The Role of Ulama and Mashaikh in the Pakistan Movement

A. Sattar Khan
A Large Number of celebrated personalities appear on the mental horizon for the role played by them
in the Pakistan Movement. Prominent Ulama and Mashaikh amongst them are Maulana Ashraf Ali
Thanvi, Allama Shafi, Maulaha Muhammad Ibrahim Sialkoti, Pir Ghulam Mujaddid Sirhindi, Amin-ulHasnant Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif, Pir Sahib Zakori Sharif, Pir Jamat Ali Shah, Maulana Sanaullah
Amritsari and a host of others.
The history of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent is replete with participation of Ulama and Mashaikh in
politics in order to defend the cause of faith. Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi did not hesitate to confront with
the royal authority and put his life at stake to light the torch for regeneration of Islamic spirit. It was
kept alive in the through the movement started by Shah Waliullah. In the first half of the 19th century
Shah Abdul Aziz intensified it and made it widespread. Later, Syed Ahmad Barelvi and Shah Ismail
converted it into Jihad Movement for the establishment of an Islamic state in the subcontinent. They
fought against the Sikh rulers of the Punjab and were martyred, fighting valiantly in the valley of
Balakot of spreading the will of Allah.
The components and followers of the martyrs recognized their ranks and led the Muslim against the
British troops in the war of 1857. And even after the war, under inspiration of the teaching of Shah
Waliullah, they continued armed resistance against the British rulers from the tribal territories.
With the beginning of the struggle for location of the country, the concept of separate Muslim
nationhood started fascinating the Muslims on account of the deep-rooted prejudices of Hindus and
growing differences. The Muslims were mentally occupied with future possibilities. For example, what
type of government would be established in India? And in that type of government what would be the
status of the Muslims? With the passage of time this question had become seriously important and
dominated minds of the Indian Muslims. But the Congress leadership always tried to temporize the
matter by saying that after departure of the British it would be settled amicably, but first of all they
insisted on the ouster of the British. The Hindu leaders wanted to leave the matter unsettled as they
knew that after independence, being in absolute majority, they would be in a dominant position to
have the Muslims at their mercy. But the Muslims never tolerated to be dominated. They always
wished to have a respectable place in the future set-up of the country with due respect and regard for
their legitimate rights and religious sentiments.
After the War of 1857 and termination of the Muslim rule, some of the Ulama had established
educational institutions for religious teaching in order to enable the younger generations to protect the
cause of the faith and solve day to day problems of life in the light of the Quran and Sunnah. They had
also started underground movements for the political awakening of the Muslims.
The second decade of the 20th century saw the World War One. At the end of the war the Indian
Muslim had to launch to Khilafat Movement. The insinuation of Khilafat, which was held in the highest
esteem by the Muslims, was associated with the Sultan of Turkey who was regarded as a symbol of
the unity of the Islamic world. After the end of the war, Turkey, which was an ally of Germany, was
being meted out humiliating treatment by the Allies led by Great Britain. The British attitude against
Turkey outraged sentiments of the Indian Muslims. They started Khilafat Movement under Majilis-iKhilafat which became an effective organization of the Muslims. Almost all the prominent Ulama like
Maulana Mauhammad Ali Jauhar, Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Zafar Ali
Khan, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Maulana Abdul Bari of Farangi Mahal,
Sayyed Sulaman Nadvi and Maulana Hussain Hussain Ahmad Madni joined it.
Although the Ulama, by that time, had been taking part in the national politics through the Silk
Handkerchief Movement Tehrik-i-Hijrat and Majlis-i-Khilafat yet they did not have any organized
platform from which they could participate in the political affairs of the country in a systematic way. To
meet this need the Ulama of Deoband fromed an organization, Jamiatul-Ulama-i-Hind in 1919. As a
result of it the Khilafat Movement became widespread and popular amongst the Muslims masses. The
period of Kilafat Movement was also an era of Hindu-Muslim unity though it was short-lived. During
these stormy days both the communities, Hindus and Muslims, were dominated by the only thought of
driving out the British from India. And, in order to achieve this objective the Jamaitul-Ulama-i-Hind
decided to cooperate with the Congress. The issue became controversial; eventually the Jamiatul

Ulama-i-Hind was split into two faction. The pro- Congress faction of the Ulama was held by Maulana
Hussain Ahmad Madni, the well-know theologian of Deoband. They launched a campaign of
propaganda against the Muslim League. In order to counter the propaganda of the nationalist Ulama
effectively, the Council of All-India Muslim League passed the following resolution in its meeting held in
Delhi on 4 December 1938.
In every province and district where the spiritual influence of the Ulama could be utilized for the
purpose, brief Fatwas and manifestoes should be issued on behalf of the Ulama in which the Muslims
should be warned against joining the Congress; and the disadvantages from religious point of view of
any association with the Congress should be clearly and emphatically explained to them. These Fatwas
should be published under the authority of the All-India Muslim League through the agency of the local
League in the language of each province or district.
After the passage of Lahore Resolution, the Indian Muslims had become so keen on establishing an
Islamic state that the U.P. Muslim League appointed a committee of the leading Ulama and prominent
thinkers of Islam in 1940 to prepare a draft of the system and government for it. The committee
consisted such a galaxy of stars as Sayyed Sulaiman Nadvi, Maulana Abu Aala Mauddudi, Maulana
Azad Subhani and Maulana Abdul Majid Darya Abadi.
The anti-Congress faction of the Ulama disassociated itself from the Jamiat and remained aloof from
the Congress movement. They became supporters of the Two-Nation Theory. Their support was a
great source of strength for the League. When in 1942 the Muslim League declared that the state and
government in Pakistan would be based on the tenets of the Quran and Sunnah, the anti-Congress
faction of the Ulama decided to support it. They played a dynamic role in Pakistan Movement and
worked hard to make it popular amongst the Muslim masses. The prominent names amongst the proLeague Ulama were Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, Maulana Zafar Ahmad
Usmani, Mufti Muhammad Shafi.
Now the need of an organization of the pro-League Ulama was seriously felt in order to muster
support for the Pakistan Movement in an organized manner. Therefore, in a big gathering of the
Ulama, in October 1945 at Muhammad Ali Park Calcutta, Jamiatul Ulama-i-Islam was formed which
proved a big landmark in the struggle for the establishment of Pakistan.
With the passage of time some more Ulama started leaving the Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind to join the
Pakistan Movement. The Jamiatul-Ulama-i-Islam established its branches all over the country and the
Ulama started supporting the cause of Pakistan very enthusiastically. By that time another prominent
theologian, Mufti Muhammad Shafi had joined the Jamiatul-Ulama-i-Islam and became a member of
its Central Working Committee. He rendered an all out support to the cause of Pakistan.. Mufti
Muhammad Shafi started a crusade with pen in favour of Pakistan and wrote a number of pamphlets.
He had a conviction that the establishment of Pakistan was inevitable. Besides contributing through his
writings, he made extensive tours of the subcontinent to motivate the Muslims in favour of Pakistan.
His speeches and statements took Muslims by storm everywhere he went. His great efforts to counterinfluence the Congress in the N.W.F.P. on the eve of the referendum of 1947 are unforgettable.
The present discussion would remain incomplete without mentioning the invaluable services of
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi for the cause of Pakistan. He was an extremely revered theologian with a
large number of devotees all over the country. In the beginning, he was against the stand of Muslims
League; but it is said that he was guided in a vision to support the cause of Pakistan. Since then he
became an ardent supporter of the League. According to him, the Quaid-i-Azam was a staunch Muslim
with an irrevocable faith in Islam. He sent a delegation to Patna in 1938 where the All-India Muslim
League was holding its session. It was a golden opportunity for the delegation to meet, discuss and
exchange views with the League leadership. The delegates were immensely impressed by the
integrity, candidness and sincerity of the Quaid-i-Azam which left an indelible mark on the. Maulana
Asharf Ali Thanvi laid a strong emphasis on the need for a powerful Muslim organization which he
believed was very essential under the circumstances. He advised the Muslims to join the League and
strengthen it. He was out and out a supporter of demand of Pakistan and considered it inevitable to
preserve and protect the national entity of the Muslims. In 1938, a couple of years before the passage
of the Lahore Resolution, he foretold the creation of Pakistan. Although he was not alive on the eve of
the creation of Pakistan. Yet the eminent (Ulama trained by him were here the serve and guide the
nascent state.

