SIR Syed Ahmad Khan

Sir Syed’s legacy

MUHAMMAD ALI MUSOFER

SIR Syed Ahmad Khan, a prominent 19th-century Muslim scholar, thinker and reformer of the Indian subcontinent, is vastly admired for his sharp observation of the challenges that faced his society. He is also appreciated for his daring intellectual and pragmatic response to the challenges of the time.

                                   

He has written diversely; however, his advocacy for modern/science education and his bold steps to reinterpret Islamic thought are considered his most prominent legacy. Yet it appears that these legacies have not received due attention as today, the Muslim societies of South Asia are facing the same challenges that Sir Syed highlighted over a century ago.

Despite having a traditional educational background, Sir Syed realised that the landscape of knowledge was being reshaped due to rapid developments in science and technology. He was convinced that without a scientific approach, no society would be able to contribute to knowledge in the contemporary world. He urged Muslims of the subcontinent to learn science and new languages in order to keep pace with the world. He not only tried to convince Muslims to get a modern education, he also took practical steps by establishing schools, colleges and a university.

Sir Syed was aware that scientific thinking/development required a rational approach. He was of the view that the traditional way of thinking would not help Muslims enter the arena of modern knowledge. He therefore urged them to develop a rational approach to scientific knowledge. He took bold steps to realign Islamic thought with science by highlighting rational aspects of Islamic teaching and history.

To revive this aspect of Islamic thought, he attempted to link and build on the rational traditions of the Mutazila and other Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd. To highlight the importance of rational thinking, Syed Ahmad Khan wrote extensively in Urdu and his exegesis of the Holy Quran is viewed as one of the prominent examples of rational interpretation of scripture in the modern age.

To align Muslim religious thought and scientific knowledge, Sir Syed asserted that scientific knowledge did not contradict religion. He stressed that there were two realms of knowledge: the ‘word of God’ (scripture) and the ‘work of God’ (the universe). The holy scriptures are the word of God and are understood through theology and religious practice. The universe is the work of God that is explored and understood through scientific knowledge. Hence, he emphasised that scientific knowledge is as important as religious knowledge to understand the mysteries of God’s creation.

Today, it is observed that the Muslim societies of South Asia are facing the same challenges as they were in the 19th century. Lack of education and a narrow religious worldview are still amongst our daunting problems. In Pakistan, Sir Syed is viewed as one of the important leaders of independence. However, education has never been the priority of successive governments and today, we face huge challenges in educating the younger generation in Pakistan; for example, the country is said to have the second highest number of out-of-school children.

In our educational institutions, Sir Syed is discussed as an independence hero through superficial discussions on his life. His original work and thoughts are hardly taught even at the university level, therefore, very few are aware of his original works.

Sir Syed’s rational approach to faith faced huge opposition from the ulema of his time. Today, strong sentiments are still found that undermine a rational approach to religion. Hence, lack of ratio­nal thinking and the narrow interpretation of faith leads to religious intolerance.

Looking at the challenges of Mus­lim societies like Pakistan, Sir Syed’s thoughts and prescriptions still seem relevant to deal with the gigantic educational and social challenges. In this regard, conscious steps are needed to be taken at multiple levels.

First, at the government level Sir Syed’s thoughts need to be reflected in polices of education and social contract. Serious steps need to be taken to educate people about his thoughts through different sources such as reprinting his books and conducting serious research on the scholar’s works and thoughts. Second, Sir Syed’s thoughts need to be introduced at educational institutions by teaching his original works. Furthermore, the media should play a role in promoting the rational thoughts/works of Sir Syed in order to highlight the intellectual tradition of Muslims.

In sum, Sir Syed — being a thinker and reformist — had unique views about the issues facing his society. Today, Muslim societies as in Pakistan are facing huge challenges in educating the new generation and dealing with religious intolerance and polarisation. The powerful intellectual and practical legacies of Sir Syed can be instrumental in dealing with these issues by making them part of the state’s policies and society’s practices.

The writer is a freelance contributor with an interest in cultures and religion.

Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2015

Danial Latifi

Smokers’ Corner: The mysterious ideologue on Jinnah’s left

NADEEM F. PA

                                       

Till the early 1940s, the All India Muslim League (AIML) was still far from being the sole political representative of India’s Muslims. The Muslims of the region — who constituted about 20 per cent of India’s population at the time — were being represented by various political parties and outfits. Till 1945 the AIML was just one of these parties.

Other parties in this regard were the centre-right Unionist Party and right-wing religious outfits such as the Muttahida Majlis-i-Ahrar, the Jamiat Ulema Hind; the radical Khaksar; and, to the a certain extent, the Jamaat-i-Islami (that was formed in 1941).

Other than these, a number of Muslims were also supporters and members of the Indian National Congress (INC), and the left-wing Pakhtun nationalist organisation (in the former NWFP), the Khudai Khidmatgar.

