In an editorial published on June 9, 1926, a newspaper strongly criticized the Bengal Government's resolution regarding the stoppage of music before mosques. The resolution, key portions of which had been published the previous day, was described as a wholly one-sided affair that amounted to a government surrender to the threat of violence by one party in the dispute.
Government's Stated Principle
The resolution stated that in matters of religion, the government maintains an attitude of strict neutrality and intervenes only when the claims of one community clash with another, and when persistence in mutually incompatible claims threatens public peace. The editorial acknowledged this as a perfectly sound principle.
Critique of the Resolution
However, the editorial argued that this principle cannot justify interference with the lawful religious rites and observances of a community merely because another community objects to them in a manner that endangers public peace. It emphasized that maintaining law and order is a primary duty of any civilized government, but it is equally the duty of a government ruling over people of different religions to enable each community to carry out its religious practices lawfully without undue interference or molestation from others.
Claims of the Parties
The editorial outlined the claims of both parties as set forth in the resolution:
- The Hindu community claimed that music is an essential part of their religious services and thus a necessary feature at all their religious processions.
- The Muhammadan (Muslim) community considered that music disturbs the devotion of those praying in mosques and asserted the right to stop music before mosques at all hours of the day, not only during public worship.
The editorial concluded that the government's resolution was a surrender to one side and failed to uphold true neutrality.
