Religion, Perhaps, Will Always Play A Decisive Role In Indian Politics And Hence The Importance Of The Ulema (With Special Reference To Prof. Mushirul Haq’s Thought)
By
Dr. Javed Akhatar, New Age Islam
24 July
2023
Introduction
Prof.
Mushirul Haq, a highly esteemed figure in Indian academia, emerged as a
profoundly influential Islamic scholar, embodying the essence of modern Islamic
thought in India. Through his tireless efforts, he championed an inclusive and
comprehensive comprehension of Islamic modernity, earning the devotion of many
Indian Muslims who regarded him as their guiding mentor. Prof. Haq exemplified
how a devout Muslim could harmoniously embrace both religious and secular
facets of life, setting a remarkable example for others to emulate. As a
visionary and erudite educationist, his profound contributions are poised to
fortify the secular foundation of our nation, a crucial requirement in the
present era. Notably, he skilfully integrated the knowledge acquired from both
traditional Islamic (Nadwa) and Western (McGill) training, making him an
exceptionally versatile and well-rounded scholar.
In an
earnest academic endeavour, this article delves into the intricate relationship
between religion and politics among Indian Muslims. The primary focus lies in
understanding the essence and traits of Muslim leadership in India. To achieve
this, a thorough examination of the leadership during the freedom struggle
becomes imperative. The article represents Professor Mushirul Haq's sincere
attempt to evaluate the impact of Islam on Indian Muslim politics in the
contemporary era. Moreover, it seeks to explore the unsuccessful initial
endeavours aimed at fostering a more secular political outlook among Indian
Muslims. Throughout this scholarly investigation, emotions of curiosity,
seriousness, and dedication resonate, signifying the author's genuine interest
in comprehending this complex aspect of Indian history.
In an
emotionally invested manner, I have structured this scholarly article into
three distinct phases. Initially, I delve into the historical context,
exploring the stance of Ulema both prior to and following the mutiny, while
also examining Sir Syed's significant involvement during that period. Moving on
to the second phase, I explore the emergence of Ulema in Indian active
politics, with a particular focus on the influential role played by Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad and the profound impact of the Non-cooperation Movement on the
Muslim community. Finally, in the third and concluding phase, I shed light on
the essence and attributes of Muslim leadership in a secular India, alongside
the consequential outcomes stemming from their actions and decisions.
Throughout the article, my passion for this subject is evident as I present
these phases with an emotionally engaged approach.
Phase I
The
Position Of The Ulema Before The Upheaval Of 1857
There are
pieces of evidence to show that before 1857 the Muslims of Delhi like the
Muslims of those areas which had come under the British influence, political or
cultural, were showing willingness towards a new life. In Delhi, there was the
Delhi College which had on its rolls Muslims, both as teachers and students.
Some had started reproducing in Urdu the western arts and sciences. The Ulema
who are now quite often accused of standing between the Muslims and the modern
way of life were in fact, friendly to the British and to what they had brought
to India. Maintaining a balance between the two, they allowed the Muslims to
learn the English language, have social intercourse with the Christians, and
even wear western dress, if necessary. But this whole move came to an abrupt and
complete end with the Mutiny, and the individuals who had taken part in it were
in considerable danger of doing likewise.
Prof Mushirul Haq mentioned the position of the Ulema before the
upheaval of 1857 in his book “Muslim Politics in Modern India” where he writes:
“Their main function was to teach, to guide the
people in religious affairs and to provide the Shari’a (religio-legal) opinion
about matters relating to their daily practices. As a rule they were loyal to
the throne so long as the ruler professed to be a Muslim, irrespective of the
quality of his administration. In the long history of Muslim India there had
been several rebellions against the rulers on different grounds but there is
hardly any example available of the uprising of the Ulema against the ruler on
the ground of his irreligious activities. Up to 1857 the East India Company was
considered on1y as the agent of the Mughal ruler, and any rebellion against the
administration was theoretically against the Muslim ruler. Even during the time
of the Mutiny, in many places public announcements were made in the name of the
Mughal king, saying in the traditional Way ‘The people were God’s; the country
the King’s and the order was of Kampani Bahadur (the Company)’. In some rebel
centres this pattern of announcement was changed. For example, in Moradabad,
where one Mujju Khan, a rebel leader, had estab1ished his power, the
announcement was made in his name saying: ‘The people were God's; the country
the King of Delhi’s and Mujju Khan was Viceroy of Moradabad’. Both of these
announcements show that at least in theory the Mughal king was accepted as the
real ruler of India. Since the Ulema of the 19th century were not different
from their ancestors, they could not take part in the struggle unless it was
proved by the Shari’ah that it had become incumbent upon them to do so. The
activities of Maulana Qasim and others so described by their early biographers
are in harmony with this tendency. But the difficulty arises when we read the
same account edited by our contemporary writers.”
Consequently,
the Ulema of the 19th century maintained a steadfast continuity with their
forebears, showcasing a consistent approach in their involvement. Their
engagement in any struggle was contingent upon satisfying the requirements of
Shari'ah, necessitating a clear mandate for action. This inclination is
well-reflected in the historical accounts detailing the activities of figures
like Maulana Qasim Nanotwi and others, as recorded by early biographers.
However, the situation becomes more intricate when examining these same
narratives as edited and presented by contemporary writers. Emotionally, one
cannot help but sense a perplexing contrast between the original depiction of
their actions and the altered versions crafted by present-day authors.
The
Position Of Ulema After The Mutiny
The Mutiny
had a profound impact, deeply dividing both Muslims and the British, leading to
a climate of apprehension and reluctance to consider reconciliation. This
created disparate circumstances for Muslims in India. For instance, in
Calcutta, Nawab Abdul Latif established the Muhammadan Literary Society,
primarily comprising affluent and educated Muslims, along with the support of
respected religious scholars. The society aimed to address political, social,
and religious concerns in light of the changing times. The religious scholars
endeavoured to dispel the misconception that the English sought to undermine
their faith, emphasizing the importance of English education and Western
knowledge.
However,
the situation in Delhi was starkly different, as it became a focal point for
rebellious activities. The Muslim community and its leaders were grappling with
the repercussions of the Mutiny, resulting in mutual animosity and scorn
between the Muslims and the British. In this tense environment, it became
essential for someone to bridge the divide, and Sir Syed stepped forward to
embrace the challenge. He initiated a
comprehensive program to revitalize the Muslim community across various aspects
of life, encompassing social, political, and religious dimensions. Nevertheless, his efforts encountered
resistance among the religious scholars who feared that Christian missionaries,
backed by the British government, aimed to undermine their faith. Consequently,
these scholars sought solace in religious education, establishing independent
religious seminaries, or Madaris, to preserve their way of life.
Up to the
end of the 19th century there was no political party exclusively of the
Muslims: Through an academic lens, it has become evident that until the late
19th century, there did not exist a political party exclusively representing
the Muslim community in India. This, however, does not imply that Indian
Muslims were entirely disinterested in political matters. Some Muslims were
associated with the Indian National Congress, while others adhered to the
political ideology of Sir Syed. Nevertheless, there was no formal Muslim Party
during that period.
At the Turn
of the 20th century: It was during the early 20th century that a faction of the
Muslim elite, sharing similar political views with Sir Syed, took the
initiative to establish the “All India Muslim League” in 1906. One of its
founding members, Maulana Muhammad Ali, provided an explanation for its formation.
In his Urdu journal, Hamdard, he once delved into the topic of the political
awakening of Indian Muslims:
“I have said very often and again I repeat it
that it is not an accident that the Congress was established thirty years after
the foundation of the universities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Likewise the
Muslim League came into existence just thirty years after the foundation of the
Aligarh College. Almost all the founders of the Muslim League were the products
of that College. It was a new chapter in the political life of the Indian
Muslims.”
The Ulema
had, on the whole, kept themselves aloof from politics: Following the emergence
of the Muslim League, the Indian Muslim community faced a momentous decision
between two political entities. On one side stood the Indian National Congress,
proclaiming its commitment to representing all Indians irrespective of their
religious affiliations. On the other side, the Muslim League arose with a
distinct purpose of advocating for the unique interests of the Muslim
population. Notably, both parties were led predominantly by individuals
educated in Western ways. Concurrently, the Ulema, religious scholars and
authorities, generally remained distant from the political sphere, exhibiting a
sense of detachment from these political movements. The decision-making process
regarding political alignment evoked profound emotions among the Muslims of
India as they navigated the complexities of representation and identity.
Phase II
The
Debut Of The Ulema Into The Modern Indian Politics
During this
pivotal moment, a young man emerged on the horizon of Calcutta and influenced
the Ulema to engage in the realm of politics, an act that stirred deep
emotions. This individual was none other than Abul Kalam Azad, who, according
to Shaikh ul Hind Maulana Mahmud Hasan, the renowned scholar of the Deoband
School, was the catalyst for awakening the Ulema from their slumber. He once
said: “We (the Ulema) were sleeping, Azad roused us from our slumber”. The Ulema's entrance into Indian politics marked
a significant shift, introducing a new emotional dimension to Muslim politics
in the country. Previously, religion and politics operated in distinct spheres,
but the Ulema's intervention established a connection where politics became
subordinate to religious convictions, evoking strong sentiments among the
populace.