Ever since 1940, the AIML (led by the refined lawyer and politician, Mohammad Ali Jinnah), had increasingly pushed for the idea of creating a separate nation-state for the Muslims of India, carved out from the Muslim-majority areas of the region.

The party saw the INC as a Hindu-dominated entity that would (in post-colonial India) usurp the political and economic interests of the region’s Muslims.

But till 1944 the AIML had only managed to attract the attention of certain sections of urban Muslim youth in North India and East Bengal.

The party’s increasing focus on propagating a separate Muslim state was entirely rejected by the INC and even by various Muslim outfits including the Unionist Party, the Khudai Khidmatgar as well as by the Islamic parties.

The first to really warm up to AIML’s idea of a separate Muslim country — apart from certain sections of North India’s urban bourgeoisie — was the Muslim majority region of East Bengal.

But the AIML was aware of the fact that to truly become the largest Muslim party in India, it will have to make inroads into another important Muslim-majority region: the Punjab province.

The AIML was extremely weak here. The province was the bastion of the Unionist Party that was a centre-right outfit being led by members of Punjab’s Muslim landed elite and also had the support of the region’s Hindu and Sikh populations.

The Unionists were also being backed by the British colonialists. The INC was strong here among the province’s Hindus, and there was also a party representing the Sikh population of Punjab (Akali Dal).

The Unionist Party was Punjab’s largest Muslim party; but in many rural areas of the province, radical Islamic outfits such as the Majlis-i-Ahrar too enjoyed support.

The AIML had performed dismally in the two elections that were held in the Punjab in the 1930s. Desperate to bag widespread support for the AIML in the province, Jinnah agreed to a suggestion made to him by Mumtaz Daultana — a leading member of the party in the province.

Daultana recommended that certain sympathetic Muslim ideologues belonging to the Communist Party of India (CPI) be brought into the AIML fold. The CPI had exhibited support for the AIML and saw the party as being revolutionary and anti-colonial (as opposed to communal); and that it was more in a position to carry out radical reforms and policies compared to the INC that the CPI termed as being ‘counter-revolutionary.’

Investigating CPI’s thesis in this regard is not the purpose of this piece.

Nevertheless, according to Daultana, the CPI men had the experience and the skills to organise AIML in the Punjab and successfully disseminate its message and appeal.

In 1944, after getting the go-ahead from Jinnah, Daultana brought in a few CPI ideologues that immediately joined the AIML in the Punjab.

One of them was a slightly-built but intense and high-strung lawyer called Danial Latifi.

Latifi was born in Lahore and travelled to Oxford University in England to study law. After returning to India, he joined the CPI. He was one of the most vocal members of the CPI who advocated that the party support AIML. In 1944 he resigned from the CPI and joined the AIML.

A committed Marxist and socialist ideologue, Latifi urged AIML to draft a strong message that could immediately get the attention of Muslims in Punjab. As a result, Daultana asked him to author the party’s manifesto.

Latifi did that. The manifesto was approved by Jinnah in 1944. It’s a remarkable piece of writing in which Latifi tries to tackle claims made by the INC and the Unionists as well as by the Islamic parties that were opposing the League.

In this pursuit Latifi married ideas of bourgeoisie Muslim economic advancement (through meritocracy) to Mohammad Iqbal’s idea of ‘spiritual democracy’.

According to the manifesto, the League would promote policies that would benefit and encourage the enterprising economic spirit of the Muslim middle-classes, and at the same time protect the Muslim masses from the oppression of the Hindu, Muslim and British Colonial elites.

Latifi also expressed the League’s idea of a separate Muslim state as an organ that would eventually transcend and resolve religious differences in the region, because a Muslim-majority state (or a state constructed by a minority community in India) was inherently more equipped to appreciate religious plurality, harmony and diversity than a state dominated by a large Hindu majority.

Furthermore, Latifi envisaged the League’s idea of the state as something that had a soul. According to him the state (under the League) “will be the alter-ego of the national being and in good time the two would merge to form an ordered and conflict-free society …”

Latifi’s manifesto was put in the forefront of AIML’s campaign during the 1946 provincial election in the Punjab. Latifi used CPI’s contacts in the province’s student and peasant communities and this helped AIML to successfully organise its own organs within these communities. The influential Muslim spiritual leaders (pirs) of the province quickly fell in line, abandoning the Unionist Party.

On the eve of the 1946 election, AIML had been dramatically turned into a robust and populist party that went on to defeat the Unionists. It won 73 seats. Unionists could only win 20.

This victory finally propelled the party into becoming India’s largest Muslim outfit and eventually helped it carve out a separate Muslim country called Pakistan (1947).

Ironically, Latifi, who was one of the architects of this victory and a passionate supporter of Pakistan’s creation, did not move to the new country. He was constantly asked why, but he always refused to answer this question.

Latifi was a good friend of famous Indian writer, Khushwat Singh. In fact, one of the main characters in Singh’s celebrated novel about India’s partition (1956’s Train to Pakistan) is entirely based on Latifi.

