The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 62
l 62 J remains no further grievance. The first argument, that ,vhen one and the same law applies to a whole country, nobody should have occasion to complain because justi. . . e demands that all should be treated equitably, is errone ous, because in the first place men happen to differ from one another in their conditions. As such. the effect of the laws is not the same in all cases. Some they affect more than others. When, therefore. a particular law affects a certain community most, and does not either affect another at all or affects it nominally. such a la\v cannot be said to be equitable. For instance, if a law prohibiting cow-slaughter ·were enacted for the '\. vhole of India as is even now being done by certain municipalities, will it be held equitable merely for its being applicable to the Hindus and the Muslims alike? � 'ot at all. Such a law will be judged not by the fact that it applies equally to all communi6es, but it will have to be seen v. T hich community does it affect adversely. As a people the Hindus are opposed to cow-slaughter. it is evident that even if the law applies equally to both the Hindus and the Muslims, the latter alone stand to suffer. To take another example: if the Government of the Punjab were to pass a law declaring that all lands should be Government pro� perty, or if such a law were passed in Sindh, then the consequent loss to the Hindus will be only slight con1 pared to the loss suffered by the 1\luslim comn1unity. Similarly, if heavy taxes were imposed upon trade with the ultimate intention of destroying it, no one will say that the tax will affect the Muslim community equally with the Hindus. Every intelligent man will understand that the tax is intended to hit the Hindus. It is thus a mistake to think that the enactment of uniform laws will dispose of all complaints. If victuals, suitable for adults alone were provided in a house where there are both children and adults, it will certainly not be justice. Similarly, if a