During the crucial elections of 1945-46 the Jamiatul-Ulama-i-Hind declared to support the Congress
which had rejected the demand for Pakistan and stood for a united India. During this critical juncture
Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani along with his companions lent unflinching support to the League and
pleaded in favour of the Quaid-i-Azam agaist all opposition which had been direct by the nationalist
Ulama. He publically announced his complete and irrevocable faith in the honesty and integrity of the
Quaid-i-Azam. He exhorter the Muslims to vote for the League which was struggling hard to carve out
an independent sovereign Muslim state on the global map. He also warned the common Muslims
against the designs of the Congressite Ulama.
During these elections the League had a very tough time in the N.W.F.P. The Khan Brothers were in
power in the province. They won the elections at the barest margin and succeeded in forming the
provincial government headed by Dr. Khan Sahib. This position continued in the province till the
partition of the subcontinent. And on the eve of the partition when the historic referendum was held in
the N.W.P. the Ulama and Mashaikh put the whole weight of their support and force in favour of the
League. The Quaid-i-Azam specially sent Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani to the N.W.F.P in support of
the League. He along with Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Pir Sahib of Mnaki Sharif and Pir SaHib of Zakori
Sharif intensified the activities in support of the Muslim League and turned the tables of the provincial
political on the Khan Brothers despite a huge propaganda machinery of the Congress backed by its
unlimited financial resources. They conducted stormy tours of distant parts of the province and tribal
areas to mobilize support of the Muslim massas for Pakistan; and successfully explained to them the
rationale of Pakistans demand and ideology. They also portrayed a picture of the coming events and
destiny of the Muslim community in a united India dominated by the caste-ridden and prejudiced
Hindu majority. People soon realized the truth and gravity of the situation. Now, they could easily
perceive overt and covert dangers of living in a Hindu-dominated subcontinent. Thus, the Ulama and
the Mashaikh prepared the Muslim population with a pragmatic approach towards Pakistan where they
would be able to breathe in Islamic atmosphere and where Islam, in its pristine glory, would be
revived. Their earnest efforts succeeded in paving the way for a landslide victory of the League in the
referendum. The referendum was held on 6-17 July and 289, 244 votes were caste in favour of
joining the new Constituent Assembly as against 2,874 for continuing with the existing Indian
Constituent Assembly. It was resounding victory of the League against its arch rivals and anti-Pakistan
forces. The Ulama and Mashaikh played a stupendous role in this victory, which in worth writing in
letters of gold in the annals of the struggle for Pakistan.
Another referendum of the same type was to be held in Sylhet which was under the personal influence
of Maulana Hussain Ahamd Madni who usually passed the holy month of Ramzan in Sylhet. This area,
in fact, was under the deep influence of pro-congress Ulama. Their influence could only be counted
through the Ulama of the same stature. Moreover, in Sylhet, The Muslims were faced with a serious
handicap, for though they formed 60.7% of the population they held only 54.27% votes of the total
electorial role. The Muslim electorates were also handicapped economically. They were generally poor,
whereas the Congress had the backing of the rich people and big businessmen. The Muslim Leagues
choice to counter the influence of pro-congress Ulama fell on Maulana Zafar Ahmad Umsnai who was
in Dacca in these days. The Maulana was very popular amongst the Muslim of Bengal and Assam on
account of his learning, piety and candidness. He toured Sylhet and explained the importance and
need of Pakistan to the Mulisms; worked hard to organize them and generated their support for
Pakistan. Thus, the systematic and organized campaign of the Leauge, in which Maulana Zafar Ahmad
Usmani along with other Ulama played a vital role, resulted in a decisive victory for her. The voting
was 239,619 for separation and joining East Bengal and 181, 041 against separation.
The participation of the Ulama in the Pakistan Movement strengthened Islamic identity of the Muslims;
gave a new turn to the movement and converted it into a battle of choice between Islam and
Hinduism. Besides, the Ulama addressed mammoth publich meetings, oriented them ideologically;
countered political influence of the opponents and whenever needed they also issued Fatwas in favour
of the League. But the Mashaikh, with the exception of a few, did not indulge in active politics. They
instructed their followers and devotees silently and motivated them for the cause of Pakistan. Every
word said by theMaishaikh to their followers was obeyed as law. The splendid services, thus, rendered
by the Mashaikh and Pirs of Alipur, Golra, Sial, Taunsa, Mohra Chaura, Manki and Zakori would always
illuminate annals of the Pakistan Movement.,
The Muslims owe a lot to the services of Pir Jammat Ali Shah for his spiritual and political guidance.
He had millions of followers in the country. He was a staunch supporter of Aligarh Movement for which
he contributed one lakh ruppees. After the passage of Lahore Resolution, he gave all out support to

