 | |
| Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) |
‘Hero-Worship’ is
something that has time and again been derided by the intellectuals of all
hues, and rightly so. But ‘hero-worship’ is also a phase of one’s life. I have
no hesitation in accepting that there are some personalities, for example, the
poet-novelists, D H Lawrence and Nagarjun; the post-colonial critic Edward W.
Said, about whom I am yet to develop an intellectual detachment. I am sure, by
and by, some kind of broader understanding would be developed to enable me to
have that kind of detachment, as without ‘doubt’, one’s faith in itself remains
a doubtful thing. In this category of ‘heroes’, I will surely include Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), the first Education Minister of the independent
India, but more importantly, one of the few stalwarts of national movement who
could imbibe and contribute to the very essence of that elusive ‘inclusive
nationalism’ that we nowadays are trying hard to figure out. I am no historian,
but have deep interest in the historical process through which Indian
civilization, in particular, has progressed, and hence the placement of Maulana
Azad in Indian history, is very significant and runs deep into the secular and
inclusive fabric.
However, C
Rajagopalachari’s description of Maulana Azad as ‘The Great Akbar’ of Modern
India, quoted recently by the eminent historian Prof. Mushirul Hasan in an article
in The Hindu (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-great-akbar-of-independence-struggle/article5326492.ece)
would be akin to romanticizing Maulana’s plight, and overlooking his tragedy. In fact, if
at all he needs to be compared with any other figure from the Medieval period,
it can be no other than Dara Shikoh. Because, while, the ‘Emperor’ Akbar was successful
in establishing an empire that he wished to as per his multi-cultural vision of
the country, Maulana Azad was almost ‘sidelined’ like Dara Shikoh, because he
found himself at the crossfire of the majority and minority brands of
communalism, where, like Mahatama Gandhi, his voice of sanity had few takers
when it really mattered. If Akbar is a triumphant symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity,
then Dara Shikoh is a tragic symbol of the same, and Maulana Azad’s position
makes him nearer to that of that Sanskrit-Persian poet-scholar, and brother of
Aurangzeb, because despite his life-long struggle, he, as other champions of
Hindu-Muslim unity, could not avert the Partition of the country and the
mass-tragedy that followed. It is no wonder then that Maulana Azad once compared himself to Sarmad, the 17th Century mystic and Persian poet, and one of the 'gurus' of Dara Shikoh.
To take take
discussion further, when I say, ‘few takers’, I mean those whose voice counted,
because the silent majority was very much with Maulana Azad. This has been so
very suitably demonstrated by the historian Prof. Rizwan Qaiser in his book Resisting Colonialism and Communal Politics:
Maulana Azad and the Making of the Indian Nation, and also articulated in this interview in The Times of India (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-09/edit-page/30130923_1_muslims-pakistan-communities)
two years back, wherein he stated: “The Muslim League used to describe Azad and
people belonging to the Azad Mus-lim Conference as "half-hearted
pseudo-nationalists". What's important is that a vast majority of Muslims
were not with the Muslim League in 1940-41. That's the most interesting part of
my book...¦at the end of April 1940, about one lakh Muslims gathered in Delhi
to say they're not a distinct nation and the Muslim League does not represent
their interests. When Jinnah called Azad a 'show boy' of the Congress, it was
rebuffed by many Muslims in Delhi and other places.”
Jawaharlal Nehru
referred to Maulana Azad, as the caravan leader, "a very brave and gallant
gentleman, a finished product of the culture that, in these days, pertains to
few". It certainly is an apt description of this great man, and we would
do well to read again his historic Presidential speech in 1940 at the Ramgarh
Session of the Congress, wherein he provides a ‘text’ for understanding what
nationalism and multi-culturalism should mean for us, and how it is
intrinsically associated with both the rights and the duties of both
the minorities and the majority—a very basic that seem to be under tremendous
stress once again in our times. Moreover, the rather sophisticated approach to
the question of religion, coming from a man who was a scholar of Islam, shows
his visionary and intellectual integrity, on the one hand, and his abiding commitment
to nationalism on the other hand, in the most unambiguous manner:
“Full eleven centuries have passed by since then.
Islam has now as great a claim on the soil of India as Hinduism. If Hinduism
has been the religion of the people here for several thousands of years Islam
also has been their religion for a thousand years. Just as a Hindu can say with
pride that he is an Indian and follows Hinduism, so also we can say with equal
pride that we are Indians and follow Islam. I shall enlarge this orbit still
further. The Indian Christian is equally entitled to say with pride that he is
an Indian and is following a religion of India, namely Christianity.”
