MOTION RE: AIMSAINU OBJECTS-contd.
9thMARCH, 1949
Mr. President: The Resolution and amendments are now open to discussion.
Dr. Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi (East Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President Sir, I would like to complement the movers of the various amendments on the excellent speeches that they have made. Most of these speeches were thought provoking and I am sure that the sentiments of patriotism which have been expressed by various movers of the amendments have been most welcome, not only to us on this side of the House, but. I believe, to the entire nation. Sir, it is in the spirit of the patriotism shown by the movers of the amendments that I would like to make a few comments upon the speeches-and the arguments contained therein-which were made in support of the various amendments. Sir; I divide those speeches into two categories. The first category reveals a fundamental difference of outlook between the mover and the supporters of the Resolution, on the one hand, and the movers of the amendments, on the other. The other speeches, which to my mind fall into the second category, are based upon a fear, a fear which cannot be justified by a close study of the wordings of the Resolution and the principles which are embodied therein. With your permission, Sir, I would like to deal first with the fundamental difference of opinion that seems to exist between certain movers of the amendments and some of us.
Sir, it has been said that politics and religion should be completely divorced from each other, that politics and religion belongs to different aspects of human activity and indeed, it has been said that one being founded on reason and the other on faith, they should be related to different compartments of the human mind. I would submit most humbly that this is impossible. They cannot be divorced from each other for the simple reason that our reason is fashioned by our faith and our faith is fashioned by our reason. Unless we can think cogently we cannot possibly have faith in any ideal, and unless we have some faith, it would be absolutely impossible for us to chalk out the channels into which our thought should run. Therefore, I would say that it is absolutely impossible to accept the theory of a split personality. It is impossible to accept the view that we should keep our faith apart from our political behavior and that certain aspect of our behavior should be fashioned purely by reason and certain other aspects purely by faith. I would leave the further discussion of this abstruse problem to the psychologists who may have studied it. I would submit that we, in any case, cannot subscribe to the view advocating divorce between faith and reason. To us religion is not like a Sunday suit which can be put on when we enter a place of worship and put off When we are dealing with day-today life. This conception is absolutely foreign to us. Let us examine this a little further. What does the Resolution say? The Resolution says that our policy should be based upon God consciousness. It has been said that God may be there, but do not bring him into your lives. I am reminded of a song which was fashionable amongst the Epicurean philosophers during the later period of the Roman Empire, which said: “There are no gods, but if there be, they do not meddle, with the affairs of humanity.” This deity epitomized the attitude which took the Roman civilization to its undeserved end. Are we to repeat the same mistakes today? Are we really to divorce politics completely from
