The Past, Present, And Near Future Of Indian Muslim Politics: A Thorough Analysis By Prof. Mushirul Haq - Final Part
By
Javed Akhatar, New Age Islam
11July 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 III.
VI
The Muslims
in democratic India found themselves in an unexpected situation. The All India
Muslim League, which had been representing Muslim interests, had suddenly
disappeared from the scene. The so-called secular Muslim leaders, who had
advised Muslims to remain loyal to the government, had either fled to Pakistan
or were busy justifying their actions to prove their loyalty. Furthermore, the
partition of the country led to bloodshed, indiscriminate killings, and mass
migration. As a result, Muslim politics came to a halt temporarily. In 1948,
Maulana Azad and the remaining Muslim leaders organized a convention in Lucknow
to determine their future course of action. During the convention, it was
announced that Muslims would no longer have separate political parties based on
religion. This declaration marked a significant departure from their previous
political approach.
However,
the prevailing circumstances were so intense that even the Ulema, who
considered politics inseparable from religion, were compelled to exclude
religious considerations from the political sphere. The Jamiat Ulema-e Hind,
which had been a political platform for Muslim religious leaders, publicly
declared that it would henceforth focus only on religious and cultural matters.
Moreover, the Jamiat informally allowed its members, despite being opponents of
the Indian National Congress, to individually join any non-religious party they
desired. Perhaps the reason behind this extraordinary change was the Jamiat’s
confidence that Maulana Azad and Jawaharlal Nehru’s presence in the government
and the Congress party would ensure that Muslims would not be neglected in the
new India. Consequently, there was no perceived need to form a lobby or
pressure group within the Congress party to effectively address Muslim issues
when necessary. However, it became apparent that besides the Muslim leadership,
the concepts of secularism and secular politics were not well understood by the
Indian secular leaders at that time. The debate over secularism in the Indian
context had been ongoing for a long time, resulting in confusion and ambiguity
surrounding the term “secular politics.” Meanwhile, anti-Muslim or non-secular
forces remained united, causing Muslims to realize that they needed to rely on
themselves to preserve their religious and cultural identity.
Moreover,
the occurrence of communal clashes and the indifferent behaviour exhibited by
the bureaucracy towards the Muslim community once again opened the doors for
those individuals who perceived it as their religious duty to advocate for the
interests of Islam and Muslims. Over time, even the religious scholars began to
recognize that despite all their sacrifices, the Indian Muslims were being
deprived of the right to practice their religious convictions in their own
homeland, hindering their quest for independence. Consequently, they felt
compelled to publicly assert, in the words of Maulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi,
“that the Muslims’ fervour for freedom from British rule would have waned if
they had foreseen that their post-independence lives would not allow them to
nurture their religious beliefs.”
Over time,
the situation prompted the Muslims to reconsider the Lucknow pact of 1948 and
devise a specific political plan for potential future actions. Thus, in 1963,
several senior leaders from the Congress party, as well as non-political
figures, convened at the invitation of Dr. Syed Mehmood. After careful
deliberation, they concluded that the Congress could no longer be relied upon
to address the issues faced by Muslims. Consequently, they sought to establish
connections with non-Congress political parties and leaders who showed
willingness to assist the Muslim community. This led to the formal launch of
the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM or MMM) in 1963, which took
active participation even from the previously hesitant Jamaat-e-Islami in
politics. While the Majlis-e-Mushawarat, according to its manifesto, did not
identify as a political party, it undeniably had strong ties to politics. It
did not offer a constructive framework for Muslim voters. Until then, the
Muslim community had been accustomed to casting their votes in favour of the
Congress.
However, in
the 1967 general elections, the Majlis-e-Mushawarat advised Muslims not to vote
for Congress candidates, but instead to support non-Congress candidates who
promised to champion their cause. This approach was a completely new
experiment. With the assistance of the Majlis-e-Mushawarat, a significant
number of non-Congress candidates achieved success. However, soon after the
election, it became evident that those whom the Majlis-e-Mushawarat claimed
influence over regarded themselves as accountable solely to their respective
party or to no one at all.
The
frustrating circumstances led a group within the Majlis-e-Mushawarat, which
aimed to protect Muslim interests, to contemplate establishing a separate
political party. Consequently, individuals within the Majlis-e-Mushawarat,
dissatisfied with the organization’s passive approach and lack of involvement
in political affairs, led by the late Abdul Jaleel Faridi, began coming
together. As a result, the All India Muslim Majlis party was established in
1968, under the dynamic leadership of Abdul Jaleel. The party entered the
electoral arena during the 1969 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and fielded its
own candidates, gaining significant influence as one of the prominent parties.
The election results overwhelmingly favoured the Muslim Majlis, suggesting that
the party had the potential to become a formidable political force that could
not be overlooked. However, the party's success was short-lived, and it
eventually faded away. Although it technically still exists, it has become
merely a symbolic presence as it no longer operates or holds any significance.
However, at
the very least, the experiences of Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat and Muslim Majlis
instilled courage in the Muslims, prompting them to openly discuss the
establishment of their own political parties. Consequently, several parties
were formed, including Awami Tanzeem in Bihar, Muslim League, and Adam Sena in
Delhi. However, many of these parties emerged and dissolved without much public
knowledge. Nonetheless, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), also known as the League in Kerala, which had
primarily operated in Kerala and Madras since independence, expanded its focus
to northern India, particularly in the districts of Uttar Pradesh with a
sizable Muslim population. Despite limited success thus far, the IUML continues
to receive significant support from the Muslim community in the state.
The AIMIM
(All India Majlis-e Ittehad-ul Muslimeen) is a regional political party located
in the state of Telangana, India. Its origins trace back to the British era
when it was established as the Majlis-e Ittehad-ul Muslimeen in 1927 in
Hyderabad. However, after India gained independence, the party faced a critical
turning point where it acquired a negative political reputation, causing people
to become fearful even of its mere presence. Its name gradually faded from
people's minds. Yet, circumstances took a reverse course, and Sultan Salahuddin
Owaisi revitalized the party. Through a series of electoral victories, starting
from the city Municipal Corporation and state assembly to the Parliament, he
transformed the party into a formidable organization. While its influence
remained primarily regional, the AIMIM emerged as a powerful political force
with a well-structured cadre, predominantly dominating Muslim-populated areas.
As a result, other political parties can no longer afford to ignore the
increasing influence and power wielded by the AIMIM.
Even Jamiat
ul-Ulema, a prominent organization of Islamic scholars, had previously shifted
its focus away from politics following the Lucknow convention. However,
circumstances gradually pushed them back towards their original political
stance. Surprisingly, the party experienced internal strife and divided into
two factions, much like other Indian political parties. Maulana Syed Asad
Madani was appointed as the president of the original Jamiat ul-Ulema, while
Maulana Syed Ahmad Hashmi (who passed away in 2001) and Maulana Waheed-uz Zaman
Kairanawi (who passed away in 1995) separated from the Jamiat and formed their
own Milli Jamiat ul-Ulema. Maulana Hashmi briefly joined the Bhartiya Lok Dal
(Indian People’s Party), deviating from the Congress Party's Muslim-focused
policies, but ultimately returned to the Congress Party.
Regardless
of the outcomes thus far, it is evident that the secular leadership, envisioned
by religious leaders immediately after the partition, has failed to
materialize. As circumstances have changed, the Muslim community has once again
turned their attention towards religious leadership. The Ulema firmly believe
that it is their duty to safeguard the religious interests of Muslims. They
vigorously oppose any actions that could potentially encroach upon the
religious life of Muslims. A notable example of this occurred during the 1977
Delhi Milli Convention, where Muslims from all walks of life gathered to
express their religious identity. During this convention, a resolution was
passed in support of those who argued that the appointment of commissions, such
as the Nathwani Commission investigating alleged atrocities committed by the
Bohra community's leader against his dissident followers, amounted to
government interference in the religious affairs of a minority group. It may
come as a surprise to some that while Pakistan was excluding the Ahmadiyya
community from Islam, the Ulema in India were embracing the Bohra community.
However, due to the prevailing circumstances, the Muslim leadership felt
compelled to align with the chief of the Bohra community. Although opinions may
differ on this matter, it is evident that the Ulema are genuinely concerned
about fulfilling their responsibilities towards the Muslim community.
The
present-day Muslim politics differs greatly from what one might have expected
after the country gained independence. Today, Muslim leaders and parties,
whether involved in politics or non-political organizations, are direct in
expressing their desire for proportional representation for Muslims in
government services and decision-making bodies. In the past, during the general
elections for India's 7th Lok Sabha in January 1980, the Jamiat Ulema-e Hind
demanded a 33 percent reservation for Muslims in the police and other security
forces. Similarly, the Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat believed that Muslims should
have greater representation in the police and administration. Syed Abdullah
Bukhari, the 12th Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid in Delhi, went further and insisted
on not only a 20 percent reservation for Muslims in law enforcement and the
armed forces but also in the Lok Sabha and the Union Cabinet. To achieve these
goals, the Muslim leadership actively explored the possibility of forming
electoral alliances with parties willing to address Muslim concerns. It is
worth noting how Indian political leaders, regardless of their party
affiliations, sought to win the support of religious leaders and Ulema in order
to secure Muslim votes. However, the election results have shown that despite
the Muslim masses' trust and admiration for the Ulema on significant occasions,
they have been independent in their voting choices. For example, in the 1980
general election, Dr. Ishtiyaque Husain Quraishi ran as a candidate on the
Janta Party ticket in the Sitapur constituency with the moral support of
Maulana Ali Miyan. Maulana Abdul Khaliq competed as a Congress candidate in
Saharanpur with the support of Maulana Asad Madani, and Rashid Alavi ran on the
Congress ticket in the Amroha constituency with the backing of Maulana Abdullah
Bukhari. However, none of them emerged victorious. Although these three
constituencies in Uttar Pradesh are considered to have a Muslim majority, the
election outcomes revealed the autonomy of Muslim voters.
Despite the
notion that the Ulema’s influence over the Muslim masses has diminished, the
reality suggests otherwise. Apart from political campaigns, people consistently
turn to the Ulema for guidance during crucial moments. Even though the
government proclaims secularism, it cannot afford to disregard the Ulema and
their significance on such occasions. One recent contentious case in India,
known as the “Shaah Bano case” or “Shah Bano Begum v. Mohammad Ahmad Khan,”
shed light on this matter. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano, an
aggrieved divorced Muslim woman, stating that she had the right to alimony not
only during the waiting period but also
for her entire life or until she remarries. This judgment faced criticism from
some Muslims who believed it conflicted with Islamic law, quoting the Qur'an to
support their arguments. However, the Supreme Court, considering the Qur'an as
the ultimate authority, concluded that there was no conflict between section
125 and Muslim Personal Law regarding the husband’s responsibility to provide
maintenance for his divorced wife if she cannot support herself. This ruling
sparked a nationwide controversy, with the media amplifying the issue. In
response to the growing parliamentary discussions, Ghulam Mohammad Mahmood
Banatwala, the general secretary of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and
the representative of Indian Muslims, presented the “Shariah Bill” in March
1985. The bill aimed to exempt Muslims from the secular law of maintenance.
Initially, the Indian government resisted, but eventually convinced Banatwala
to withdraw his bill and introduced its own legislation called the Muslim
Women's Protection of Rights on Divorce Bill, which was enacted in 1986.
According to this law, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and
fair provision and maintenance from her former husband. However, the husband's
liability to pay maintenance is limited to the iddah period.
Today,
Muslim politics is confronted not only with the task of safeguarding Muslim
Personal Law but also with various new challenges. These include the Babri
Masjid dispute, the absence of daily congregational prayer at historical
mosques, Friday prayers taking place on public roads, the opposition to the
minority status of Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia
University, and the illogical debate over whether the builders of Taj Mahal,
Qutub Minar, Jama Masjid of Delhi, and other heritage monuments were medieval
emperors and sultans, or if these structures were actually constructed upon the
remains of temples and palaces belonging to Hindu kings. It wouldn't be
surprising if this list continues to grow in the future. However, our intention
here is not to compile an extensive catalogue of issues. Nor do we wish to
debate whether the Muslim leadership, which selectively addresses these
problems while disregarding others, is beneficial or detrimental to the Muslim
community as a whole.
The
significance of this question itself cannot be understated, and it warrants an
explanation. However, it is not directly relevant to the ongoing discussion.
Our intention was merely to highlight these concerns in order to understand the
type of leadership that exists today for Indian Muslims. It is apparent that
the Indian Muslims of today do not respond to such issues, which the Muslim
leadership perceives as attacks on their identity, with immediate emotional
reactions. Instead, they follow the guidance of their leaders. When instructed,
they are willing to make sacrifices and endure hardships in their pursuit of
truth. They engage in protests, organize marches, endure injuries, face
detentions, and even lose their lives due to bullet wounds, among other things.
If someone had predicted this transformation twenty-five or thirty years ago,
it would have been dismissed as an unrealistic aspiration.
What stands
out in this situation is that this protest leadership is predominantly held by
religious scholars (Ulema), rather than by secular and modern Muslims who have
received a contemporary education. Furthermore, the few Muslim leaders who are
not Ulema themselves and play a prominent role in this politics of protest are
heavily reliant on the support and backing of the Ulema in order to make any
progress.
------
Maulana
Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, Presidential Address (Urdu text), Dini Taʿlim Council, Moradabad Session, June
14, 1969.
The IUML
was founded in 1948 in Madras, by the remnant Indian Members of the All India
Muslim League, led by M Mohammed Ismail. A new party by the name of Indian
Union Muslim League (IUML) was thus formed “to advance the interests of Muslims
in the Union”.
A specified
period of time that must elapse before a Muslim widow or divorcee may
legitimately re-marry.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/indian-muslim-politics-analysis-mushirul/d/130185
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