the Quaid-i-Azam and continued making sterling efforts for the achievement of Pakistan. He made
intensive and extensive tours of the country to generate support for the Muslim League. He advised
his followers to work for the League strenuously; and emphatically declared that he would not lead the
funeral prayers of any devotee if he had not participated in the Pakistan Movement in any capacity. Pir
Jamaat Ali Shah fervently supported the Muslim League during the elections of 1945-46. He had to
make very hard efforts to win support of the All-India Sunni Conference for the Cause of Pakistan.
When the nationalist Ulama criticized the Quaid-i-Azam at the Sunni Conference in 1946, Pir Jamaat
Ali Shah strongly defended him by saying. Think of Jinnah Sahib whatever you like, but I say that
Jinnah Sahib is Wali Allah. Pir Sahib was awarded the title of Ameer-i-Millat for providing a magnetic
lead to Masjid Shaheed Ganj Movement. On the eve of referendum in the N.W.F.P. in 1947, he also
visited the province and mustered support for the League. While presiding over a session of the
Jamiatul-Ulma-i-Islam, Punjab, Pir Jamaat Ali Shah said: Both the Government and the Congress
should carefully note that the Muslims have shaken off their lethargy; now they stand awakened, they
have determined their goal___ Pakistan, and no power on this earth can make them budge from their
demand of Pakistan.
Pir Sahib Manki sharif was a valiant freedom fighter and a strong supporter of the League. He joined
the Muslim League in 1945 to counter Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khans anti-Pakistan activities. He attended
the Sunni Conference held at Banaras an delivered and inspiring speech in support of Pakistan. The
invaluable services which he rendered to the League during the referendum in the N.W.F.P. would
never be forgotten. He was a devoted and sincere companion of the Quaid-i-Azam. In the Conference
of Mashaikh of the N.W.F.P. and the Punjab, held at Peshawar on October 19, 1945, a resolution was
passed through which complete loyalty to the League and an irrevocable faith in the Quaid-i-Azam was
expressed. On this occasion Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif laid strong emphasis on unity among the
Muslims, which, he said, was a dire need of the time. Moreover, he urged upon the Muslims to make
untiring efforts for the achievement of Pakistan where they would live with dignity and honour. He
made it incumbent upon all the Muslims to join and strengthen the Muslim League which was working
for the welfare of the Muslims and the great cause of Islam. On May 30, 1946, while presiding over
All-Pakistan Conference in Bannu, Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif exhorted the Muslims that, If the League
decides to launch a movement, they should be prepared to participate in it. He added that the Muslim
were passing through a very critical period of their existence; therefore, they should be prepared to
undergo every kind of hardship they would have to confront.
During the peak days of the election campaign, Shamas-ul-Ulama Khawaja Hasan Nizami of Taunsa
issued the following statement:
Pir Ghulam Mohyi-ud-Din, Sajjada Nashin of Hazarat Pir Mehar Ali Shah has ordered his followers to
side with the Muslim League. The Jamatul-Ulama-i-Islam of Calcutta has also issued a Fatawa
exhorting all Muslims to support the League, and he who does not abide by it would be sinful.
On January 11, 1946, Maulana Fazal Shah Sajjada Nashin of Jalalpur appealing to the Muslim
community said: The interest of the Millat demands from every Muslim to vote for the Muslim
League. Syed Mohyi-ud-Din Lal badshah, Pir Sahib of Mukhad, also announced to join the Muslim
League. In a letter to the Quaid-i-Azam, setting aside all his personal and political differences, he
offered him his unflinching services and relentless support to the League.
The descendants of Hazrat Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani played a significant role in promotion the cause of
Pakistan movement in Sindh. Hazrat Ghulam Mujaddid Sirhindi, a descendant of Hazart Mujaddid Alf-iSani, was a renowned scholar of Islamics. He had taken part in the Khilafat Movement and courted
arrest along with Ali Brothers in Karachi. He aligned himself with the Quaid-i-Azam in his mission for
achieving an independent state for the Muslims and amalgamated his society Jamait-ul-Mashaikh
with All-India Muslim League. Another organization of the Mashaikh in Sindh, Anjuman-i-Ihya-i-Islam,
too, followed suit and merged itself in the League on the call of the Quaid-i-Azam.
Another celebrated personality from Sindh, who rendered Yeoman service to the cause of Pakistan,
was Shaikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi. He was born in a Hindu family in a small village near Thatta. He
abhorred the Hindu polytheistic practices from the very childhood and was inclined to monotheistic
practices and study of Islamic teaching. He embraced Islam at an early age; after that he became a
staunch Muslim and worked for the welfare of the Indian Muslims.

Sheikh Abdul Majeed Sindhi was a prolific writer and the used his sharp pen against Hindu moneylender, Sindhi waderas and the British. He was an ardent supporter of the Pakistan Movement. He is
credited with drafting a tentative resolution which was adopted in the Karachi Conference of the
Muslim League wherein a separate homeland in the subcontinent was envisaged.
Maulana Sanaullah and Pir Abdur Rehman Maghfuri were also revered persons amongst the Ulama and
Mashaikh who rendered tremendous services to the cause of Pakistan in Sindh. They hailed from the
Punjab. These examples provide enough evidence of the stupendous role played by the Ulama and
Mshaikh in Sindh to champion the cause of Pakistan.
The entire Muslim India was shocked when a murderous attack was made on the Quaid-i-Azam in July
1943. It shook the Ulama and Mashaikh too, who felt very much concerned about the Quaid-i-Azam,
as he was very near and dear to them. Maulana Muhammad Ali Islamil Ghaznavi sent a message of
felicitations to the Quaid-i-Azam on escaping this fatal attempt on his life; condemned this timid act
and expressed his deep gratitudes to Almighty Allah of saving his life. He sent some gifts to Qauid-iAzam as a token of his love and regards for him. Pir Jamaat Ali Shah, at that time was in Hyderabad
Daccan. On hearing the news of this unfortunate incident he sent his disciple, Bakshi Mustafa Khan, as
his personal envoy to Bombay in order to inquire about the Quaids health. He also sent a letter and
some gifts for him which included a copy of the Holy Quran, a rosary and a carpet for offering prayers.
In reply to his letter, the Quaid-i-Azam expressed his thanks to the Pir Sahib and wrote: Since the
blessings and good wishes of the saintly personalities like you are with me, I am bound to succeed.
The Pir Sahib had insisted on him to continue with his mission despite the difficulties; the Quaid-iAzam replied that he would never budge an inch from his mission howsoever difficult it might be and
would continue serving the Muslims.
With the introduction of democracy in British India, election was always keenly contested in the
subcontinent. The elections of 1945-46 were held at a very crucial time and these were to influence
the Muslim demand for Pakistan which was going to reshape the map of India. In those days, the
Punjab was a bastion of the Unionist Party of feudal lords who had a firm grip over the provincial
politics. Here, the League was facing a hard task and its strength was put to a real test. But thanks to
the endeavors of the Ulama and Pirs who came to help the Muslim League in the crucial battle of
election. They joined the election dual with the entire weight of their resources and influences in
support of the Muslim League and played no insignificant role in its success.
In order to express their strong commitment to the Pakistan Movement, the Ulama and Mashaikh from
all over the country issued a common poster bearing their Fatwa which clearly stated that the struggle
for Pakistan was a battle between Islam and Kufr; therefore, it was essential for every Muslim to vote
for the League. The poster was signed by the Pirs of Manki and Zakori and Sajjada Nashins of Ajmer,
Kaliar, Sirhindi, Golra and the Sharine of Hazrat Nizam-ud-Din Aulia. Such electioneering literature was
widely circulated and the messages were transmitted to every Muslim home in urban and rural areas
by the League worker. Prominent among those who shouldered and the messages were transmitted to
every Muslim home in urban and rural areas by the League workers. Prominent among those who
shouldered his responsibility were Abu Saeed Anwar, Maulana Abdul Sattar Khan Niazi, Zaheer Niaz
Begi, Maulana Ghaulam Rasool Janndialwi, Ghulam Nabi Bhullar, Malik ghulam Nabi and Mirza Abdul
Hameed. Besides the League coordinated the support of these Pirs and Ulamas by publishing and
circulating a large number of these Pirs and Ulama by NAWA-I-WAQAT and in other newspapers were
published from Lahore. David Gilmaatin writes; Their support highlighted the religious foundations of
the Leagues position.
The miracle of the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam was that all the religious leaders set aside their
differentiations of sects and beliefs. They were all simple Muslims, valiant fighters of the battle for
Pakistan and comrades of the Quaid-i-Azam. In the Ulama conference held at Islamia College, Lahore,
in January 1946, inspiring sights of unity and homogeneity were witnessed. The prominent religious
leaders of different schools and sects sat together. In their speeches and messages they, even
expressed unity of thought and purpose. Standing united they had gathered so powerful a momentum
that both the Congress and Congressite Ulama were lying tottered before them. The Unionists were
outclassed and the British rulers were completely bamboozled.
The mode of life and its social structure is deeply rooted in the brathari system in the rural Punjab.
The provincial politics were not immune from it. In fact they were deeply embedded In this system.
The religious leaders urged upon their followers to commit themselves strictly to Pakistan without

caring for the tribal or brathari loyalties. The Sajjada Nashin of Ajmer appealing to the Punjab Muslim
said: Your vote is held in trust for the community. No question of caste or conflicts
of bratharies should influence you at the present moment. Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, uncle of an
influential religious leader, reiterated the same sentiments. It is our duty, he said, to erase the
disputes of families and bratharies, and to keep before us at this time only the honour of Islam.
The Pirs had stepped into the political arena in 1945 and early 1946 to fulfil their commitments to the
community in a world where brathari and tribe shaped local, social and political organizations. Many of
them turned the west Punjab; smashed the idols of brathari system and mustered support for
Pakistan. That was enough to change the direction of political wind in favour of the Muslim League.
The son of Pir Jamaat Ali Shah toured Jhelum district in December 1945 and assured Muslim votes for
the League.
In Gujjar Khan, a tehsil of Rawapindi district, the situation was much the same. The Unionist workers
reported that a tour of the brother and son of Pir Fazl Shah of Jalalupur had undermined their position.
The Muslim League captured 75 out of 86 Punjab Muslim seats while the Unionist suffered an
ignominious defeat and had been reduced to an insignificant group of 20. Four Unionists later joined
the League raising its strength to 79 and six went over the independent and other benches, leaving
the Unionists with a petty following of ten. David Gilmartin says that, In areas like Jhelum and
Rawalpindi districts, where touring by Pirs was intense, the League won over 70 percent of rural
Muslim vote. This glorious victory of the League was coupled with a clean sweep of the Muslim urban
constituencies too. The Muslims in the rural areas said good bye to local and tribal consideration which
provided basis for rural politics and made the leagues grand triumph easy. The Quaid-i-Azams
strategy was to challenge the Unionist Party for local control within political structure of the rural
Punjab where he wanted to build a base for Pakistan. In building its base for Pakistan in the rural
Punjab, the League dramatized its claim to speak for a self-conscious Muslim community that
transcended the local identities around which rural politics had been built. The role of the Pirs was
very vital and significant in this process. The rural Muslims looked to the Pirs for religious leadership
and found a powerful political model in them who presented Pakistan as a symbol of the aspirations of
the Muslim nation. According to David Gilmartin; Casting their individual votes for Pakistan came to
signify, for much identification with the broader Islamic community. Thus, the rural Punjab where
politics were firmly controlled by the feudal lords received a big set-back and the League spreaheaded
by the celebrated religious leaders who uprooted the powerful Unionist Party. For this great victory the
Muslim League owes a lot to the titanic efforts and spiritual influence of the Ulama and Mashaikh who
completely changed the course of political tide, made the tough task of the Quaid-i-Azan easier and
made the ultimate creation of Pakistan inevitable.

References
1. Syed S. Sharifuddin Pirzada, Foundaion of Pakistan All India Muslim League Documents,
vol.iii 1906-1947, Royal Book company, Karachi, 1990, p. 286.
2. Chirag-i-Rah: Nazaria -i-Paksitan Number, Karachi , 1960, p.233
3. Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, October 17, 1982.
4. Muin-ud-Din Aqeel, Mausalmanon ki Jidddo Juhid-i-Azadi, Maktaba-i-Tamir-i-Insaniat, Lahore,
1981, p.195.
5. Ibid., p. 195
6. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, University of Karachi, 1969.
7. Jamil-ud-Din Ahmad, Creation of Pakistan, Publisher United Ltd., Lahore. 1976 p.354
8. Ibid., P. 354
9. Nawai-i-Waqt, Lahore, October 20, 1982.
10. Ibid.
11. Gilmartin, David, Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1988, p. 216.
12. Raees Ahmad Jafery Nadvi, Quaid-i-Azam Aur Un ka Ehd, Maqbool Academy, Lahore, 1966, p.
405.
13. Inqilab, Lahore February 9, 1946, cf. Muhammad Hanif Shahid, Islam Aur Quaid-i-Azam,
Lahore, 1976, p. 145.
14. Raees Ahmad Jaferi Nadvi, op. cit., p. 404.
15. Muhammad Hanif Shahid, op. cit., p. 143.
16. Ibid, pp. 144-145.
17. Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, October 20, 1982.
18. Ibid., October 23, 1982.

19. Ibid.
20. Op. cit., p. 215
21. Gilmartin, David, op. cit., pp. 216-217.
22. Ibid., p. 217
23. Ibid., p. 217-18
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., P 221.
26. Ibid., p. 221

Ulema and Pakistan Movement

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent -- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind,
Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active
during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed tooth and nail the
creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and
Ahrar was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus
alien to the philosophy of Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character.
Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them but at the same time they
supported the CongressParty's idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim
political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu
majority. Jamat-i-Islami reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It
rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of nationalism as well as the
Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership
came almost entirely from the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The
Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a Muslim national state. But
during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim
League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of
Muslim populism which drew heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were
made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim state. As a
consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.
[2]
The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of
giving a correct lead in politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively
traditional education and complete ignorance of the complexities of modern life.
It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to
religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth
century.
It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum
Deoband in particular, understood Islam primarily in a legal form. Their
medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox and
traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries
ago by men like (Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism,
couched in the old categories of thought, barred them from creative thinking and

properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting the

Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to
comprehend the crisis Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]
The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was
virtually a secular campaign led by men of politics rather than religion and
Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat Ali Khan who won
Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.
Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with
Congress orientation. They stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims
were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the two nation theory, the
concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through
the establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to
accept under any circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed
out to the students of the Muslim University Union: "What the League has done
is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to create the
opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed
you from that undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of
Molvis as a whole class. There are some of them who are as patriotic and sincere
as any other, but there is a section of them which is undesirable. Having freed
ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the
reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our
women. This is essential. I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West.
What I mean is that they must share our life not only social but also political."
[4]
The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual
conflict with intelligentsia. The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he
tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred of them, including Maulana
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was unlawful
to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim
community proved wiser than the religious elite and decided to follow the
political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.
The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came
to a head during the struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly
opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the concept of Pakistan. It is an irony

of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him, faced the
opposition of the Ulema.
The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and
Mazhar Ali Azhar -- seldom mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name
which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the insulting sobriquet
Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions
passed by the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on
3rd March 1940, disapproved of Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches
of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as "palidistan". The authorship of the
following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading
personality of the Ahrar:
Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora
Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.[6]
(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great
leader or a great non-believer)
During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the
leading personalities of the Muslim League and accusing them of leading unIslamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they could drop and pick up
at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in
their dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they
were pitted against the Muslim League, their sole consideration was Islam. They
said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to Islam but an enemy of it.
After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the
All India Majlis-i-Ahrar passed a resolution dissolving their organization and
advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as their leader and join the
Congress Party.[8]
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as
Na Pakistan (not pure). In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the
remotest reference in support of the demand for Pakistan. The pre-independence
views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami were
quite definite:
"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists
Muslims, namely those who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian

Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims Nationalist: namely those who are
little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are concerned with
the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has
come to exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of
their accidence of birth in that nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these
types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins faith in truth only; it
does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]
Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new
Muslim state, if it ever came into existence, could only be secular. In a speech
shortly before partition he said: "Why should we foolishly waste our time in
expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in
setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but
will rather prove an obstacle in our path." [10]
Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in
convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of united nationalism was
suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan movement was complex
and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied:
"Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any
differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can participate because
partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been interested in
patch work."[11]
He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the
Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in
the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because
Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national
entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind
was that Muslim loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done
only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay
only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August 1941).[12]
However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the
circumstances in which the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.
The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw
nothing Islamic in the idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad
Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of Darul Ulum Deoband opposed
the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus were

one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within
national boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims
were obliged to be loyal to the nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim
fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should endeavor jointly for such a
democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Parsis
are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the
view that in the present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and
not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from
joining the Muslim League.
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism
with all enthusiasm and started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp
rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938
started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and the
adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that
he did not accept Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume
that office and give the statements that could be exploited by the Muslim League
for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the Cabinet Plan
that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the subcontinent with safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the proCongress Ulema that their interests would be better safeguarded under a united
India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism.
However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim
personal law, by getting a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the
Muslim personal law would be administered by qadis (judges) who were
appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]
In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the
subcontinent, the Congress strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema-iHind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant non-League Muslim groups
as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[19]
Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress
pursued an anti-Muslim League policy in another direction with the help of
Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the Muslim League out of
power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken.
Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever

movement of contacting the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the
leadership that sought to protect them from the fate of becoming totally
dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their
continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -was organized in 1937 with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]
Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the
Congress creed. The Molvis, having no voice in the molding of the Congress
policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve the real difficulties of
the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress.
The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among
the Muslim masses by carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the
leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this Muslim mass contact
movement failed.
It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against
joining the Congress. Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief
spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949),
a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of good
repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it
with a few other Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-iUlema-i-Islam established in 1946 to counteract the activities of the Jamiat-iUlema-i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on following the
lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the
demand for Pakistan.
Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was
worried that the end of British domination should not become for the Muslims
the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived through the past experience
that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within the
same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A
homeland is an identity and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not
have served the cause of universal brotherhood by losing their identity, which is
what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept the
political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious
past and linked it unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood.
This more than anything else damaged the growth of Muslim nationalism and
retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent.[22]

The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found
themselves completely isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for
emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on grounds of territorial nationalism
was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They did not
realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an
ethnic, linguistic or religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority
through any election.[24]
The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences.
They developed a penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their
progressive alienation from the people, who while paying them the respect due to
religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their influence on
the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public
affairs shrank simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies
and lost touch with the realities of contemporary life.[25]

Muslim religious organisations of the sub-continent -- Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Majlis-i- Ahrar- i-Islam and
Jamat-i-Islami [1]-- were politically very active during the struggle for Pakistan but all of them opposed
tooth and nail the creation of a separate homeland for the Muslims. The opposition of Jamiat and Ahrar
was on the plea that Pakistan was essentially a territorial concept and thus alien to the philosophy of
Islamic brotherhood, which was universal in character. Nationalism was an un-Islamic concept for them
but at the same time they supported the CongressParty's idea of Indian nationalism which the Muslim
political leadership considered as accepting perpetual domination of Hindu majority. Jamat-i-Islami
reacted to the idea of Pakistan in a complex manner. It rejected both the nationalist Ulema's concept of
nationalism as well as the Muslim League's demand for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
The most noteworthy feature of the struggle for Pakistan is that its leadership came almost entirely from
the Western-educated Muslim professionals. The Ulema remained, by and large, hostile to the idea of a
Muslim national state. But during the mass contact campaign, which began around 1943, the Muslim
League abandoned its quaint constitutionalist and legalist image in favor of Muslim populism which drew
heavily on Islamic values. Wild promises were made of restoring the glory of Islam in the future Muslim
state. As a consequence, many religious divines and some respected Ulema were won over.[2]
The Muslim political leadership believed that the Ulema were not capable of giving a correct lead in
politics to the Muslims because of their exclusively traditional education and complete ignorance of the
complexities of modern life. It, therefore, pleaded that the Ulema should confine their sphere of activity to
religion since they did not understand the nature of politics of the twentieth century.
It was really unfortunate that the Ulema, in general and the Darul Ulum Deoband in particular, understood
Islam primarily in a legal form. Their medieval conception of the Shariah remained unchanged, orthodox
and traditional in toto and they accepted it as finished goods manufactured centuries ago by men like
(Imam) Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf. Their scholasticism, couched in the old categories of thought, barred
them from creative thinking and properly understanding the problems, social or philosophical, confronting
the Muslim society in a post-feudal era. They were intellectually ill-equipped to comprehend the crisis
Islam had to face in the twentieth century. [3]
The struggle for Pakistan -- to establish a distinct identity of Muslims -- was virtually a secular campaign
led by men of politics rather than religion and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his lieutenants such as Liaquat
Ali Khan who won Pakistan despite opposition by most of the Ulema.
Jinnah was continuously harassed by the Ulema, particularly by those with Congress orientation. They
stood for status quo as far as Islam and Muslims were concerned, and regarded new ideas such as the
two nation theory, the concept of Muslim nationhood and the territorial specification of Islam through the
establishment of Pakistan as innovations which they were not prepared to accept under any
circumstance. It was in this background that Jinnah pointed out to the students of the Muslim University
Union: "What the League has done is to set you free from the reactionary elements of Muslims and to
create the opinion that those who play their selfish game are traitors. It has certainly freed you from that
undesirable element of Molvis and Maulanas. I am not speaking of Molvis as a whole class. There are
some of them who are as patriotic and sincere as any other, but there is a section of them which is
undesirable. Having freed ourselves from the clutches of the British Government, the Congress, the
reactionaries and so-called Molvis, may I appeal to the youth to emancipate our women. This is essential.
I do not mean that we are to ape the evils of the West. What I mean is that they must share our life not
only social but also political." [4]
The history of the Ulema in the sub-continent has been one of their perpetual conflict with intelligentsia.
The Ulema opposed Sir Syed Ahmad Khan when he tried to rally the Muslims in 1857. Nearly a hundred
of them, including Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, the leading light of Deoband, ruled that it was
unlawful to join the Patriotic Association founded by him. However, the Muslim community proved wiser

than the religious elite and decided to follow the political lead given by Sir Syed Ahmad.
The conflict between conservative Ulema and political Muslim leadership came to a head during the
struggle for Pakistan when a number of Ulema openly opposed the Quaid-i-Azam and denounced the
concept of Pakistan. It is an irony of history that Jinnah in his own days, like Sir Syed Ahmad before him,
faced the opposition of the Ulema.
The Ahrar Ulema -- Ataullah Shah Bukhari, Habibur Rahman Ludhianawi and Mazhar Ali Azhar -- seldom
mentioned the Quaid-i-Azam by his correct name which was always distorted. Mazhar Ali Azhar used the
insulting sobriquet Kafir-i-Azam (the great unbeliever) for Quaid-i-Azam. One of the resolutions passed by
the Working Committee of the Majlis-i-Ahrar which met in Delhi on 3rd March 1940, disapproved of
Pakistan plan, and in some subsequent speeches of the Ahrar leaders Pakistan was dubbed as
"palidistan". The authorship of the following couplet is attributed to Maulana Mazhar Ali Azhar, a leading
personality of the Ahrar:
Ik Kafira Ke Waste Islam ko Chhora
Yeh Quaid-i-Azam hai Ke hai Kafir-i-Azam.[6]
(He abandoned Islam for the sake of a non-believer woman [7], he is a great leader or a great nonbeliever)
During the struggle for Pakistan, the Ahrar were flinging foul abuse on all the leading personalities of the
Muslim League and accusing them of leading un-Islamic lives. Islam was with them a weapon which they
could drop and pick up at pleasure to discomfit a political adversary. Religion was a private affair in their
dealings with the Congress and nationalism their ideology. But when they were pitted against the Muslim
League, their sole consideration was Islam. They said that the Muslim League was not only indifferent to
Islam but an enemy of it.
After independence, the Ahrar leaders came to Pakistan. But before coming, the All India Majlis-i-Ahrar
passed a resolution dissolving their organization and advising the Muslims to accept Maulana Azad as
their leader and join the Congress Party.[8]
The Jamat-i-Islami was also opposed to the idea of Pakistan which it described as Na Pakistan (not pure).
In none of the writings of the Jama'at is to be found the remotest reference in support of the demand for
Pakistan. The pre-independence views of Maulana Abul Ala Maududi, the founder of the Jamat-i-Islami
were quite definite:
"Among Indian Muslims today we find two kinds of nationalists: the Nationalists Muslims, namely those
who in spite of their being Muslims believe in Indian Nationalism and worship it; and the Muslims
Nationalist: namely those who are little concerned with Islam and its principles and aims, but are
concerned with the individuality and the political and economic interests of that nation which has come to
exist by the name of Muslim, and they are so concerned only because of their accidence of birth in that
nation. From the Islamic viewpoint both these types of nationalists were equally misled, for Islam enjoins
faith in truth only; it does not permit any kind of nation-worshipping at all.[9]
Maulana Maududi was of the view that the form of government in the new Muslim state, if it ever came
into existence, could only be secular. In a speech shortly before partition he said: "Why should we
foolishly waste our time in expediting the so-called Muslim-nation state and fritter away our energies in
setting it up, when we know that it will not only be useless for our purposes, but will rather prove an
obstacle in our path." [10]
Paradoxically, Maulana Maududi's writings played an important role in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia

that the concept of united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims but his reaction to the Pakistan
movement was complex and contradictory. When asked to cooperate with the Muslim League he replied:
"Please do not think that I do not want to participate in this work because of any differences, my difficulty
is that I do not see how I can participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have
never been interested in patch work."[11]
He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he was convinced that the Muslims would be
drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more
in Islam than in Muslims: because Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a
national entity but because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim
loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who did sincerely
believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. Hence he founded the Jamat-i-Islami (in August
1941).[12] However, Maulana Maududi's stand failed to take cognizance of the circumstances in which
the Muslims were placed [13] at that critical moment.
The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the most prestigious organization of the Ulema, saw nothing Islamic in the
idea of Pakistan. Its president, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, who was also Mohtamim or principal of
Darul Ulum Deoband opposed the idea of two-nation theory, pleading that all Indians, Muslims or Hindus
were one nation. He argued that faith was universal and could not be contained within national
boundaries but that nationality was a matter of geography, and Muslims were obliged to be loyal to the
nation of their birth along with their non-Muslim fellow citizens. Maulana Madani said: "all should
endeavor jointly for such a democratic government in which Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and
Parsis are included. Such a freedom is in accordance with Islam." [14] He was of the view that in the
present times, nations are formed on the basis of homeland and not on ethnicity and religion.[15] He
issued a fatwa forbidding Muslims from joining the Muslim League.
Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani accepted the doctrine of Indian nationalism with all enthusiasm and
started preaching it in mosques. This brought a sharp rebuke from Dr. Mohammad Iqbal. His poem on
Hussain Ahmad [16] in 1938 started a heated controversy between the so-called nationalist Ulema and
the adherents of pan-Islamism (Umma).
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a member of Indian National Congress regrets that he did not accept
Congress president ship in 1946, which led Nehru to assume that office and give the statements that
could be exploited by the Muslim League for creation of Pakistan and withdrawal of its acceptance of the
Cabinet Plan that envisaged an Indian Union of all the provinces and states of the sub-continent with
safeguards for minorities. [17] He had persuaded the pro-Congress Ulema that their interests would be
better safeguarded under a united India, and that they should repose full confidence in Indian nationalism.
However, they should make efforts to secure for themselves the control of Muslim personal law, by getting
a guarantee from the Indian National Congress, that the Muslim personal law would be administered by
qadis (judges) who were appointed from amongst the Ulema.[18]
In a bid to weaken the Muslim League's claim to represent all Muslims of the subcontinent, the Congress
strengthened its links with the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the Ahrars and such minor and insignificant nonLeague Muslim groups as the Momins and the Shia Conference.[19]
Along with its refusal to share power with the Muslim League, the Congress pursued an anti-Muslim
League policy in another direction with the help of Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind . It was not enough to keep the
Muslim League out of power. Its power among the people should be weakened and finally broken.
Therefore, it decided to bypass Muslim political leadership and launch a clever movement of contacting
the Muslim masses directly to wean them away from the leadership that sought to protect them from the
fate of becoming totally dependent on the sweet will of the Hindu majority for their rights, even for their
continued existence. This strategy -- called Muslim Mass Contact Movement -- was organized in 1937

with great finesse by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. [20]

Congress leaders .... employed Molvis to convert the Muslim masses to the Congress creed. The Molvis,
having no voice in the molding of the Congress policy and program, naturally could not promise to solve
the real difficulties of the masses, a promise which would have drawn the masses towards the Congress.
The Molvis and others employed for the work tried to create a division among the Muslim masses by
carrying on a most unworthy propaganda against the leaders of the Muslim League. [21] However, this
Muslim mass contact movement failed.
It is pertinent to note here that a small section of the Deoband School was against joining the Congress.
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (1863-1943) was the chief spokesman of this group. Later Maulana Shabbir
Ahmad Othmani (1887-1949), a well-known disciple of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and a scholar of
good repute, who had been for years in the forefront of the Jamiat leadership quit it with a few other
Deoband Ulema, and became the first president of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam established in 1946 to
counteract the activities of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind. However, the bulk of the Deoband Ulema kept on
following the lead of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani and the Jamiat in opposing the demand for
Pakistan.
Contrary to the plea of the nationalist Ulema, the Muslim intelligentsia was worried that the end of British
domination should not become for the Muslims the beginning of Hindu domination. They perceived
through the past experience that the Hindus could not be expected to live with them on equal terms within
the same political framework. Therefore they did not seek to change masters. A homeland is an identity
and surely the Muslims of the sub-continent could not have served the cause of universal brotherhood by
losing their identity, which is what would have inevitably happened if they had been compelled to accept
the political domination of the Hindus. The Ulema thought in terms of a glorious past and linked it
unrealistically to a nebulous future of Muslim brotherhood. This more than anything else damaged the
growth of Muslim nationalism and retarded the progress of Muslims in the sub-continent.[22]
The nationalist Ulema failed to realize this simple truth and eventually found themselves completely
isolated from the mainstream of the Muslim struggle for emancipation. Their opposition to Pakistan on
grounds of territorial nationalism was the result of their failure to grasp contemporary realities. [23] They
did not realize that majorities can be much more devastating, specifically when it is an ethnic, linguistic or
religious majority which cannot be converted into a minority through any election.[24]
The Ulema, as a class, concentrated on jurisprudence and traditional sciences. They developed a
penchant for argument and hair splitting. This resulted in their progressive alienation from the people, who
while paying them the respect due to religious scholars, rejected their lead in national affairs. While their
influence on the religious minded masses remained considerable, their impact on public affairs shrank
simply because the Ulema concentrated on the traditional studies and lost touch with the realities of
contemporary life.[25]
The conflict between the educated Muslims and the Ulema was not new. It started in the early years of
British rule and reached its culmination during the struggle for Pakistan. Since the movement for Pakistan
was guided by the enlightened classes under the leadership of a man who was brought up with western
education, the prestige of the Ulema had been badly damaged.[26]
The Muslims Renaissance in the sub-continent began with Shah Waliullah (1702-63) who started probing
into the past and thinking in terms of the future. During the decline of Muslim power, Shah Waliullah
emerged as an outstanding scholar-reformer who predicted a return to the original purity of Islam. He was
not just a scholar of theology and law, but a social thinker with a keen sense for economic reforms.
Without economic justice, he asserted, the social purpose of Islam could not be fulfilled. He emphasized
the need for ijtihad, decrying the convention of closing the gates of ijtihad. He criticized the contemporary