The two
perspectives presented in this context evoke a range of human emotions.
Firstly, we encounter Sir Syed's stance, which, at the turn of the century,
urged Muslims to refrain from active involvement in politics on non-religious
grounds. His reasoning cantered on the notion that due to their educational
backwardness, Muslims might not secure a fair share in government
administration without the support of the British government. Though his
argument lacked a religious dimension, it sparked various feelings of
uncertainty and contemplation among the Muslim community.
In stark
contrast, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's call for Muslims to participate in Indian
politics resonated deeply on religious grounds. The Ulema, who carried the political
banner, intensified religious sentiments among Muslims, instilling a belief
that religious freedom held greater significance than political
emancipation. This religious
indoctrination resulted in Muslims becoming hesitant to oppose anything that appeared
to align with the Shari’ah. Throughout the struggle for freedom, the Ulema,
positioned at the forefront, consistently framed their discourse in religious
terms. Decisions were sought to be made based on the Shari’ah, and Muslims felt
a religious obligation to support the Khilafat cause, boycott foreign goods, and work towards the
country's liberation. These religiously
charged directives stirred a mixture of devotion, passion, and a sense of duty
among the Muslim population. Prof.
Mushirul Haq aptly describes this complex interplay of emotions and ideas
within the historical context:
“Abul Kalam Azad, in my opinion, the key figure
in this whole religio-political drama. He is the person who, through his
journal, Al-Hilal, influenced the Muslims of India in favour of national
politics. Before Azad, politics had been taboo for the Indian Muslims. Of the
two groups of Indian Muslims, one, under the influence of Syed Ahmad Khan,
avoided by every possible means a clash with the British government; the other
under the spell of the Ulema, was satisfied with the existing situation so long
as they had religious freedom. It was Abul Kalam who launched a campaign with
his pen saying that religious freedom was meaningless without political
emancipation. Azad had also realized that the Muslim masses would not
participate wholeheartedly in the struggle unless the Ulema would come out of
their seclusion. He was successful in his move; the Ulema broke their tradition
and threw themselves into politics. Now the political struggle had become a
religious duty for every Muslim. Hence the leadership of the Ulema. The Ulema,
who probably did not know themselves what they were doing, brought the seed of
religion with them and sowed it on the earth of politics praying to see a
united India emerge out of it. Something did emerge, but it was Pakistan, a
natural outcome of what the nationalist Ulema had unwittingly done”.
The victory
of ‘religious’ politics but a defeat of the ‘nationalist’ Ulema: Emotionally
driven, the Muslims, having been indoctrinated to assess each political
decision through the lens of their religious beliefs, became impervious to any
perspective that did not align with their own religious convictions. Dismissing any opposing notions as
incompatible with Islam, they closed themselves off to rational discussions.
Consequently, the establishment of Pakistan stemmed from this deeply entrenched
religious-political perspective, signifying a triumph for 'religious' politics
but a setback for the 'nationalist' religious scholars.
Non-Cooperation
As A Religious Dictum
The
nationalist Ulema consistently urged the Muslims of India to wholeheartedly
devote themselves to the religious cause, evoking deep emotional appeals. An
illustrative instance of this was in 1920, when countless Muslims migrated from
the land, leaving behind their cherished shrines and mosques for the
non-Muslims, motivated by their belief in the religious obligation propagated
by the Ulema. Throughout the Non-Cooperation movement, Muslim lawyers and
businessmen willingly embraced poverty, forsaking their legal practices and
abstaining from foreign goods, primarily because the theory of Non-Cooperation
was presented to them as a profound religious edict, resonating with their
deepest emotions and convictions.
Phase
III
Nature
& Characteristics Of The Muslim Leadership In Secular India
The nation
found itself torn apart, evoking a myriad of emotions among its inhabitants,
particularly the Muslims who chose to reside in India. In the supposedly
secular environment of India, the Muslim community faced an unforeseen
predicament. The All India Muslim League, which once claimed to be the sole
representative of Indian Muslims, had vanished from the political landscape.
Those who identified as secular-minded Muslim leaders either migrated to
Pakistan, urging Indian Muslims to remain "loyal" to their
government, or busied themselves absolving their past actions, attempting to
prove their loyalty beyond measure.