Singh described Latifi to be a man who ate very little but who was always absorbed by his own thoughts and just could not stop talking about Marxism!

Latifi married a Syrian Christian woman and after Pakistan’s creation he remained in India and began to study Islamic law. He quit politics and became a prominent lawyer representing trade unionists, leftist activists and working-class Muslims.

After his first wife passed away, he married Pakeezah Begum — a descendant of the last Moghul emperor.

Latifi passed away in 2000 at the age of 83. Most in the know claim that he never visited Pakistan. But none of them seem to know why.

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, May 24th, 2015

Abdullah Haroon

Leader with vision 

by sHARIF AL MUJAHID

AMONG the All-India Muslim League’s (AIML) second-cadre leadership, Abdullah Haroon, who died on April 27, 1942, has a prominent position. What sets him apart is his role in conceptualising Pakistan as it came to be embodied in the Lahore Resolution (1940). To quote Reginald Coupland, Haroon was “the only Muslim politician of any standing who had so far [till early 1939] taken a public part in the constitutional discussion” on the Pakistan proposal. Thus, though he did not live long enough to see his “dream” materialise, he is reckoned among Pakistan’s founding fathers.

By late 1938, when he seriously launched his campaign to popularise the Pakistan idea, Haroon had been in politics and in public focus for some 25 years. Along with political activities, Haroon had helped to build institutions in the education, health and social welfare sectors that would make groups and communities become self-contained and self-sustaining. Cosmopolitan in outlook and approach, he reached out beyond the parameters of Sindh, to help sustain worthy causes. His philanthropy extended to the entire subcontinent and the Middle East.

Haroon’s politics were ancillary to his human resource development campaign. And once securely established in business, which he was by the late 1890s, he became increasingly involved with civic activities in Karachi. Later, he became proactive in the major political organisations — the Indian National Congress (1917), the All-India Khilafat Committee (1919-29), Sind Provincial Political Conference (1920-30s), the All-Parties Con­fe­rence (1928), the All-Parties Muslim Confere­nce (1930-34), the Azad Sindh Conference (1930), and the Muslim League (1937).

His electoral defeat in 1937 caused him to wind up the Sind United Party that he had established with Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto in 1936 to take part in provincial elections. While Bhutto opted for a safe sanctuary in Bombay, Haroon chose to face the music. He decided to take part, once again, in all-India politics — a decision at once momentous and fateful.

The emerging political scenario was obviously unchartered and unpredictable, yet he was determined to canalise the minuscule Sindhi political elite towards playing its due part in all-India politics. He had the foresight to look at the problems of Sindh through an all-India prism, and to establish organic linkages between Sindh and the larger pan-Indian Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim politics, encompassed by AIML.

He, therefore, joined the Muslim League in 1937, established contacts and rapport with its top leadership at Lucknow in October 1937, and organised it at various tiers in the province. To a point, assisted by Shaikh Abdul Majid and Pir Ali Muhammad Rashidi, he was able to successfully organise the First Sind Provincial Muslim League Conference in Karachi, early in October 1938.

In terms of the themes and the participants’ standing, it was an all-India moot, except for it nomenclature. Presided over by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it saw the participation of a galaxy of Muslim leaders drawn from the NWFP to Hyderabad Deccan, from Bombay to Bengal. Indeed, it read like a who’s who of Muslim India at the time.

Here, Haroon, who headed the Reception Committee, called the shots. His welcome address, which set the tone for the conference, was quite radical: it was in favour of an ideological goal. Without adequate safeguards for the minorities, said Haroon, the Muslims would have no option but “to seek their salvation in their own way in an independent federation of Muslim states”. He warned that, “We have nearly arrived at the parting of the ways and … it will be impossible to save India from being divided into Hindu India and Muslim India, both placed under separate federation.” This was indeed radical stuff.

Interestingly, the main resolution at the conference was cast in Abdullah Haroon’s mould. Though watered down in the Subjects Committee deliberations as Jinnah was not in favour of revealing much before the Muslims were organised and public opinion was galvanised, the resolution had nevertheless enough clout to warrant attention.

Briefly stated, the concept of separate Muslim nationhood was spelled out not only in a political way but also on an intellectual plane, laying down in categorical terms the ideological basics and the basis of that nationhood. Never before had the Hindus and Muslims been officially pronounced by the League as two separate nations. It called for “the political self-determination of the two nations known as Hindus and Muslims”. This explains why Coupland had singled out Haroon as having made a significant contribution, leading to the demand for partition.

In perspective, then, the resolution sought to break new ground; it was truly epochal. Indeed, it represented the penultimate step to, and prepared the ground for, the adoption of the Lahore Resolution by the AIML in March 1940. And herein lies the significance of Haji Abdullah Haroon as a trendsetter.

The writer is HEC Distinguished National Professor.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2015