

foreign policy and State secrets are discussed. Can you with justice say that

we Indians have a right to claim those things? To make an agitation for

such things can only bring misfortune on us and on the country. It is

opposed to the true principles of government, and is harmful for the peace

of the country. e aspirations of our friends the Bengalis have made such

progress that they want to scale a height to which it is beyond their powers

to attain. But if I am not in error, I believe that the Bengalis have never at

any period held sway over a particle of land. ey are altogether ignorant of

the method by which a foreign race can maintain its rule over other races.

erefore, reflect on the doings of your ancestors, and be not unjust to the

British Government to whom God has given the rule of India; and look

honestly and see what is necessary for it to do to maintain its empire and its

hold on the country. You can appreciate these matters; but they cannot who

have never held a country in their hands nor won a victory. Oh, my brother

Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for

centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in

India you have had imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust

to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this: how upright

is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English Government shows to the

foreign nations under her, there is no example in the history of the world.

See what freedom she has given in her laws, and how careful she is to

protect the rights of her subjects. She has not been backward in promoting

the progress of the natives of India and in throwing open to them high

appointments. At the commencement of her rule, except clerkships and

kaziships there was nothing. e kazis of the pargana, who were called

commissioners, decided small civil suits and received very small pay. Up to

1832 or 1833 this state of things lasted. If my memory is not wrong, it was

in the time of Lord William Bentinck that natives of India began to get

honourable posts. e positions of munsif, subordinate judge and deputy

ll bl d h b

collector on respectable pay were given to natives, and progress has been

steadily going on ever since. In the Calcutta High Court a Kashmiri Pandit

was first appointed, equal to the English judges. After him Bengalis have

been appointed as High Court judges. At this time there are, perhaps, three

Bengalis in the Calcutta High Court, and in the same way some Hindus in

Bombay and Madras. It was your bad fortune that there was for a long time

no Mohammedan High Court Judge, but now there is one in the Allahabad

High Court. (Cheers) Native High Court judges can cancel the decision of

English judges and collectors. ey can ask them for explanations. e

subordinate native officers also have full authority in their posts. A deputy

collector, a sub-judge, or a munsif decides cases according to his opinion,

and is independent of the opinion of the judge or collector. None of these

things have been acquired by fighting or opposition. As far as you have

made yourselves worthy of the confidence of government, to that extent you

have received high positions. Make yourselves her friends and prove to her

that your friendship with her is like that of English and the Scots. After

this what you have to claim, claim—on condition that you are qualified for

it.

About this political controversy, in which my Hindu brothers of this

province, to whom I have given some advice, and who have, I think, joined

from some wrong notions, have taken part, I wish to give some advice to

my Mohammedan brothers. I do not think the Bengali politics useful for

my brother Musalmans. Our Hindu brothers of these provinces are leaving

us and are joining the Bengalis. en we ought to unite with that nation

with whom we can unite. No Mohammedan can say that the English are

not ‘people of the Book.’ No Mohammedan can deny this: that God has

said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mohammedans

except the Christians. He who had read the Koran and believes it can know

that our nation cannot expect friendship and affection from my other

people. (‘ou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity

against the true believers to be the Jews and the idolators: and thou shalt

surely find those among them to be the most inclinable to entertain

friendship for the true believers, who say we are Christians.’ Koran, Chap.

V). At this time our nation is in a bad state as regards education and

wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present

for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends. Now God

has made them rulers over us. erefore, we should cultivate friendship

h h d h ld d h h d b h h h l

with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain

permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the

Bengalis. is is our true friendship with our Christian rulers, and we

should not join those people who wish to see us thrown into a ditch. If we

join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap loss, for we

do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the

‘people of the Book.’ And as far as we can we should remain faithful to the

English Government. By saying this I don’t mean that I am inclined

towards their religion. Perhaps no one has written such severe books as I

have against their religion, of which I am an enemy. But whatever their

religion, God has called men of that religion our friends. We ought not on

account of their religion but because of the order of God to be friendly and

faithful to them. If our Hindu brothers of these provinces, and the Bengalis

of Bengal, and the Brahmans of Bombay, and the Hindu Madrasis of

Madras wish to separate themselves from us, let them go, and trouble

yourself about it not one whit. We can mix with the English in a social way.

We can eat with them, they can eat with us. Whatever hope we have of

progress is from them. e Bengalis can in no way assist our progress. And

when the Koran itself directs us to be friends with them, then there is no

reason why we should not be their friends. But it is necessary for us to act as

God has said. Besides this, God has made them rulers over us. Our Prophet

has said that if God places over you a black negro slave as ruler you must

obey him. See, there is here in the meeting a European Mr Beck. He is not

black. He is very white. (Laughter) en why should we not be obedient

and faithful to those white-faced men whom God has put over us, and why

should we disobey the order of God?

I do not say that in the British Government all things are good. Nobody

can say that there is any government in the world, or has ever been, in

which there is nothing bad, be that government Mohammedan, Hindu, or

Christian. ere is now the Sultan of Turkey, who is a Mohammedan

Emperor, and of whom we are proud. Even his Mohammedan subjects

make complaints of his Government. is is the condition of the Khedive

of Egypt. Look at the governments of Europe, and examine the condition

of the Government of London itself. ousands of men complain against

government. ere is no government with which everybody is satisfied.

If we also have some complaints against the English Government, it is no

wonderful thing. People are not even grateful to God for His government. I

d ll k h f I ll lf fi h

do not tell you to ask nothing from government. I will myself fight on your

behalf for legitimate objects. But ask for such things as they can give you, or

such things to which, having due regard to the administration of the

country, you can claim a right. If you ask for such things as government

cannot give you, then it is not the fault of government, but the folly of the

askers. But what you ask, do it not in this fashion: that you accuse

government in every action of oppression, abuse the highest official, use the

hardest words you can find for Lord Lytton and Lord Dufferin, call all

Englishmen tyrants, and blacken columns on columns of newspapers with

these subjects. You can gain nothing this way. God had made them your

rulers. is is the will of God. We should be content with the will of God.

And, in obedience to the will of God you should remain friendly and

faithful to them. Do not do this: bring false accusations against them and

give birth to enmity. is is neither wisdom nor in accordance with our holy

religion.

erefore, the method we ought to adopt is this; that we should hold

ourselves aloof from this political uproar and reflect on our condition, that

we are behind them in education and are deficient in wealth. en we

should try to improve the education of our nation. Now our condition is

this, that the Hindus, if they wish, can ruin us in an hour. e internal trade

is entirely in their hands. e external trade is in possession of the English.

Let the trade which is with the Hindus remain with them. But try to snatch

from their hands the trade in the produce of the country which the English

now enjoy and draw profit from. Tell them: ‘Take no further trouble. We

will ourselves take the leather of our country to England and sell it there.

Leave off picking up the bones of our country’s animals. We will ourselves

collect them and take them to America. Do not fill ships with the corn and

cotton of our country. We will fill our own ships and will take it ourselves to

Europe!’ Never imagine that government will put difficulties in your way in

trade. But the acquisition of all these things depends on education. When

you shall have fully acquired education, and true education shall have made

its home in your hearts, then you will know what rights you can legitimately

demand of the British Government. And the result of this will be that you

will also obtain honourable positions in the government, and will acquire

wealth in the higher ranks of trade. But to make friendship with the

Bengalis in their mischievous political proposals, and join in them, can

bring only harm. If my nation follows my advice they will draw benefit from

d d d O h b h ll k

trade and education. Otherwise, remember that government will keep a

very sharp eye on you because you are very quarrelsome, very brave, great

soldiers and great fighters.