What is remarkable,
and that is why I perhaps find some kind of link among as varied people as D H
Lawrence, Nagarjun, Edward Said and Maulana Azad, is their ability to recognize
and put forth unambiguously that life is a two-way window, rather multi-way, and only
the ones who can appreciate the same, can ever hope to contribute vibrantly, and
alter meaningfully, the course of history, as each of them did in his chosen
field of work.
KUMAR VIKRAM
KUMAR VIKRAM
----------------------------------------------
EXCERPTS FROM THE RAMGARH SPEECH OF 1940, IN WHICH MAULANA AZAD
PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT TEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM, MULTI-CULTURALISM
AND ADDRESSING THE HAVOC OF COMMUNALISM AND SECTERIANISM. THESE ARE THE PARAS
OF THE SECOND HALF, IN THE FIRST HALF, MAINLY, THE CONGRESS POLICY TO BRITAIN, THE
ISSUE OF SECOND WORLD WAR AND PERILS OF IMPERIALISM, NAZISM AND FASCISM ARE
ADDRESSED:
 |
|
Maulana Azad delivering his
Presidential Speech at Ramgarh Congress, 1940
photo
courtesyhttp://indianmovements.blogspot.in/
|
.....But whatever the roots
of our problems might be, it is obvious that India, like other countries, has
her internal problems. Of these, the communal problem is an important one. We
do not and cannot expect the British Government to deny its existence. The
communal problem is undoubtedly with us; and if we want to go ahead, we must
needs take it into account. Every step that we take by ignoring it will be a
wrong step. The problem is there; to admit its existence, however, does not
mean that it should be used as a weapon against India's national freedom.
British Imperialism has always exploited it to this end. If Britain desires to
end her imperialistic methods in India and close that dismal chapter of
history, then the first signs of this change must naturally appear in her
treatment of the communal problem.
What is the Congress
position in regard to this problem? It has been the claim of the Congress, from
its earliest beginnings, that it considers India as a nation, and takes every
step in the interest of the nation as a whole. This entitles the world to
examine the truth of its assertion. I wish to examine afresh this question from
this point of view. There can be only three
aspects of the communal problem: its existence, its importance, and the method
of its solution.
The entire history of
the Congress demonstrates that it has always acknowledged the existence of the
problem. It has never tried to minimise its importance. In dealing with this
problem, it followed a policy which was the most suitable under the
circumstances. It is difficult to conceive of a different or better course of
action. If, however, a better course could be suggested, the Congress was
always, and is today, eager to welcome it.
We could attach no
greater importance to it, than to make it the first condition for the
attainment of our national goal. The Congress has always held
this belief; no one can challenge this fact. It has always held to two basic
principles in this connection, and every step was taken deliberately with these
in view. .
(1) Whatever
constitution is adopted for India, there must be the fullest guarantees in it
for the rights and interests of minorities.
(2) The minorities
should judge tor themselves what safeguards are necessary for the protection of
their rights and interests. The majority should not decide this. Therefore the
decision in this respect must depend upon the consent of the minorities and not
on a majority vote.
The question of the
minorities is not a special Indian problem. It has existed in other parts of
the world. I venture to address the world from this platform, and to enquire
whether any juster and more equitable course of action can be adopted in this
connection, than the one suggested above? If so, what is it? Is there anything
lacking in this approach, which necessitates that the Congress be reminded of
its duty? The Congress has always been ready to consider any failure in the
discharge of its duty. It is so prepared today.
I have been in the
Congress for the last nineteen years. During the whole of this period there is
not a single important decision of the Congress in the shaping of which I have
not had the honour to participate. I assert that during these last nineteen
years, not for a single day did the Congress think of solving this problem in
any way other than the way I have stated above. This was not a mere assertion
of the Congress, but its determined and decided course of action. Many a time
during the last fifteen years, this policy was subjected to the severest test,
but it stood firm as a rock.
The manner in which the
Congress has dealt with this problem today in connection with the Constituent
Assembly, throws a flood of light on these two principles and clarifies them.
