Lala Lajpat Rai Quotes (1865-1928)

“It is useless to talk of a democracy as long as this kind of prejudice (untouchability) sways our mind and influences our conduct towards those from whom we differ in religion or whose forms of occupation we dislike. … The process of building a nation is a moral process. You cannot engage in work of this kind with success by practicing duplicity. … It is sufficiently humiliating that we should have to mention untouchability at all in our programme; but to have avoided it for fear of offending the sensibilities of some classes of our countrymen would have been even worse. It would have been immoral.”

“That Indian patriot, Lala Lajpat Rai, who was deported out of India without any trial and without knowing the nature of the charges against him, wrote in a letter from America, which he visited in 1905: " The other day there was held a conference of missionaries in which President Copen is said to have advocated the extension of the mission work for the benefit of the American trade. He said, in part, we need to develop foreign missions to save our nation commercially….It is only as we develop missions that we shall have a market in the Orient which will demand our manufactured articles in sufficient quantities to match our increased facilities. The Christian man is our customer. The heathen, has, as a rule, few wants. It is only when man is changed that there comes this desire for the manifold articles that belonged to the Christian man and the Christian home. The missionary is everywhere and always the pioneer of trade.." Commenting on the above extract, Lala Lajpat Rai very rightly observed: “The Indian admirers and friends of Christian missions ought to note this commercial ideal of the American missionary. The missionary is not ‘the pioneer of trade’ only but also the pioneer of the political supremacy of the Boston people of the East. I think the frank statement of leading Christians ought to open the eyes of all who see no danger in the work of the Christian Missions in the East.””

“There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Mohamedan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think, it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohamedan leaders in the Non-cooperation movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. You remember the conversation, I reported to you in Calcutta, which I had with Hakim Ajmalkhan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Mohamedan in Hindustan than Hakimsaheb but can any other Muslim leader override the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic Law is incorrect, and nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this that although we can unite against the British we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines, we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of seven crores in Hindustan but I think the seven crores of Hindustan plus the armed hosts of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey will be irresistible. I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Quran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”