---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Asghar Vasanwala <asgharfv@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Subject: Must read. Molan Abul Kalam reaons asgaist creation of Pakistan. His prophesy is on the dot. 'Richness and Depth of Vision' Please find time and read
To: poetry-opinions-currenttopics@lists.elistx.com
'Richness and Depth of Vision'
An interview by Shorish Kashmiri, -Matbooat Chattan, Lahore Congress
president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist
Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946.
It was a time when the Cabinet Mission wa holding its proceedings in Delhi
and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the
interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its
eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan's
incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to
Shorish Kashmiri Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him
and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview
has not been published in any book 0 far - neither in the Azad centenary
volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches - except
for Kashmiri's own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by
Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union
Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for
many years and translated the interview for COVERT
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any
possibility of reconciliation. Don't you think that in this situation the
birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem,
then I would have extended my support to it. A section of .
Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding
NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and
half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest
of India - a huge country that would be free from any
claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League
terminology, this ncw lndia will be a Hindu state both
practically mid temperamentally. This will not happen as a
result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical
consequence of its social realities.
How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus,
who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric
times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the
foundation ofIslam in Indian society and created a powerful
following have become victim of the politics of partition.
The communal hatred it has generated has completely
extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching
Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religioin beyond the
measure. Mus lims have turned away from the Quran, if they
had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of h Holy
Prophet and had not forged communal politic in the nam of
religion then Islam's growth would not have halted. B . the
time ofthe decline of the Mughal rule, the Mu lim in India
were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% ofthe present
numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing.
If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language
that embittered communal relations, and the other section
acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen
the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India
would have grown higher. The political disputes we created
in the name of religion have proj ected Islam as an instrument
of political power and not what it is - a value system meant
for the transformation of human soul. Under British
influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and
following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews,
Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary
community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its
message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects
were clearly born at the instance of colonial power.
Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement
and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark
of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is
strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow
their own whims and desires.
In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to
Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the
religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint.
Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the
problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the
name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam
provided for division ofterritories to settle populations on the
basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the
Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the
scholars of Islam bas divided the dominion of God on this
basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we
reconcile it with Islam as ~ universal system? How shall we
explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim
lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had
approved this principle then it would not have permitted its
followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors
of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even
entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis.
of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They
can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no
sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a
devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing
territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions?
The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslim ill
manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot que
and will largely depend on the kind ofleadership it gets. Th
impact of western thought and philosophy has made th
crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim
League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will
become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India.
This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb
of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face
conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people
who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage
to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of
the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious
movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim
youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority
states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema,
the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah).
A: Many Ulema were with Akbar-e-Azam too; they invented
a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our
history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have
brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and
period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of
the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim
history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal,
one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except
Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is
beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with
complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also
Olema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any
respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality?
After all, "Islam" is being used to pursue and protect the
unity of the community.
A: You are using the name ofIslam for a cause that is not
right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony
to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought
veen Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy
ophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In
- bala the family members of the Holy Prophet were
rtyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of
Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was aMuslim general and
e ubjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was
- at right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false
motive.
- Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have
supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the
demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not
po sible for me to go against the call of my conscience.
P ople generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons
of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against
Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white
lack, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can
be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it
or for Mr Jinnah himself - if he agrees to some new
proposal.
. ow as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the
working committee, the division of India appears to be
certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of
partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally
haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion
of the population and not based on any natural barrier like
mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult
to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will '
last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will
overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this
situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to
become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic
event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a
barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for
Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task
beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will
not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West
Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This
will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims
will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but
how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of
Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition
are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its
natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and
regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim
League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will
take over the industry and business and monopolise the
economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims
will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for
them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of
Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous
for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious
problems. The greatest danger will come from international
powers who will seek to control the new country, and with
the passage of time this control will become tight. India will
have no problem with this outside interference as it will
sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr. 1innah's
attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains
outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During
World War II, Mr. Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and
was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy
does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim
League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of
Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not
happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide
against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas
Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from
the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it
disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when
it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as
Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small
incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it
will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West
Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is
nothing common between the two regions except that they
call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has
never created durable political unity anywhere in the world.
The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common
religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a
common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial
unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their
systems of government are different and they are often'
engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other
hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan
are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the
creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions
will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will
be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers
and consequently both wings will separate. After the
separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West
Pakistan will become the battleground of regional
contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national
identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open
the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before
the international powers use the diverse elements of
Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the
lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will
ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it
certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have
doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They
are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear
new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation
theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state
where they have the monopoly to control the economy
without any competition from competent rivals. It will be
interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception
alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious
problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military
dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of
armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the nee-rich and industrialists of
Pakistan .
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the
neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the
collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the
Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The
assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will
force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their
community identity intact and how they can inculcate the
attributes of the citizens ofaMuslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor
slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It
amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by
community identity? If this community identity has
remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come
under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be
equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you
wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and
worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will
independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a
helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their
religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power
could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the
Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These
questions have been raised by those, who, under the
influence of western cui ture , have renounced their own
heritage and are now raising dust through political
gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you
think the Muslim kings were serving the cause ofIslam?
They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not
r Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to
I Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings
: very cruelly. Most ofthe kings created a large band ofUlema
who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of
\Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a
tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts
\and minds of a large number of people living in and around
Ir-Iejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the
carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing.
Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the
culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India.
What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and
Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they
will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray
for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted
with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid
and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become
brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become I
cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. f
This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their
existence - a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all
possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not
cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that
was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and
values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim
neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this
country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will
it promote their self interests? Is itso easy to finish 90 million
people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I
shall not be surprised ifit comes to have the largest following
in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of
life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly I
studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they ~o l
not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from Its \
principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and
acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a
hereditary community or a despotic system of governance.
Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of
human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of
a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own
worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic
discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic
principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and
knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist
behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims
for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil
the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have
found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to
do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by
Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel
it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In
fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, "God has made the whole earth a'
mosque for me." Now do not ask me to support the idea of the
partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly
scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise
the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two
regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand
would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but
justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it
exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India
have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim
countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By
demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the
history of the last 1,000 years and, if! may use the League
terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into
the lap of "Hindu Raj". The Hindu Muslim problem that has
created political tension between Congress and League will
become a source of dispute between the two states and with
the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale
war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so
fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being
opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the
demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by
those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial
machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India
will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other
hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the
motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in
their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every
right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of
India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the
politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not
communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and
labour. The communist and socialist movements are 2'*-
growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These
movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the
interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the
feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat.
Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour
and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute.
But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy
was first adopted by the British government and then
endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu
short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has
become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended
him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji.
He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that
initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly
as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the.
Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the
Times ofIndiahe rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a
Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and
1928, he strongly favomed ajoint electorate. While speaking
at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, "I am a nationalist
first and a nationalist last" and exhorted his colleagues, be
they Hindus or Muslims, "not to raise communal issues in the
House and help make the Assembly a national institution in
the truest sense of the term".
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott
Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand
to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he
stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt
aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven
states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to
pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political
decline. In Sh01i, the demand for Pakistan is his response to
his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to
his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his
intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify
Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it
has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it
up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from
their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so
impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the
misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one's
conscience is worse than 'death. Today the Muslims are not
walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have
not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide.
When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect,
they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and
fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong.
The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical
strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British
politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the
mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state,
bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding
partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe
that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and
bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt
their borders and any armed conflict will result in much
greater loss oflives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with
different and disparate inclinations. How call the unity
between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the
correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain
Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum
has been used not only for the community of believers but
has also been used for distinct human groupings generally.
What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the
etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum
[nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is
home to many people - the Hindus, Muslims, Christians,
Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion
and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be
allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining
her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of
faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our
national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is
a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be
divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal
message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose
territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in
India are not one community; they are divided among many
well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their
anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name
of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own
sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are
innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints
and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the
prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that
defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of
takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally.
Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they
\ take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of
instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded
kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these
mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through
times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason
and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become
fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have
become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to
religion? follow their worldly ambitions as commands of
religion. History bears testimony to the fact that 111 every age
we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency,
snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the
flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals;
even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these
custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal AI-Hilal a long time back.
Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who
were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel
like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned AI-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its
truth. This journal created great awareness among a large
section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in
human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals.
In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience
and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under
the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice
entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix.
Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning.
Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the
situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the
attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief
that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India's
freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India's freedom.
Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was
destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be
able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of
Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to
walk together with their countrymen and not give an
opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting
for their independence, Muslims were looking on as
spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves
they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the
drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters.
The title to the Interview has been given by the Editor.
From: Asghar Vasanwala <asgharfv@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Subject: Must read. Molan Abul Kalam reaons asgaist creation of Pakistan. His prophesy is on the dot. 'Richness and Depth of Vision' Please find time and read
To: poetry-opinions-currenttopics@lists.elistx.com
'Richness and Depth of Vision'
An interview by Shorish Kashmiri, -Matbooat Chattan, Lahore Congress
president Maulana Abul Kalam Azad gave the following interview to journalist
Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore based Urdu magazine, Chattan, in April 1946.
It was a time when the Cabinet Mission wa holding its proceedings in Delhi
and Simla. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the
interview, saying that religious conflict would tear apart Pakistan and its
eastern half would carve out its own future. He even said that Pakistan's
incompetent rulers might pave the way for military rule. According to
Shorish Kashmiri Azad had earmarked the early hours of the morning for him
and the interview was conducted over a period of two weeks. This interview
has not been published in any book 0 far - neither in the Azad centenary
volumes nor in any other book comprising his writing or speeches - except
for Kashmiri's own book Abul Kalam Azad, which was printed only once by
Matbooat Chattan Lahore, a now-defunct publishing house. Former Union
Cabinet Minister Arif Mohammed Khan discovered the book after searching for
many years and translated the interview for COVERT
Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any
possibility of reconciliation. Don't you think that in this situation the
birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem,
then I would have extended my support to it. A section of .
Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding
NWFP, Sind, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and
half of Bengal on the other, they think they will get the rest
of India - a huge country that would be free from any
claims of communal nature. If we use the Muslim League
terminology, this ncw lndia will be a Hindu state both
practically mid temperamentally. This will not happen as a
result of any conscious decision, but will be a logical
consequence of its social realities.
How can you expect a society that consists 90% of Hindus,
who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric
times, to grow differently? The factors that laid the
foundation ofIslam in Indian society and created a powerful
following have become victim of the politics of partition.
The communal hatred it has generated has completely
extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching
Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religioin beyond the
measure. Mus lims have turned away from the Quran, if they
had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of h Holy
Prophet and had not forged communal politic in the nam of
religion then Islam's growth would not have halted. B . the
time ofthe decline of the Mughal rule, the Mu lim in India
were a little over 22.5 million, that is about 65% ofthe present
numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing.
If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language
that embittered communal relations, and the other section
acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen
the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India
would have grown higher. The political disputes we created
in the name of religion have proj ected Islam as an instrument
of political power and not what it is - a value system meant
for the transformation of human soul. Under British
influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and
following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews,
Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary
community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its
message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects
were clearly born at the instance of colonial power.
Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement
and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The hallmark
of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is
strange to them. Surely they are Muslims, but they follow
their own whims and desires.
In fact now they easily submit to political power, not to
Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the
religion of the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint.
Regardless of the fact whether it is the right solution to the
problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the
name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam
provided for division ofterritories to settle populations on the
basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the
Quran or the traditions of the Holy Prophet? Who among the
scholars of Islam bas divided the dominion of God on this
basis? If we accept this division in principle, how shall we
reconcile it with Islam as ~ universal system? How shall we
explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim
lands including India? Do they realise that if Islam had
approved this principle then it would not have permitted its
followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors
of the supporters of Pakistan would not have had even
entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis.
of religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They
can pursue it as their political agenda, but it finds no
sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a
devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing
territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions?
The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslim ill
manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot que
and will largely depend on the kind ofleadership it gets. Th
impact of western thought and philosophy has made th
crisis more serious. The way the leadership of Muslim
League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will
become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India.
This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in the womb
of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face
conflicts of religious nature. As far as I can see, the people
who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage
to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of
the Pakistani youth who may become a part of non-religious
movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim
youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority
states. You will see that despite the increased role of Ulema,
the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.
Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah).
A: Many Ulema were with Akbar-e-Azam too; they invented
a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our
history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have
brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and
period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of
the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim
history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal,
one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no Ulema except
Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is
beyond doubt, but those who filled the royal office with
complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also
Olema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any
respect to them?
Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality?
After all, "Islam" is being used to pursue and protect the
unity of the community.
A: You are using the name ofIslam for a cause that is not
right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony
to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought
veen Imam Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy
ophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In
- bala the family members of the Holy Prophet were
rtyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of
Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was aMuslim general and
e ubjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was
- at right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false
motive.
- Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have
supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the
demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not
po sible for me to go against the call of my conscience.
P ople generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons
of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against
Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white
lack, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can
be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it
or for Mr Jinnah himself - if he agrees to some new
proposal.
. ow as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the
working committee, the division of India appears to be
certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of
partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally
haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion
of the population and not based on any natural barrier like
mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult
to say how durable it would be.
We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will '
last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will
overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this
situation it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to
become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic
event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a
barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for
Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task
beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will
not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially in West
Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This
will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims
will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but
how many Muslims can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of
Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition
are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its
natural term.
3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and
regional depredation decide to renounce Islam.
The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim
League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will
take over the industry and business and monopolise the
economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims
will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan holds for
them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of
Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous
for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious
problems. The greatest danger will come from international
powers who will seek to control the new country, and with
the passage of time this control will become tight. India will
have no problem with this outside interference as it will
sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr. 1innah's
attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains
outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During
World War II, Mr. Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and
was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy
does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim
League, look at the history of Congress. The revolt of
Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not
happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide
against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Subhas
Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from
the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it
disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when
it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as
Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them any small
incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it
will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West
Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is
nothing common between the two regions except that they
call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has
never created durable political unity anywhere in the world.
The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common
religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a
common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial
unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their
systems of government are different and they are often'
engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other
hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan
are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the
creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions
will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will
be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers
and consequently both wings will separate. After the
separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West
Pakistan will become the battleground of regional
contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national
identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open
the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before
the international powers use the diverse elements of
Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the
lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will
ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it
certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have
doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They
are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear
new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation
theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state
where they have the monopoly to control the economy
without any competition from competent rivals. It will be
interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception
alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious
problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military
dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of
armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.
5. The loot of national wealth by the nee-rich and industrialists of
Pakistan .
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the
neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the
collapse of the theory of Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the
Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The
assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will
force both ideological and territorial compromises.
Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their
community identity intact and how they can inculcate the
attributes of the citizens ofaMuslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor
slanted questions can make the answers deficient. It
amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by
community identity? If this community identity has
remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come
under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be
equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state you
wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and
worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will
independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a
helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their
religious freedom? If the British, who as a world power
could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the
Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These
questions have been raised by those, who, under the
influence of western cui ture , have renounced their own
heritage and are now raising dust through political
gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you
think the Muslim kings were serving the cause ofIslam?
They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not
r Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to
I Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings
: very cruelly. Most ofthe kings created a large band ofUlema
who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of
\Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form, had a
tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts
\and minds of a large number of people living in and around
Ir-Iejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the
carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing.
Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the
culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India.
What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and
Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they
will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray
for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted
with life he can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid
and lacks courage, then it is not possible to help him become
brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become I
cowards. They have no fear of God, instead they fear men. f
This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their
existence - a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all
possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not
cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that
was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and
values have their own charm. Then India has large Muslim
neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this
country will be interested to wipe out the Muslims? How will
it promote their self interests? Is itso easy to finish 90 million
people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I
shall not be surprised ifit comes to have the largest following
in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of
life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly I
studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they ~o l
not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from Its \
principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam and
acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a
hereditary community or a despotic system of governance.
Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of
human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of
a Messenger who calls to the worship of God and not his own
worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic
discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic
principles of God-consciousness, righteous action and
knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist
behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims
for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil
the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have
found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to
do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by
Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel
it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In
fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, "God has made the whole earth a'
mosque for me." Now do not ask me to support the idea of the
partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly
scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise
the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two
regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand
would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but
justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation, as it
exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India
have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim
countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations? By
demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the
history of the last 1,000 years and, if! may use the League
terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into
the lap of "Hindu Raj". The Hindu Muslim problem that has
created political tension between Congress and League will
become a source of dispute between the two states and with
the aid of international powers this may erupt into full scale
war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so
fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being
opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the
demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by
those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial
machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India
will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other
hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the
motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in
their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every
right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of
India cannot promote their interests. The demand is the
politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not
communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and
labour. The communist and socialist movements are 2'*-
growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These
movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the
interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the
feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat.
Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour
and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute.
But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy
was first adopted by the British government and then
endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu
short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has
become contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.
In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended
him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji.
He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that
initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly
as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the.
Joint Select Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the
Times ofIndiahe rubbished the suggestion that Congress is a
Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and
1928, he strongly favomed ajoint electorate. While speaking
at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, "I am a nationalist
first and a nationalist last" and exhorted his colleagues, be
they Hindus or Muslims, "not to raise communal issues in the
House and help make the Assembly a national institution in
the truest sense of the term".
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott
Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand
to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he
stressed the need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt
aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven
states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to
pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political
decline. In Sh01i, the demand for Pakistan is his response to
his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to
his opinion about me, but I have no doubts about his
intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify
Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it
has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it
up at any cost.
Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from
their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so
impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the
misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to suppress one's
conscience is worse than 'death. Today the Muslims are not
walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have
not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide.
When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect,
they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and
fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong.
The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical
strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British
politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the
mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state,
bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding
partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe
that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and
bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt
their borders and any armed conflict will result in much
greater loss oflives and possessions.
Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with
different and disparate inclinations. How call the unity
between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the
correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Husain
Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum
has been used not only for the community of believers but
has also been used for distinct human groupings generally.
What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the
etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum
[nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is
home to many people - the Hindus, Muslims, Christians,
Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences between Hindu religion
and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be
allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining
her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of
faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our
national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is
a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be
divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal
message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose
territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in
India are not one community; they are divided among many
well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their
anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name
of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own
sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there are
innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints
and divines. Small issues like raising hands during the
prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that
defy solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of
takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel] liberally.
Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they
\ take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of
instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded
kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these
mindboggling situations. Even they had to pass through
times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason
and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become
fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have
become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to
religion? follow their worldly ambitions as commands of
religion. History bears testimony to the fact that 111 every age
we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency,
snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the
flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals;
even high ranking Prophets were not spared by these
custodians of traditions and customs.
Q: You closed down your journal AI-Hilal a long time back.
Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who
were wallowing in intellectual desolation, or did you feel
like proclaiming azan [call to prayer] in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned AI-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its
truth. This journal created great awareness among a large
section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in
human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals.
In fact my own life was greatly enriched by this experience
and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under
the companionship of the Messenger of God. My own voice
entranced me and under its impact I burnt out like a phoenix.
Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning.
Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the
situation and decided to devote all my time and energy for the
attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief
that freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India's
freedom and Hindu Muslim unity is key to India's freedom.
Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was
destined to attain freedom, and no power on earth would be
able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of
Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to
walk together with their countrymen and not give an
opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting
for their independence, Muslims were looking on as
spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves
they were standing on the banks and showing mirth on the
drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters.
The title to the Interview has been given by the Editor.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment