Aligarh Movement & British role in promoting Muslim separatism

Aligarh Movement & British role in promoting Muslim separatism
The person who maintains the site is from Aligarh. One day, I asked him about the Aligarh Muslim University, how had it started, who founded it - Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, what was the Christian read British attitude towards the Movement, and did they cooperate with the Brits?

Before I move ahead would like to quote eminent freedom fighter, founder of the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Shri K M Munshi “Another problem that we have to consider is the persistent demand for the rewriting of history to foster communal unity. To my mind, nothing can be a greater mistake. Suppressions and distortion of evidence, leading to false conclusions about the past, is hardly the way to improve the present situation or build up a better future”.

The essay has the following chapters –
1.    Background.
2.    Muslim Politics before the Aligarh Movement            
3.    The Aligarh Movement
4.    Words of Syed Ahmad / Analysis.
5.    Role of British principals.
6.    Summary.
7.    Hindu Muslim relations.

Background

The first half of the period 1818 to 1905 was a period of concern and anxiety for the Indian Muslims. The Brits had swept away the last vestiges of Muslim rule by annexing Sindh in 1843 and Avadh in 1856, exiling the Mughal kings to Rangoon. The Deccan kingdom had a Muslim ruler in the Nizam but he was more of an ally. So from being Rulers of Hindusthan they were being ruled over.

Faced with a difficult situation they looked within, what led to their decline? According to them the chief cause of the malaise was that Indian Muslims had drifted away from the teachings of Islam due to the spread of Sufistic ideas. It was therefore necessary to purge the Indian Muslims religious beliefs and social customs of all extraneous growth and go back to the purity of Islam. The most notable attempt was made as early as the 17th century by Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi in the days of Jehangir. There was Saiyid Ahmad of Rai-Bareilly who was not only into social & religious reform but also tried in 1831 to get Punjab rid of Punjabi Sardar domination.

Next came the Great Mutiny of 1857 in which the Muslims took an active part, their hope for reviving the Mughul Empire lay shattered. The victorious Brits made them a special target to take revenge for their role in the Mutiny. The reform movement initiated earlier gained fresh impetus after 1857.

There were a group of religious thinkers who influenced by the Wahabi idealogy started preaching new ideas and gaining support. However, the majority of Indian Muslims were adherents of the Hanafi School with strong leanings towards Sufism and could not be won over by the soul less, dry and rigid Wahabhi discipline. The foundation of Dar-al-Ulum at Deoband in 1886 was the greatest achievement of the Wahabi school of thought in India where as Farangi Mahal established during the reign of Aurangzeb continued to represent the old Hanafi School. A third important institution with a distinct ideology, more progressive outlook was the Nadwat al-Ulama in Lucknow founded in 1898.

While religious and social reformers were busy all over Bharat the economic conditions of the Muslims were fast deteriorating for two reasons. One, with the gradual decline of the Mughal Empire, they had been loosing all the old privileges that they had so far enjoyed. Two, the anti-Muslim policy of the Brits & their bias against modern education closed new opportunities of material progress and opportunity. The crying need of the moment was to help the Muslims overcome their reluctance to adapt to the changed circumstances and gain the trust of the new rulers, the Brits. At this critical juncture came Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (SAK) who went about this Herculean task with a vision and firm resolve.

SAK was born in Delhi in 1817. He was not the type who accepted religious dogmas at face value but wanted to understand, interpret them himself. His articles in the magazine Tahzib al-Akhlaq, started in 1870 after his return from England, give evidence of a marked rationalistic and non-conformist trend of thought that brought upon the wrath of orthodox, pious Muslims. A wise man he gave up the thought of religious reform, taking on the orthodox Muslims but took to social / educational reform instead.

He started off by setting up two old styled madrasas at Moradabad and Ghazipur which was followed by a school on modern lines at Aligarh, later on to develop into the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College with the active help and support of the Brits. He also laid the foundation of the Muhammadan Educational Conference soon after the inception of the Indian National Congress. The M.A.O.  rendered yeoman’s service to the cause of Muslim education and was supported by the Calcutta Madrasa and the Anglo-Arabic School in Delhi.

Another development during this period was the emergence of Urdu as a literary language. It was born in the military camps from the Hindi Khari Boli during the later Mughal period. It was between 1818 to 1905 that Urdu developed into a language of expression for religious, philosophic thoughts. An Urdu translation of the Koran was made as late as 1791. Now Urdu became popular and replaced Persian as the language of the educated masses.

To summarize the period from 1818 to 1905 was for the Indian Muslims, on one hand a period of frustration, of political decline, social demoralization and economic deterioration. But on the other hand, it was a period of religious revival, educational progress and a growing awareness that they were no longer rulers of the country.

Muslim Politics before the Aligarh Movement  

The Brit conquest was bound to have a different impact on the Hindu & Muslim. The Hindu regarded it as freedom from the miseries of Muslim rule while Muslims regarded the Brits as their bitterest foe who had usurped the political authority and special privileges that they had enjoyed so far. But there were other factors at play that widened the already existing gulf between these two communities.

The hostile attitude of Muslims towards the English, their aversion to secular education kept them aloof from English education imparted in schools and colleges. On the other the establishment of the Hindu College in 1817 gave a great impetus to English education amongst the Hindus. For the next fifty years the Muslims made little progress.

Relations between Hindus and Muslims were very honestly outlined by a liberal, R M Sayani in his Presidential address at the 12th session of the Congress held in 1896. Excerpts “Before the advent of the British in India, the Muslims were the rulers of the country. The rulers and their chiefs were Muslims so were the great landlords and officials. The court language was their own. Every place of trust and responsibility, or carrying influence and high emoluments, was theirs by birthright. The Hindus did occupy the same position but were tenants-at-will of the Muslims. The Muslims had complete access to the rulers and chief. The Hindus were in awe of them. By a stroke of misfortune, the Muslims had to abdicate their position and descend to the level of their Hindu fellow-countrymen. The Muslims resented the treatment. Meanwhile the Brits introduced English education into the country. This required hard application and industry. The Hindus were used to this, as under Muslim rule, they had practically to master a foreign tongue, and so easily took to new education. But the Muslim had not yet become accustomed to this sort of thing. Moreover, they resented competing with the Hindus, whom they had till recently regarded as their inferiors. The Muslims were gradually ousted from their lands, offices; in fact everything was lost save their honor. To the Hindus it was the opposite. They were soon reduced to a state of utter poverty. Ignorance and apathy seized hold of them while the fall of their former greatness rankled in their hearts”. I must admit beautifully said, brutally honest too.

Thus the political outlook of the 2 communities was different. English education was the mainspring of all political evolutions of the Hindus while the Muslims lagged behind. This difference of approach to politics was manifest for the first time in the Wahabi Movement. Although the later phase was a violent hatred against the English and organized attempt to drive them out, it evoked no sympathy from the Hindus. The reason it failed is simple.

It was a purely Muslim movement to establish Dar-ul-Islam in India “Muslim sovereignty pure and simple.” Actually the Wahabis first declared war against the Sikhs, and later transferred that hostility to the Brits when they conquered Punjab. Although the movement had no anti Hindu sentiment unlike the Moplah Rebellion that followed the Khilafat Agitation of 1921, all the proclamations were issued in the name of Islam and appealed only to Muslims.
The differences in political outlook were further reinforced by the fact that the Muslims did not take an active part in different political organizations like the Committees of Landholder’s Society, Bengal British India Society. On the other hand as soon as the Muslims became politically conscious they started separate organizations of their own. A Muhammadan Association was started in Calcutta before 31/01/1856. The Hindus regarded this separatist tendency as quite natural since they were a separate unit. Gradually the Muslim leaders realized the value of English education. Although Muslims took to modern education in larger numbers the gap between the two communities continued to exist, rather large actually.

The differences got accentuated in connection with the legislation for local self-government on elective basis. It is on this occasion that for the first time a demand was made for separate representation of the Muslims. The ball, now or later was set rolling by the Brits. Said Muhhammad Yusuf on 3/05/1883 “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the Bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community”.

The keynote of this speech is a firm conviction that even in political matters there is no common bond between the two communities and each must be ready to safeguard its own interest. These thoughts were shared by most Muslims all over India. I must admire Yusuf for being so realistic unlike most Hindus leaders who keep on striving for the mirage of Hindu Muslim unity.

Reference must be made in this connection to the Indian visit of Jamal-ud-din Al-afghani (1893-97) a notable figure of the Muslim world in the 19th century. He agitated for the liberation of Muslims from European influence and exploitation, for the union of all Islamic states under a single Caliphate and the creation of a powerful Muslim empire capable of resisting European influence. The Hindu leaders, notably B.C. Pal, believe that his visit hastened the split between Hindus and Muslims, made Muslim leaders distance themselves from the political activities of the Hindus.

While some of might not agree indications were not wanting that the pan-Islamic sentiment had already been exerting influence upon Muslim minds. Some Muslim leaders told Blunt “During the Egyptian War 1881-82 we all looked to Arabi (Pasha) to restore our fortunes, for we are in a desperate state and need a deliverer” quote from the Amrita Bazaar Patrika, 12/08/1869. The Indian Muslims had already begun to feel that Muslims outside India were more closely allied to them then the Hindus.

The Khilafat Movement  (1921) started by Gandhi to win over the Muslims is ample proof of the Pan-Islamic sentiment. Otherwise why must events in Turkey concern Indian Muslims. Pan-Islamism is very much alive even 80 years later. Indian Muslims protest over the killings of Muslims in Palestine but not the Hindus of Jammu & Kashmir.

Sometimes I wonder, why do we Hindus expect this from the Muslims. Why do we not learn to protest ourselves instead of looking up for support? The onus of being compassionate, sensitive to other’s feelings, secular is on Hindus and not others.

Further proof of the pan-Islamic sentiment may be traced to the evidence given by the Muslim leaders before the Hunter Commission, demanding entirely separate seating arrangements for the primary education of Hindus and Muslims and insisting that Urdu be a medium of instruction in a province like Bengal where the Muslims spoke Bengali. Unfortunately successive Congress leaders, pre and post Partition refuse to accept or understand the concept of Pan Islamism.

To summarize Muslim politics of the 19th century followed a course that was different from the Hindus. While the Hindus, influenced by English education, were developing their ideas on modern lines, the Muslims launched the Wahabi Movement that was violent and communal in character. Then came the Aligarh movement, also conceived in a communal spirit. It brought about a political and social regeneration of the Muslims but widened the divide between the Hindus and Muslims. It created a distinct Muslim unit in Indian politics. By starting the Khilafat Movement Gandhi cemented the divide, organized the Muslims into a political unit on a national level that was to culminate in Partition nearly fifty years later.

The Aligarh Movement     

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (SAK) was born in 1817 and began his career as an official of the British govt at the age of 20. During the mutiny he remained 150 % loyal to the Brits. He saved the local Europeans i.e. at Bijnor by successful diplomacy, first with the mutineers and then with Nawab Mahmud Khan. His loyalty was recognized by the Brits. SAK utilized the goodwill for the benefit of fellow Muslims. Aware about the deplorable conditions of the Muslims he attributed their plight to their innate conservatism, which made them averse to English education and Western culture. Think about it! some 100 plus years later a similar problem continues to plague the Muslims of the sub-continent be it in Bharat, Pakistan or England. Since the Brits believed that it was the Muslims were the chief instigators of the Mutiny the community lost support, political patronage.

SAK took upon himself the responsibility of bridging the gulf, bringing about a political rapprochement between the Brits and Muslims (similar to what the Congress has been trying with the Muslims after the successful demolition of the Babri Masjid) and introducing modern education among the Muslims. To achieve the first objective he urged the Muslims to give up their fruitless, vindictive and sentimental opposition to the British. He gradually convinced them that their future interests depended entirely on favors from the govt, which could happen only if they cooperated with the Brits.
On the other hand he persuaded the Brits that the Muslims were not disloyal to the crown and the Muslims got swayed in 1857 by leading the war against the Brits but with a little tact, generous forgiveness by the Brits could change the Muslims into Brit supporters.

This offer by SAK was perfectly timed. Happy to get rid of Muslim rule, the Hindus welcomed Brit rule that made the rulers favor the Hindus initially. But two generations of Western education had aroused revolutionary ideas in the Hindu mind called anti-Brit. Divide and rule was the Brit funda. So they seized this offer by SAK of enlisting the support of the politically undeveloped Muslim community and holding it as a counterpoise to the progressive Hindu community. A fair idea of the nature and extent of Brit change is given by Hunter’s book, The Indian Musalmans, published in 1871.

Next SAK devoted himself to the regeneration of his community. He raised his voice against Muslim orthodoxy in order to prove that there is nothing in the Koran, which stands in the way of the Muslims taking to English education and imbibing rational and advanced ideas as well as scientific ideas of the West. Basically followed Raja Rammohan Roy’s footsteps. He met violent opposition from within the community but prevailed.

SAK regarded Western knowledge through English education as the foundation of all real progress. In 1864 he established an English school in Ghazipur. In 1869 he visited England where he received a cordial welcome and a personal meeting with Queen Victoria.

While SAK attempts to uplift the Muslims is to be appreciated, it is painful to note that it has as its background a supreme contempt for the Indians. In a letter from London dated 15/10/1869 he writes “Without the flattering of the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low etc when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to be able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honored? The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes”. Sir Syed Ahmad by Graham pg 183-184. Full letter is in chapter 4.

SAK was intoxicated with the wine of Western culture very much the same way as the first generation of English educated Hindus and the Hindus of today who study in convent educated schools. What he wrote was anti national and exceeded all limits of decency. Some attempt to pardon him saying he was young. 52 and Young, give me a break!

While in England SAK conceived the idea of having a Muslim college like Oxford and Cambridge. The result was the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, the foundation stone of which was laid by Lord Lytton on 8/01/1877. The Muslim community benefited as much from it as the Hindu college founded sixty years ago. SAH also started the Muhammadan Educational Conference as a general forum for spreading liberal ideas among the members of his community. SAK did a great job for the Muslims. However, in its ultimate form it took an anti-Congress and anti-Hindu view which is very evident after you read SAK’s thoughts..

Words of Syed Ahmed  / Analysis      

While SAK attempts to uplift the Muslims is to be appreciated, it is painful to note that it has as its background a supreme contempt for the Indians.
1. In a letter from London dated 15/10/1869 he writes “Without the flattering of the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low etc when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honored? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? You do not! We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes”. Sir Syed Ahmad by Graham pg 183-184.

2. In a speech in 1884 he said “Do you not inhibit the same land, Remember that words Hindu and Muslim are only meant for religious distinction, otherwise all persons, whether Hindu and Muslim, even the Christians who reside in this country, are all in this particular respect belong to one and the same nation’. Eminent Mussalmans by Natesan pg 32.

3. To a Punjabi Hindu audience he said that every inhabitant of Hindusthan is a Hindu and added “I am therefore sorry that you do not regard me as Hindu”. India Divided by Rajendra Prasad pg 99.

4. But some of his utterances reflect a different mindset. As far as 1858 he deplored the fact that Hindus and Muslims, were put into the same regiment of the British army, and thus a feeling of friendship and brotherhood sprang between them. He added “If separate regiments of Hindus and Muslims had been raised, this feeling of brotherhood could not have arisen”. Causes of Indian Revolt pg 54-55.

5. At a speech at Meerut on 16/03/1888 he refers to the Hindus and Muslims not only as two nations, but as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the Brits left India. He said, “Now suppose that all the Brits were to leave India, then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances these nations, the Muhammadan and the Hindu 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”. Sachin Sen pg 42. Does this not reflect the Islamic mindset? As a community Muslims have not learnt to co-exist with other communities. That is because Islam believes in Dar-ul-Islam, Muslim rule pure and simple. These words were echoed by Islamic writer Rafiq Zakaria in his book The Widening Divide. Unless the Muslim stops drawing pride from the deeds of the Muslim invaders and realizes that he is a Hindu convert, the divide between the two communities might never cease.

6. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 112 “And first suppose that all the Muslims vote for a Muslim and all the Hindus vote for a Hindu, it is certain that Muslims will have four times as many votes since their population is four times as numerous. And then how can the Muslim guard his interests? Now I ask you, O Muslims! Weep at your condition! Have you such wealth that you can compete with the Hindus? In the whole nation there is no person who is equal to Hindus in the fitness for the work!” Will the Hindus stop criticizing themselves?

7. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 118 “O, my brother Muslims! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different nations in your grasp”. Cannot forget that Muslims ruled India once and explains the Muslims desire to dominate India today through the Karachi based underworld.

8. As early as 1883, he delivered a long speech deprecating the system of representative institutions for fear that “the larger community would totally derive override the interest of the smaller community”. Coupland II part I pg 154-56. In this speech he harped upon the elements of discord and disunion that divided India. “In one and the same district, said he, the population consists of various creeds and nationalities”. The whole speech is an eloquent plea against Indian nationality and indicates the wide chasm that divided the Hindu and Muslim leaders in their political thought and ideas.

9. “In a country like India where homogeneity does not exist in any one of these fields (nationality, religion, ways of living, customs, mores, culture and historical traditions), the introduction of representative govt cannot produce any beneficial results, it can only result in interfering with the peace and prosperity of the land. The aims and objectives of the Congress are based upon the ignorance of history and present day realities; they do not take into consideration that India is inhabited with different nationalities. I consider the experiment, which the Congress wants to make fraught with dangers and suffering for all the nationalities of India, especially for the Muslims. The Muslims are in a minority, but they are a highly united minority. Atleast they are traditionally prone to taking the sword when the majority oppresses them. If this happens, it will bring about disasters greater than the ones, which came in the wake of the happenings of 1857. The Congress cannot rationally prove its claim to represent the opinions, ideals and aspirations of the Muslims”. Syed Ahmad Khan, Akhari Madamin, pg 46-50. Quoted in Sources of Indian Tradition pp 746-7. Think about it have things changed! A couple of days i.e. some 20/8/2001, the police in Ahmedabad removed Muslim hawkers from the pavement and they rioted. In Lucknow some time in 2001 during I think a Ramzan procession a Muslim girl was allegedly molested by a policemen. Without checking the veracity of the event or asking the police to take action they took to the streets. Examples like this are galore. The Indian Muslim had begun to believe that by resorting to violence the scared Hindu would back off and let him live in a Muslim ghetto without being subject to Indian Hindu laws.

10. SAK regarded the Congress as inimical to the true interests of the Muslims. He wrote in the Pioneer on 2-3/10/1887 that the parliamentary form of governance “was unsuited to a country containing two or more nations tending to oppress the numerically weaker”. The Development of Indian National Congress by P C Ghosh pg 43C.

11. During 1988, Tyabji and Hume worked hard to secure SAK ka cooperation. He said “I do not understand what the words National Congress mean. Is it supposed that the different castes and creeds living in India belong to one nation, or can become a nation, and their aims and aspirations be one and the same? I think it is impossible, and when it is possible there can be no such thing as a national congress, nor can it be of equal benefit to all peoples. I object to every Congress in any shape or form whatever which regards Indian as one nation”. Ram Gopal ph 67. It may be mentioned that the Muslims of north India agreed with the policy of SAK.

12. At Lucknow on 28/12/1887, on the eve of the Congress session in Madras he said “If you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then in the name of God! Jump into the train, sit down, and be off to Madras”. Syed Ahmad Khan On the present state of Indian Politics pg 11-12. Referring to these speeches M Noman said “No Muslim of India since then joined the Congress except one or two. Even SAK’s fellow Muslims who differed from his views on religion, education and social matters, opposed him violently, followed him in politics and preserved their isolation from the Congress”.

13. There is no doubt that SAK succeed in keeping the bulk of the Muslims away from the Congress. In 1896, Rahimatullah Sayani, a distinguished Muslim, presided over the Congress session. Haji Ismail Khan a friend of SAH suggested to the Congress President that the Congress should pass a resolution to the effect that the Hindus and Muslims should have equal seats in the legislative councils, district boards and municipalities. SAK endorsed it and wrote an article that Muslims could join the Congress only if the Congress agreed to the proposal of Ismail Khan. P C Ghosh.

14. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 106, SAK believed that “If the Congress or the British persist in pushing these proposals the Muslims will fight with the help of the Turks and Pathans if necessary. He said that Muslims are enjoined by the Quran and the Prophet to be loyal to the ruler. Muslims are taught by the Koran that people who are most likely to be their friends are Christians rather than kafirs”.

Whatever one might think of the earlier utterances of SAK in favor of the peoples of India forming but one nation, the two-nation theory formed the solid basis of the Aligarh Movement. Its political views, impact may be summarized as follows-

1. Hindus and Muslims form two separate political entities with separate outlook and conflicting interests. Note that Muslims were, are very clear about it but Hindus like Gandhi were on their own trip of Hindu Muslim unity. A proof of the two- nation theory is that Gandhi went on fasts whenever he had to make the Hindus agree to his point of view. I do not recall his having gone on fasts to make the Muslims see the Hindu point of view. Probably he knew that he might have to fast to death.

2. Let me give you one more example of the two-nation theory. The Karachi based Dawood Ibrahim gang is well known in India for its extortion and forcing people into business deals. Have you heard of anybody but a Hindu businessmen or film actor being a victim of an extortion threat. Simply put have you heard of a Salman Khan or Habib Khoraikhiwala receiving an extortion threat?

3. The grant of representative institutions based on democratic principles, and appointment to high offices by open competitive examination in India would be detrimental to the interests of the Muslims, as they would be subject to Hindu domination, which is far worse than Brit rule. SAK knew that education is alien to Islam, is a strong point about the Indians read Hindus so he did not want his fellow Muslims to be put at a disadvantage.

4. Please note that as a system democracy is alien to Islam. Muslims believe in Dar-ul-Islam plain and simple. Peaceful co-existence with other communities is something they are yet to learn. India and England are only two examples.

5. Consequently, the Muslims should regard the paramount of the British as the chief safeguard of their interests, and keep themselves aloof from political agitation against the government.

6. As the Muslim interests are quite safe in the hands of the Brits, the Muslims should confine their attention to cultural development, and to avoid politics except so far as it is necessary to counterbalance the mischief of the Hindu political agitators”. R Symonds, Making of Pakistan pg 30-31.

7. Note that SAK gave a veiled threat to all esp. the Congress by saying will take to the sword if the Hindu oppresses them, refer para 7 above. I am unable to fathom why he said that because till then i.e. about 1880 Hindus had never ruled over Muslims. So on what basis did he say that? Remember that in 1946 Jinnah too made the same threats. Give me Pakistan or Direct Action Plan. The massacres of Noakali in 1946 are only two well known.

8. Even today when India ups the antennae on Kashmir Pakistan subtly says that it is now a nuclear power. If India crosses the LOC or desires a full-scale war then it runs the risks of being responsible for starting a Nuclear War. Such is guilt that most Hindu politicians suffer in their dealings with Pakistan / Muslims that we just back off. Impact of Gandhian / Nehruvian thought. To read more go to the essay titled ‘Why has Asceticism led to the Weakening of Bharat’.

9. SAK kept on harping about the fact about how Muslims would be treated in Hindu India. Probably the benchmark that he had in his mind was the way Muslims treated Hindus when they ruled India. 54 years after independence look at the condition of Hindus in Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh and compare that with the Muslims in India!

10. As a concept, Nationalism is a recent phenomenon, probably post Industrial revolution. It never existed in the West or the Gulf prior to that. India has always been one cultural unit. This thing of mutli-lingual etc are issues created by the English media. The Central Idea through Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism is the same as it amongst people in different parts of the country.

What unites us is Culture. Raksha Bandhan / Deepavali is celebrated by all. Lord Shiva is worshipped in the north / south and in Nepal / Tibet. Parvati is worshipped in the north, south, east and west. What differ are her manifestations. The Gayatri Mantra is said in the same way across the country. The Rishis of ancient times were smarties. Within a broad framework, common central idea they gave various people the freedom to follow local customs. The laws of karma, rebirth and the theory of cause and effect are common to all Indians. To know more go the essay titled ‘Characteristics of Indian Philosophy’. To know why Sikhism is not a different religion read the essay ‘Hinduism and Sikhism different religions!

11. This desire for parity with the Hindus formed an important part of the pre independence Muslim psyche. Post 1947 it is dominance of Hindus.

In support of points 3 and 4 it may be noted that he declined to support the National Mohammadan Association founded in Calcutta in 1877 by Amir Ali Khan etc.

Let me share with you some post independence events on the Muslim mindset and Hindu perception.
1. A lawyer friend who deals with Real Estate matters told me this. He said that in case of any real estate deal in Mumbai city the builder or they, as lawyers do not get involved if there is a Muslim even remotely involved. Aghast I called him communal and asked why? He said that the Muslims always want things to go their way, in case of a dispute; they do not listen to reason but just shoot you dead.

2. This incident took place some four years ago. I had gone to Mumbai’s Mahalaxmi Racecourse when I overheard two gentlemen talking of some real estate deal. One said to the other that he had done a partnership with a Muslim that eventually went into dispute. He went to a well-known lawyer firm Kanga and Co. The firm refused to fight the case since the other party was a Muslim. The firm partner said they do not deal with people who do not listen to the voice of reason and live by the gun.

3. In order to win the battle of the ballot the Muslim realizes that in a democracy it is a battle of numbers. Because Muslims want to rule the country again Muslims of the subcontinent have large families and support large-scale infiltration into India. In fact I think it is strategically done to change the demographic composition of the place, create a Muslim vote bank in most parts of India so that they have a say in most state governments. It is a demand that was made in the British era too. Assam, Delhi, Mumbai, Orissa, Kumaon in Uttaranchal, Ahmedabad, Jaipur are only a few areas where large infiltration has taken place.

4. Quoting from The Widening Divide by Islamic writer Rafiq Zakaria. He says “It is now for Muslims to strengthen Hindu Muslim unity because it is only with the goodwill of Hindus that the future of the Muslims in the country can be assured. Of that I have not the slightest doubt”. Sweet words but can anyone tell me what the Indians Muslims have done to assuage Hindu feelings. Have they have given their claims on Ayodhya, agreed to voluntarily pull down the mosques at Mathura and Kashi. These words are lip service reality is different!

5. Muslims of the sub continent are bad losers some egs. In a charity match that was played at Birmigham England sometime in the early 1990s Pakistanis invaded the field when they realized that Pakistan was about to loose to arch rivals India. The same thing was repeated at a match Karachi a few years later. Whenever Muslims are about to loose a battle in business or sport they resort to violence.

6. Nehru, Gandhi encouraged the Muslims to live in ghettos. The Muslims love it because bereft of Indian read Hindu influence, rule they can have Dar-ul-Islam. Take Mumbai’s Mohammed Ali Road or Delhi’s Jama Masjid area. The police is scared to enter these areas.

7. Because Muslims take to violence easily the English media is scared of reporting events that would show the community in poor light, a sort of censorship. A few examples. Recently Delhi Muslims staged a protest at the Qutub Minar asking for permission read control to offer namaz there. The Delhi police protested but gave in. Mumbai’s Times of India did not report it but when Hindu priests protested thereafter because it was actually a temple they made front-page news in the same paper. There was no reason or historical perspective given.

It may not out of place to mention that the present structure of Kutub Minar is stated to have been first built by the King of Ujjain Raja Vikramaditya, on the suggestions of Acharya Varahmihir, who was one of the nine jewels of his court, as an observatory tower as high as Meru mountain for research of celestial bodies. The Muslim invader changed its shape and gave it a new name in place of its original Merusatambha. The village Mehrauli, earlier known as Mehirsthan, where the Kutub is situated, was established by the great king in the memory of Acharya Mihir. The India Today editorial justified the Muslim takeover by blaming the Archaeological Survey of India for poor maintenance. This implies that Muslims continue to identify themselves with Muslim invaders who perpetuated worst atrocities on Hindus. What feelings would you expect Hindus to have?

8. The desire to maintain a separate Muslim identity, resist government control is so strong that it prevents integration with the rest of the country. The Muslims continue to be backward, exceedingly conservative, subject to religious education in Madrassas and their woman ill treated. Yet so strong is the fear in the English media and the government that these shortcomings are rarely discussed in an open forum. See our English papers. How many columns are devoted to the Muslims although Muslims read these papers too.

9. Today we have two sets of laws governing educational institutions, one for the minorities and second for the Hindus. Minorities are not subject to government control but the govt appoints governing boards for Hindu temples. While the founding forefathers of the Constitution did this to preserve the identity of the minorities, today it has become a dividing factor ably exploited by the minorities for promoting their religion. Has this not virtually split the country into two? The govt has given up its rights to rule minorities, so are we one nation is what you must be asking yourself.

Role of British Principals                       

The principals of the Aligarh College proved to be active agents in propagating the political ideals of SAK. The first principle Theodore Beck gave up a life in England to serve the Indian Muslims. He took charge of the Institute Gazette, the literary organ of the Aligarh College and edited it on behalf of SAK.

Beck poured forth venom against the Bengalis for their advanced political and social ideas. In issue after issue he published articles whose central idea was that India contained two or more nations, that the Parliamentary govt was unsuited to India, and in the event of it being granted, the Hindus, who formed the majority “would be absolute masters as no Muhammadan Emperor ever was”. Muslim League pg 4.

It was due to Beck’s efforts that in August 1988 the United Indian Patriotic Association was established. Hindus and Muslims joined. The objects were
a. to inform the Brit parliament and the people of England through newspapers etc that all the communities of India, the aristocracy and the Princes were not with the Congress and to contradict its statements.
b. To keep the Parliament of England informed about the opinion of Hindu and Muslim organizations that were opposed to the Congress.
c. To help in the maintenance of law and order and strengthening of British rule in India and to wean away people from the Congress.

But Beck did not like the idea of a common Hindu Muslim association so under his inspiration a new organization under the name Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Defence Association of Upper India was founded on 30/12/1893 in the house of SAK. The main objects of the association were to –
1. to place the opinion of Muslims before the Brits and the govt of India and to protect their political rights.
2. to prevent political agitation from spreading amongst the Muslims.
3. to strengthen Brit rule in India.

Beck made a systematic effort to divide Hindus and Muslims. A summary of his speech was published in the Aligarh College Magazine of March, April, June 1895. He said –
1. a friendship between the Muslims and the Brit people was possible but not between for eg the Marathas and Sikhs who would never agree with the Muslims in accepting Aurangzeb as their hero.
2. Muslims would never accept a system of government in which the Hindus would rule over them.
3. Indians themselves did not like democracy they preferred monarchy.
4. Muslim behavior before and after the Revolt of 1857 had warned them against the agitational policy of the Hindus and they were now on the advice of SAH following loyalty to the Brits.
5. Muslims were opposed to the holding of competitive examinations for they knew this step would mean the replacement of many impartial British officers by anti-Muslims Hindus.

Quoted from Ram Gopal pg 73. Beck’s contribution to the anti-Hindu bias of the Aligarh Movement is considerable. The personal influence exercised by Beck on SAK was believed to be so great that one Muslim writer jokingly said, “ that the College is of Syed Ahmad and the order is of Beck”.

Beck died in 1899. His work of dividing Hindus and Muslims was greatly appreciated by the Empire. He was succeeded as Principal by Morrison who was in charge of the London office of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Defence Association.

Morrison was alarmed at the growing political solidarity among the Muslims. So he tried to wean them away from political agitation and focus their energies on education and economic uplift of the community.

Thanks to Becker and Morrison an open hostility for anything Hindu that included the Congress formed the basis of the Aligarh Movement.

Summary          

The official history of the Congress denies that Muslims were opposed to the Congress but many Congress leaders were loath to admit the truth. This hypocrisy on the part of the Congress has come to characterize its dealings with the Muslims thereafter. Even Gokhale remarked “that seventy million of Muslims were more or less hostile to national aspirations”. Hoyland, Gokhale pg 160.
It also worth noting that SAK laid the foundation of the Annual Muslim Educational Conference in 1886, only a year after the establishment of the National Congress. This conference was held each year at different places in India exactly at the same time when the Congress held its sessions. Although its agenda was education it became a forum for the dissemination of Muslim public opinion.

The problem was the Muslim fear that they would be ill treated by the Hindus. R M Sayani, President of the Congress in 1896 made an elaborate analysis and proceeded to reply to each one of the. The Congress started placating the Muslims as far as possible within its basic principles e.g. at Madras in 1887 when a Congress member gave notice urging a resolution on the prohibition of cow slaughter, there was hungama. In their wisdom the Congress decided that if any Resolution affected any class or community was objected to it would not be considered by the Congress. A Nation in Making pg 108. So in its attempt to involve the Muslims in the Congress it surrendered the power of saying no, veto to the Muslims that would culminate in partition later. It is a guilt complex that neither the Congress nor BJP have got rid off since then.

Hindus are always asked for proof, be rational. I wonder why nobody asks the Muslims where does the Koran say that cow slaughter is sacred in Islam, is there any cow slaughter in the Gulf. This Hindu silence on any question that might offend the Muslim sentiment started in 1896 and carries on to this day. Remember Pak President’s live TV Conference with the creame la crème of India’s journalists at the Agra Summit of July 2001. Not one Indian journalists had the guts to pose any difficult questions to Mushharaf. They sat there like pigmies who roar, accuse the Hindu politician but when it comes to dealing with a Muslim they chicken off. I do not blame them for this psyche. It is a Congress tradition that has got in grilled into our minds, conscious and subconscious.
Till he died SAK never supported the Congress. His policy was carried forward by Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk. Another cause of estrangement was the campaign in Maharashtra against killing of cows. What complicated matters further was the Hindi Urdu controversy originating from a movement by the Hindus of Kashi in 1867 to replace Urdu by Hindi and the Arabic script by Nagari. It must be mentioned that a similar movement for the use of Hindi was started in Punjab by Swami Dayanand Saraswati. These movements convinced SAK that Hindus and Muslims could never join whole-heartedly together and the differences would only increase in the future. I must admire SAK for his reading of Hindu Muslim relations. He was unlike the Congress leaders who went to any extent to appease Muslim sentiment only to alienate the Hindu further. Nawab Mulk said “Although we do not have the power of the pen, our hands are still strong enough to wield the might of the sword”. Muslim league pg 25. Here again notice the veiled threat, do as I say or!

If one were to look at the Aligarh Movement objectively SAK did a great job for his community. He played the role of social reformer, started the Aligarh University, urged the Muslims to adopt western education by learning English. He wanted Muslims to be educated first before they entered the national movement although it must be said that it was love for Brit rule and animosity for anything Hindu read Congress that probably were the deciding factors. He also knew how hotheaded Muslims could be so he was keen to avoid any head on confrontation with the Brits. It would result in the Brits treating fellow Muslims in the same way, as they were post 1857. He was hoping that education would mature read mellow them before they joined politics.

I believe that his desire to increase education levels in the Muslim community were commendable. However, could he not done that without making the Hindus an object of hate. It comes to a more basic question, why is it that Muslims cannot live in peace with other communities? Do I have to hate another community for me to love my religion? Do I love Islam because of what it is or the hatred that it preaches of idol worshipers?

Some sympathizers of SAK have blamed the Brit Becker for his anti-Hindu and anti-Congress policy. That is again being charitable. Beck came to Aligarh in 1883 but SAK’s reactionary and progressive views can be traced to earlier, later periods. Refer para 4 in chapter four above. Also SAK was too strong a personality to be influenced by anyone else. However, it must be said that from 1883 to 1898 i.e. when SAK died, Becker was the pivot round whom Muslim politics involved.

It would not be out of place to mention that SAK’s policy towards the Hindus and Congress had the approval of almost all Muslim leaders. Inspite of the efforts made by Gandhi to win over the hearts of the Muslims through the Khilafat Movement, said in 1923 Muhammad Ali – nationalist leader of the Indian Muslims and close associate of Gandhi, “Reviewing the actions of a bygone generation today when it is easier to be wise after the event, I must confess I still think the attitude of SAK was eminently wise, and much as I wish that some things which he said should have been left unsaid, I am constrained to admit that no well-wisher of Muslims nor of India as a whole, could have followed a different course in leading the Muslims”.
What beats me is why even after such clear talking by Muslim leaders Congress leaders like Gandhi, Nehru never saw the writing on the wall and relentlessly pursued this mirage of Hindu Muslim unity.

The policy of favoring the Muslims as a counterpoise against the Hindus was gradually adopted by the Brits after 1880s, 1890s. Viceroy Lord Dufferin in connection with the absenteeism of the Muslims from the Congress said, “this division of religious feeling is to our advantage”. It is not strange, therefore, that the principle of separate representation for the Muslims was adopted by the Indian Councils Act of 1892.

Hindu Muslim Relations     

Some of us might blame the Brits were creating the Hindu Muslim divide. The divide already existed due to the ferocity of the Muslim invasions starting the 8th century a.d. The Brits exploited the divide to consolidate the empire and weaken the independence movement. In the bargain India has paid a heavy price both before and after Partition.

Relations among the masses though calm on the surface took an ugly turn in the shape of riots. In Kashi October 1809, a Hindu mob stormed the mosque built by Aurangzeb. To the Indian Muslim it does not matter that he is a Hindu convert and Aurangzeb a Mughal was no ancestor of his. So attached is he to symbols left by foreign invaders! In 1820 the Muslims assaulted a Durga Puja procession in Calcutta. There were riots in 1871-72 at Bareilly too.

Communal disturbances grew in volume and frequency, particularly between 1885 to 1893. There were riots in Lahore & Karnal in 1885, Delhi in 1886, Hoshiarpur, Ambala 1889 and Palakod in Salem, Tamil Nadu in 1891. 1893 was a bad year with grave outbreaks in Azamgarh of U.P., Mumbai lasted for six days. Also Swami Dayanand Saraswati founder of the Arya Samaj was in 1883 allegedly poisoned by a Muslim lady while he was a guest of the Maharaja of Jodhpur.

It is not unreasonable to assume that this increased tension between the masses of the two communities, was the direct consequence of the growing cleavage between their leaders. Thus by 1905 there were two distinct camps the Hindu and Muslim one. There was a totally communal Muslim outlook influenced by the Wahabi and Aligarh movements. The Muslims being a pan – Islamic religion were guided by purely Muslim interests then and today but it was the Hindus who carried this baggage of nationalism, unity. Lets take a look at some reasons why the Muslims behaved in a communal way.

One it should be remembered that neither of these two movements represented the Muslim community as a whole. While I agree with this logic I believe that if adequate number of Muslims had protested strongly against the communal outlook of their brothers the communal elements would have to take a back seat. Here the problem is that conservative Islam does not encourage modern education which could have made the community progressive in its thinking.

Secondly if the Muslims were communal must not the Hindus be blamed for it partly atleast. There was a general anti Muslim feeling in the minds of the Hindu intelligentsia. Let me share another perspective. For some seven hundred years Hindus in various parts of India were looted, raped, temples destroyed by various Muslim conquerors and rulers. Since they were being ruled they had no option than to keep quiet and swallow their humiliation. They welcomed the Brit rule because it freed them of Muslim tyranny. Surely from generation to generation feelings of humiliation would have got accumulated and passed on so was it not surprising that Hindus would distance themselves socially and politically from the Muslims. Why must the onus of reconciliation be the sole responsibility of the Hindus when it is they who have suffered the maximum?

Thirdly the Hindus had outgrown this narrow separatist tendency and imbibed a truly national spirit while the Muslims failed to do so. One of the characteristics of Indian philosophy is open ness to new chains of thought. There are atleast eight systems of philosophy with so many gurus and rishis, each with an independent mind of his own. So Hinduism encourages diversity and blesses them with the ability to absorb new ideas. On the other hand Islam is conservative, narrow, restricts itself to the Koran. Education has been part of Indian Samskaras for times immemorial; acquisition of knowledge is one of the paths to self-realization so Hindus had a head start in education but Islam!

This feeling of backwardness was brought to a head at the evidence before the Public Service Commission in 1886. In his evidence Dadabhai Naoraoji urged the necessity of holding exams simultaneously in India and England but was opposed by the Muslims “who feared that an examination held in India would lead to a preponderance of Hindus in the Civil Service to the detriment of the Muslims”. Ibid. The basic problem was the Muslim insecurity about Hindu domination in a democratic framework.

Dadabhai however, touched the crux of the problem when he observed that the attitude of the Muslims was “based on selfish interests, that because the Muslims are backward, therefore, they would not allow the Hindus and all India to go forward”. Well said Dadabhai. Profound words. Lets draw an analogy with modern day Pakistan. The Pakistanis realize that as a nation they have been left behind India. Such is their hatred for India, they cannot see her progress. They are using the ISI, Nepal, Indian Muslims and Bangladesh to make it difficult that the Indian state to survive. They encourage disgruntled elements and want the Indian state to break up. Because a successful Indian state would mean that the theorocratic state of Pakistan has failed.

Four were different community heroes. If the Hindus worshipped Shivaji, Guru Govind Singh and Rana Pratap the Muslim hero was Aurangzeb. The Third Battle Panipat was a day of mourning for the Hindus while it was a day of great deliverance for the Muslims. Also historical traditions and culture were so different. Hindu leaders like Gandhi and Nehru either did not attempt to understand the Hindu mind out of ignorance or dislike. So blindly committed were they to Hindu Muslim unity as recently witnessed during the build up to the Agra Summit 2001 that the Hindu leaders lost touch of reality. The riots caused by the Direct Action Plan of 1946 and Partition woke up some of the Congress leaders from slumber.

This is what founder of the Bharitya Vidya Bhavan, eminent freedom fighter, K M Munshi had to say “Last 25 years, we have been brought up on a slogan, naturalness and inevitableness of Hindu-Muslim unity. That this was wishful thinking has been proved in Noakali, Bihar, Rawalpindi. The Muslim a hard realist knew and exploited the hollowness of the slogans, the Hindu cherishes it still. Hindus love words and ideals”.

What I am saying is that the Congress leaders should have accepted the reality of Hindu Muslim relations and moved ahead. Aided by the Brits the Muslims had a veto power on just anything and everything, ably assisted by the Congress, that was to eventually result in the partition of India. I am not suggesting that partition might not have happened or the massacres would have been averted but am sure that what might have happened would surely been better than what happened and the state of the Indian sub continent today. Here I will draw an analogy with Kamalahasan’s movie Hey Ram. In that movie the hero played by Kamalhasan recalls the Hindu Muslim riots in the 1940s and even in 1990s i.e. when he is on his deathbed being transported in an ambulance. Has anything changed in these fifty years. Hindus Muslims continue to fight within the country and outside, Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan.

So what existed earlier was a fassad and is typical of the Indian read Congress, Hindu attitude of refusing to accept reality. The Chinese taught us a bitter lesson in 1962 but lessons learnt! This point was so beautifully brought out albeit in a different context by noted management consultant ex Chairman of Proctor & Gamble India Gurcharan Dass in a recent presentation that I attended. He said that we Indians are great thinkers but poor implementers. That was one of the reasons why the Indian state and industry continue to lag behind. To implement well you have to take tough decisions and not postpone them. You must learn to live with opposition and move on inspite of criticism. But politicians and industrialists try to please all or take no action, rarely confront an issue, which is why they are poor implementers.

Ability to face opposition is derived from confidence in yourself. Confidence comes from your upbringing, education, family values, culture, traditions and success. Indian read Hindu religion and culture was subject to Islamic onslaught since 712 A.D. The Brits criticized Indian education, way of life, called us superstitious, divided society vertically and made us a poor country. Basically they made Indians loose confidence in their way of life. Post independence not much has changed. Our education continues to be based on the Brit model. We are taught Shakespeare not Kalidas. We have become educated but in a sense Rootless. When such a feeling creeps in we become insecure in our dealings with people, nations. This logic applies to most Indians especially politicians, secularists and the English media.