Past, Present, And Near Future Of Indian Muslim Politics: A Thorough Analysis By Prof. Mushirul Haq, Part I

By Javed Akhatar, New Age Islam 4 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 I. Introduction During his enlightening lecture Mushirul Haq discussed a historical reality regarding the Muslim community in India after the rise of Western dominance. He highlighted two instances when Muslim political leadership attempted to establish itself based on secular principles. The first occasion occurred following the upheaval of 1857, when Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, through the Aligarh movement, focused on addressing Muslim political concerns without involving religion and actively avoided any conflicts with the British government. The second occasion took place after 1947 when the Muslim community decided not to form religiously based political parties in the newly formed India. However, both of these endeavours were ultimately unsuccessful due to the challenging circumstances they faced. Prof Haq also noted that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad recognized that the Muslim masses would not fully engage in the struggle unless the religious scholars (Ulema) stepped out of their seclusion. Azad successfully achieved this, convincing the Ulema to break from tradition and actively participate in politics. Consequently, during the early 20th century, Maulana Azad held the religious and political leadership of Muslims, with the Ulema strongly influencing their actions. They began providing political education to Muslims based on religious justifications and initiated a campaign through their writings, emphasizing that religious freedom held no meaning without political liberation. Initially, this leadership supported the idea of a unified India, but some Ulema eventually joined the Muslim League. The Ulema, perhaps unaware of the consequences, brought the religious element with them and planted it in the political realm, hoping for a united India to emerge. Something did indeed emerge, but it was Pakistan, an unintended outcome of the actions of the “nationalist” Ulema. Presently, the Muslim leadership is once again attempting to resolve political issues through religious perspectives. Given the communal atmosphere of the country, it remains uncertain how long secular leadership can sustain itself. Prof. Haq’s capabilities require no introduction. In this extensive essay, he conducts a thorough analysis spanning nearly one hundred and fifty years of Indian Muslim politics, presenting his findings in a clear and scholarly manner. The aim is to examine and assess the influence of Islam on the political landscape of Indian Muslims by studying the nature and characteristics of their leadership. Therefore, it becomes crucial to identify the type of leadership that existed for Muslims before and after India’s struggle for independence. The author not only paints a vivid picture of the recent past and present, but also provides hints of potential future developments. I There is evidence indicating that even before the Indian war of 1857, the Muslims of Delhi and its surrounding areas, particularly those already under British political or cultural influence had shown willingness for a new way of life. For instance, Delhi College, established by the British, had Muslim teachers and students. Some individuals had begun translating Western arts and sciences into Urdu. Interestingly, the Ulema, often criticized for hindering Muslim engagement with modernity, were initially neither opposed to the British nor to their influence in India. A thorough examination of Fatwas, memoirs, biographies, and diaries from that era would convince anyone that the Ulema, while opposing actions that they believed could lead to irreligion, drew a clear distinction between genuine religious practices and superficial ones. They struck a balance by allowing Muslims to learn English, adopt Western clothing, and establish social connections with Christians if necessary. However, these developments were abruptly halted with the onset of the Ghadar. The aftermath of the rebellion brought unfavourable circumstances for Muslims, as those who participated were faced with significant dangers and challenges. The Ghadar movement had a profound impact on the relationship between Muslims and the British, creating a significant divide that made it difficult for people to openly advocate for reconciliation. However, this situation did not persist indefinitely. Over time, individuals began to revaluate the prevailing circumstances and made genuine efforts to restore the previously harmonious ties between the ruling British and the governed Muslims. One notable example is Nawab Abdul Latif (d. 1893), a renowned Muslim educator in Calcutta, who established the Muhammad Literary Society. Comprising mainly of upper and upper-middle-class Muslims and supported by respected scholars of the region, the society aimed to engage in discussions about social, political, and religious matters in light of the evolving situation. The society’s scholars were determined to dispel the misconception from the minds of Muslims that the British sought to destroy their religion. This proved to be a challenging undertaking, particularly due to the deep influence of the so-called Wahabi movement on the Muslim population, especially in Bengal and Bihar. These Muslims held not only a religious hostility towards the British but also frequently spoke of engaging in Jihad (striving) against them. Despite these obstacles, the distinguished scholars of the Muhammad Literary Society publicly proclaimed through their speeches and religious decrees that the situation in India did not warrant any form of Jihad. However, the situation in Delhi differed significantly from that of Calcutta, as Delhi had emerged as the epicentre of rebellious actions during the mutiny. The repercussions of the uprising of 1857 were being felt by the Muslim commoners and leaders residing in and around Delhi. Animosity between both the Muslims and the English was running high, leading to hostile exchanges. In this tense atmosphere, it became imperative for someone to step forward and take the initiative. The question remained: who would rise to the challenge? Undoubtedly, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) fearlessly volunteered to undertake this daunting task. Sir Syed embarked on a mission to strengthen the Muslim community across various domains, such as social, political, economic, and religious. Nevertheless, he faced challenges in convincing the Muslims of his sincere intentions during that period. The religious scholars of that era held a prevailing belief that Christian missionaries, backed by British influence, aimed to eliminate their faith. Consequently, these scholars adopted a defensive stance, emphasizing religious education and establishing independent religious seminaries (Madaris) without relying on financial or administrative assistance from the British government. The primary objective behind the establishment of those madaris was to safeguard and uphold the educational and cultural heritage of Muslims, which was being adversely affected in British India. Without hesitation, it can be affirmed that until the early 1900s, the graduates of madrasas played a pivotal role in preserving both the traditions and religious practices of Muslims. Sir Syed was an individual who possessed a remarkable forward-thinking mindset, refusing to dwell in the past. His primary goal was to expose the Muslim community to the harsh realities of life and encourage them to embrace these challenges with grace. To achieve this objective, he embarked on a multifaceted approach at various stages. During his visit to England between the years of Ghadar and 1869, he played a crucial role in establishing political harmony between the English and Muslims. It was during this period that he authored “Asbab-e Baghawat-e-Hind” (the causes of the Indian mutiny), shedding light on the reasons behind the uprising. Furthermore, Sir Syed undertook the task of editing a series of booklets to showcase the loyal disposition of Indian Muslims towards the British, thus dispelling any notions of rebellion akin to the Ghadar movement. Additionally, wherever he served as a government official, he took the initiative to establish schools. To benefit the students of these institutions, as well as the wider Urdu readership, he founded a Translation Society dedicated to translating Western literary and scientific works into Urdu. In the second phase, Sir Syed assumed the responsibility of promoting harmony and understanding between Muslims and Christians by highlighting the shared elements of Islam and Christianity. In pursuit of this objective, he released a compassionate interpretation of the Bible. Additionally, he emphasized the importance of fostering social interactions with Christians in his other academic works. Afterwards, he embarked on a journey to England, where he was greatly impressed by their culture and progressive education system. As a result of this inspiration, he composed a piece in which he expressed his admiration for their achievements: “…the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man…”. Around that period, he initiated Tehzib-ul Akhlaq (refinement of morals), an Urdu publication aimed at disseminating his perspectives and promoting the societal improvement of Muslims in India. The journal swiftly gained popularity and caught the attention of individuals who shared Sir Syed’s thoughts on social and political matters but lacked a guiding figure. Encouraged by his accomplishments, Sir Syed started advocating for the establishment of a Muslim college that would incorporate Islamic ethical values alongside modern education and instruction in European languages. II Since the aftermath of the 1857 holocaust, Sir Syed and the Ulema had diverged onto separate paths. The Ulema’s primary focus lay in preserving the Islamic traditions, diligently safeguarding and advancing the academic heritage of medieval Muslims. Their deep attachment to medievalism led them to display an apparent resistance to modernity and, perhaps inadvertently, an opposition to the British. In contrast, Sir Syed firmly believed in embracing new values, particularly those of the English, as essential for progress. The primary disagreement between the two groups revolved around the concept of “modernism.” To the Ulema, embracing modernity was seen as synonymous with renouncing Islam, while for Aligarhians like Sir Syed, Islam could only be valid when understood and explained using modern concepts and language. The writings of Sir Syed on religious matters and the subsequent refutations by his opponents serve as clear examples of these divergent trends. The decline of Muslim political power in any country is a recurring phenomenon throughout history. There have been numerous examples of such occurrences. However, in India, the significance of the end of the Muslim era lies in a unique aspect. After the events of 1857, when Muslims were compelled to accept their former subjects not only as equals but also as competitors, there emerged a situation that had no parallel in Islamic history. With the arrival of the British, the remaining opportunities for employment were limited, and Muslims had to compete with Hindu brothers for their survival. There was no leader of the faithful or Amir al-Mu’minin to safeguard the political interests of the Muslims, nor was there an official organization to protect Islam from internal decay or external threats. In the history of Indian Muslims, Islam had never faced such a challenging situation where it needed to defend its position. People had the freedom to either embrace Islam or remain indifferent, but no one was allowed to assert that they could lead a better religious life without formally accepting Islam. In the 19th century, especially after 1857, there emerged a wave of polemical debates between Hindus and Muslims. However, it appears that the primary objective of these religious discussions was not understanding but rather ridiculing or undermining each other. The attempts made by the religious leaders of both communities to address their religious differences in a public forum ended up exacerbating the already strained relations between them. These incidents had a dual impact on the Muslim population. Firstly, they perceived the Hindus as making political and economic advancements at their expense. Secondly, they suspected that the British, in collaboration with the Hindus, were backing these endeavours. As a result, Muslims developed a sense of distrust and suspicion towards both Hindus and the British. III At Aligarh, the secular leadership was not as much concerned in proving the superiority of Islam over Hinduism as in protecting the political and economic interests of Muslims. This group, led by Sir Syed, belonging to the “Ashraf or the elite Muslims” who had already realized well, before the Muslim rule had formally ended in 1857, that the drama was soon to end, in which the Mughal Empire had been playing the leading role. To say, for example, Sir Syed, Deputy Nazir Ahmad (d. 1912), Muhammad Zakaʿullah (d. 1910), Mohsin-al Mulk (d. 1907), Altaf Husain Hali (d. 1914) to name a few giants of the Aligarh leadership, had much before the Ghadar, anticipated that sooner or later the British Empire was going to replace the Mughal Empire. During the uprising, they were quite young and were engaged in serving the East India Company in one way or the other. Sir Syed, for instance, was a Munsif, (a judge), Mohsin-al Mulk was a Deputy Collector in the North-Western provinces, Altaf Husain Hali was a translator in the British established Punjab government’s book depot at Lahore and Nazir Ahmad was a Deputy Inspector of schools. In Aligarh, the secular leadership’s main concern was not to prove the superiority of Islam over Hinduism, but rather to safeguard the political and economic interests of Muslims. This group, led by Sir Syed and consisting of the “Ashraf” or elite Muslims, had anticipated long before the formal end of Muslim rule in 1857 that the Mughal Empire’s dominant role would soon come to an end. Prominent figures like Sir Syed, Deputy Nazir, Muhammad Zaka'ullah, Mohsin-al Mulk, and Altaf Husain Hali, among others, had already foreseen that the British Empire would eventually replace the Mughal Empire. During the uprising, these leaders were relatively young and actively involved in serving the East India Company in various capacities. For instance, Sir Syed worked as a judge (Munsif), Mohsin-al Mulk served as a Deputy Collector in the North-Western provinces, Altaf Hali worked as a translator at the British-established Punjab government’s book depot in Lahore, and Nazir Ahmad held the position of Deputy Inspector of schools. None of the individuals mentioned above had the opportunity to acquire a modern education in any form. Their upbringing and training were rooted in the medieval Muslim educational system. Their exposure to Western ideas relied on secondary sources, such as Urdu translations of Western books or interactions with English acquaintances working in British bureaucracy. Despite this limited exposure, they emerged as the sole advocates of Western values among Muslims. Consequently, when they attempted to critically analyze their own cultural heritage, they struggled to maintain a comprehensive and unbiased approach. For instance, Deputy Nazir, considered one of the earliest Urdu novelists, not only expressed dissatisfaction with his literary works but also viewed them as inferior to Western literature. He believed that his own writing was tainted with misrepresentation and, perhaps, excessive praise. In his later years, he taught himself rudimentary English and could communicate a few words, although his grasp of the language remained incomplete due to the lack of formal training. Indeed, the study of Western literature had deeply impaired his intellectual capacity, leaving no hope for recovery. Similarly, Altaf Husain Hali’s sentiments were also coloured by the allure of English literature. As they themselves admitted, their love for English literature gradually overshadowed their affection for Eastern, particularly Persian, literature. Even though they possessed limited understanding of the intricacies of Eastern and Western societies, the Aligarh school of thought managed to bridge the gap and emerged as the representative voice of the Muslim Community. In their pursuit of the well-being and prosperity of Muslims, this collective could only envision one path: placing their complete trust in the ruling class. Their primary goal was to see Muslims become integral to the government, securing the highest quality and most advantageous employment opportunities available. In his distinct manner, Akbar Allahabadi Rizvi, a renowned Urdu satirist-poet (1846-1921), known as Lasan-ul Asr (the voice of the time) among his peers, portrayed the scenario with his unparalleled brilliance: انگریز خوش ہے مالک ایرو پلین ہے، ہندو مگن ہے اس کا بڑا لین دین ہے بس ایک ہمیں ہی ڈھول کا پول اور خدا کا نام، بسکٹ کا صرف چور ہے ڈائمنڈ کا فین ہے (The Englishman is happy; he owns the aeroplane. The Hindu is gratified that he controls all trade. Tis we who’re empty drums, subsisting on God’s grace, a heap of biscuit crumbs the froth of lemonade.) During that time, the availability of basic necessities such as biscuit crumbs or frothy lemonade relied on the contentment of the government. Consequently, neither group was willing to risk upsetting the British. Although it may seem derogatory today to claim that the leadership at Aligarh maintained excessively friendly relations with the British, analysing the circumstances within the context of that era sheds light on their perspective. Following the Mutiny, it became an acknowledged fact that both Muslims and Hindus had equally participated. However, the British predominantly blamed the Muslims for instigating the movement and sought revenge against them after suppressing the revolt. This not only led to individual victimization but also closed off government job opportunities for Muslims. Although Hindus generally supported the discriminatory behaviour of the British, a certain segment of Hindus opposed it. They voiced their concerns through lengthy articles criticizing the wisdom of reconciling with what they saw as irreconcilable Muslims. For instance, in 1870, the Hindoo Patriot, an English weekly published in Calcutta, appealed to the government to abandon this policy, branding all Muslims as traitors and enemies of the English. (To Be Continued…) ------ Javed Akhatar, Assistant Professor (Contractual), Department of Islamic Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-25 URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-politics/indian-muslim-politics-mushirul-part-i/d/130127 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