Dr Kitchlew's Patna Speech Criticized for Undermining Unity Efforts
Dr Kitchlew's speech at Patna, a telegraphic report of which appeared in these columns yesterday, has in a very considerable measure undone the good work achieved by his recent utterances. The address is wholly one-sided, reminding observers more of the days when Dr Kitchlew, like several other prominent Muslim leaders, had after rendering important service to the country become for a time a pure communalist. This contrasts sharply with the spirit of nationalism he displayed during the Bengal tour, when he appeared to have recovered the nationalist fervor that found such effective expression during the Satyagraha campaign.
Passionate Appeal for Unity Overshadowed by Bias
Undoubtedly, the passionate appeal for Hindu-Muslim unity was present in the speech, but it was deliberately thrust into the background. More importantly, it was unaccompanied by the spirit of equal fairness to both communities, which alone could make such appeals of value. Three statements in the speech are likely to provoke strong exception not only from all Hindu nationalists but also from impartial and dispassionate students of contemporary history.
Controversial Claims About Sangathan and Tanzeem
One statement is that while his own Tanzeem movement is all that is good and noble, "the Sangathan movement, as started by Pandit Malaviya and others, had done much harm to the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and was responsible for creating the present tension." This assertion is completely at variance with known facts. It is widely recognized that, judged by every conceivable test, the Sangathan stands on exactly the same footing as Tanzeem. The key difference is that the ball of communalism was set rolling not by the Sangathanists but by co-religionists of the Tanzeemists.
Impact on Communal Harmony
The speech thus represents a significant setback for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. By unfairly singling out the Sangathan movement while exonerating the Tanzeem, Dr Kitchlew has undermined the credibility of his own appeals for harmony. This one-sided approach is likely to deepen communal tensions rather than alleviate them, reversing the progress made during his recent nationalist engagements.
