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