Syed Ahmad, Iqbal and Jinna - Two Nation Theory

తెలుగువాడు శ్రీనివాసు జిన్నాతోబాటు సర్ సయ్యద్ అహ్మద్ ఖాన్, అలామా ఇక్బాల్ కూడా దేశ విభజనకు తన వంతు కృషి చేసారు. https://www.dailypioneer.com/.../creator-of-pakistan--a...,,, No Mahomedan can say that the English are not "People of the Book." No Mahomedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mahomedans except the Christians. He who had read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect [[50]] friendship and affection from any other people./6/ At this time our nation is in a bad state as regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends..... In Speech of Sir Syed in Meerut


Creator of Pakistan, a hero in India
Monday, 23 October 2017 | Balbir Punj
1 2 3 4 5
SHARE



TT
TT


8


Creator of Pakistan,  a hero in India
It can happen only in ‘secular' India that a person who was responsible for the vivisection of the country is feted in all quarters

The charade of ‘secularism' was at its peak in India last week when the country 'celebrated'the 200th birth anniversary of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and father of Muslim separatism in the subcontinent.  Worse, this farce has gone unnoticed and unchallenged.

While several newspapers carried articles eulogising the "virtues" of Sir Syed and his lasting "services" to the country, former President Pranab Mukherjee delivered the commemoration address at AMU's Athletics Ground last Tuesday. Terming Sir Syed as a "visionary leader of India", Mr Mukherjee heaped praise on his creation, AMU, calling it as a "perfect example of Indian nationalism and ethos".

If India can hail Sir Syed a hero, why deny such an honour to Muhammad Iqbal and Mohammed Ali JinnahIJ The trio — Sir Syed, Jinnah and Iqbal — is revered as the spiritual founders of Pakistan. All three are described in Pakistani school books as the Muslim leaders who stressed Hindu-Muslim separateness, promoting a divisive mindset responsible for creation of Pakistan.

In an article in Express Tribune on Iqbal and Sir Syed, Pervez Hoodbhoywrote:  They share many commonalities. Both were knighted for services to the British Empire, both advocated purdah and had strongly traditional religious backgrounds". The Express Tribune is a multi-edition English daily of Pakistan and Mr Hoodbhoy a noted Pakistan nuclear physicist.

Pakistan, to underline its distinct identity, has not named any of its public buildings or institutions after pre-Partition personalities like Gandhiji, Netaji or Bhagat Singh. However, there are dozens of institutions of eminence named after Sir Syed — recognising his contribution to the ideology of Pakistan.Apart from holding numerous functions in Sir Syed's memory, the Pakistan postal department also issued a commemorative stamp of ‘10 to mark his 200th birth anniversary last week.

While Iqbal and Jinnah had started as nationalists and later joined the British bandwagon to Balkanise India, Sir Syed was committed to the two-nation theory right from the beginning of his public life. He worked to bring English education to Muslims so that they could gang up with the British against Hindus and he succeeded in that.

Sir Syed belonged to a feudal Muslim family who joined the East India Company in 1838 and became a judge at a small causes court in 1867, retiring from service in 1876. During the first War of Independence of 1857, he remained loyal to the Empire and saved several European lives and won the trust of the British.

On April 1, 1869, he went, along with his son Syed Mahmood, to England where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India on August 6.   His close association with the British proved mutually rewarding.

In 1887, he was nominated as a member of Civil Services Commission by lord Dufferin. In the following year, he established the United Patriotic Association at Aligarh to promote political co-operation with the British and ensure Muslim participation in the British Indian Government.

Sir Syed was bestowed the title of Khan Bahadur and was subsequently knighted by British Government in 1898. He was created a Knight Commander of the Order of Star of India (KCSI) for his loyalty to the British crown through his membership of the Imperial legislature Council. like Abdullahs of the Kashmir of our times, Sir Syed too had a forked tongue. He could change his tune depending on the occasion and audience. But his basic agenda of widening the gulf among Hindus and Muslims -- and cementing ties between his co-religionists and the British masters -- remained unchanged.

In this context, Sir Syed's speech made at Meerut on March 16, 1888 is very relevant. Excerpts:  "Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of IndiaIJ Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations - the Mohammedans and the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in powerIJ Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other… Oh, my brother Musalmans, for seven hundred years in India you have had imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English government shows to the foreign nations under her there is no example in the history of the world.

"We ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mohammedan can deny this: That God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of the Mohammedans except the Christians.Therefore, we should cultivate a friendship with them, and should adopt the method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis."

Sir Syed showed his contempt for Congress and its leaders by terming them as "Bengalis" as the bulk of Congress leadership those days came from Bengal.In the last ten years of his life, he brazenly sided with the British, vehemently opposed the Congress and propagated the two-nation theory assiduously. His brain child, AMU, played a decisive role in the creation of Pakistan. In fact, as early as 1941, MA Jinnah had recognised the contribution of AMU students to his cause and termed the university as "the arsenal of Pakistan".On August 31, 1941, addressing the students of AMU, liaquat Ali Khan declared: "We look to you for every kind of ammunition to win the battle for independence of (the) Muslim nation."  Khan went on to become the first Prime Minister of Pakistan.

The Aga Khan also paid a tribute to the students of Aligarh 1954 in these words:"Often, in civilized history a University has supplied the spring board for a nation's intellectual and spiritual renaissance... Aligarh is no exception to this rule. But we may claim with pride that Aligarh was the product of our own efforts and for no outside benevolence and surely it may also be deemed that the independent sovereign nation of Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh."

Without AMU there would probably be no Pakistan today. And without Sir Syed's "vision" that translated into the two-nation theory, there would have been no AMU with such destructive potential.

(The writer is a political commentator and a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP)



Source: Sir Syed Ahmed on the Present State of Indian Politics, Consisting of Speeches and Letters Reprinted from the "Pioneer" (Allahabad: The Pioneer Press, 1888), pp. 29-53. Modern facsimile version (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1982). Translator unknown. The text presented here has been slightly edited for classroom use, and its punctuation slightly improved, by FWP. Paragraph numbers, and some paragraph breaks, and annotations in square brackets have been added by FWP. The original spelling have been retained; all the footnotes are original.  NOTE: In virtually every place where the Pioneer's translation says "nation," the Urdu word is actually "qaum," or "community."
*Sir Sayyid's introductory speech on these issues: Lucknow, 1887*
*The Urdu text of this 1888 speech*
SPEECH OF SIR SYED AHMED
AT MEERUT [1888]

At the invitation of the Mahomedans of Meerut, Sir Syed Ahmed went to that town on the 14th of March [1888], and delivered two lectures, one on education and one on politics. He was met at the station by the leading Mahomedan gentlemen of Meerut, who raised a cheer as the train drew up at the platform, and threw flowers over him when he alighted. Carpets and red cloth were at once spread along the ground from the railway-carriage to the road. The first lecture was given at 8 A.M. in the durbar tent of the Meerut fair. Four hundred and fifty chairs had been placed in the tent, and not only were all filled, but a large number of people had to stand. The audience rose as the Syed entered. An address was first read, after which Sir Syed Ahmed delivered his first lecture which lasted an hour and twenty minutes, and was received with rapt attention. It was devoted to the condition of the Mahomedans and to the need of education; and was very effective, the audience being, at times, moved to tears. Next day in the evening he gave his second lecture on politics. As the Nauchandi Fair was at its height, the audience was very crowded, not less than seven or eight hundred being present, including many people belonging to the Delhi, [[30]] Saharanpur, Moradabad, and other districts. The audience was mainly Mahomedan, all the great Raïses being present, and great appreciation of the speech was manifested. At the close three cheers were given for the lecturer, and then the people adjourned to another tent where a tea-party was held in honour of Sir Syed, some hundred and fifty people sitting down to the repast. The utmost enthusiasm prevailed, and at the close Maulvi Hashmat Ullah, Statutory Civilian, made a speech, expressing the prevailing sentiment, and thanking the Syed for the great service he had rendered the Mahomedans. The political speech was as follows:--

    {1}  I think it expedient that I should first of all tell you the reason why I am about to address you on the subject of tonight's discourse. You know, gentlemen, that, from a long time, our friends the Bengalis have shown very warm feeling on political matters. Three years ago they founded a very big assembly, which holds its sittings in various places, and they have given it the name "National Congress." We and our nation gave no thought to the matter. And we should be very glad for our friends the Bengalis to be successful, if we were of the opinion that they had by their education and ability made such progress as rendered them fit for the claims they put forward. But although they are superior to us in education, yet we have never admitted that they have reached that level to which they lay claim to have attained. Nevertheless I have never, in any article, or in any speech, or even in conversation [[31]] in any place, put difficulties or desired to put difficulties in the way of any of their undertakings. It has never been my wish to oppose any people or any nation who wish to make progress, and who have raised themselves up to that rank to which they wish to attain and for which they are qualified. But my friends the Bengalis have made a most unfair and unwarrantable interference with my nation, and therefore it is my duty to show clearly what this unwarrantable interference has been, and to protect my nation from the evils that may arise from it. It is quite wrong to suppose that I have girded up my loins for the purpose of fighting my friends the Bengalis; my object is only to make my nation understand what I consider conducive to its prosperity. It is incumbent on me to show what evils would befall my nation from joining in the opinions of the Bengalis: I have no other purpose in view.

    {2}  The unfair interference of these people is this — that they have tried to produce a false impression that the Mahomedans of these Provinces agree with their opinions. But we also are inhabitants of this country, and we cannot be ignorant of the real nature of the events that are taking place in our own North-West Provinces and Oudh, however their colour may be painted in newspapers, and whatever aspect they may be made to assume. It is possible that the people of England, who are ignorant of the real facts, may be deceived on seeing their false representations; but we and the [[32]] people of our country, who know all the circumstances, can never be thus imposed on. Our Mahomedan nation has hitherto sat silent. It was quite indifferent as to what the Babus of Bengal, the Hindus of these Provinces, and the English and Eurasian inhabitants of India, might be doing. But they have now been wrongly tampering with our nation. In some districts they have brought pressure to bear on Mahomedans to make them join the Congress. I am sorry to say that they never said anything to those people who are powerful and are actually Raïses [nobles] and are counted the leaders of the nation; but they brought unfair pressure to bear on such people as could be subjected to their influence.

    {3}  In some districts they pressed men by the weight of authority, in others they forced them in this way — saying that the business they had at heart could not prosper unless they took part; or they led them to suppose that they could not get bread if they held aloof. They even did not hold back from offering the temptation of money. Where is the man that does not know this? Who does not know who were the three or four Mahomedans of the North-West Provinces who took part with them, and why they took part? The simple truth is they were nothing more than hired men. (Cheers.) Such people they took to Madras, and having got them there, said, "These are the sons of Nawabs, and these are Raïses of such-and-such districts, and these are such-and-such great Mahomedans," whilst everybody knows how the men were bought. We [[33]] know very well the people of our own nation, and that they have been induced to go either by pressure, or by folly, or by love of notoriety, or by poverty. If any Raïs on his own inclination and opinion join them, we do not care a lot. By one man's leaving us our crowd is not diminished. But this telling of lies that their men are landlords and Nawabas of such-and-such places; and their attempt to give a false impression that the Mahomedans have joined them — this is a most unwarrantable interference with our nation. When matters took such a turn, then it was necessary that I should warn my nation of their misrepresentations, in order that others should not fall into the trap; and that I should point out to my nation that the few who went to Madras, went by pressure, or from some temptation, or in order to help their profession, or to gain notoriety; or were bought. (Cheers.) No Raïs from here took part in it.

    {4}  This was the cause of my giving a speech at Lucknow [in 1887], contrary to my wont, on the evils of the National Congress; and this is the cause also of today's speech. And I want to show this: that except Badruddin Tyabji, who is a gentleman of very high position and for whom I have great respect, no leading Mahomedan took part in it. He did take part, but I think he made a mistake. He has written me two letters, one of which was after the publication of my Lucknow speech. I think that he wants me to point out those things in the Congress which are opposed to the interests of Mahomedans, in order that he may exclude them [[34]] from the discussion. But in reality the whole affair is bad for Mahomedans. However, let us grant that Badruddin Tyabji's opinion is different from ours; yet it cannot be said that his opinion is the opinion of the whole nation, or that his sympathy with the Congress implies the sympathy of the whole community. My friend there, Mirza Ismail Khan, who has just come from Madras, told me that no Mahomedan Raïs of Madras took part in the Congress. It is said that Prince Humayun Jah joined it. Let us suppose that Humayun Jah, whom I do not know, took part in it; yet our position as a nation will not suffer simply because two men stand aside. No one can say that because these two Raïses took part in it, that therefore the whole nation has joined it. To say that the Mahomedans have joined it is quite wrong, and is a false accusation against our nation. If my Bengali friends had not adopted this wrong course of action, I should have had nothing to do with the National Congress, nor with its members, nor with the wrong aspirations for which they have raised such an uproar. Let the delegates of the National Congress become the stars of heaven, or the sun itself — I am delighted. But it was necessary and incumbent on me to show the falsity of the impression which, by taking a few Mahomedans with them by pressure or by temptation, they wished to spread, that the whole Mahomedan nation had joined them. (Cheers.)

    {5}  Gentlemen, what I am about to say is not only useful for my own nation, but also for my Hindu [[35]] brothers of these Provinces, who from some wrong notions have taken part in this Congress. At last they also will be sorry for it — although perhaps they will never have occasion to be sorry; for it is beyond the region of possibility that the proposals of the Congress should be carried out fully. These wrong notions which have grown up in our Hindu fellow-countrymen, and on account of which they think it expedient to join the Congress, depend upon two things. The first thing is this: that they think that as both they themselves and the Bengalis are Hindus, they have nothing to fear from the growth of their influence. The second thing is this: that some Hindus — I do not speak of all the Hindus but only of some — think that by joining the Congress and by increasing the power of the Hindus, they will perhaps be able to suppress those Mahomedan religious rites which are opposed to their own, and, by all uniting, annihilate them. But I frankly advise my Hindu friends that if they wish to cherish their religious rites, they can never be successful in this way. If they are to be successful, it can only be by friendship and agreement. The business cannot be done by force; and the greater the enmity and animosity, the greater will be their loss. I will take Aligarh as an example. There Mahomedans and Hindus are in agreement. The Dasehra/1/ and Moharrum/2/ fell together for three years, and no one knows what took place [that is, things remained quiet]. It is worth notice how, when an agitation was started against cow-killing, the [[36]] sacrifice of cows increased enormously, and religious animosity grew on both sides, as all who live in India well know. They should understand that those things that can be done by friendship and affection, cannot be done by any pressure or force.

    {6}  If these ideas which I have expressed about the Hindus of these provinces be correct, and their condition be similar to that of the Mahomedans, then they ought to continue to cultivate friendship with us. Let those who live in Bengal 'eat up their own heads' [that is, involve themselves in difficulties]. What they want to do, let them do it. What they don't want to do, let them not do it. Neither their disposition nor their general condition resembles that of the people of this country. Then what connection have the people of this country with them? As regards Bengal, there is, as far as I am aware, in Lower Bengal a much larger proportion of Mahomedans than Bengalis. And if you take the population of the whole of Bengal, nearly half are Mahomedans and something over half are Bengalis. Those Mahomedans are quite unaware of what sort of thing the National Congress is. No Mahomedan Raïs of Bengal took part in it, and the ordinary Bengalis who live in the districts are also as ignorant of it as the Mahomedans. In Bengal the Mahomedan population is so great that if the aspirations of those Bengalis who are making so loud an agitation be fulfilled, it will be extremely difficult for the Bengalis to remain in peace even in Bengal. These proposals of the Congress are extremely inexpedient for the country, which is inhabited [[37]] by two different nations — who drink from the same well, breathe the air of the same city, and depend on each other for its life. To create animosity between them is good neither for peace, nor for the country, nor for the town.

    {7}  After this long preface I wish to explain what method my nation — nay, rather the whole people of this country — ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this — In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time you must remember that although the number of Mahomedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. [[38]] Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier in the north to the extreme end of Bengal. This thing — who, after the departure of the English, would be conquerors — would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.

    {8}  Now, suppose that the English are not in India, and that one of the nations of India has conquered the other, whether the Hindus the Mahomedans, or the Mahomedans the Hindus. At once some other nation of Europe, such as the French, the Germans, the Portuguese, or the Russians, will attack India. Their ships of war, covered with iron and loaded with flashing cannon and weapons, will surround her on all sides. At that time who will protect India? Neither Hindus can save nor Mahomedans; neither the Rajputs nor my brave brothers the Pathans. And what will be the result? The result will be this: that foreigners will rule India, because the state of India is such that if foreign Powers attack her, no one has the power to oppose them. From this reasoning it follows of necessity that an empire not of any Indian race, but of foreigners, will be established in India. Now, will you please decide which of the nations of Europe you would like to rule over India? I ask if you would like Germany; whose subjects weep for heavy taxation and the stringency of their military [[39]] service? Would you like the rule of France? Stop! I fancy you would perhaps like the rule of the Russians, who are very great friends of India and of Mahomedans, and under whom the Hindus will live in great comfort, and who will protect with the tenderest care the wealth and property which they have acquired under English rule? (Laughter.) Everybody knows something or other about these powerful kingdoms of Europe. Everyone will admit that their governments are far worse — nay, beyond comparison worse — than the British Government. It is, therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of everything in India, the English Government should remain for many ycars — in fact forever!

    {9}  When it is granted that the maintenance of the British Government, and of no other, is necessary for the progress of our country, then I ask whether there is any example in the world of one nation having conquered and ruled over another nation, and that conquered nation claiming it as a right that they should have representative government. The principle of representative government is that it is government by a nation, and that the nation in question rules over its own people and its own land. Can you tell me of any case in the world's history in which any foreign nation, after conquering another and establishing its empire over it, has given representative government to the conquered people? Such a thing has never taken place. It is necessary for those who have [[40]] conquered us to maintain their Empire on a strong basis. When rulers and ruled are one nation, representative government is possible. For example, in Afghanistan, of which Amir Abdur Rahman Khan is the ruler, where all the people are brother-Afghans, it might be possible. If they want, they can have representative government. But to think that representative government can be established in a country over which a foreign race rules, is utterly vain, nor can a trace of such a state of things be discovered in the history of the world. Therefore to ask that we should be appointed by election to the Legislative Council is opposed to the true principles of government, and no government whatever, whether English or German or French or Russian or Musalman, could accept this principle. The meaning of it is this: "Abandon the rule of the country and put it in our hands." Hence, it is in no way expedient that our nation should join in and echo these monstrous proposals.

    {10}  The next question is about the Budget. They say: "Give us power to vote on the Budget. Whatever expenses we may grant shall be granted, whatever expenses we do not grant shall not be granted." Now, consider to what sort of government this principle is applicable. It is suited to such a country as is, according to the fundamental principles of politics, adapted also for representative government. The rulers and the ruled must be of the same nation. In such a country the people have also the right of deciding matters of peace and war. [[41]] But this principle is not adapted to a country in which one foreign race has conquered another. The English have conquered India, and all of us along with it. And just as we made the country obedient and our slave, so the English have done with us. Is it then consonant with the principles of empire that they should ask us whether they should fight Burma or not? Is it consistent with any principle of empire? In the times of the Mahomedan empire, would it have been consistent with the principles of rule that, when the Emperor was about to make war on a Province of India, he should have asked his subject-peoples whether he should conquer that country or not? Whom should he have asked? Should he have asked those whom he had conquered and had made slaves, and whose brothers he also wanted to make his slaves? Our nation has itself wielded empire, and people of our nation are even now ruling. Is there any principle of empire by which rule over foreign races may be maintained in this manner?

    {11}  The right to give an opinion on the Budget depends also on another principle, which is this: that in a country in which the people accept the responsibility for all the expenses of government, and are ready with their lives and property to discharge it — in such a country they have a right to give their opinion on the Budget. They can say; "Undertake this expense," or "Leave that alone." And whatever the expense of the State affairs, it is then their duty to pay it. For example in England, in [[42]] a time of necessity the whole wealth and property of everyone, from the Duke to the cobbler, is at the disposal of the Government. It is the duty of the people to give all their money and all their property to the Government, because they are responsible for giving Government all that it may require. And they say: "Yes, yes; take it! Yes; take it. Spend the money. Beat the enemy. Beat the enemy." These are conditions under which people have a right to decide matters about the Budget.

    {12}  The principle that underlies the Government of India is of a wholly different nature. In India, the Government has itself to bear the responsibility of maintaining its authority; and it must, in the way that seems to it fittest, raise money for its army and for the expense of the empire. Government has a right to take a fixed proportion of the produce of the land as land-revenue, and is like a contractor who bargains on this income to maintain the empire. It has not the power to increase the amount settled as land-revenue. However great its necessity, it cannot say to the zamindars, "increase your contributions." Nor do the zemindars think that even in a time of necessity, Government has any right to increase its fixed tax on land. If at this time there were a war with Russia, would all the zemindars and taluqdars/3/ be willing to give double their assessment to Government? They would not give a pice/4/ more. Then what right have they to interfere and say,  "So much should [[43]] be spent, and so much should not be spent"? The method of the British Government is that of all Kings and Asiatic Empires. When you will not, even in time of war, give a pice more of your land-revenue, what right have you to interfere in the Budget?

    {13}  The real motive for scrutinising the Budget is economy. Economy is a thing of such a nature that everyone has a regard for it in his household arrangements. It is a crude notion that Government has no regard for economy and squanders its money; Government practises economy as far as possible. Our Government is so extremely miserly that it will not uselessly give anyone a single pice. Until great necessity arise and great pressure be brought to bear on it, it will not spend a pice. It has completely forgotten the generosity of the former Emperors. The Kings of later times presented poets and authors with estates and lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of rupees. Our Government does not spend a pice in that way. What greater economy can there be than this? Instead of rewards it gives authors copyright. That also it does after taking two rupees for registering. It writes a letter as a sanad [warrant], and says that for forty years, no other man may print the book. Print it, sell it, and make your profit: this is a reward to you from Government.

    {14}  People look at the income of the Government and say it is much greater than that of former empires, but they don't think of the expenses of Government, and how much they have increased. [[44]] In the old days, a sword of fifteen or twenty rupees, a gun of ten or fifteen rupees, a card-board ammunition bag, and a coil of fuse was enough equipment for a soldier. Now look and see how the expenses of the army have increased in modern times, and what progress has been made in arms, and how they are daily improving, and the old ones becoming useless. If a new kind of gun or cannon be invented in France or Germany, is it possible for Government not to abandon all its old kinds of guns or cannon and adopt the new? When the expenses have grown so much, the wonder is how on earth Government manages to carry on its business on the small tax which it raises. (Cheers.) Perhaps many people will not like what I am going to say, but I will tell them openly a thing which took place. When after the Mutiny, the Hon'ble Mr. Wilson was Financial Minister, he brought forward a law for imposing a tax, and said in his speech that this tax would remain for five years only. An honourable English friend of mine showed me the speech and asked me if I liked it. I read it and said that I had never seen so foolish a Financial Minister as the Hon'ble Mr. Wilson. He was surprised. I said that it was wrong to restrict it to five years. The condition of India was such that it ought to be imposed forever. Consider for a moment that Government has to protect its friends the Afghans, and their protection is necessary. It is necessary for Government to strengthen the frontier. If in England there had been any need for strength[[45]]ening a frontier, then the people would themselves have doubled or trebled their taxes to meet the necessity. In Burma there are expenses to be borne, although we hope that in the future it will be a source of income. If under such circumstances, Government increase the salt-tax by eight annas per maund, is this thing such that we ought to make complaints? If this increase of tax be spread over everybody, it will not amount to half or quarter of a pice. On this to raise an uproar, to oppose Government, to accuse it of oppression — what utter nonsense and injustice! And in spite of this they claim the right to decide matters about the Budget!

    {15}  When it has been settled that the English Government is necessary, then it is useful for India that its rule should be established on the firmest possible basis. And it is desirable for Government that for its stability it should maintain an army of such a size as it may think expedient, with a proper equipment of officers; and that it should in every district appoint officials in whom it can place complete confidence, in order that if a conspiracy arise in any place they may apply the remedy. I ask you, is it the duty of Government or not, to appoint European officers in its empire, to stop conspiracies and rebellions? Be just, and examine your hearts, and tell me if it is not a natural law that people should confide more in men of their own nation. If any Englishman tells you anything which is true, yet you remain doubtful. But when a man of your [[46]] own nation, or your family; tells you a thing privately in your house, you believe it at once. What reason can you then give why Government, in the administration of so big an empire, should not appoint, as custodians of secrets and as givers of every kind of information, men of her own nationality; but must leave all these matters to you, and say, "Do what you like"? These things which I have said are such necessary matters of State administration that whatever nation may be holding the empire, they cannot be left out of sight. It is the business of a good and just Government, after having secured the above-mentioned essentials, to give honour to the people of the land over which it rules, and to give them as high appointments as it can. But, in reality; there are certain appointments to which we can claim no right; we cannot claim the post of head executive authority in any zila./5/  There are hundreds of secrets which Government cannot disclose. If Government appoint us to such responsible and confidential posts, it is her favour. We will certainly discharge the duties faithfully and without divulging her secrets. But it is one thing to claim it as a right, and another for Government, believing us to be faithful and worthy of confidence, to give us the posts. Between these two things there is the difference between Heaven and Earth.

    {16}  How can we possibly claim as a right those things on which the very existence and [[47]] strength of the Government depends? We most certainly have not the right to put those people in the Council whom we want, and to keep out those whom we don't want; to pass those laws that we want, and to veto those laws that we dislike. If we have the right to elect members for the Legislative Council, there is no reason why we should not have the right to elect members for the Imperial Council. In the Imperial Council thousands of matters of foreign policy and State secrets are discussed. Can you with justice say that we Indians have a right to claim those things? To make an agitation for such things can only bring misfortune on us and on the country. It is opposed to the true principles of government, and is harmful for the peace of the country. The aspirations of our friends the Bengalis have made such progress that they want to scale a height to which it is beyond their powers to attain. But if I am not in error, I believe that the Bengalis have never at any period held sway over a particle of land. They are altogether ignorant of the method by which a foreign race can maintain its rule over other races. Therefore reflect on the doings of your ancestors, and be not unjust to the British Government to whom God has given the rule of India; and look honestly and see what is necessary for it to do, to maintain its empire and its hold on the country. You can appreciate these matters; but they cannot who have never held a country in their hands nor won a victory.

    {17}  Oh! my brother Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled [[48]] nations, and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in India you have had Imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this: how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English Government shows to the foreign nations under her, there is no example in the history of the world. See what freedom she has given in her laws, and how careful she is to protect the rights of her subjects. She has not been backward in promoting the progress of the natives of India and in throwing open to them high appointments. At the commencement of her rule, except clerkships and kaziships [judgeships] there was nothing. The kazis of the pargana, who were called commissioners, decided small civil suits and received very small pay. Up to 1832 or 1833 this state of things lasted.

    {18}  If my memory is not wrong, it was in the time of Lord William Bentinck that natives of India began to get honourable posts. The positions of Munsif, Subordinate Judge, and Deputy Collector, on respectable pay, were given to natives, and progress has been steadily going on ever since. In the Calcutta High Court a Kashmiri Pandit was first appointed equal to the English Judges. After him Bengalis have been appointed as High Court Judges. At this time there are perhaps three Bengalis in the Calcutta High Court, and in the same way some Hindus in Bombay and Madras. It was your bad fortune that there was for a long time no Mahomedan High Court Judge, but now [[49]] there is one in the Allahabad High court. (Cheers.) Native High Court Judges can cancel the decision of English Judges and Collectors. They can ask them for explanations. The subordinate native officers also have full authority in their posts. A Deputy Collector, a Sub-Judge, or a Munsif decides cases according to his opinion, and is independent of the opinion of the Judge or Collector. None of these things have been acquired by fighting or opposition. As far as you have made yourselves worthy of the confidence of Government, to that extent you have received high positions. Make yourselves her friends, and prove to her that your friendship with her is like that of the English and the Scotch. After this what you have to claim, claim — on condition that you are qualified for it.

    {19}  About this political controversy, in which my Hindu brothers of this Province — to whom I have given some advice, and who have, I think, joined from some wrong notions — have taken part, I wish to give some advice to my Mahomedan brothers. I do not think the Bengali politics useful for my brother Mussalmans. Our Hindu brothers of these provinces are leaving us and are joining the Bengalis. Then we ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mahomedan can say that the English are not "People of the Book." No Mahomedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mahomedans except the Christians. He who had read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect [[50]] friendship and affection from any other people./6/ At this time our nation is in a bad state as regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends.

    {20}  Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis. This is our true friendship with our Christian rulers, and we should not join those people who wish to see us thrown into a ditch. If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our narion will reap loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the "People of the Book." And as far as we can we should remain faithful to the English Government. By this my meaning is not that I am inclined towards their religion. Perhaps no one has written such severe books as I have against their religion, of which I am an enemy. But whatever their religion, God has called men of that religion our friends. We ought — not on account of their religion, but because of the order of God — to be friendly and faithful to them. If our Hindu brothers of these Provinces, and the Bengalis of Bengal, and the Brahmans of Bombay, and the Hindu Madrasis [[51]] of Madras, wish to separate themselves from us, let them go, and trouble yourself about it not one whit. We can mix with the English in a social way. We can eat with them, they can eat with us. Whatever hope we have of progress is from them. The Bengalis can in no way assist our progress. And when the Koran itself directs us to be friends with them, then there is no reason why we should not be their friends. But it is necessary for us to act as God has said. Besides this, God has made them rulers over us. Our Prophet has said that if God place over you a black negro slave as ruler, you must obey him. See, there is here in the meeting a European, Mr. Beck. He is not black. He is very white. (Laughter.) Then why should we not be obedient and faithful to those white-faced men whom God has put over us, and why should we disobey the order of God?

    {21}  I do not say that in the British Government all things are good. Nobody can say that there is any Government in the world, or has ever been, in which there is nothing bad, be the Government Mahomedan, Hindu, or Christian. There is now the Sultan of Turkey; who is a Mahomedan Emperor, and of whom we are proud. Even his Mahomedan subjects make complaints of his government. This is the condition of the Khedive of Egypt. Look at the Governments of Europe, and examine the condition of the Government of London itself. Thousands of men complain against Government. There is no Government with which everybody is satisfied.

    {22}  [[52]] If we also have some complaints against the English Government, it is no wonderful thing. People are not even grateful to God for His government. I do not tell you to ask nothing from Government. I will myself fight on your behalf for legitimate objects. But ask for such things as they can give you, or such things to which, having due regard to the administration of the country, you can claim a right. If you ask for such things as Government cannot give you, then it is not the fault of Government, but the folly of the askers. But what you ask, do it not in this fashion — that you accuse Government in very action of oppression, abuse the highest officials, use the hardest words you can find for Lord Lytton and Lord Dufferin, call all Englishmen tyrants, and blacken columns on columns of newspapers with these subjects. You can gain nothing this way. God had made them your rulers. This is the will of God. We should be content with the will of God. And in obedience to the will of God, you should remain friendly and faithful to them. Do not do this: bring false accusations against them and give birth to enmity. This is neither wisdom nor in accordance with our holy religion.

    {23}  Therefore the method we ought to adopt is this: that we should hold ourselves aloof from this political uproar, and reflect on our condition — that we are behindhand in education and are deficient in wealth. Then we should try to improve the education of our nation. Now our condition is this: that the Hindus, if they wish, can ruin us in an hour. [[53]] The internal trade is entirely in their hands. The external trade is in possession of the English. Let the trade which is with the Hindus remain with them. But try to snatch from their hands the trade in the produce of the county which the English now enjoy and draw profit from. Tell them: "Take no further trouble. We will ourselves take the leather of our country to England and sell it there. Leave off picking up the bones of our country's animals. We will ourselves collect them and take them to America. Do not fill ships with the corn and cotton of our country. We will fill our own ships and will take it ourselves to Europe!" Never imagine that Government will put difficulties in your way in trade. But the acquisition of all these things depends on education. When you shall have fully acquired education, and true education shall have made its home in your hearts, then you will know what rights you can legitimately demand of the British Government. And the result of this will be that you will also obtain honourable positions in the Government, and will acquire wealth in the higher ranks of trade. But to make friendship with the Bengalis in their mischievous political proposals, and join in them, can bring only harm. If my nation follow my advice they will draw benefit from trade and education. Otherwise, remember that Government will keep a very sharp eye on you because you are very quarrelsome, very brave, great soldiers, and great fighters.


NOTES
/1/ A Hindu religious festival.
/2/ A Mahomedan religious festival.
/3/ Large landholders.
/4/ A farthing.
/5/ The position of Collector.
/6/ Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true believers to be the Jews and the idolaters: and thou shalt surely find those among them to be the most inclinable to entertain friendship for the true believers, who say "we are Christians."-- (Koran, Chapt. V).




తెలుగువాడు శ్రీనివాసు
తెలుగువాడు శ్రీనివాసు If India can hail Sir Syed a hero, why deny such an honour to Muhammad Iqbal and Mohammed Ali JinnahIJ The trio — Sir Syed, Jinnah and Iqbal — is revered as the spiritual founders of Pakistan. All three are described in Pakistani school books as the Muslim leaders who stressed Hindu-Muslim separateness, promoting a divisive mindset responsible for creation of Pakistan.
In an article in Express Tribune on Iqbal and Sir Syed, Pervez Hoodbhoywrote: They share many commonalities. Both were knighted for services to the British Empire, both advocated purdah and had strongly traditional religious backgrounds". The Express Tribune is a multi-edition English daily of Pakistan and Mr Hoodbhoy a noted Pakistan nuclear physicist.
Pakistan, to underline its distinct identity, has not named any of its public buildings or institutions after pre-Partition personalities like Gandhiji, Netaji or Bhagat Singh. However, there are dozens of institutions of eminence named after Sir Syed — recognising his contribution to the ideology of Pakistan.Apart from holding numerous functions in Sir Syed's memory, the Pakistan postal department also issued a commemorative stamp of ‘10 to mark his 200th birth anniversary last week.



The forgotten future: Sir Syed and the birth of Muslim nationalism in South Asia
Nadeem F. ParachaUpdated August 15, 2016Facebook Count
154
Twitter Share 
45
Pakistan nationalism is the direct outcome of Muslim nationalism, which emerged in India in the 19th century. Its intellectual pioneer was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

Belonging to a family which had roots in the old Muslim nobility, Sir Syed’s prolific authorship on the Muslim condition in India (during British rule) and his activism in the field of education, helped formulate nationalist ideas in the Muslims of the region.

These ideas went on to impact and influence a plethora of Muslim intellectuals, scholars, politicians, poets, writers and journalists who then helped evolve Syed’s concept of Muslim nationalism into becoming the ideological doctrine and soul of the very idea of Pakistan.

Syed’s influence also rang loudly in the early formation of Pakistan nationalism.

However, his influence in this context began to recede from the mid-1970s when certain drastic internal, as well as external economic events; and a calamitous war with India in 1971, severely polarised the Pakistan society.

With the absence of an established form of democracy, this polarisation began to be expressed through the airing of radical alternatives such as neo-Pan-Islamism.

The Pan-Islamic alternative managed to elicit a popular response from a new generation of urban bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie. Its proliferation was also bankrolled by oil-rich Arab monarchies which had always conceived modernist Muslim nationalism as an opponent.

As a reaction, the Pakistan state changed tact and tried to retain the wavering status quo by rapidly co-opting various aspects of pan-Islamism; even to the extent of sacrificing many of the state’s original nationalist notions.

The gradual erosion of the original nationalist narrative created wide open spaces. These spaces were rapidly occupied, and then dominated by ideas which had been initially rejected by the Pakistani state and nationalist intelligentsia.

Here is from where Sir Syed’s presence begins to evaporate from the pages of textbooks and the nationalist narrative.

Muslim nationalism: A theological beginning
Muslim nationalism in South Asia did not exist till the end of Muslim rule here. The decline of the Mughal Empire, rise of British Colonialism, and the political reassertion of Hindus in India, provided the materials with which Muslim nationalism would first begin to shape itself.

Dr. Mubarak Ali has insightfully noted one very important (but often ignored) factor which helped create a sense of nationhood among sections of Muslims in India: i.e. the manner in which Urdu began to replace Persian as the preferred language of Muslims in India.

As Muslim rule receded, immigrants from Persia and Central Asia stopped travelling and settling in India because now there were little or no opportunities left for them to bag important posts in the courts of Muslim regimes.

The importance and frequency of Persian ebbed, gradually replaced by Urdu – a language which began to form in India from the 14th century CE.

Largely spoken by local Muslims (most of whom were converts); by the early 19th century, Urdu had already begun to make its way into the homes of the Muslim elite as well. This helped the local Muslims to climb their way up the social ladder and begin to fill posts and positions which were once the exclusive domain of Persian and Central Asian immigrants.

This initiated the early formation of a new Muslim grouping, mostly made-up of local Muslims who were now enjoying social mobility.

But all this was happening when the Muslim empire was rapidly receding and the British were enhancing their presence in India. This also facilitated the process which saw the Hindus reasserting themselves socially and politically after remaining subdued for hundreds of years.

With no powerful and overwhelming Muslim monarch or elite now shielding the interests of the Muslims in the region, the emerging community of local Muslims became fearful of the fact that its newly-found enhanced status might be swept aside by the expansion of British rule and Hindu reassertion.

Though many local Muslims had managed to make their way up the social ladder, the ladder now led to a place which did not have a powerful Muslim ruler. Thus, the new community was politically weak. It felt vulnerable and many of its members began accusing the later-day Mughals of squandering an empire due to their decadence.

Even some famous Muslim rulers of yore were criticised for putting too much faith in pragmatic politics and in inclusive policies, and not doing enough to use their powers to prompt wide-scale conversions.

An early 19th century photograph of a new batch of British soldiers arriving in India to strengthen British presence here.
During the heights of Muslim rule in India, the ulema had only been allowed to play a nominal role in the workings of the state. But as this rule receded, the ulema took it upon themselves to air the ambitions and fears of the new Muslim community.

The ulema insisted on explaining the decline of the Mughal Empire as a symptom of the deterioration of ‘true Islam’ in the region — due to the inclusive policies of the Mughals which strengthen the Hindus and extended patronage to Sufi saints and orders, and which, in turn, encouraged ‘alien ideas’ to seep into the beliefs and rituals of the region’s Muslims.

Such a disposition saw a number of ulema and clerics from the emerging Muslim community become drawn towards a radical puritan movement which had mushroomed 2000 miles away in Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia) in the 18th century.

It was led by one Muhammad Al-Wahhab, a celebrant in the Nejd area of central Arabia who preached the expulsion and rejection of various practices and rituals from Islam which he claimed were distortions and heretical innovations.

A Muslim scholar from the Bengal in India, Haji Shariatullah, who was the son of an impoverished farmer, became smitten by Wahhab’s movement when he travelled to and stayed in Arabia in 1799.

On his return to India, he was extremely dismissive of the conduct of the last remnants of the Mughal Empire and conjectured that the Muslims of India had been declining as a community mainly due to the fact that they were practicing an inaccurate strain of Islam, which was adulterated by rituals borrowed from Hinduism.

Shariatullah was equally harsh on rituals he believed were a concoction of the centuries-old fusion of Sufism and Hinduism in the subcontinent.

Another figure in this regard was Syed Ahmad Barelvi who, though, an ardent follower of Sufism, believed that Sufism in India, too, was in need of reform, and that this could only be achieved by reintroducing the importance of following Sharia laws, something which one did not expect from the historically heterogeneous Sufi orders in India.

Sufism in the region had, in fact, largely opposed religious orthodoxy and was comfortable with the rituals and beliefs which had grown around it, especially among the local Muslims.

Syed Ahmad theorised that the Muslim condition was in decline because the beliefs of the common Muslims of India repulsed the idea of gaining political power through force. He suggested that this could only be achieved through the practice of the Islamic concept of holy war which was missing in the make-up of Islam in the subcontinent.

Syed Ahmad gathered a following from among common Muslims and set up a movement in the present-day Pakistan province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). The area at the time was under the rule of the Sikhs who had risen to power at the end of the Aurangzeb regime.

Barelvi had gathered over 1000 followers and most of them belonged to various Pakhtun tribes. He implored them to shun their tribal customs and strive to fight a holy war against the ‘infidels’ (Sikhs and British) in the area and help him set up a state run on Sharia laws.

After offering stiff resistance to the Sikhs, Barelvi managed to establish a strong base in the region. He began to impose laws grounded in his idea of the Sharia. The move backfired when leaders of the tribes accused him of undermining their established tribal customs.

Many of these tribes which had initially helped him fight a guerrilla war against the Sikhs, rose up against him and pushed his movement deep into the rocky hills near Charsaada. In the town of Balakot, Syed Ahmad was surrounded by the Sikh army and killed in 1831.

A 19th century painting showing British forces warring with Syed Ahmed Barelvi’s men in present-day KP.
The idea of ‘purifying’ Islam and Muslims in India (through vigorous preaching and holy war) formulated by men like Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad were expressions of the fears haunting the local Muslims.

These fears were also triggered by the mushrooming of aggressive Hindu reformist movements and also by the arrival of Christian missionaries from Britain.

The missionaries enjoyed a good response from lower-caste Hindus and from some local Muslims as well; and men such as Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad believed that the nature of Muslim beliefs in India (especially among common Muslims) was such, that it could be easily molded by the missionaries and the Hindu reformists.

To them, only a strict adherence to Islamic laws and rituals could save the Muslim community from being completely absorbed by the changing political and social currents and events.

The movements formed by Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad made the mosques and madrassas the cornerstones of the idea of nationhood among the local Muslims.

Indeed, these movements constitute one dimension of the formation of Muslim nationalism in South Asia.

British soldiers clash with the mutineers.
But they collapsed when the British began to assert their authority. The movements elicited a surge of passion among many Indian Muslims, but these passions put the community on a course leading to further alienation and social and political deterioration, especially after the 1857 Sepoys Mutiny against the British.

The mutiny — remembered as a War of Liberation in present-day India and Pakistan — involved an uprising within sections of Hindus and Muslims in the British Army; but most of its civilian leaders were Muslims from the local Muslim community, and remnants of the old Muslim elite.

After the bloody commotion was brought under control, the last vestiges of Mughal rule were eradicated.

According to the British — whose power grew manifold after the failure of the rebellion — it were the Muslims who had played the more active role in the rebellion. Consequently, influential British authors such as Sir William Muir began fostering the myth of the Muslim with a sword in one hand and the Qu’ran in the other.

A Muslim and a Hindu rebel hanged by the British after the Mutiny was crushed.
Two factors influenced the creation of this image: the first was, of course, the nature of the movements led by Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad decades before the Mutiny; and second was the lingering imagery in the West of Muslims authored by European Christian perseveres during the Crusades (1095-1291).

Muslim nationalism: The rational turn
It is interesting to note that in their writings on India before the 1857 upheaval, the British had largely conceived India to be a racial whole.

But things in this respect began to change drastically when the British (after 1857) began to investigate the social, political and cultural dynamics of the religious differences between the Muslims and the Hindus in the region, and then utilised their findings to exert more control over both the communities.

British authors were squarely criticised by Muslim scholars in India for looking at Islamic history from a Christian point of view and presenting the legacy of Islam as something which was destructive and retrogressive.

One of the first Muslim scholars to offer a detailed rebuttal did not come from the ulema circle and neither was he a cleric. He belonged to a family which had roots in the old Muslim nobility and elite. His name was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan.

It is with him that the second (and more dominant) dimension of Muslim nationalism emerges in India.

And it is this dimension which evolved into becoming a movement that strived to carve out a separate Muslim-majority country in the subcontinent, and then further evolve to become Pakistani nationalism.

During the 1857 mutiny, Sir Syed had already established himself as a member of the scholarly Muslim gentry who had studied Sufism, mathematics, astronomy, and the works of traditional Islamic scholars.

After the Mutiny was crushed and literature, which cast a critical eye on Muslim history began to emerge, Khan put forward a detailed proposal which he hoped would not only contest the perceptions of Islam being formulated by the British, but also help the region’s Muslim community to reassess their beliefs, character and status according to the changes taking shape around it.

Khan reminded the British that Islam was inherently a progressive and modern religion which had inspired the creation of some of the world’s biggest empires, which in turn had encouraged the study of philosophy and the sciences during a period in which Europe was lurking aimlessly in the ‘Dark Ages.’

Sir Syed also asserted that the scientific and military prowess of the West was originally inspired and informed by the scholarly endeavors of medieval Muslim scientists and philosophers and that the Muslims had been left behind because this aspect of Islam stopped being exercised by them.

Interestingly, this thesis first put forward by the likes of Syed Ahmad Khan in the 19th century, still prevails within large sections of Muslims around the world today.

Sir Syed then turned his attention towards his own community. He was vehemently opposed to the militancy of men like Shariatullah and Syed Ahmad Barelvi, and he was also critical of the 1857 uprising, suggesting that such endeavors did more harm to Islam and the Muslims.

However, he refused to agree with the assessment of the British that it were the Muslims alone who instigated the 1857 mutiny. He wrote that the mutiny had been triggered by reckless British actions based on their ill-informed conceptions about Indian society.

Also read: 1857 — mutiny, betrayal or war of freedom?

According to noted historian, Ayesha Jalal, the concept of both Muslim and Hindu nationalism was largely the result of British social engineering which they began as a project after the 1857 Mutiny.

The project began when the British introduced the whole idea of conducting a census. A lot of emphasis was stressed upon the individual’s faith; and the results of the census were then segmented more on the bases of religion than on economic or social status.

The outcome was the rather abstract formation of communities based on faith, constructed through an overwhelmingly suggestive census, undertaken, not only to comprehend the complex nature of Indian society, but to also devise a structural way to better control it.

Sir Syed was quick to grasp this, and also the fact that the Hindu majority was in a better position to shape itself into a holistic community because of its size and better relations with the British after the 1857 Mutiny.

Sir Syed’s thesis correctly theorised that the Muslims needed to express themselves as a holistic community too, especially one which was positively responsive to the changes the British were implementing in the social, judicial and political spheres of India.

This constituted a break from the early dimensions of Muslim nationalism conjectured by the likes of Shariatullah and Syed Khan who had tried to express the idea of forming a Muslim community in India as a purely religious endeavor. The endeavor was to construct a homogenous Muslim whole in India which followed a standardised pattern of Muslim rituals and beliefs.

Nevertheless, this scheme was largely a failure because within the Muslim communities of the region were stark sectarian, sub-sectarian, class, ethnic and cultural divisions. And as was seen during Syed Ahmad Barelvi’s uprising in KP, once he began to implement his standardised ideas of the Sharia, he faced a fateful rebellion by his erstwhile supporters who accused him of trying to usurp their tribal influence and customs.

Sir Syed was conscious of these divisions and decided to address it by localising the European concept of nationalism.

So when the British began to club together economically, ethnically and culturally diverse groups into abstract Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities, reformers from within these communities leveraged the idea of European nationalism to overcome the contradictions inherent in the whole idea of community-formation by the British.

But this was easier said than done. Nationalism was a modern European idea which required a particular way of understanding history, society and politics for a people to come together as a nation.

This idea was absent in India before the arrival of the British. As Muslim rule began to ebb, men such as Shariatullah and Syed Khan attempted to club the Muslims of India as a community which shared theological commonalities with Muslim communities elsewhere in the world, and especially those present in Arabia.

During the last days of Muslim rule, clerics in Indian mosques had begun to replace the names of Mughal kings in their sermons (khutba) with those of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire, as if to suggest that the interests of the Muslims of India were inherently rooted outside India.

Indeed, the ulema had begun to conceive the Muslims of India as a unified whole, but this whole was not explained as a nation in the modern context, but as part of a larger Muslim ummah.

Sir Syed saw a problem in this approach. He decried that such an approach went against the changing tides of history.

He was perturbed by three main attitudinal negatives which he believed had crept into the psyche of the Muslims and were stemming their intellectual growth, and, consequently, causing their economic and political decline.

They were: decadence; worship of the past; and dogma.

Khan wrote that after reaching the heights of imperial power, Muslims had become decadent and lazy. When this led to them losing political power, they became overtly nostalgic about past glories which, in turn, solidified their inferiority complex (prompted by their current apathetical state in the face of the rise of the West). This caused a hardening of views in them against modernity and change and the emergence of a dogmatic attitude.

To Syed, the Muslims of India stood still, unmoving, and, in fact, refusing to move because they believed a great conspiracy had been hatched against them. He suggested that the Muslims (of India) had lost political power because ‘they had lost their ability to rule.’

He castigated the ulema for forcing the Muslims to reject science (because it was ‘Western’); he warned that such a view towards the sciences will keep Muslims buried under the weight of superstition on the one hand, and dogma on the other.

When the ulema responded by accusing him of creating divisions in a community which they were trying to unite, he wrote that since he was a reformist, his job was not to unite but to jolt members of his community by questioning established (but corrosive) social, intellectual and political norms.

He asked the ulema: The Greeks learned from the Egyptians; the Muslims from the Greeks; the Europeans from the Muslims … so what calamity will befall the Muslims if they learned from the British?

But, of course, he was using an evolutionary model of history to understand how knowledge flows between civilizations; whereas to most of his orthodox critics, history was a set of traditions passed on by one Muslim scholar to another and disseminated among the masses by the ulema and the clerics.

Sir Syed enjoys an evening at his home with a group of Muslim intellectuals. The child on his lap is his grandson.
Syed’s initial work was largely analytical and pedagogic. He did not have the kind of platform which his detractors had (i.e. the mosques and madrassas). But this did not seem to worry him. He believed that the changing reality (under the British) will impact the Muslims in such a manner that many of them would eventually come to understand his point of view.

He wanted them to overcome their cultural and theological inertias and embrace what was on offer: Modern education.

There was to be no meeting point between the ulema and him, simply because both where viewing the Muslim condition in India from different lenses.

However, Syed did try to meet them by dissecting their theological critiques of modernity. He wrote that a man’s spiritual and moral life cannot improve without the flourishing of his material life.

Writing in a journal which he launched in 1870, he reminded his critics that not only were Muslims once enthusiastic patrons of science (between the 9th and 13th centuries), but the Qu’ran too, urged its readers to ‘research the universe’ which was one of God’s greatest creations.

Explore: Syed Ahmad Khan’s journalism

To further his argument that Islam was inherently a progressive religion, and, in essence, timeless (in the sense that it was easily adaptable to ever-changing zeitgeists), Khan authored a meticulously researched and detailed commentary on the Qu’ran.

Tafslr Qu’ran was published in 1880 and for its time, was a rather original and even bold interpretation of Islam’s holiest book because it tried to construe the book’s contents in the light of the 19th century.

Khan insisted that decrees passed by ancient ulema were time-bound and could not be imposed in a much-changed scenario of what was taking place here and now. He wrote that the Muslims were in need of a ‘new theology of Islam’ which was rational and rejected all doctrinal notions that were in disagreement with common sense, reason and with the essence of the Qu’ran.

First issue of a journal which Sir Syed launched in 1870.
He wrote that the ‘codes of belief’ and spirituality were the main concerns of religion and that cultural habits (pertaining to eating, dressing, etc.) are mundane matters for which Islam provides only moral guidance because they change with time and place.

He believed that if faith is not practiced through reason and wisdom, it can never be followed with any real conviction.

He wrote that ancient scholars of Islam were not infallible. He insisted that the ulema were devising their world view and that of Islam by uncritically borrowing from the thoughts of ancient ulema.

This, to him, had made them dogmatic in their thinking and hostile towards even the most positive aspects of the changes taking shape around them.

Enter Afghani
Another modernist tendency which had been introduced among the Muslims of India in the 19th century was pan-Islamism. One of its earliest advocates was Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani — a bright young Afghan ideologist who arrived in India in 1855.

Afghani passionately supported the 1857 Mutiny and was exasperated when it failed. Unlike the orthodox ulema, Afghani did not see any good in turning inwards and radically rejecting the modernity associated with British rule.

He acknowledged the supremacy of ‘Western education’ but emphasised that Muslims should embrace it to improve their lot and then turn the tables against Western imperialism by overthrowing it and establishing a global Islamic caliphate.

Unlike the Muslim modernism pioneered by the likes of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Afghani, and, subsequently, pan-Islamism, viewed Western modernity (especially in the field of education), as an elixir to regenerate the Muslims — not as a way to help them excel and find a place within colonial settings, but to fully understand and then eradicate colonialism.

Sir Syed’s Muslim modernism, however, was largely interested in the intellectual, social and political fate of the Muslim community of India. So he thought that Afghani’s idea of radically confronting the British would produce the same demoralising results (for the Muslims) as did the failure of the 1857 Mutiny.

Afghani censured Sir Syed for harming the global Muslim cause by speaking only about India’s Muslims, as if they were separate from the Muslim communities elsewhere.

Afghani was vocal in his denunciations of the orthodox ulema who were rejecting modern education; however, quite like the ulema, Afghani too, saw the Muslims as a global community (ummah).

Pan-Islamism was thus inherently anti-nationalist.

Unlike later-day pan-Islamists, Afghani was rather progressive and modernistic in his thinking. More than seeing Islam as a theistic route to a political revolution, he, instead, saw it as a slogan to rally Muslims around the world against European imperialism.

Jamal Afghani.
The pan-Islamist thought which he pioneered valued the importance of reforming the Muslim mindset through modern intellectual means, and then using the reformed as a weapons against the political supremacy of Western colonialism. But in the next century, only the edifice of what he first conceived would remain in the evolving realms of pan-Islamism.

For example, 20th century pan-Islamist notions were not so much inspired by Afghani, as much as they were by how the Islamic orthodoxy began to perceive pan-Islamism i.e. as an ideology which attempts to erect a global caliphate, not through a faith strengthened by progressive reform, but by a largely mythical understanding of the faith’s bygone militaristic and moralistic splendour.

Also read: The untold story of Pakistan’s blasphemy law

Most probably Sir Syed opposed the idea of pan-Islamism because he understood that it was bound to evolve in this manner?

Syed’s triumph
In 1879 one of Sir Syed’s staunchest supporters, the poet and intellectual, Altaf Hussain Hali, wrote a long poem which passionately forwarded Syed’s ideas of reform and modernity. But the most protuberant aspect of the poem was when Hali declared the Muslims of India as a separate cultural entity, distinct from other communities in India, especially compared to the Hindu majority.

But Hali explained that this distinction was not based on any hostility towards the non Muslims of the region; but on the notion (which Hali believed was a fact) that the Muslims of India were descendants of foreigners who came and settled here during Muslim rule.

By the late 19th century, many local Muslims had begun to claim foreign ancestry (Persian, Central Asian and Arabian) mainly because with the erosion of Muslim rule in India, Muslim empires still existed elsewhere in the Middle East. The claim of having foreign ancestry was also a way to express the separateness of India’s Muslims.

Another aspect in this context was the rise of the Urdu language among the Muslims. Though having (and claiming to have) Persian, Central Asian and Arabic ancestry was a proud attribute to flaunt; Urdu, which had been the language of ‘lower Muslims’ of (North) India, ascended and began to rapidly develop into a complex literary language.

The British didn’t have a problem with this. Because since Persian had been the language of the court during Muslim rule, its rollback symbolised the retreat of the memory and influence of Muslim rule in India.

In 1837, the British replaced Persian with Urdu (in the northern regions of India) as one of the officially recognised vernacular languages of India. But in the 1860s, Urdu became a symbol of Muslim separatism not through the efforts of the Muslims, but, ironically, due to the way some Hindus reacted to Urdu becoming an official language.

The resultant controversy triggered by Hindu reservations helped establish Urdu as an additional factor which separated the Muslims from the Hindus.

Syed Ahmad Khan had managed to attract the support and admiration of a growing number of young intellectuals, journalists, authors and poets. But he was the target of some vicious polemical attacks as well.

The conservative ulema were extremely harsh in their criticism and one of them even went on to accuse him of being an apostate. They blamed him for trying to tear the Muslims away from the unchangeable tenants of their religion, and for promoting ‘Angraziat’ (Western ethics and customs) among the believers.

Syed also received criticism from the supporters of Afghani’s pan-Islamism. Afghani himself admonished Khan for not only undermining the idea of global Muslim unity (by alluding to Muslim nationalism in the context of India’s Muslims only); but he also censured him for creating divisions between India’s Muslims and Hindus.

Afghani was of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity was vital in India to challenge British rule in the region.

Despite the attacks — which mostly came his way through statements, editorials and articles in the plethora of Urdu newspapers which began to come up after the proliferation of the printing press in India – it were his ideas which managed to dominate the most prominent dimensions of Muslim nationalism in India.

Sir Syed with the first Muslim high court judge (left) and his son right).
According to Ayesha Jalal, Sir Syed’s strategic and pragmatic alignment with the British helped his ideas to make vital in-roads in a more organised and freer manner.

His religious detractors remained stationed in their mosques and madrassahs. And though their criticism of his ideas was intense, it mostly appeared in rhetorical articles in newspapers.

Consequently, most of his religious opponents could not find a place in the school that he set up in Aligarh.

This school evolved into becoming a college and then an institution which began to produce a particular Muslim elite and urban bourgeoisie who would go on to dominate Muslim nationalist thought in India and decide what course it would take.

References:
• Mubarak Ali: Pakistan in Search of Identity (Aakar Books, 2011)
• Not a camp language: Urdu’s origins (DAWN, July 5, 2015)
• Hans Dua: Pluricentric Languages (Walter de Gruyter, 1992)
• Tariq Rehman: From Hindi to Urdu (Oxford University Press, 2013)
• Simon Ross Valentine: Force and Fanaticism (Oxford University Press, 2014)
• Razia Aktar Banu: Islam in Bangladesh (BRILL, 1992)
• Entry on Shariatullah by Moinuddin Ahmad in National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (2012)
• Edward Mortimer: Faith and Power (Random House, 1982)
• Qeyamuddin Ahmad: The Wahhabi Movement in India (South Asia Books, 1994) p.50
• Thomas R. Metcalf: The Aftermath of Revolt (Princeton, 1965)
• H. Hardy: Muslims of British India (Cambridge University Press)
• Edward Said: Orientalism (Penguin Books, 2006)
• Wilferd Smith: Modern Islam in India (1943)
• Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind (First published in 1859)
• Ayesha Jalal: Self and Sovereignty (Sang-e-Meel Publications, 2001)
• Tahir Abbas: Islamic Radicalism and Multicultural Politics (Taylor & Francis, 2011)

An earlier version of this article erroneously stated the word 'census' as 'consensus' and Tahzib-al-Akhlaq was mentioned as a 'literary' journal. The errors are regretted.



తెలుగువాడు శ్రీనివాసు పాకిస్తాన్ ప్రొఫెసర్ యాకూబ్ మొఘల్ సర్ సయ్యద్ గురించి ఏమి చెబుతున్నారంటే.. Sir Syed expressed his views before Shakespeare, an English officer and his friend, at Banaras as under:
-- "It was not possible for the Hindus and Muslims to progress as a single nation and any one to work for both of them simultaneously. I am convinced that both these nations will not join whole-heartedly in anything. At present there is no open hostility between the two nations. But on account of the so-called educated people it will increase in future and he who lives, will see."
The later happening convinced Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to plead the two-nation theory. In one of his lectures at Ludhiana he said:
-- "Remember a nation is nothing unless it is a nation in the real sense. All individuals joining the fold of Islam together constitute a nation of Muslims. As long as they follow and practice this beloved religion, they are a nation. Remember you have to live and die by Islam and it is by keeping Islam that our nation is a nation. Dear children, if someone becomes a star of the heaven and ceases to be a Muslim what is he to us? He is no longer a member of our nation."
Other Muslim leaders who often referred to the Muslim community as a nation or nationality were the Aga Khan (1877-1951), Justice Ameer Ali (1849-1928), Choudhry Rahmat Ali (1895-1951) and others.
Later on, in the beginning of the twentieth century. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931) also declared that there were two nations in the sub-continent.
Allama Iqbal, our national poet and philosopher, went a step further and vigorously proclaimed the need of a separate State for the Muslims of the sub-continent:
In the presidential address at the twentyfirst session of the All India Muslim League at Allahabad on 29th December, 1930 Allama Iqbal announced:
The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore perfectly justified.https://fp.brecorder.com/2004/08/2004081469080/



SUPPLEMENTS
The Two-Nation Theory: Basis of Pakistan Movement
 PROFESSOR DR M. YAKUB MUGHUL  AUG 14TH, 2004  ARTICLE
The demand for Pakistan on the basis of Two-Nation Theory was an expression of the deepest emotions of the Muslims of the sub-continent for their political and cultural identity, whose roots were embedded in the State of Medina founded by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) at Medina in 622 A.D.

Thus, Pakistan was created as the first Muslim State after the establishment of the state of Medina on the basis of Islam and for the preservation of their culture and civilization, language and literature and Islamic way of life.

Before discussing in detail the Two-Nation Theory it is necessary to explain why the Hindus and Muslims could not coalesce into one nation although they lived together for centuries.

In his speech at Aligarh on March 8, 1944 the Quaid answered this question as under:

-- "Pakistan started the moment the first non-Muslim was converted to Islam in India long before the Muslims established their rule. As soon as a Hindu embraced Islam he was an outcast not only religiously but also socially, culturally and economically. As for the Muslim, it was a duty imposed on him by Islam not to merge his identity and individuality in any alien society. Throughout the ages the Hindus had remained Hindus and Muslims had remained Muslims and they had not merged their entities - that was the basis for Pakistan."

-- An awareness of a separate Muslim nationhood in the subcontinent can be traced back to a thousand years when it was noticed for the first time by Abu Rehan al-Beruni. He visited India in the ninth century and wrote in his famous work "Kitab-al Hind" as under:

-- "For the reader must always bear in mind that the Hindus entirely differ from us in every respect, many a subject appearing intricate and obscure which would be perfectly clear if there were more connection between us. The barriers which separate Muslims and Hindus rest on different causes.

Discussing the social structure of the two nations, Hindus and Muslims, Al-Beruni further wrote:

-- "Secondly, they totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versa. On the whole, there is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy. On the contrary, all their fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them - against all foreigners. They call them maleecha, ie impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it by intermarriage or any other kind or relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby, they think, they would be polluted".

-- This consciousness of a distinct national identity was later stressed by Hz--Mujaddid Alf Sani (d.1624), Shah Wali Ullah Dehlavi (d.1762) Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed (d. 1831) and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (d.1898).

-- In the beginning of his career, Sir Syed Ahmed's concept of nation was vague and confusing. Sometimes he said that the entire humanity was one nation. Sometimes he believed that people living on one land are comprised of a nation. But after the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan came to adopt a correct view of the nation.

-- The slogan of one Indian nation from the platform of the Congress did not appeal to the Muslims of the sub-continent. The Congress again and again preached the doctrine of one nation, that is to say all those who inhabited this country (the sub-continent) made one nation. It made Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and other Muslims realize that actually the Hindus constituted a separate nation, having nothing common with the Muslims and that they could not live together any more with Hindus.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had predicted this in 1867, when a few influential Hindus at Banaras contemplated the removal of Urdu and Persian languages from the courts and offices to replace these languages by Hindi and Deonagri script.

After this incident Sir Syed expressed his views before Shakespeare, an English officer and his friend, at Banaras as under:

-- "It was not possible for the Hindus and Muslims to progress as a single nation and any one to work for both of them simultaneously. I am convinced that both these nations will not join whole-heartedly in anything. At present there is no open hostility between the two nations. But on account of the so-called educated people it will increase in future and he who lives, will see."

The later happening convinced Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to plead the two-nation theory. In one of his lectures at Ludhiana he said:

-- "Remember a nation is nothing unless it is a nation in the real sense. All individuals joining the fold of Islam together constitute a nation of Muslims. As long as they follow and practice this beloved religion, they are a nation. Remember you have to live and die by Islam and it is by keeping Islam that our nation is a nation. Dear children, if someone becomes a star of the heaven and ceases to be a Muslim what is he to us? He is no longer a member of our nation."

Other Muslim leaders who often referred to the Muslim community as a nation or nationality were the Aga Khan (1877-1951), Justice Ameer Ali (1849-1928), Choudhry Rahmat Ali (1895-1951) and others.

Later on, in the beginning of the twentieth century. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931) also declared that there were two nations in the sub-continent.

Allama Iqbal, our national poet and philosopher, went a step further and vigorously proclaimed the need of a separate State for the Muslims of the sub-continent:

In the presidential address at the twentyfirst session of the All India Muslim League at Allahabad on 29th December, 1930 Allama Iqbal announced:

The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore perfectly justified.

The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is to my mind wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them.

And I have no doubt that this house will emphatically endorse the Muslim demand embodied in this resolution.

Allama Iqbal desired that Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan should be amalgamated into a single state.

Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslims State appeared to him to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of the North-West India. He considered India as the greatest Muslim country in the world.

According to Allama Iqbal a separate Muslim State within the sub-continent would not be a theocracy.

"It would provide, on the other hand, an opportunity for Islam to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its laws its education, its culture and bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.

Syed Ahmed Khan gave the Indian Muslims a sense of separate existence: Iqbal a sense of separate destiny.

In the entire struggle of the Muslims of the sub-continent for the separate homeland, the attitude of the Indian National Congress and its leadership was one of stiff opposition and antagonism.

In fact the Hindus did not reconcile to the Muslim demand for a separate State as declared in the Lahore Resolution in 1940. It was described by M.K. Gandhi as a "suicide", a "sin" and "a vivisection of mother India" which could be allowed only over his dead body.

Gandhiji in a letter to the Quaid-i-Azam, in September 1944, wrote that the Hindus and Muslims were not two nations but one.

He further criticized that Jinnah's contention was wholly unreal. He further explained in his letter: "I find no parallel in the history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from the parent stock. If India was one nation before the advent of Islam, it must remain one in spite of the change of faith of a very large body of her children."

In his presidential address at the special Pakistan session of the Punjab Muslim Students Federation on 2nd March, 1941 discussing the cultural difference of the two nations the Quaid said:

"We are a nation, (cheers). And a nation must have a territory. What is the use of merely saying that we are a nation? Nation does not live in the air. It lives on the land, it must govern land and it must have territorial state and that is what you want to get (cheers).

He continued: "Our demand is not from Hindus because the Hindus never took the whole of India. It was the Muslims who took India and ruled for 700 years. It was the British who took India from the Mussalmans. So, we are not asking the Hindus to give us anything. Our demand is made to the British, who are in possession. It is an utter nonsense to say that Hindustan belongs to the Hindus. They also say that Muslims were Hindus at one time.

These nonsensical arguments are advanced by their leaders. They say, supposing an Englishman becomes a Muslim in England, he does not ask for Pakistan. Have you got eyes to see and don't you have brains to understand that an Englishman, if he changes his religion in England, he, by changing his religion, still remains a member of the same society, with the same culture, same social life and everything remains exactly the same when an Englishman changes his faith?

But can't you see that a Muslim, when he was converted, granted that he was converted more than a thousand years ago, but of them, then according to your Hindu religion and philosophy, he becomes an outcast and he becomes a maleecha (untouchable) and the Hindus cease to have anything to do with him socially, religiously and culturally or in any other way?

He, therefore, belongs to a different order, not only religious but social, and he has lived in that distinctly separate and antagonistic social order, religiously, socially and culturally. It is now more than a thousand years that the bulk of the Muslims have lived in a different world, in a different society, in a different philosophy and a different faith.

Can you possibly compare this with nonsensical talk that mere change of faith is no ground for a demand for Pakistan? Can't you see the fundamental difference?

The only solution for the Muslims of India which will stand the test of trial and time, is that India should be partitioned so that both the communities can develop freely and fully according to their own genius economically, socially, culturally.

Discussing the aims and objects of the creation of Pakistan, in a message to the Frontier Muslim Students Federation dated June 1945, the Quaid had declared:

"Pakistan not only means freedom and independence but the Muslim Ideology which has to be preserved which has come to us as precious gift and treasure and which we hope others will share with us."

Subsequently, the general elections of 1945-46 which were held on the basis of separate electorate proved the "Two-Nation Theory", when the All-India Muslim League won 30 seats reserved for the Muslims and 86.6 percent of the total Muslim votes and in the Provincial Assemblies won 428 seats out of 492 Muslim seats.

The landslide victory of the All India Muslim League blasted the claim of the Indian National Congress that it represented the whole of India. Thus the ideology of Pakistan based on Two Nation Theory was proved beyond any doubt.

Ultimately the British India was divided and Pakistan was created on the basis of the Two-Nation Theory on August 14, 1947.

(The writer is Director of the Quaid-i-Azam Academy, Karachi)