HVK Archives: India at Fifty and two responses
India at Fifty and two responses - The Times of India
Asghar Ali Engineer
()
16 September 1996
Title : India at Fifty
Fault Lines in Two-nation Theory
Author : Asghar Ali Engineer
Publication : The Times of India
Date : September 16, 1996
We have entered the 50th year of independence - an inde-
pendence won at the cost of division of our country. Why
was India divided? Who is to blame and where does the
responsibility lie for partition? The popular view is
that Muslims were responsible for the creation of Pakis-
tan. A more extreme and harsher view is taken by the RSS
ideologues who think that it was Muslim fanaticism which
divided Akhand Bharat.
Both these, to say the least, are simplistic views.
Neither Islam, nor Muslims, were responsible for the
creation of Pakistan. Pakistan was the result of a very
complex interplay of forces. If we can say anything with
certainty it is that vested interests on both ides played
a crucial role in bringing about vivisection of the
country. Communalism is not the product of religion as
many people think, but the product of misuse of religion
by vested interests.
Modernists' Creation
Pakistan was not a creation of religious bigotry; it was
a creation of the modernists among Muslims. The demand
for Pakistan was raised by a highly westernised Muslim,
Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah did not have even an elemen-
tary knowledge of Islam and was hardly a believer or a
practising Muslim. He had strongly opposed Mahatma
Gandhi when he took up the Khilafat cause and vehemently
resisted the entry of mullahs in politics.
It is interesting to recall that the great scholars of
Islam and the highly orthodox Muslims had vehemently
opposed the very idea of Pakistan. Maulana Abul Kalam
Azad, who translated the holy Koran into Urdu, called
Tarjuman al-Qur'an, was a resolute opponent of the idea
of Pakistan. He had theological objections to the word,
'Pakistan' (holy land.) He believed that the whole uni-
verse has been created by Allah; how could only a small
part of land then be described as holy?
Although Azad's opposition to the creation of Pakistan is
well-known the opposition by the other ulema is not so
well publicised. It is known only to the experts and
scholars of the freedom movement. In fact, the whole
organisation of Muslim divines called
Jami'at-ul-'Ulema-i-Hind was a supporter of the Indian
National Congress and never budged from its position even
in the heyday of the clamour for Pakistan. Maulana
Husain Ahmad Madani, one of the most eminent alim from
India, was another well-known opponent of the idea of
Pakistan.
As soon as the two-nation theory resolution was passed on
March 23, 1940, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani undertook a
whirlwind tour of India appealing to the Muslims not to
be misled by the Muslim League's propaganda. The Maulana
was attacked by the League hooligans who threw garbage on
him.
Maulana Madam, Maulana Hifzur Rahman and other ulema
fully supported the concept of muttahida qaumiyyat
(composite nationalism.) Moreover, they fully justified
it on religious grounds. In this they emulated the
sunnah practice of the Holy Prophet. When the Prophet
migrated from Mecca to Madina there were various religi-
ous communities like the Jews, pagans and Muslims. Also,
these religious communities were divided into various
tribes and clans. These tribes had their distinctive
identities and traditions. The Prophet, therefore, drew
up a pact (mu'ahidah) with the representatives of the
religious communities and tribes and gave them full
freedom to practise their own religion.
The ulema, therefore, argued that when the Holy Prophet
himself had set up a composite city state in Madina why
cannot we in India along with the Hindus and others
accept the concept of composite nationalism. All that
the ulema wanted was an assurance from the Indian Nation-
al Congress that the Muslims would be free to practise
their religion in independent India and such an assurance
had been readily given.
Koran Quoted
Maulana Madani, who wrote a book, Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur
Islam, persuasively argued in favour of composite nation-
alism by profusely quoting from the Koran. The Maulana's
main argument was that qaumiyat was a territorial concept
and not a religious one. It is millat which has a relig-
ious connotation. He argued that according to the Holy
Koran the prophets shared the same territory with unbe-
lievers and hence their qaumiyat was not different from
those who did not believe in their message.
In the last chapter of his book Maulana Madani cites
various historical examples to show that common national-
ity is not against the precepts of Islam. He says that
when a person can perform several roles at the same time
as a father, a son, a son-in-law, a teacher, a student, a
ruler, why can he not combine different identities and
functions as a citizen of a country, a Muslim, a speaker
of a certain language, etc. In short, the Muslims of
India can live as Indian nationals with other non-Muslim
communities and follow their own religion, personal law,
speak their language etc.
He suggests that different measures could be adopted to
protect their rights in these respects, and be free to
establish relations with other parts of the Islamic
world, be it Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Asia Minor, Central
Asia, Africa, Europe or America.
Maulana Madam wrote all this while opposing the two-
nation theory. In fact, according to him the very spirit
of the Koran is to encourage harmonious coexistence in a
multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious world.
The Koran says, "For every one of you we appointed a law
and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made
you a single people, but that He might try you in what He
gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds".
(5:48)
No Justification
The ulema like Maulana Madani knew better than Jinnah did
that there is no justification for the two-nation theory
in the holy scripture of Islam. It is, therefore, obvi-
ous that the genesis of the two-nation theory was purely
political. The movement for Pakistan came into existence
not because Muslims could not live with the Hindus and
others in India but because a section of modern educated
Muslims felt that they would not get their due share of
political and economic power in independent India, and
that they would be dominated by the Hindu elite.
This is also proved by the fact that Jinnah, a modernist,
did not conceive of Pakistan as a theocratic state but a
modern secular state. As the late chief justice of the
Lahore high court, Mr Muhammad Munir, said in his book,
>From Jinnah to Zia: "There can be no doubt that Jinnah
was I secularist and against theocracy. In his speech to
the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, he had given
a picture of Pakistan which was nothing short of a secu-
lar state in which Muslims and non-Muslims could live
together and be its citizens, with equal rights of citi-
zenship, and that religion would be a private affair of
the individual, having nothing to do with the administra-
tion of the state".
The two-nation theory stands belied not because Bengali
Muslims could not live with the Punjabi and other Muslims
and that Urdu-speaking Mohajirs are finding it difficult
to co-exist peacefully with Sindhis and others in Pakis-
tan, but because more Muslims live in India than in
Pakistan, coexisting with Hindus. Is this not the ul-
timate falsification of the two-nation theory?
-------------------------------------------------
First (of two) Response
From:
ASHOK V. CHOWGULE
Kanchan Junga
72, Dr G Deshmukh Rd
Mumbai 400 026.
September 17, 1996
Sir,
Shri Asghar Ali Engineer ("India at Fifty", Sept 16) is
right when he says that Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani was
against partition. However, one should also understand
why the Maulana held this view. In his book, Muslim Pol-
itics in Secular India, Shri Hamid Dalwai, says, "Maulana
Hussain Ahmad Madani was considered a great 'Nationalist
Muslim' leader. He was President of Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-
Hind. When the ulema convened a conference in Delhi in
the year 1945, he said in his presidential address, 'It
is the non-Muslims who are the field of action for this
'tabligh' of Islam and form the raw material for this
splendid activity....We are opposed to the idea of limit-
ing the right missionary activities of Islam within any
particular area. The Muslims have got a right in all the
nooks and corners of India by virtue of the great strug-
gle and great sacrifices of their ancestors in this coun-
try. Now it is our duty to maintain that claim and try
to widen its scope, instead of giving it up.' (The Deo-
band School and the Demand for Pakistan, Z H Faruqi, Asia
Publishing House, Bombay, 1963, p 117.)" Shri Dalwai
further says, "The same learned Maulana has said else-
where, 'If Dara had triumphed, Muslims would have stayed
in India, but not Islam. Since Aurangzeb triumphed, both
Muslims and Islam were here to stay.'"
This is similar to what Mohammed did when he signed the
pact with the representatives of different religions in
Mecca. Eventually these other religions were wiped out
and only Islam prevailed. In holding the Maulana as an
example, one does wonder if Shri Engineer intends to fol-
low the above example and be a part of the programme to
convert the whole of India to Islam.
Yours Sincerely,
(Ashok Chowgule)
TO:
The Editor,
The Times of India,
Times of India Building,
D N Road, Mumbai 400 001.
--------------------------------------------------
Second (of two) response.
From:
V. MERCHANT
9B, Suvas,
Rungta Lane,
Mumbai 400 006
September 17, 1996
Sir,
This has reference to Shri Asghar Ali Engineer's
"India at Fifty" (September 16). He is not right when he
says that it was Jinnah was the originator of the two-
nation theory. The first one to say so was Sir Syed Ah-
med Khan, who founded the Aligarh Muslim University, and
he did it in 1988, three years after the formation of the
Indian National Congress. His reasoning is also quite
interesting. In "Lesson for preachers", Shri Lajpat Rai
(Mid-Day, 16/3/95) said, 'Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was one of
the founders of the two-nation theory. Though, in theo-
ry, Islam is egalitarian and does not believe in the
caste system, Khan spoke in a different tone: "I ask you,
would our aristocracy like that a man of low caste or
insignificant origin, though he be a Bachelor of Arts or
a Master of Arts and have the requisite ability, should
be in a position of authority above them and have power
in making the laws that affect their lives and property?
Never! Nobody would like it....Men of a good family
would never like to trust their lives and properly to
people of low ranks."'
Yours Sincerely,
(V Merchant)
To:
The Editor,
The Times of India,
Times of India Building,
Dadabhoi Naoroji Road,
Mumbai 400 001.
Back
Top
|
