The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 157
[ 157 ] why they should not gradually improve their condition, and be able ultimately to face their opponents in the open field. Especially when this arrangement is proposed only for the Punjab and Bengal, ,vhere the l\1uslirns are in a majority position, I do not think the l\1uslims would be running any risk. At any rate, it is a mere suggestion, which might be considered by the Hindus and the l\luslims. And it is possible that it may lead to some sort of mutual understanding. I want also to have it understood that the system ot separate electorate is not entirely opposed to the prin ciple of representation, and the :mere fact that the system is r. ot in vogue in Europe, is no argument for its unsound ness. In a country where diverse communities with dis tinct religions and cultures live together, and their 1nutual relations continue to be strained from a very long time, it is simply indispensable to introduce some form of safe guards, without which the annihilation of the minority would be a foregone conclusion. The responsibility for such annihilation would lie with the majority, for in times of dispute it would be in the power of the majority alone to restore confidence in the minority. Thus, in this case it was only meet that, the Hindus should have suggested to the Muslims that they should elect their own repre sentatives separately, and the Hindus would elect theirs. But the strange thing is that they are not prepared even to accept the remedy when it is proposed by the Muslims. SEPARATE ELECTORATE NOT A CAUSE OF COMMUNAL TENSION. It is indeed a deception to say that the system of separate electorates fosters disunity. I have already re futed the argument in principle. I now turn to facts. Did the Hindu-Muslim disunity arise after the introduction of