FROM MAULANA’S DESK

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE LAST 100 YEARS

Positive Aspirations

BORN in 1925, I have personally witnessed almost a century of the Indian subcontinent’s history. The last 100 years was a period of momentous developments for this part of the world. This period saw the emergence of many ‘towering’ personalities, but in terms of helping the people of the region progress constructively and in a positive way, they have by and large failed miserably.

In the early 20th century, the Khilafat Movement took India by storm. Many ‘big’ Muslim leaders were behind it—people like Mohammad Ali, Shaukat Ali, Abul Kalam Azad, and many others. In the period between the two world wars, the movement was at its peak and it seemed that it had completely shaken the country. But the end result of the movement was one big zero. This was because it was based only on emotionalism. Its zealous leaders had no inkling that the movement for the restoration of the Ottoman Caliph in Turkey (that they were so passionately spearheading in India) had died out ten years earlier in Turkey itself! The secularism of the Turkish leaders, on the one hand and the growing appeal of nationalism among the Arabs, on the other, gave a final burial to the Ottoman Caliphate. In such a situation, the movement for the restoration of the Caliphate was as pointless as trying to bring a dead man back to life, as people who had the vision to see things at that time well knew.

It is astoundingly incomprehensible that while the headquarters of the Ottoman Caliphate (including much of the Arab world) was Turkey, the movement for its restoration was launched in far-off India, which had no link with it political or geographical. But this is precisely what happened, and the Muslims of India made immense sacrifices of their lives and wealth for the movement. Had they sacrificed all this for their own constructive progress, it would have helped improve their conditions greatly.

Stranger still is that the hugely popular leaders of the Khilafat Movement seemed to have no idea that an international political institution like the Ottoman Caliphate could not be established through thunderous speeches and emotion driven writings. An institution of this sort always comes into being through historical causes and factors. History is like a bank. A community or people who have stored their assets in the ‘bank of history’, are the ones in a position to withdraw from it. A community that lacks the vision or insight will get nothing from this ‘bank’.

The establishment of the Turkish Caliphate was no sudden event. Rather, the Turks had, over a period of centuries, developed a political ‘asset’ in the ‘bank of history’. Turk leaders then ‘encashed’ it in the form of the Ottoman Caliphate. Unfortunately the ‘assets’ that the Ottoman Turks had deposited in the ‘bank of history’ dried up towards the end of the 19th century resulting in the collapse of, the Ottoman Caliphate.

From Syed Jamaluddin Afghani (d. 1897) to Abul Kalam Azad (d. 1958), several great Muslim personalities egged Muslims on to sacrifice their lives and wealth in the name of the protection of the Caliphate. They should have known that this was not a matter of protecting a political tradition. It was about ushering in a new history. Muslims lacked the ‘assets’ in the ‘bank of history’ for establishing an international political institution. In such a situation, spearheading a movement to establish an institution like the Ottoman Caliphate was like expecting a rocky, barren patch of land to magically transform itself into a lush garden!

Other movements also emerged during the movement for independence from British rule. Two are of particular relevance in the context of our discussion: the Hindu revival movement, and what can be called a movement for Muslim revivalism. Gauging from their fiery leaders, these movements appear to have been influential, but in terms of results, they produced nothing of value. In fact, their results were completely counter-productive. For example, under Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the movement for Muslim revival succeeded in achieving its goal of a separate state for Muslims in 1947. But this ‘success’ was, in every sense, absolutely unreal. Even before the creation of Pakistan, for all practical purposes—Muslim-majority regions—‘Pakistan’—already existed. The contribution of the Muslim revivalist movement leaders was merely to affix the name ‘Pakistan’ to the former Muslim-majority parts of India. The futility of this movement was further driven home in 1971 when Mr. Jinnah’s lament of a ‘truncated Pakistan’ was further exacerbated with the emergence of Bangladesh, leaving Pakistan weakened.

There were many big names associated with the Hindu revivalist movement—B.S. Moonje, V. Savarkar, Dr. Hedgewar, Guru Golwalkar etc. Many impressive organizations emerged from this movement— for instance, the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which won considerable support among the Hindus. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which has close ideological and organisational links with the RSS, is today the governing political party in India. Hindu nationalist parties have been active over the years enjoying political power at the state and central levels. But, even Hindu commentators acknowledge that they have been unable to steer the country in the direction of construction and progress.

Meant to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem, the natural consequence
of the Partition was only to further worsen the conflict

Partitioning India on the basis of religion in the hope of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem proved to be no solution at all. Looked at from any angle, including religion, this was a disaster, the result of destructive politics.

From the Islamic point of view, Partition had no justification at all. Islam is a universal religion that addresses the whole of humanity. It is not a mere philosophy. Rather, it is a missionary and revolutionary religion. It does not aim to create insurmountable walls between Muslims and non-Muslims by manufacturing a fictitious ‘two-nation theory’, the theory that Muslims and non-Muslims are two separate and opposing nations—which is Pakistan’s official ideology.

Despite this, the movement for the Partition of India gathered pace, and the country’s Muslims lent it their support. In their unthinking Meant to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem, the natural consequence of the Partition was only to further worsen the conflict. 6 Spirit of Islam Issue 32 August 2015 emotionalism, the supporters of this movement declared, ‘What Does Pakistan Mean? [It Means] ‘There is No God But Allah!’ But the fact is that the Pakistan movement was an entirely communal, and not a religious movement. It had nothing whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to do with bearing witness that there is no god but God, the testimony of faith in Islam.

Meant to solve the Hindu-Muslim problem, the natural consequence of the Partition was only to further worsen the conflict. Prior to Partition, this conflict was between two communities. Following the Partition, it transformed into a conflict between two established states. And, as a result, the conflict grew much worse than it was ever thought possible in pre-Partition times.

The Partition led to the creation of artificial boundaries cutting all links between both sides of the border. Communications dried up. Long-established trade routes were suddenly closed. The partitioned countries diverted their precious resources to put each other down. Their primary concern at international meetings was to attack and condemn each other and to hurt each other’s interests. They went to war on several occasions, and have now launched a mutually-destructive nuclear arms race, which was tantamount to economic suicide for both. Neither India nor Pakistan can afford the cost of this senseless race. They are willing to accept the domination of other powers, with whose help, they could decimate each other. But under no condition, it seems, are they willing to reconcile.

Prior to the Partition, the Hindu-Muslim conflict was between two communities. Following the Partition,
it transformed into a conflict between two established states.

Even today, the basic situation remains unchanged. The entire South Asian region is volatile. This has taken a toll on constructive and meaningful progress in the region. I am an incurable optimist, but the situation is so stark that my optimism appears to be no longer based on realities, but, instead, on the aphorism—‘that no matter how long the night may be, the morning is sure to dawn’.

I am 90 years old now and have little hope to see any new future for the Indian subcontinent. Yet, there are some thoughts that I wish to share which I think are essential for a new, constructive beginning for our part of the world.

I believe that India, Bangladesh and Pakistan must form a joint federation under which whilst fully preserving the independence of these three states, their mutual relations will be relaxed. For instance, visa-free travel should be allowed between these countries, as is the case with various Arab countries or in the European Community. Free trade between these countries should be allowed, as well as educational and cultural exchanges.

It is true that these three countries have certain bilateral problems that have been unresolved for decades—a destructive situation for all of them. These issues must be addressed on priority and cannot be ignored any longer. The general approach must be to solve such problems on the basis of acceptance of the status quo.

Given the current political relations, these countries spend much of their precious economic resources on defence or preparations for war. As a result, the entire region is mired in horrific economic and educational backwardness. This warrants an immediate solution. The race towards destruction must be replaced by a race towards constructive progress.

A major reason for the mutually destructive policies of these countries is ‘religious politics’. Let us not deceive ourselves: this ‘religious politics’ is a masquerade for the politics of power and pelf in the guise of religion.

 A major reason for the mutually destructive policies of these countries is ‘religious politics’
which is only a masquerade for the politics of power and pelf in the guise of religion.

It has been rightly said, ‘Politics is the art of the possible’. In the present conditions, the only feasible politics is what is called ‘secular politics’. The state or political activities must focus only on those aspects that are of common, secular or of worldly concern—for instance, promoting literacy, economic development, proper use of natural resources, ensuring high-quality infrastructural facilities and establishing peace. Let every religious group have the freedom to act on the teachings of its faith, provided their religious activities do not become a problem for others. On the condition that they remain within peaceful limits, every person should enjoy religious freedom and live in peace and harmony with each other.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.