The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 120
[ J 20 j 1n these provinces is not so large as to be secure of its position without special safeguards, it should be so provided by law that this right of the Mussalmans might not be infringed by any other community by any means, fair or foul. It is clear that here is no question of domination at all. Such a question could, no doubt, arise if the Muslims had demanded that the Hindus should be given the ex clusive rule in the predominantly Hindu provinces, and the Muslims in the predominantly Muslim provinces. On the contrary, the Muslims demand, that they should have a majority of representation in the predominantly Muslim provinces in the same way as the Hindus in the predomin antly Hindu provinces. A majority of representation does not necessarily signify that the reins of Government should also remain exclusively in their hands. We may see that even now under the system of separate elector ates which is so much traduced on all sides, there is no exclusively Muslim party in the Punjab Council. There is a Zemindar's party, which includes both Muslim and Hindu members. There are the Khilafatists who are hand and glove with the Swarajists. Thus in the Punjab and Bengal, it is easy for the Hindus to have a substan tial share in the Government of the country by winning to their side only 6 per cent. of the Muslims. It cannot be held that the Muslims and the Hindus will never co operate so long as representation continues on the lines of religious division. For, religion is not synonymous ' with politics. Religion is related to civilisation and cul ture. People of different religions do co-operate with one another in political matters. And if such co-operation is possible under the present circum::;tances in spite of acute differences, there is no reason why it should not be pos- sible in future. It is foolish to think that all Muslims would agree to one political creed ; and when such an