The recognised minorities have a right, if they so please, to choose their
representatives by their votes. Their representatives will not have to rely
upon the votes of any other community except their own. So far as the question
of the rights and the interests of the minorities is concerned, the decision
will not depend upon the majority of the votes in the Constituent Assembly. It
will be subject to the consent of the minority. If unanimity is not achieved on
any question, then an impartial tribunal, to which the minorities have also
consented, will decide the matter. This last proviso is merely in the nature of
a provision for a possible contingency, and is most unlikely to be required. If
a more practical proposal is made, there can be no objection to it.
When these principles
are accepted and acted upon by the Congress, what is it that obliges British
statesmen to remind us so often of the problem of the minorities, and to make
the world believe that this stands in the way of Indian freedom? If it is
really so, why does not the British Government recognise clearly India's
freedom, and give us an opportunity to solve this problem forever by mutual
agreement amongst ourselves?
Dissensions were sown
and encouraged amongst us, and yet we are taunted because of them. We are told
to put an end to our communal conflicts, but opportunity to do so is denied us.
Such is the position deliberately created to thwart us; such are the chains
that bind. But no difficulties or constraints can deter us from taking the
right steps with courage and fortitude. Our path is full of obstacles, but we
are determined to overcome them.
We have considered the
problem of the minorities of India. But are the Muslims such a minority as to
have the least doubt or fear about their future? A small minority may
legitimately have fears and apprehensions, but can the Muslims allow themselves
to be disturbed by them? I do not know how many of you are familiar with my
writings, twenty-eight years ago, in the "Al Hilal." If there are any
such here, I would request them to refresh their memories. Even then I gave
expression to my conviction, and I repeat this today, that in the texture of
Indian Politics, nothing is further removed from the truth than to say that
Indian Muslims occupy the position of a political minority.
It is equally absurd for
them to be apprehensive about their rights and interests in a democratic India.
This fundamental mistake has opened the door to countless misunderstandings.
False arguments were built up on wrong premises. This error, on the one hand,
brought confusion into the minds of Musalmans about their own true position;
and,on the other hand, it involved the world in misunderstandings, so that the
picture of India could not be seen in right perspective.
If time had permitted, I
would have told you in detail how during the last sixty years, this artificial
and untrue picture of India was made, and whose hands traced it. In effect,
this was the result of the same policy of divide and rule which took particular
shape in the mirlds of British Officialdom in India after the Congress launched
the national movement. The object of this was to prepare the Musalmans for use
against the new political awakening. In this plan, prominence was given to two
points.
First, that India was
inhabited by two different communities, the Hindus and the Musalmans, and for
this reason no demand could be made in the name of a united nation. Second:
that numerically the Musalmans were far less than the Hindus; and because of
this, the necessary consequence of the establishment of democratic institutions
in India would be to establish the rule of the Hindu majority and to jeopardise
the existence of the Muslims. I shall not go into any greater detail now.
Should you, however, wish to know the early history of this matter, I would
refer you to the time of Lord Dufferin, a former Viceroy of India, and Sir
Auckland Colvin, a former Lieutenant Governor of the N.W.P., now the United
Provinces.
Thus were sown the seeds
of disunity by British Imperialism on Indian soil. The plant grew and was
nurtured and spread its nettles; and even though fifty years have passed since
then, the roots are still there.Politically speaking,
the word minority does not mean just a group that is so small in number and so
lacking in other qualities that give strength, that it has no confidence in its
own capacity to protect itself from the much larger group that surrounds it. It
is not enough that the group should be relatively the smaller, but that it
should be absolutely so small as to be incapable of protecting its interests.
Thus this is not merely a question of numbers; other factors count also. If a
country has two major groups numbering a million and two millions respectively,
it does not necessarily follow that because one is half the other, therefore it
must call itself politically a minority and consider itself weak.
If this is the right
test, let us apply it to the position of the Muslims in India. You will see at
a glance a vast concourse, spreading out all over the country; they stand
erect, and to imagine that they exist helpllessly as a "minority" is
to delude oneself. The Muslims in India
number between eighty and ninety millions. The same type of social or racial
divisions which affect other communities do not divide them. The powerful bonds
of Islamic brotherhood and equality have protected them to a large extent from
the weakness that flows from social divisions. It is true that they number only
one-fourth of the total population; but the question is not one of population
ratio, but of the large numbers and the strength behind them. Can such a vast
mass of humanity have any legitimate reason for apprehension that in a free and
democratic India, it might be unable to protect its rights and interest?
These numbers are not
confined to any particular area, but spread out unevenly over different parts
of the country. In four provinces out of eleven in India there is a Muslim
majority, the other religious groups being minorities. If British Baluchistan
is added, there are five provinces with Muslim majority. Even if we are
compelled at present to consider this question on a basis of religious
groupings, the position of the Muslims is not that of a minority only. If they
are in a minority in seven provinces, they are in a majority in five. This
being so, there is absolutely no reason why they should be oppressed by the
feeling of being a minority.
Whatever may be the
details of the future constitution of India, we know that it will be an
all-India federation which is in the fullest sense democratic, and every unit
of which will have autonomy in regard to internal affairs. The federal centre
will be concerned only with all-India matters of common concern, such as
foreign relations, defence, customs, etc. Under these circumstances, can anyone
who has any conception of the actual working of a democratic constitution,
allow himself to be led astray by this false issue of majority and minority?
I cannot believe for an
instant that there can be any room whatever for these misgivings in the picture
of India's future. These apprehensions are arising because, in the words of a
British statesman regarding Ireland, we are yet standing on the banks of the
river and, though wishing to swim, are unwilling to enter the water. There is
only one remedy: we should take the plunge fearlessly. No sooner is this done
[than] we shall realise that all our apprehensions were without foundation.
It is now nearly thirty
years since I first attempted to examine this question as an Indian Musalman.
The majority of the Muslims then were keeping completely apart from the
political struggle, and they were influenced by the same mentality of aloofness
and antagonism which prevailed amongst them previously in the year 1888. This
depressing atmosphere did not prevent me from giving my anxious thought to this
matter, and I reached quickly a final conclusion, which influenced my belief
and action. I saw India, with all her many burdens, marching ahead to her
future destiny. We were fellow-passengers in this boat and we could not ignore
its swift passage through the waters; and so it became necessary for us to come
to a clear and final decision about our plan of action. How were we to do so?
Not merely by skimming
the surface of the problem, but by going down to its roots, and then to
consider our position. I did so, and I realised that the solution of the whole
problem depended on the answer to one question: Do we, Indian Musalmans, view
the free India of the future with suspicion and distrust, or with courage and
confidence? If we view it with fear and suspicion, then undoubtedly we have to
follow a different path. No present declaration, no promise for the future, no
constitutional safeguards, can be a remedy for our doubts and fears. We are
then forced to tolerate the existence of a third power. This third power is
already entrenched here and has no intention of withdrawing; and if we follow
this path of fear, we must needs look forward to its continuance.
But if we are convinced
that for us fear and doubt have no place, and that we must view the future with
courage and confidence in ourselves, then our course of action becomes
absolutely clear. We find ourselves in a new world, which is free from the dark
shadows of doubt, vacillation, inaction, and apathy, and where the light of
faith and determination, action and enthusiasm, never fails. The confusions of
the times, the ups and downs that come our way, the difficulties that beset our
thorny path, cannot change the direction of our steps. It becomes our bounden
duty then to march with assured steps to India's national goal.
I arrived at this
definite conclusion. without the least hesitation, and every fibre of my being
revolted against the former alternative. I could not bear the thought of it. I
could not conceive it possible for a Musalman to tolerate this, unless he has
rooted out the spirit of Islam from every corner of his being.
I started the "Al
Hilal" in 1912, and put this conclusion of mine before the Muslims of
India. I need not remind you that my cries were not without effect. The period
from 1912 to 1918 marked a new phase in the political awakening of the Muslims.
Towards the end of 1920, on my release after four years of internment, I found
that the political ideology of the Musalmans had broken through its old mould
and was taking another shape. Twenty years have gone by and much has happened
since then. The tide of events has ever risen higher, and fresh waves of
thought have enveloped us. But this fact still remains unchanged: that the
general opinion amongst the Muslims is opposed to going back.
That is certain; they
are not prepared to retrace their steps. But again, they are full of doubts
about their future path. I am not going into the reasons for this; I shall only
try to understand the effects. I would remind my co-religionists that today I
stand exactly where I stood in 1912 when I addressed them on this issue. I have
given thought to all those innumerable occurrences which have happened since
then; my eyes have watched them, my mind has pondered over them.
These events did not
merely pass me by; I was in the midst of them, a participant, and I examined
every circumstances with care. I cannot be false to what I have myself seen and
observed; I cannot quarrel with my own convictions; I cannot stifle the voice
of my conscience. I repeat today what I have said throughout this entire
period: that the ninety millions of Muslims of India have no other right course
of action than the one to which I invited them in 1912.
Some of my
co-religionists, who paid heed to my call in 1912, are in disagreement with me
today. I do not wish to find fault with them, but I would make appeal to their
sincerity and sense of responsibility. We are dealing with the destinies of
peoples and nations. We cannot come to right conclusions if we are swept away
by the passions of the moment. We must base our judgements on the solid
realities of life. It is true that the sky is overcast today, and the outlook
is dark. The Muslims have to come into the light of reality. Let them examine
every aspect of the matter again today, and they will find no other course of
action open to them.
I am a Musalman and am proud of that fact.
Islam's splendid traditions of thirteen hundred years are my inheritance. I am
unwilling to lose even the smallest part of this inheritance. The teaching and
history of Islam, its arts and letters and civilisation, are my wealth and my
fortune. It is my duty to protect them.
As a Musalman I have a special interest in
Islamic religion and culture, and I cannot tolerate any interference with them.
But in addition to these sentiments, I have others also which the realities and
conditions of my life have forced upon me. The spirit of Islam does not come in
the way of these sentiments; it guides and helps me forward.
I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of
the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this
noble edifice, and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I
am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender
this claim.
It was India's historic destiny that many human
races and cultures and religions should flow to her, finding a home in her
hospitable soil, and that many a caravan should find rest here. Even before the
dawn of history, these caravans trekked into India, and wave after wave of
newcomers followed. This vast and fertile land gave welcome to all, and took
them to her bosom. One of the last of these caravans, following the footsteps
of its predecessors, was that of the followers of Islam. This came here and
settled here for good.
This led to a meeting of
the culture-currents of two different races. Like the Ganga and Jumna, they
flowed for a while through separate courses, but nature's immutable law brought
them together and joined them in a sangam. This fusion was a notable event in
history. Since then, destiny, in her own hidden way, began to fashion a new
India in place of the old. We brought our treasures with us, and India too was
full of the riches of her own precious heritage. We gave our wealth to her, and
she unlocked the doors of her own treasures to us. We gave her what she needed
most, the most precious of gifts from Islam's treasury, the message of
democracy and human equality.
Full eleven centuries
have passed by since then. Islam has now as great a claim on the soil of India
as Hinduism. If Hinduism has been the religion of the people here for several
thousands. of years, Islam also has been their religion for a thousand years.
Just as a Hindu can say with pride that he is an Indian and follows Hinduism,
so also we can say with equal pride that we are Indians and follow Islam. I
shall enlarge this orbit still further. The Indian Christian is equally
entitled to say with pride that he is an Indian and is following a religion of
India, namely Christianity.
Eleven hundred years of
common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages,
our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and
customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the
stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has
escaped this stamp. Our languages were different, but we grew to use a common
language; our manners and customs were dissimilar, but they acted and reacted
on each other, and thus produced a new synthesis. Our old dress may be seen
only in ancient pictures of bygone days; no one wears it today.
This joint wealth is the
heritage of our common nationality, and we do not want to leave it and go back
to the times when this joint life had not begun. If there are any Hindus
amongst us who desire to bring back the Hindu life of a thousand years ago and
more, they dream, and such dreams are vain fantasies. So also if there are any
Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they
brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also, and
the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fancies which cannot
take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival
may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of
progress.
This thousand years of
our joint life has moulded us into a common nationality. This cannot be done
artificially. Nature does her fashioning through her hidden processes in the
course of centuries. The cast has now been moulded and destiny has set her seal
upon it. Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation, united
and indivisible. No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can
break this unity. We must accept the logic of fact and history, and engage
ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny......
EXCERPTS ARE COURTESY: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/txt_azad_congress_1940.html
THE SPEECH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN 'DOCUMENT 51', 'THE SELECTED WORKS OF MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD', (VOL 1, 1936-42) CHIEF EDITOR RAVINDRA KUMAR, ATLANTIC PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS, NEW DELHI 1991, pp. 96-114
EXCERPTS ARE COURTESY: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00litlinks/txt_azad_congress_1940.html
THE SPEECH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN 'DOCUMENT 51', 'THE SELECTED WORKS OF MAULANA ABUL KALAM AZAD', (VOL 1, 1936-42) CHIEF EDITOR RAVINDRA KUMAR, ATLANTIC PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS, NEW DELHI 1991, pp. 96-114
------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment