The Past, Present, And Near Future Of Indian Muslim Politics: A Thorough Analysis By Prof. Mushirul Haq - Part II
By
Javed Akhatar, New Age Islam
7 July 2023
This is an English translation of Mushirul
Haq’s Urdu lecture on “Mazhab aur Hindustani Muslim Siyasat: Kal aur Aaj,”
which he delivered in the third Sir Syed Memorial Lecture held at Aligarh
Muslim University. Throughout the translation, I have made efforts to
faithfully render the text. However, I am not responsible for the statements or
opinions expressed therein. This article provides a thorough analysis of the
past, present, and near future of Indian Muslim politics, making it an
excellent piece. Mushirul Haq’s exceptional essay on Islam and Indian Muslim
politics serves as a valuable resource for researchers, students, and general
readers seeking to comprehend the ongoing political tumult in India. Here,
presented is Part II.
IV
This survey
reveals a clear point: until that time, there was no unified force leading the
Muslims on a national level in India. Neither the secular leadership of Aligarh
nor the religious authority of the Ulema had gained the status to represent
Muslims across the country. Regarding the Ulema's attitude towards foreign
rulers, we have already observed that a portion of the Ulema in Bengal was
actively trying to bring Muslims closer to the British. The dominance of
Aligarh as a leader in "All India" becomes even more apparent when we
consider the socio-political situation in the southern and western parts of
India. The economic and social structures of the Muslim society in the south
and west differed significantly from those in northern India. The north had
been the centre of Muslim rule, resulting in a prevalent feudalistic system.
Conversely, the people in the southern and western regions did not rely on the
ruling class for their livelihoods, creating a striking contrast in the
perspectives of Muslims in the upper and lower parts of India. Since the
Muslims in Bombay and Madras were not heavily dependent on rulers for their
sustenance, the decline of the Mughal Empire had minimal impact on them. The
elite class in these areas predominantly belonged to professions and trades,
and they were more advanced in terms of education compared to their
counterparts in the North. Therefore, it was natural that the economic and
politically driven challenges were perceived differently by the Muslims in the
North and those in the South and West. Consequently, while the Muslims in the
North viewed joining the Congress as problematic, the Muslim elites in the
South and West did not perceive it as harmful.
Possibly
due to this factor, Badruddin Tayyib displayed astonishment during his
Presidential speech at the 3rd annual gathering of the Congress in 1887: “at a
loss to understand why Muslims should not work shoulder to shoulder with their
fellow countrymen…for the common benefit of all…This is the principle on which
we in the Bombay Presidency have always acted”.
During the
period before Mahatma Gandhi's influence on the Congress, spanning from 1885 to
1920, it is noteworthy that three Muslims held the position of Congress
Presidency. However, it is important to mention that none of them hailed from
North India. The first individual was Badruddin Tayyib from Bombay, who became
the President during the 3rd Congress in Madras in 1887. The second Muslim to
assume the role was Rahimtullah Mahomed Sayani, also from Bombay, who served as
President during the 12th Annual Session of the Congress held in Calcutta in
1896. The third Muslim President was Nawab Syed Muhammad Bahadur from Madras,
presiding over the 28th Annual Session of the Congress held in Karachi in 1913. Syed Muhammad Bahadur holds a unique
distinction in Congress history, as he served as the Chairman of the Reception
Committee in 1903, as the President of the Congress Party in 1913, and as the
Secretary from 1914 to 1917.
Although
both Muslims from the South and the West might have considered it necessary to
engage in political struggles with Hindus, it would be unfair to blame Muslim
leaders for showing less interest in the progress of Muslims in pursuit of
Hindu friendship. On the contrary, these leaders demonstrated explicit concern
for Muslim issues. For instance, Badruddin Tayyib wholeheartedly dedicated
himself to advancing the education and social status of the Muslim community.
He established the Anjuman-e Islam in Bombay, which encompassed schools,
hostels, gymnasia, and clubs. Through this organization, he not only played a
significant role in promoting modern education but also spearheaded various
social and economic reforms within Muslim communities. He also strongly
supported the education of women and was instrumental in the establishment of
modern social centers such as the Islam Club and the Islam Gymnasium (now
Gymkhana) in Bombay. Similarly, Syed
Muhammad was highly respected and affluent in the South. In 1906, when Muslim
leaders from North India formed a delegation to present an address to Lord
Minto, they wanted him to join the group. However, he declined their invitation
because the delegation did not agree to his suggestion of removing the clause
for separate communal representation from the address.
V
It is now
evident that until the late 19th century, as mentioned earlier, Muslims in
India did not have a distinct political organization of their own. However,
this does not imply that Indian Muslims were completely indifferent to politics
as a whole. There were Muslims who were part of the Indian National Congress
and others who followed the political philosophy of Sir Syed. Nevertheless,
there was no exclusive Muslim party during that time. In the early 20th
century, a group of Muslim leaders, sharing a similar political ideology to Sir
Syed, established the All India Muslim League in 1906, thus forming a Muslim
political party. Following the formation of the Muslim League, Indian Muslims
had to make a choice between two parties. The first was the Indian National
Congress, which claimed to represent all Indian citizens regardless of their
religious background. The other option was the All India Muslim League, which
emerged in politics with the specific purpose of representing the special
interests of Muslims. At that time, the leadership of both parties was
predominantly held by individuals with a Western education. Generally, the
Ulema (Islamic scholars) had kept themselves aloof from the realm of politics.
However, a young man named Maulana Abul Kalam Azad emerged in Calcutta and
successfully drew the Ulema into the political arena. He awakened them from
their apathy, as famously remarked by Sheikh al-Hind Maulana Mahmud Hasan of
Deoband, who said, “We (the Ulema) were sleeping; Azad roused us from our slumber.”
The
unexpected emergence of the Ulema on the Indian political stage introduced a
new dimension to Muslim politics in the country. Previously, religion and
politics operated in separate domains. However, with the arrival of the Ulema,
politics became an integral part of religion. It is worth noting that Sir Syed,
around the turn of the century, had advised Muslims to refrain from active
political involvement, but his reasoning was not based on secular grounds. He
argued that since Muslims lagged behind in education, they would not receive
their fair share of government jobs without the support of the British
government. His argument did not involve religion, regardless of whether it was
right or wrong. He never claimed that participating in politics was religiously
forbidden.
However,
Maulana Azad took a different approach by urging Muslims to actively
participate in Indian politics. He constructed his entire political ideology
around religious sentiments. The
religious leaders, known as the Ulema, played a significant role in mobilizing
Muslims and emphasizing the importance of religious freedom over political
liberty. As a result, Muslims were influenced by religious guidance in their
political decisions, and any actions that contradicted the principles of
Islamic law, known as Shariah, were avoided. This pattern persisted even during
the country's struggle for independence, where the Ulema, occupying prominent
positions, consistently referred to religious teachings to justify their
stance. They believed that the Muslims of that time were obligated by their
religious duty to support the goals of the Khilafat Movement and to boycott
foreign goods as prescribed by their religion. Additionally, they considered it
essential for Muslims to fight for the country's independence as it was a
command from God.
Once
Muslims had been indoctrinated to view politics exclusively through a religious
lens, they became resistant to any argument that did not align with religious
beliefs. Initially, the nationalist Ulema (Islamic scholars) successfully
unified the Muslim masses on the path of national politics. However, the
situation changed dramatically when the Muslim League managed to gain the
support of influential Ulema after the passage of the Pakistan resolution in
1940. Under the banner of Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI), this faction countered
every move of the nationalist Ulema, utilizing religious grounds as their basis
of opposition. While it may seem irrational for Indian Muslims in the minority
provinces to support the demand for Pakistan, our earlier discussion clarifies
their motivations. Initially, the nationalist Ulema attempted to justify their
political stance based on the Qur'an and Hadith (the Prophetic traditions).
When the pro-League Ulema emerged, they also drew upon these sacred sources to
argue that their position in advocating for Pakistan was purely Islamic. Any
opposing viewpoint was deemed un-Islamic. The establishment of Pakistan was
seen as the initial step towards establishing God's kingdom on Earth.
Consequently, if the Muslim League were to be defeated in elections, it was
believed that a fundamental principle would be forever abandoned.
The
nationalist Ulema consistently urged Indian Muslims to dedicate themselves to
the cause of religion. In 1920, for instance, numerous Muslims, influenced by
the Ulema, relinquished their mosques and holy places to non-Muslims and
migrated from the country, believing it to be their religious obligation.
Muslim lawyers and businessmen, during the Non-Cooperation Movement, willingly
endured poverty by abandoning their legal practices and boycotting foreign
goods, as Non-Cooperation was portrayed as a religious maxim. Considering the
circumstances at that time, where nothing hindered Muslims from fulfilling their
religious duty, it was unsurprising that they were willing to make sacrifices
during the partition. This marked a remarkable triumph of religious politics,
as the country was divided, presenting new challenges and issues for Muslims
who chose to remain in India.
------
Andrews and
Mukherji, The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India, as quoted by W.C.
Smith, “Modern Islam in India”, London, 1946, p. 14.
Congress
Cyclopaedia (The Indian National Congress 1885-1920), ed. K. Iswara Dutt,
Delhi, p. 270.
Ibid., p.
349.
Maulana
Azad and Mohammad Ali Jinnah they are paradox in themselves as well as in
opposition to each other. Jinnah, a ‘lay’ person by descent, by training and by
temperament, chose to espouse the cause of religious communalism and he was
audacious enough to proclaim his ideal loud and clear. On the other hand, Abul
Kalam Azad, who was a religious person by birth, by education and by social
classification, decided upon secularism as his goal but was not courageous
enough to call a spade a spade. He could never get rid of religion as the final
authority in his own arguments for secularism and he could never get the Ulema,
the personifications of religious authority, to clear out of politics once he
had dragged them in. (See Mushirul Haq, Muslim Politics in Modern India:
1857-1947, Meenakshi Prakashan, New Delhi, 1970.)
See, for
example, Maulana Mohammad Miyan, Jamiat Kya Hai?, vol. 2, Delhi, 1946, p. 15.
Also see Abul Kalam Azad, Al-Hilal, vol. 1, No. 3, July 27, 1912. Abdul Majid
Badayuni, Dars-e Khilafat, 1st ed., 1920, 5th ed., Meeruth. Maulana Mahmud
Hasan, Tarke Mawalaat, Bijnaur, 1919, p. 36.
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani, Paygham banam
Muʾtamar Kul Hind
Jamiat ul-Ulema-e Islam, Lahore, 1945, p. 40.
--------
Part one
of the Article: Past, Present, And Near Future Of Indian Muslim Politics:
A Thorough Analysis By Prof. Mushirul Haq, Part I
------
Javed Akhatar, Assistant Professor (Contractual),
Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-25
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/indian-muslim-politics-analysis-mushirul-part-ii/d/130156
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism