The Nehru Report and Muslim Rights — Page 77
[ 77 ] for safeguarding the Muslims. It may be argued here, that the party system has always its basis in the mutual opposition of the majority and the minority, and the majority has never been found to destroy the opposing minority. True, but this is due to the fact that those minorities and majorities are liable to change places. A majority of to-day may be the minority of to-morrow and vice-versa. As a result of this change of positions, there is hardly any room for mutual animosities. In India the -conditions are radically different. Our party system is not based on political differences. Its origin is in reli gious diversity. Among such parties there can be no immediate change of positions. Although it is quite prob able that a powerful religion may effectively reduce the majority to a minority and then dominate the country for good. (v) The fifth reason for a majority to oppress a minority is the latter's attachment towards foreigners. What the majority wishes to see is that all its country men should be attached to itself. It cannot brook the sight of any community extending a friendly hand to out siders. But on account of its peculiar circumstances, a minority is sometimes obliged to keep in touch with foreigners. This makes the majority grow suspicious of its movements and fear that it might some time harm ' the majority with the help of the foreigners. In conse- quence, the majority fe·els always disposed to weaken the minority. There is no lack of precedents of such events. The Bulgarians were maltreated in Greece on the same grounds and in our times the Poles in Lithuania and the ' • Lithuanians in Poland have been suffering for the same reason. The same conditions are prevalent also in India. The Indian Muslims, in conformity with their religious traditions, consider the Mu. slims all over the world as their brethren, and feel most strongly moved by their woes and. . . .