In the
aftermath of the country's partition, bloodshed, merciless killings, and mass
migrations ensued, further exacerbating the paralysis of Muslim politics.
Amidst the turmoil, the path forward remained uncertain, and decisions
regarding their future course of action became an arduous task for the Muslim
community.
Today the
Muslim leadership is busy in exploring the possibilities of an electoral
alliance with parties willing to champion the Muslim cause: The current state
of Muslim politics significantly diverges from what was initially envisioned
after gaining independence. Presently, Muslim leaders and organizations,
whether politically affiliated or not, are resolute in demanding proportional
representation in governmental services and decision-making bodies. In pursuit
of their objectives, Muslim leadership is actively exploring potential
electoral alliances with parties that advocate for Muslim interests. Emotions
of determination, hope, and apprehension fuel their endeavours to secure a
stronger voice and position for the Muslim community in the complex political
landscape of the nation.
Conclusion
The
profound engagement of Indian Muslim politics, regardless of their party
alignments, in earnestly seeking the favour of the Ulema to secure Muslim votes
is an observation deserving thoughtful consideration. This phenomenon, even if
it signifies nothing else, unmistakably underscores a fundamental truth: the
enduring influence of religion within Indian politics and thus the significance
of the Ulema's role. This intriguing interplay of human emotions, where
ambition and political strategy intertwine with the profound sentiments
associated with faith and identity, unveils a compelling aspect of the
intricate dynamics shaping the country's political landscape. To conclude, if
nothing else, it at least proved one point: Religion, perhaps, will always play
a decisive role in Indian politics and hence the importance of the Ulema.
------
Notes
& References
Guest Faculty, Department of Islamic Studies,
Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025; Mob: +91 9891059708;
E-mail: javed.akhatar1985@gmail.com
To study more go through some of his works in
this field such as “Muslim Politics in Moder India”, “Islam in Secular India”,
“Mazhab aur Jadid Zahan” and the like.
W.C. Smith, Modern Islam in India, London,
1946, p.14.
Mushirul Haq, Muslim Politics in Modern
India: 1857-1947, Meenakshi Prakashan, Meerut, 1970, p. 9.
Mushirul Haq, “The Ulema and the Indian
Politics”, in Islam and the Modern Age, Vol. X, No. 4 November 1979, Delhi, pp.
70-71.
Ziyaul Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and
the Demand for Pakistan, Bombay, 1963.
For full discussion see S. Maqbul Ahmad,
“Madrasah System of Education and Indian Muslim Society” in S.T. Lokhandwalla
(ed), Indian and Contemporary Islam, Shimla, 1971, pp. 25-38.
Hamdard (June 10, 1927) reproduced in Mazzmin
Muhammad Ali (2 vols.) ed. Muhamamd Sarwar, Delhi, 1938, vol. I, pp. 291-2.
Mirza Fazluddin Ahmad in his preface to
Abul-Kalam Azad’s Tazkirah (1st pb. 1919, reprint Lahore, n.d., p. 13) ascribes
this sentence to Maulana Mahmud Hasan on the authority of Maulana Azad.
Mushirul Haq, “The Ulema and the Indian
Politics”, in Islam and the Modern Age, Vol. X, No. 4 November 1979, Delhi, p.
87.
Mushirul Haq, “The Ulema and the Indian
Politics”, in Islam and the Modern Age, Vol. X, No. 4 November 1979, Delhi, p.
87. Also see Maulana Muhammad Miyan, Jam’iyat Kya Hai?, vol. II, Delhi, 1946,p.
15.
Abul Kalam Azad, Khutubat-e Azad, Delhi,
1959, pp. 55. Also Maulana Abdul Majid Badayuni, Dars-I Khilafat (1st ed. 1920)
5th reprint, Meerut, New Delhi, p. 44.
Maulana Mahmud Hasan, Tark-e Mawalat,
Bijnore, 1919, p. 36.
Azad, Al-Hilal, vol. I, No. 3, July 27, 1912.
Mushirul Haq, Muslim Politics in Modern
India: 1857-1947, see preface, Meenakshi Prakashan, Meerut, 1970.
Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Paygham banam
Mu’tamar kul Hind Jam’iyat-e ‘Ulema-e Islam, Lahore, 1945, p. 43.
For detail see Mushirul Haq, Muslim Politics
in Modern India: 1857-1947, see preface, Meenakshi Prakashan, Meerut, 1970.
------
Javed Akhatar is Assistant Professor (Contractual),
Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/religion-indian-politics-ulema-mushirul/d/130285
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