Chapter 3 Muslim Scholars Response to Nationalism ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4413/7/07_chapter 3.pdf · Chapter 3 Muslim Scholars’ Response to Nationalism: Adaptative

Chapter 3 Muslim Scholars’ Response to Nationalism: Adaptative Approach

75

n the previous chapter, emergence of nationalism in India, factors

responsible for its development and spreading of different national

organizations were discussed. The present chapter deals with

Muslim scholars‘ response to nationalism. It treats those scholars who

tried to accommodate nationalism strands in their thought in one way or

the other. There is attitude of approval of it. What were their contentions

and impact upon future development of India.

3:1. Some Early Developments

At the outset a brief review of the historical developments is

desirable to understand the modern scenario. It is a fact that with the

decline of the Mughal Empire and the passing of political power to the

British, the Hindus and the Muslims started drifting away from each

other The Muslims grew apprehensive of Hindu domination and resented

the tenacity with which the Hindus had advanced themselves in various

spheres. The fears they entertained in relation to the Hindus greatly

influenced the role they were to play in future. In spite of a common

history of a thousand years, the two communities could not present

themselves as a single political entity. All efforts of the Indian National

I


76

Congress to achieve this objective failed miserably and, although the

Congress always had some Muslims in its ranks and a few of them even

occupied the highest positions in it, by and large they preferred to

organize themselves separately in order to protect and advance their

political rights and interests1.

The Muslim nationalism grow apace under Sir Syed during the last

quarter of the 19th Century, is an acknowledged fact. He had a keen

desire to place the Muslims on a footing of equality with the Hindus who

had half a century ahead over them. As a necessary corollary, the Muslim

nationalism developed a strong anti Hindu spirit, ‗for the Hindus were

anti-British and demanded representative Government, which meant their

permanent domination over the Muslims who formed only one-fourth of

the total population of India‘. Also because, the Muslims did not want to

oppose the British so soon after 1857. Thus it is obvious that, such kind

of thinking gradually made Muslims and consequently Hindus more and

more self-conscious politically2.

The uprising of 1857 was crushed ruthlessly by the British. The

Mughal empire was abolished, and thus the symbol of Muslim

domination came to an end. Most of the old aristocracy was dispersed

and vengeance was wreaked on rebellious Muslims, Hindus and others.

But the general feeling was that the Muslims were the main force behind

the uprising. Jawaharlal Nehru writes, ‗… the heavy hand of the British

fell more upon the Moslems than on the Hindus.‘3 Subsequently the


77

Muslim community suffered set-backs in the social, economic and

political fields, which came under Hindu domination4.

More than fifty years after birth of the modern politics ‗Hindus‘

introduction of the conception of ―Indian nationalism,‖ the Muslims

stepped into politics of the British. The British policy had regarded the

inhabitants of India as one nation and planned all constitutional reforms

and industrial and economic development on the basis of India as one

political unit. Quite obviously, any constitution which treated the

inhabitants of India as one nation, would exalt the Hindus (who, now

with merger of the Shurdras, out numbered the Muslims by about three

times) into the position of a permanent majority and transform the

Muslims into a perpetual and unchangeable minority. Such a constitution,

therefore, under the label of ―Indian nation‖, invested the Brahmans with

the power of an absolute master, and reduced the Muslim existence

dependent on his mercy5.

In its early phase, Muslim nationalism did not have before it the

objective of separation from India or the formation of an independent

Muslim state6. According to P. Hardy the feeling of being a distinct

nation developed among Indian Muslims only in the 1940s, when it

became clear that the British would soon leave India. Prior to that, the

Muslim nobility had little in common with the Muslim peasantry and

artisan castes7. Muslim professionals and entrepreneurs feared

permanent Hindu domination in a united India, and therefore, demanded

a separate state where their interests could be safeguarded. The ideology


78

of Muslim nationalism based on communal distinctions was put forth by

the Muslim League to legitimize and mobilize support for a separate

homeland8.

There was, throughout the course of modern Indian politics, a

section of Muslims which did not share the general Muslim view that a

Hindu Muslim unity was impossible or that separation was the only

solution. Some considered them the Congress school of Muslims, as

politically. They were substantiating to the stand of the latter. They may

also be called the ‗Nationalist Muslim‘ group, for that was the label given

to it by the Congress and accepted by it. ‗Nationalist Muslims‖ were

Muslims who were opposed to Muslim separatism, to the two-nation

theory, and later to the demand for Pakistan, and who subscribed to the

congress view of the communal problems. They believed in one united

Indian nationalism in which religious affiliations were both irrelevant and

undesirable9. Few of them are Dr. M. A. Ansari (1880-1936) and Hakeem

Ajmal Khan (1863-1927), Maulana Mahmud Hasan (1851-1920), Abul

Kalam Azad (1888-1958), Muhammad Ali (1878-1931) and Hussain

Ahmad Madani (1879-1957)10

.

3:2. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and Composite

Nationalism

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani has made an influential and

significant contribution11

in religious thought of twentieth century

India12

. He was a product of Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband. He was a


79

distinguished educator, great freedom fighter, staunch proponent of

Hindu-Muslim unity and a strong advocate of composite nationhood .

He enjoyed equal respect among both Muslims and non-Muslims13

.

Being a strong advocate of composite nationalism he was of the opinion

that Muslims are actually the original inhabitants of India. He explains:

Among various communities residing in India, Muslims alone

can legitimately claim they are the original inhabitants of the

land. Among all the communities residing in India, only Muslims

have firm religious faith that they are the descendents of Adam,

the first human aborigine of planet Earth. It is inseparable part of

their belief based upon Qur‘anic verses that entire humanity on

this earth has originated from Adam. Contrarily, rest of the

communities in India, believe in the gradual evolution of homo

sapiens14

.

Islamic literature tells us that Prophet Adam (A.S.) descended

directly from the heaven on Indian soil. India was his first domicile and

the entire human race has spread from here. Therefore, according to

Islamic traditions and teachings, India is the original habitat of Muslims.

Those who do not trace their origin from Adam cannot legitimately claim

India as their original homeland15

. He also writes:

Unlike Hindus and Zoroastrians who completely destroy the dead

body, either turning the corpse into ashes by placing upon a pyre

and later throwing it into the rivers or by placing it on the Tower

of Silence for birds to consume it, only Muslims bury the dead


80

body into graves, Unlike them, even after death, a Muslim

remains attached to the Soil. Their graves remain intact. And as

per Muslim‘s belief, on the Day of judgment, it is from these

graves that they would be resurrected into yet another life.

Though the dead body of Muslims placed beneath the earth also

gets partially destroyed, it is from the remaining particles that

their new existence would come into being. Thereby, Muslims

physical domiciliary to the land would remain till the dooms

day16

.

In short, India has been the cradle of Islam since time immemorial.

The country, therefore by faith, is and shall remain the original homeland

of Muslims17

.

Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani had presented exhaustively his

views on composite nationalism and many ‘ulamâ’ accepted them

without refutation18

. In his presidential address, the Maulana further

elaborated it as following:

We the residents of India, being Indians have something in

common that remains alongwith the religious and cultural

differences. It is like our human nature does not change just

because of variance in our visages, differences in our

personalities and traits, and differences in our colour and stature.

Likewise our religious and cultural differences do not become

hurdle in our national partnership. From the point of view of

nationality, we all are Indians. Therefore, to think of the benefit

of the country and concern for its protection from any harm is the


81

equal responsibility of Muslims as of any other nation and

religious entity. It is necessary to strive adequately and jointly to

achieve it. If a house catches fire and all residents of the village

do not extinguish, it or if the whole village would not erect

embankment during the flood, then the whole village will be

destroyed and life would become difficult for one and all.

Likewise, whenever the country is in trouble it is the duty of the

inhabitants of a country (whether they are Muslims, Hindus,

Sikhs, or Parsis) that they should strive hard and jointly to

remove it. The duty of national partnership applies equally to all

residents. Differences of religion cannot become any weakness or

a hurdle. They can fulfill this duty even while remaining true to

their religion. The same partnership is to be found in municipal

boards, district boards, in councils and assemblies. Members of

various religions fulfill their duties in these institutions and feel

themselves as composite part of it. This is the meaning of

‗composite nationalism‘ here. To read in it any other meaning

than this is wrong and inappropriate19

.

Thus, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni views nationalism as the

phenomenon where religious and cultural differences are of no

importance. Indians are Indian and every citizen is responsible for the

protection and progress of their country. Difference of religion can not

became any weakness or a hurdle for them. In his book, Composite

Nationalism and Islam, Maulana explains its bearings as:


82

By composite nationalism I mean here ‗nationalism‘, the

foundation of which was laid down by Prophet Mohammad

(SAAS) in Madina. That is to say, the people of India as Indians,

as a nation united (despite religious and cultural diversity),

should become one solid nation and should wage war against the

alien power that has usurped their natural rights. It is incumbent

upon every Indian to fight against such a barbaric regime and

throw off the shackles of slavery. It is important not to interfere

in another‘s religion – rather all nations (communities) living in

India are free to practice their religion, life by its moral values

and act according to their religious traditions. While maintaining

peace and tranquility, they should propagate their ideology ,

follow their culture, promote civilization and protect their

personal law. Neither should a minority interfere in the personal

affairs of other minorities or the majority, nor should the majority

strive to assimilate the minority into itself.

This is what the Indian National Congress has been

striving to achieve ever since its inception. In its first session in

1885, it outlined its main objectives in the following words; ‗To

unite the divergent and conflicting elements – that form the

Indian populace and turn them into one nation.‘20

However, even after this (somewhat ambiguous) declaration, it has

always stated that all citizens shall be free to pursue their religion,

culture, personal law, etc. The proposal discussed at the meeting of

the All India Congress Committee meeting on 8th August 1931,

described the fundamental rights and duties of the citizens:


83

Any constitutional provision or declaration that the Indian

National Congress would make or through it the independent

Government shall make, shall strive for the following points;

1. Every Indian citizen shall have the rights of freedom of

speech and expression, total freedom of coordinated action

and collaboration and right to peaceful, assembly for any

purpose that is neither immoral nor against the law.

2. Every Indian citizen shall have the freedom of conscience and

right to declare, follow and propagate his religion – provided

it does not degenerate and cause public disorder.

3. All religious minorities shall have the constitutional right to

protect of their cultures, languages and their religious rituals.

Besides, the areas inhabited by linguistic minorities shall have

adequate safeguard to their languages.

The working committee meeting of the Indian National

Congress, held in Calcutta on 26 October 1937, reinforced and

elaborated the same objectives21

.

In 1921 at Karachi, Mohammad Ali Jauhar, organized a

conference, in which questions were invited from the public on national

issues and answers were given. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani gave

answers to various questions of the people. Madani‘s answers aroused a

national fervour. People began to look at him as a leader with a great

vision for India. His nationalism was not restricted to mobilizing

Muslims alone. He understood the need for collective efforts of Muslims


84

as well as Hindus for challenging the British rule. His pluralistic

credentials were recognized widely. Even Hindu religious leaders like

Shankaracharya and Jagat Guru publicly supported Madani‘s stand and

exhorted their community to follow him22

.

In December 1937, at a political meeting in Delhi, Maulana

Madani made a straight forward statement, ‗In the current age, nations

(aqwam) are based on homelands (autan, pl. of watn), not religion

(madhab).‘ What made this point obvious to him was that people abroad

made no distinction of whether a person was, ‗Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or

Parsi all were viewed as ‗Hindustani‘. He reiterated as he often had

before, all Indians were viewed with contempt because of being in

bondage to colonial rule. The following day, Urdu news papers Al-Aman

and Ahsan (soon followed by others) had reported that Maulana Madani

had said that no ‗nation‘, but Millat (a term commonly linked to religious

community) depended on territory23

. His views were taken seriously by

Dr. S. M. Iqbal, a great poet and thinker, of the 20th century Muslim

world, and raised many controversies among the Muslims elite in India.

A detailed discussion on Iqbal‘s treatment of nationalism will follow in

the next chapter of the present thesis. Here it is dealt in a marginal way in

the context of his comments on Maulana Madani‘s views.

In one of his poems, he strongly criticizes the stand of Madani that

Millat (community) in Islam is constituted by nation (watan). He writes:


85

Thus from Deoband, Hussain Ahmad proves somewhat

strange singing out high on the pulpit

That Millat is based on land (watan).

What does he know of the stance of the Arab

Messenger, on whom be peace?

Bring yourself close to Mustafa, for his alone is faith complete

If you cannot approach him

You‘re just an Abu Lahab!24

Maulana Madni also wrote in Muttahida Qaumiyat aur Islam under the

title of ―The Reality of My Delhi Speech and Spreading of the News of

Composite Nationalism‖ wherein he clarifies his stand about nationalism:

As Allama learnt from my replies to some of my friends‘ letters, I

had no intention of advising any one on nationalism and I had

used no such words in the statement I had issued in Delhi. I was


86

simply talking about the great loss and sufferings that the British

government has inflicted upon all Indians, especially Muslims. I

also mentioned the fact that in our times the country makes a

nation. And that all Indians, whether they be Hindu, Muslim,

Sikh or Zoroastrian, are looked down upon everywhere abroad.

Since they all belong to this country, they are regarded as one

qawm. Their prestige and honour is no better than that of slaves;

they are treated shabbily and their legitimate demands are

ignored. Indians are not only discriminated abroad regarding their

citizenship rights, but are also discriminated against vis-à-vis

their human rights. All their protests fall on deaf ears. This is, in

my view, an effect of slavery25

.

In this connection Hussain Ahmad Madani further elaborates that

supposing this was the case (that no other word except Millat has been

used for Muslims in the holy Qur‘ân), it does not mean that merely no

mention is proof of its negation – especially when both the literal as well

as the Sharî‘ah (religious) meaning testify to the word Millat.

Mohammad Iqbal has himself admitted that rightly guided people are

those who have entered into the fold of the religion (Millat) of the

Prophet Muhammad (SAAS). He has quoted Jennies from the holy

Qur‘ân, i.e., the momin of Aal-i-Fira‗un (the believers among the people

of Pharaoh), momin of Qaum-i-Moosa (the believers among the people of

Moses), the momin of Qaum-i-Isa (the believers among the people of

Jesus) and the momineen of Prophet Mohammad (the believers of


87

Prophet Mohammad). When momin (a believer) Prophet Jesus was given

the glad tidings of Jannat (Paradise) after his crucifixion, referring to the

infidels as his qaum (nation), he says, ‗Would that my people know (what

I know)‘. The holy Qur‘ân describes the Prophets, who are believers by

birth, the compatriots of non-believers. Thus (when I examine Allama

Iqbal‘s arguments), if this discrepancy is not a wonder of the time, then

what is it?

To Madani it is not comprehensible due to different reasons, that

Millat, too, is divided and can be divided and attributed to different

aqwam26

. Maulana also clarifies that he had not given the definition of

millat but of qaum and the two words are used in the scriptures to denote

two different things. Millat denotes Dîn or Sharî‘ah whereas qaum

means any group of men and women. He further illustrates his contention

as following:

The word qaum is used for any group which has characteristic of

comprehensiveness or togetherness or commonality; it may be

religion, country, race, language, vocation, colour or any other

material or non-material quality. For example, the Arab nation,

Ajam nation, Egyptian nation, Pakhtoon nation, Persian speaking

nation, or expression like Syed, Sheikh, cobbler, black, white,

sufi, worldly nation etc, in Arabic language and Islamic scriptures

this kind of usage is quite frequent.

Indian nation is a similar usage. Currently in foreign countries all

inhabitants of India are treated as one Indian nation, no matter if

they be Urdu-speaking or Bangla-speaking, black or white,


88

Hindu or Muslim, Parsee or Sikh. The word Indian denotes each

of them. I have lived outside India for about seventeen years

during which period I had occasion to interact with people of

Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Africa, Egypt and Malta. Similarly I had

occasion to for years interact with Germans, Austrians,

Bulgarins, English, French, Australian Amercian, Russian,

Chinese, Japanese, Turkish and Arab people. If they did not use

Arabic, Turkish, Persain or Urdu the conversation took place

with the help of interpreter. I found that all of them treated all

Indians as one nation. If dictionary meaning does not contradict

this meaning and the common use confirms it, where is the point

in misconstruing it? I do not know according to which category,

absolute or genetic, can it be said that Islam prescribes human

character or behaviour as the basis of nationhood, as the critics

like editor of Ahsaan make out, according to which its usage for

territorial distinction may be impermissible. Equal and brotherly

treatment is a different matter altogether although the distinction

can be seen in scriptures as well. Besides, I had not used it in the

context of Islamic teachings or ideology27

.

Maulana was in favour of Composite Nationalism but at the same

time he believed in Islamic brotherhood. About Islamic brotherhood,

Maulana Madani said:

Undoubtedly, as I have mentioned earlier, the Prophet of Islam,

Hazrat Muhammad (SAAS) created a bond among Muslims that

is superior to all bonds. In comparison, bonds such as

nationalism are pale and colourless. A Muslim, whoever and


89

wherever he is, is the brother of another Muslim and he has right

over other Muslims. This bond of rabita (relationships) exists

only among those who have accepted Islam. In the case of those

who have not embraced Islam, this bond cannot be established.

They could be part of composite nationalism, but only through

the bonds of nasal (race), rang (colour) and nationality, etc.

The question is: Can a Muslim join hands with non-Muslims

and become part of the same nation and on the basis of this

composite nationalism, can he enter into siyasate mulki and

forge economic, commercial, agricultural and industrial

relations with them? Is there a need of such a thing in India?

It is quite apparent that waiting for all Indians to become

Muslims in order to enter into such an alliance is wrong and

harmful. There is no doubt that Islam combines principles of

both ideological and practical reformation. Moreover, it does not

only strive for the reformation of an individual, but also strives

to reform society as a whole — irrespective of privileged or

under-privileged. Islam focuses on problems universally and

permits all sorts of reforms. But the point is whether Islam (the

Islamic principles that deal with individual as well as

community life and pertain to such issues as God, relationship

of God with His creatures and relationships between His

creatures) permits that together with non-Muslims, a United

Front can be formed on the basis of wataniyat, nasal, rang or

language (zabaan), etc., to defeat the enemies of Islam and

benefit Muslims in political, commercial, agricultural and


90

industrial fields, without compromising on the basic tenets of

Islam?

As far as I have studied and followed the verses of the

holy Qur‘ân, I have understood that there is no clear cut

categorization of it, i.e., at times it is obligatory, at other times it

is desirable, or preferable, or permissible, or even prohibited. Its

condemnation is only on the basis that nationalism, in Western

parlance today, is applied to those principles that relate to

collective human life and that is altogether anti-religion, and

thus would be attributed by this particular terminology.

However, this meaning of nationalism is neither popular among

people, nor would a true Muslim accept it, nor is there any such

movement underway. Neither the Indian National Congress and

its volunteers are propagating it. Therefore, raking up this issue

to an emotional pitch is an exercise in futility.

It must be remembered that we form a united body

everyday to achieve our common goal. Not only do we

participate in it, but we also often struggle to acquire its

membership and spend thousands of rupees for this. While

defining such a membership as beneficial for the nation and

community. We consider our participation obligatory. Town

area, unified area, municipal board, district board, councils,

assemblies and educational institutions and hundreds of such

organizations and associations are formed with a definite

purpose on the same principle of law and with the intention to


91

serve the common interest. Interestingly, participation in such

anjuman (association) is not prohibited.

However, and strangely enough, when the same type of

association is formed for the liberty of the country from British

occupation, it is declared haram (prohibited) against Islamic

teachings, against our soul and our conscience, and even against

common sense. When a nationalist outfit is formed on the basis

of the principle of composite nationalism, why is it viewed as

illegal? When an issue arises in councils and assemblies against

a fundamental principle of Islam, it is rejected. The same will

happen in a set up that is based on the principle of composite

nationalism28

.

After clarifying the linguistic confusion the Maulana Madani

comes to the political substance of his argument and points out the dire

need to get rid of the British who have exploited Indians and rendered

them destitute. For achieving this objective, he says, unity of Indians is

the most effective strategy though other ways also can be employed. That

is why in its inaugural session the Congress stated its first objective as

―bringing together different sections of India‘s population and weld them

into a united nation.‖29

As already stated that Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni was of the

view that Muslims are the original inhabitants of India. It is the duty of

every inhabitant in general and Muslims in particular to strive hard to

remove trouble from India. He considers India as a single nation (qaum)


92

as his opinion is that Millat denotes Dîn and Sharî‘ah and qaum means

any group of people. About Muslim brotherhood, he believes that this

relation is superior to all other bonds. Relations like nationalism becomes

of little value in front of this relation. There are many other bonds like

colour, race and nationality through which Muslims and non-Muslims

could be a part of composite nationalism like in India. It is the duty of

Muslims to take part in different fields e.g., political, foreign, economic,

commercial, agricultural and industrial relation of country. He is of this

thought that it is wrong and harmful to wait for participation in different

domains of the country until whole country will come under Muslim rule.

Maulana shows his surprise that on the one side, Muslims spend

thousands of rupee to acquire a membership in a united body made for

achieving a common goal and consider such membership beneficial for

nation and community which makes this participation obligatory. But

when the same type of association is formed with an aim to set India free

from foreign rule, it is declared haram (prohibited) and against Islamic

teachings against our soul and our conscience, and even against common

sense.

3:3. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

Abdul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) is regarded as another important

scholar of the early 20th

century India who accepts Indian nationalism in

his own way. He studied at Mekka and in 1898, when the family returned

to India, he was tutored by his father Maulana Khairuddin Ahmad in the

Islamic science. Later, he came into contact with Shibli Nomani (1857-


93

1914), and was exposed to the reformist writings of Egyptian scholars-

Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) and Rashid Rida (1865-1935). With his

enriched intellectual experiences, he was able to comment on

contemporary issues with sensitivity in his first major journalistic

venture, Al-Hilal, a magazine launched in 1912. It took educated

Muslims by storm with its eloquence and fervor. ‗The Muslims were set

on fire by his passionate words‘ recalled Sulaiman Nadwi (1884-1953),

who worked with him on the staff of Al-Hilal for some time in 191330

.

As early as 1905 unnoticed even by his strict disciplinarian sufi-

alim father, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad who had then hardly stepped

into manhood started feeling dissatisfied with the religious as well as

political life of the Indian Muslims. At that time, the Muslims were

dependant on the ‘ulamâ’ for guidance in religious matters and for

political leadership, on the Aligarh school. Azad disliked both31

.

Commenting on them he said:

It drives made to see the deplorable sight that today, among the

Muslims there are only two types of leaders. For the

traditionalists there are the ulama, for the modernists the western-

educted intellectuals. Both are ignorant of religion and both are

paralyzed limbs of the community. They have no idea of their

destination: The one unable to get a boat, The other can‘t find the

shore. The first group is beset by religious superstitions,

prejudices and stagnancy; while the other is caught up in atheism,

imitation of the west, and love of power and position32

.


94

Azad strayed into the political arena in Calcutta and then in the

throes of the Swadeshi agitation. Impressed by the revolutionaries, he

regarded their anti-imperialism parallel to similar movements in other

Muslim lands: he claimed that the Al-Hilal was founded to propagate his

nationalistic, anti-imperialistic stand, from 1912-1913 until his

imprisonment in 1912, he was connected with several agitations for

which he was often sent to jail33

.

His extra-textual reading of history and philosophy as well as his

knowledge, through Arabic newspapers, of the political activities of the

nationalist groups of the Muslim world convinced him that no political

struggle would be successful in India unless it was launched jointly by

the Hindus and the Muslims34

. In 1940, he was elected as the president of

the Indian National Congress and on its behalf negotiated with the Cripps

Mission (1942) and the cabinet Mission in 1946. Both in the Interim

Government and after India won her freedom in 1947, he served the

country as its Education Minister. In fact, he is responsible for laying the

foundation of the educational policies of free India and served the India

national Congress and united nationalism till his death in 195835

.

Even, Gandhiji, one of the leaders of Indian National Congress,

said about Maulana Azad, in May 1940:

I have had the privilege of being associated with Maulana Abul

Kalam Azad in national work since 1920. In the knowledge of

Islam he is surpassed by no one. He is a profound Arabic scholar.

His nationalism is as robust as his faith in Islam. That he is today

the supreme head of the Indian National Congress has deep


95

meaning which should not be lost sight of by every student of

Indian politics36

.

Maulana considered the Hindu-Muslim unity and brotherhood as

supreme which had contributed to the building up of Indian culture since

distant past. He was of the opinion that both the communities should

strive shoulder to shoulder for the freedom of the country. He made these

ideas very clear during his presidentship of the Indian National Congress.

At the time of taking over as the president of the congress in 1940, he had

remarked, ―Today we need neither any Hindu organization nor any

Muslim organization. What we need is a singular and unique

organization that is Indian National Congress‖. Maulana Azad

condemned the view of Muslim League that Congress belonged much

mud-slinging of his opponents. But he always stuck to his guns. Owing to

this opinion of Maulana Azad, the five-member Executive Council of the

Viceroy formed in 1945 consisted of two Hindus and one each Muslim,

Parsi and Indian Christian37

.

Maulana Azad related country with humanity and not with any

religion. His remarks with this regard are quite striking, ―Today eleven

centuries have gone. Islam holds the same right over India as does

Hinduism. If the inhabitants of this country profess Hinduism for many

thousand years, Islam too is people‘s religion here for a thousand years.

Like a Hindu declaring proudly that he is an Indian, follow Hinduism, so

also we can say with equal pride that we are Indian and follow Islam. I

would like to express it in wider terms that Indian Christians too have the


96

right to say with pride that they are Indians and they believe in

Christianity‖38

.

This was the reason why as the President of the Congress, he

declared that the Muslims should join the Congress for the freedom of the

country. The country did not belong to a particular community, it

belonged to all and one39

. Throughout his life, Azad struggled to purge

nationalism of religious orthodoxy and narrow-mindedness. He held that

every Muslims was a member of Indian nation and could not by virtue of

common bond of religions, separate himself from the large Indian society

and claim the status of independent nationhood. Although deeply

religious, he thought that to support nationalism in India would not be

possible without Hindu-Muslim unity, which to him was far more

important than even the freedom of the country40

.

As a great champion of Hindu-Muslim unity and integrity of India,

Maulana Azad had very clear view about religion and nationalism. To

stick to his Indianness and its nationality do not seem him adverse to his

religion. The question of India first or Muslim first was irrelevant to

him41

.He says, ―I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of indivisible

unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice

and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete‖42

. In fact

he stands for a united India of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis and

others on the basis of a rational approach to common problems. To him

the problem of understanding between the two (Hindus and Muslims) as

it exists, is primarily a matter of cultural adjustment43

. Throughout his


97

life, he was an ardent advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity, and did

everything in his power to promote amity and friendship among them. He

constantly appealed to the both to cooperate with each other in different

spheres of life. To facilitate uninhibited friendship and collaboration

between the two communities, Maulana Azad wanted the Hindus and

Muslims to look upon themselves as members of a single homogenous

group or fraternity to which he gave the name of ummat-i-wahida (one

nation). In support of this, he cited the example of the Defence Treaty

generally called mithaq-i-Madina which the Prophet of Islam (SAAS)

had made with the non–Muslim tribes inhabiting the outskirts of Madina,

just after Hijrah (the Prophet‘s (SAAS) historic migration from Makka to

Madina)44

.

Maulana Azad elaborates his united nationalism in the context of

the Prophet‘s (SAAS) joining hands with the diverse communities of

Arabia on the basis of having treaties with them to be friendly and at

peace for the common cause of humanity. In his presidential speech on

the occasion of the Khilafat Conference at Agra in 1921, he explains it:

The need of the hour is that the seven crore Muslims living in

India, should establish such close ties and develop such fellow

feeling with the twenty –two crore Hindus, that they may

henceforth be reckoned as one single nation and country as

inseperable parts of one combined and indivisible whole.

Muslims living in India ought to know that whatever Prophet

Muhammad (SAAS) has said is next in importance only to the

decree of God. These are the very words dictated by the holy


98

Prophet as one of the terms of the Treaty. I hereby promise to

make complete peace with the tribes dwelling in the

neighbourhood of Madina and express full agreement with the

stipulations set down by them, We, the signatories of the

aforesaid Treaty, genuinely desire to combine and unite as

members of a single band, group or community45

.

He amplifies it that the cause of standing against the British for

which he advocated in al-Hilal was because of the Britishers wiping out

Muslims of their existence from the globe. Then using the example of the

Prophet‘s covenant with the non Muslim Madinites, he gives the Indian

Muslims the ultimate precedent for uniting with the Hindus against a

common enemy. The prophet‘s ahad nama (written treaty) stated that he

hereby makes peace with the Jewish tribes who lived around Madina and

declared that they had now joined together to become ummat-e-wahida,

signifying the united nationality. Similarly, Azad says, in accordance

with the Prophet Muhammad (SAAS) precedence the seven crore

Muslims should join with the twenty - two crore Hindus and become one

nation (qaum). He warns the Muslims that the friendship with Hindus

should not be regarded by either party as a political expedient. It should

come from the depth of their conviction and bear the stamp of sincerity46

.

Azad began to realize that nationalism was not inconsistent with

the spirit of Islam and that pan-Islamism was nothing short of a

misnomer. This drastic change in his outlook resulted from his objective

study of the political developments in his own country. He was also


99

struck by the progress made by the Western countries in social, economic

and political spheres. He found that the basis of their progress owes much

to their nationalism and the separation of politics from religion47

. In

―Islam and Nationalism‖, published in the second phase of Al-Hilal (Al-

Hilal Thani) which ran from June – December 2007, Maulana Azad

writes about nationalism as:

What is Nationalism? It is the concept for a special state of man‘s

collective consciousness and a notion of social order. It

distinguishes one group of people from another and makes it

possible for a large number of them to come together to lead their

lives and undertake their collective responsibilities. It is better

then it examines the human predicament with regard to man‘s

social relations and beliefs, before we look at the teachings of

Islam in this respect48

.

It is natural that all human beings have love for the place where

they live for many years and in these years they have got an attach with

every thing of that place, he has also got constituency of experience, he

has kin and relatives there. Same idea has been expressed by Azad in the

following way:

Man develops a natural affinity for the place where he lives for a

period of time. His fondness for it is for more than one reason.

First, the physical conditions of the place coordinate the course

the course of his life in a manner that each of its seasons and

attributes correlates with some aspect of his life, and it develops

an attractiveness for him. Secondly, the continuity and


100

consistency of experience, by itself, has an influence on his

animal consciousness. It naturally becomes more familiar with

the things it comes in regular contract with. Thirdly, with the

place of habitation all the affiliations of race and kinship also

merge. Man has his kith and kin at the place where he is born and

brought up, and its every hook and corner becomes associated

with their affections and memory. Therefore, after racial

affiliation, man feels a kinship with his place of nativity, and

gradually its hold becomes firmer. Eventually, it becomes the

centre of his love, and pivot of his temporal aspirations.

―Patriotism‖ is a maturing of one‘s alliance to the ―city-

state‖. As civilization progresses and expands, habitations and

towns grow in numbers, man‘s contacts become more extensive

and the city-state also starts to widen. Now, instead of this place

of birth and habit, man starts to regard the entire area (in a corner

of which he lives) as his native land. Gradually the scope widens

further, and in place of small patches bigger tracts of land come

into this fold. So much so that the concept of patriotism, now

encompasses an entire country.

The collective consciousness of race had unified the

masses into a unit of race. Next, the consciousness and place and

habitat created a unit more common and extensive than race, It

includes different tribes and races and unifies them.

‗Nationalism‖ follows ―Patriotism‖ as the next stage of social

consciousness. It connotes a wider scope of human relations, and

encompassing all the older orbits, creates a higher order of unity.


101

This orbit of social consciousness is wider than all the past orbits,

and brings within its ambit larger and larger numbers of people.

The chain of relative extensions ends with the continental

division. The final stage, where this process of evolution reaches

maturity is the stage of ‗Humanism‘ and ‗Universalism‘ . At this

stage man realizes that the boundaries and relative affilations of

human associations and areas that he had created were not actual

and natural. True relationship is only one, the entire earth is

man‘s native land, mankind, one family and all human beings are

brothers. At this stage the voyage of man‘s collective affiliations

terminates and in place of unity of race, unity of place and unity

of nationality, the only and perfect unity, the unity of the human

race, created by God Almighty manifests itself. To begin with,

the piece of land, where he was born meant everything to him.

After birth, the four walls of the home became his universe. He

looked at other creatures, and before long, recognized the

different species and the nature of each one of them. He looked at

the sky, and after thousands of years realized that the sun has a

social system and the earth is one of its members49

.

After going deep into Indian phenomena, Maulana Azad conceived

that Indian nationalism was neither Hindu nor Islamic; it was secular and

a synthesis of multi- religious colours. This sort of Indian nationalism,

according to him was a reality. To him the concept of nationalism aimed

at first, to overthrow the British Raj through the unity of the people and

then, further, to achieve the organic unity of India for the building of the


102

Indian nationhood. All the people of India must have the sense of

oneness and belongingness to the country. According to him, every

Indian Muslim is a member of Indian nation and can not by virtue of the

common bond of religion, separate himself from the larger Indian society

and claim the status of the independent nationhood. The course of events

convinced Azad that nationalism in India was impossible of realization

without Hindu-Muslim unity. He was overwhelmed by the need of unity

so much that he considered it dearer than the freedom of the country

itself50

.

Maulana Azad always talked in terms of a broad-based nationalism

embracing all religions and communities in a country like India where

there has been great diversity in the matter of language and culture. He

had a firm faith in a balanced mind representing a composite nationalism

which is all inclusive51

. His attitude towards nationalism was often

rational. It was his conviction that if one can become a nationalist in a

definite time by adopting citizenship then it should not be difficult for

people belonging to different religions and living a territory for a long

time and developing common culture, customs and common interests to

become a nationalist52

. It was in 1940 on the occasion of the Rambgarh

session of Indian National Congress that he made a good elaboration of

his concept:

I am a Muslim and I am proud to be so. My sources of inspiration

are the Islamic traditions built over more than 13 hundred years.

If I lose even a fragment of this inspiration then I shall deem my

life useless. My real property is the history, education, art, culture


103

and civilization and heritage of Islam. It is my good fortune also.

To protect it is my duty. Being a Muslim I have special linking

for the religion and culture of Islam and I do not want any kind of

interference in this matter. But together, with these sentiments I

have other values also which constitute the reality of my life.

These realities exercise some restraint on me. The consciousness

of Islam does not come in the way of these values; on the other

hand they give direction to me and help me. It is a matter of pride

for me to be an Indian. I am a part of indivisible India; this is

Indian Nationalism. The common history of India extending to

eleven hundred years has brought India to this stage of common

achievements. This stamp of unity in all our literature, culture,

art, dress behavior, customs and every day activity. Anything

which breaks this stamp of unity is unrealistic. It is this common

life of eleven hundred years which has moulded us into a broad-

based nationalism53

.

To strengthen national unity and integrity, Maulana Azad laid an

emphasis through his ideas on the role of religion and politics, It was his

fundamental belief that being a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Sikh or a

Christian, a person can be a true nationalist by observing his or her

religion. But in order to realize this it is necessary that India‘s old culture

and civilization should be properly linked with modernism54

. He wanted

to make a change in Muslim attitude in reminding them that India is not a

strange place for us. The ancestors, as he says, had India in their blood55

.

He had the firm belief that in the plurality of the Indian situation no


104

particular religion could be the basis for nationalism in India, thereby

indicating the way towards a sort of secular identity of Indian nationality

with the patent idea that, having no religion of its own, it treated all

religions at par and did not differentiate their adherents on the basis of

religion and culture. With the increasing cry of the two-nation theory as

propounded by Jinnah and his likes in the Hindu Mahasabha, he

vigorously campaigned to promote the idea of a common or united

nationalism, which he concerned as more rational and congenial to the

times56

.

Azad thinks that India‘s historic destiny is in becoming a

hospitable land where, from times immemorial, caravans of races,

cultures and religions have come and settled. ―One of the last of these

caravans‖, he says, ―was that of the followers of Islam… This led to a

meeting of the culture-currents of two different races. Like the Ganga and

Jamuna they flowed for a while through separate courses, but nature‘s

immutable law brought them together and joined them in a sangam. This

fusion was a noble event in history. Since then, destiny, in her own

hidden way began to fashion a new India… We brought our treasurers

with us, and India too was full of the riches of her own precious heritage.

We gave our wealth to her and she unlocked the door of her own

treasures to us. We gave her what she needed most, the most precious of

gifts from Islam‘s treasury, the message of democracy and human

equality.‖57

He further observed; ―Eleven hundred years of common

history have enriched India with our common achievements. Our


105

languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our

manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life,

every thing bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no

aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp…… This joint wealth is

the heritage of our common nationality, and we do not want to leave it

and go back to the times when this joint life had not begun.

―If there are any Hindu amongst us who desire to bring back the

Hindu life of a thousand years ago and more, they dream, and such

dreams are vain fantasies. So also if there are any Muslims who wish to

revive, their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand

years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also, and the sooner

they wake up the better. These are unnatural fancies which cannot take

root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may

be a necessity in a religion, but in social matters it is a denial of

progress58

.

―These thousand years of our joint life have moulded us into a

common nationality. This cannot be done artificially. Nature does her

fashioning through her hidden processes in the course of centuries. The

cast has now been molded and destiny has set her seal upon it. Whether

we like it or not we have now become an India nation united and

indivisible No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can

break this unit. We must accept the logic of fact and history and engage

ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny59

.


106

From his political debut in the national struggle Maulana Azad was

an uncompromising believer in the composite Indian nationalism. In fact,

he was among those few who were not shaken in their faith in composite

nationalism even by the partition of the country60

. He persuaded the

people to show the tolerance and broad-minded in dealing with the

aftermath of the partition.

Thus Azad subscribed to harmonious religious as well as political

life of Indian Muslims along with their fellow natives. According to him

both ‗ulama’ and Western educated intellectuals were unable to grasp the

full truth of Islam. He tried to convince the Muslim world that no

political struggle would be successful in India unless it was launched

jointly by the Hindu and the Muslims. He wanted that the Hindu and the

Muslims to look upon themselves as members of a single homogenous

group or fraternity to which he gave the name of ummat-e-wahida (One

nation). He claimed that Al-Hilal was founded to propagate his

nationalistic and anti-imperialistic stand. His concept of nationalism

aimed at first, to over throw the British Raj through the unity of the

people and then, further to achieve the organic unity of India for the

building of the Indian nationhood.


107


108

References

1. Uma Koura, Muslims and Indian Nationalism, The Emergence and the

Demand for India’s Partition 1928-40, Manohar Publications, 1977, p.

1.

2. Kamalesh Sharma, Role of Muslims in Indian Politics (1857-1947),

Inter-India Publications, New Delhi, 1985, p. 53.

3. Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, The Bodley Head, London, 1955,

p. 460.

4. Ishtiaq Ahmad, The Concept of an Islamic State, St. Martin‘s Press,

New York, 1987, p. 69.

5. Bimal Prasad, A Nation Within a Nation 1877-1937, Manohar

Publications, New Delhi, 2000, p. 49.

6. A. Aziz, Pakistan from Crisis to Crisis, Royal Book Company, Karachi,

1986, p. 190.

7. P. Hardy, The Muslims of British India, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1972, pp. 1-2.

8. Ishtiaq Ahmad, op. cit., p. 66.

9. K. K. Aziz, The Making of Pakistan: A Study in Nationalism, National

Book Foundation, Karachi, 1976, p. 174.

10. Idem.

11. Shaikh ul Islam, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni was born at 11 o‘clock

on the night of 19th

Shawwal 1296 Hijri in village Bangermau of district

Unnao (Uttar Pradesh). His parents named him ‗Chirag Muhammad‘.

His native place was Alahdapur in Tanda tehsil of district Faizabad

(Uttar Pradesh), The Prisoners of Malta, Maulana Syed Muhammad

Main, Manak Publications, New Delhi, 2005, p. 86.

12. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, Composite Nationalism and Islam,

Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2005, p. 23.

13. Farhat Tabasum, Deoband Ulema’s Movement for the Freedom of India,

Manak Publications, New Delhi, 2006, p. 138.

14. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, Hamara Hindustan aur Uske Fadhail,

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, New Delhi, 2001, p. 1.

15. Ibid., p. 2.

16. Ibid., p. 4.

17. Ibid., p. 3.

18. Maulana Syed Mohammad Main, The Prisoners of Malta, Manak


19. Ibid., pp. 202-03.


109

20. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, Composite Nationalism. op. cit., pp.

118-120.

21. Idem .

22. Farhat Tabasum, op. cit., p. 141.


37-38.

24. Allama Iqbal, Kulliyat-i-Iqbal, (Persian), , Pakistan.

25. Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni Composite Nationalism. op. cit., pp.

55-56.

26. Ibid., pp. 75-85.

27. D. R. Goyal Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni: A Biographical Study,

Anamika Publishers and Distributors (P) Ltd., pp. 170-171.


102-105.

29. D. R. Goyal, loc. cit.

30. Mushirul Hasan, ed., Islam and Indian Nationalism: Reflections on

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 1992, p.

79.

31. Mushirul Haq, A Revolutionary Nationalist, Syeda Saiyidin Hameed,

Ed. India’s Maulana, Abul Kalam Azad, Vol. I, Vikas Publishing House

Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1990, p. 164.

32. Abul Kalam Azad, Al-Hilal, 1(4), August 4, 1912, p. 4.

33. Mushirul Hasan, op cit, p. 79.

34. Mushirul Haq, A Revolutionary Nationalist, op. cit., p. 164.

35. Mushirul Hasan, op cit, p. 79.

36. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (Tributes,

Writings, Speeches), Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 2002,

p. 15.

37. T. W. Arnold, Biographical Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 1, Cosmo


38. Dr. P. N. Chapra, Maulana Abul Kalam Unfulfilled Dreams, Interprint,

New Delhi, 1990, p. 149. See Presidential Address delivered by

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad at the fifty-third Session of the Indian

National Congress held at Ramgarh, March, 19-20, 1940.

39. T. W. Arnold, Biographical Encyclopedia of Islam, Cosmo Publications,

p. 555.

40. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, Life and Works of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,

Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1991, p. 57.

41. Ibid., p. 18.


110

42. Dr. P. N. Chapra, op.cit., p. 149.

43. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, op. cit., p. 18

44. Zia al-Hasan Farooqi, Maulana Azad Towards Freedom, B. R.

Publishing Company, Delhi, 1997, p. 129.

45. Idem.

46. Syeda Saiydin Hameed, Islamic Seal on Indian Independence Abul

Kalam Azad – A Fresh Look, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1998, p.

99.

47. Zakir Hussain, Abul Kalam Azad Between Dreams and Realities,

Prakash Book Depot, Bareily, 1990, p. 128.

48. Abul Kalam Azad, ―Islam and Nationalism‖, Al-Hilal, (Al-Hilal Thani),

June,December, 2007.


Writings, Speeches), op. cit., pp. 40-42.

50. Zakir Hussain, op. cit., pp. 128-129.

51. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, op. cit., p. 2.

52. Idem.


Writings, Speeches), op. cit., pp. 61-80.

54. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, op. cit., p. 3.


Writings and Speeches), op. cit., p. 89.

56. Zia ul-Hasan Farooqi, op. cit., p. 176.

57. Ibid., pp. 177-178.

58. Dr. P. N. Chapra, op. cit., p. 149.

59. Zia ul-Hasan Farooqi, op. cit., p. 178.

60. T. W. Arnold, Biographical Encyclopedia of Islam, op. cit., p. 556.


111


112

Documents

Chapter 3 Muslim Scholars Response to Nationalism ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4413/7/07_chapter 3.pdf · Chapter 3 Muslim Scholars’ Response to Nationalism: Adaptative