Ulema for their elaborate rites and rituals, which he believed, were not part of the Shariah, but un-Islamic
innovations.[27]
Then came Sir Syed Ahmed Khan with his message that the Muslims could not progress without
acquiring knowledge of modern sciences and technology. He asserted the simple truth that knowledge is
not the exclusive preserve of any nation, it belongs to the whole mankind. Quickly he was dubbed a kafir
(non-believer) by a section of Ulema. But Sir Syed Ahmed, in spite of all the calumny that was heaped on
him, refused to be browbeaten. He maintained a valiant posture and succeeded in realizing the
intellectual energy of a nation. As more and more Muslims got educated in the western sciences the hold
of the Ulema over the Muslim community began to weaken.
The leadership of the Muslim community had passed out of the hands of the Ulema after the Rebellion of
1857. The Ulema stood aloof, except for the issuance of a fatwa, supporting the entry of the Muslims into
the Congress, when Sir Syed Ahmed opposed it. The Muslim nation followed the political lead of Sir Syed
Ahmad, in the nineteenth century and rejected the Ulema. But in religion they followed the Ulema and
rejected Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. Much the same happened in the 40's of the twentieth century. The Indian
Muslims followed the political lead given to them by Jinnah (who could have been a knight like Sir Syed
but he resolutely refused both title and office during the British rule) who had no pretensions to leadership
in the sphere of religion. [28] The Muslim community was wiser than the ostensible defenders of its faith,
culture and existence. It rejected their advice and followed others who were more realistic, more wide
awake, better informed and more in line with the history of the community.[29]
After independence the conflict between the intellectuals with liberal orientation and the Ulema
manifested itself in a judicial enquiry conducted by Justice Mohammad Munir in Lahore anti-Qadiani riots
in 1953. The learned judge said something which the intellectuals and politicians had for long refrained to
say openly. The enquiry findings, known as the Munir Report, publicized the fact that the Ulema were not
only unfit to run a modern state but were deplorably unable under cross-questioning even to give realistic
guidance on elementary matters of Islam. The court of enquiry was presented with the sorry spectacle
that Muslim divines differed sharply on the definition of a Muslim yet each was adamant that all who
disagreed should be put to death.[30]
At one point the report emphasized: " But we cannot refrain from saying here that it was a matter of
infinite regret to us that the Ulema whose first duty should be to have settled views on this subject, were
hopelessly disagreed amongst themselves." [31] The result of this part of the enquiry, however, has been
but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our Ulema on such a simple matter,
one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matter will be.
"Keeping in view the several definitions given by the Ulema, need we make any comment except that no
two divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has
done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam.
And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the Ulema, we remain Muslims according to the view of
that Alim but Kafirs (unbelievers) according to the definition of every one else." [32]
"The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-e-Hadith nor Barelvis are
Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic state with the
penalty of death if the government of the state is in the hands of the party which considers the other party
to be Kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge the consequences of this doctrine when it
is remembered that no two Ulema have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim."[33]
The creation of Pakistan was the greatest defeat of the "nationalist" Ulema. But soon after the
establishment of Pakistan power-monger Ulema raised their voice in the political field with new
modulations. They argued that Pakistan was created to establish an Islamic state based on traditional

Shariah law. However, the irony of the argument that Pakistan was founded on religious ideology lies in
the fact that practically every Muslim group and organization in the Indian subcontinent that was specially
religious -Islamic - was hostile to Jinnah and the Muslim League, and strongly opposed the Pakistan
movement. [34] The claim of the Muslim League to be the sole representative of the entire Muslim
community in India was gravely weakened by the opposition of the most important group of Indian
Ulema. [35] A great deal of effort was devoted by Muslim League leaders to winning over the Ulema.
Eventually they succeeded in doing so, but only partially, and only when the creation of Pakistan was just
over the horizon.[36]
A claim that Pakistan was created to fulfill the millenarian religious aspirations of Indian Muslims is
therefore contradicted by the fact that the principal bearers of the Islamic religion in India were alienated
from the Pakistan movement. Conversely, the English-educated leaders of the Pakistan movement, not
least Jinnah himself, were committed to secular politics. [37]
Some zealous religious activists are now attempting to distort the role of Ulema in the struggle for
Pakistan. [38] As the old generation is gradually vanishing from the political scene of the country
these Ulema are now being projected as the co-founders of Pakistan. "In some cases even the
name of Quaid-i-Azamhas been eliminated and all the credit for the establishment of Pakistan is
being bestowed upon these Ulema." [39] In recent years, there has been a systematic attempt by
Mullahs and the rightist lobby to misrepresent Jinnah on Islam and they have tried hard to buildup an
image of the father of the nation as a religious bigot. He is being projected by Mullahs, who once branded
him as Kafir, as an Islamic fundamentalist.
In a TV discussion on Shariah bill in April 1991, two prominent Molvis of Lahore, Maulana Abdul Qadir
and Mufti Mohammad Hussain Naeemi, implied that the Shariat bill was "the will of the Quaid. " They
claimed that the rule of Quran and Sunnah was pledged by the Quaid and that Mullahs never opposed
Pakistan since it was to be a religious rather than a national state. One of them said "was it not said that
Pakistan ka matlab kia: La Ilahah Illallah." [40]
However, the fact is that this oft quoted statement is an election slogan coined by a Sialkot poet - Asghar
Saudai. But it was never raised by the platform of the Muslim League. First and the last meeting of All
Pakistan Muslim League was held under the chairmanship of the Quaid-i-Azam at Karachi's Khaliqdina
Hall. During the meeting a man, who called himself Bihari, put to the Quaid that "we have been telling the
people Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illallah." "Sit down, sit down," the Quaid shouted back. "Neither I
nor my working committee, nor the council of the All India Muslim League has ever passed such a
resolution wherein I was committed to the people of Pakistan, Pakistan ka matlab....., you might have
done so to catch a few votes." This incident is quoted from Daghon ki Barat written by Malik Ghulam Nabi,
who was a member of the Muslim League Council. The same incident is also quoted by the Raja of
Mehmoudabad. [41]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------REFERENCES
1. After independence "some of the Ulema decided to stay in India, others hastened to Pakistan to lend a helping
hand. If they had not been able to save the Muslims from Pakistan they must now save Pakistan from the Muslims.
Among them was Maulana Abul Aala Maududi, head of the Jamat-i-Islami, who had been bitterly opposed to
Pakistan." Mohammad Ayub Khan, Friends not Masters, P-202
2 Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State in Pakistan, p-66
3. Ziya-ul-Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the Demand for Pakistan, p79-80

4. Speech on Feb. 5, 1938

5 Afzal Iqbal, Islamization of Pakistan, p-28
6. Ibid. p-54
7. Alluding to Quadi-i-Azam's marriage to a Parsi girl.
8. Munir Report, p-256
9. Maulana Maududi, Nationalism and India, Pathankot, 1947, p-25
10. The Process of Islamic Revolution, 2nd edition, Lahore 1955, p-37
11. Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Tehrik-i-Adazi-e-Hind aur Mussalman (Indian Freedom Movement and Muslims), pp 2223
12. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics, p-368
13. Ibid., p-368
14. Zamzam 17.7.1938 cited by Pakistan Struggle and Pervez, Tulu-e-Islam Trust, Lahore, p-614
15. Ibid. p-314
16. Hasan (rose) from Basrah, Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Rome, Deoband produced Husain Ahmad, what
monstrosity is this? He chanted from the pulpit that nations are created by countries, What an ignoramus regarding
the position of Muhammad! Take thyself to Muhammad, because he is the totality of Faith, And if thou does not reach
him, all (thy knowledge) is Bu Lahaism.
17. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his biography, India Wins Freedom, fixes the responsibility for the partition of India,
at one place on Jawaharlal Nehru, and at another place on Vallabh-bhai Patel by observing that "it would not perhaps
be unfair to say that Vallabh-dhbai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." H.M. Seervai, Partition of India: Legend
and Reality, p-162
18. Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, op. cit., p-328
19. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p-237
20. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, Ulema in Politics p-334
21. Justice Sayed Shameem Hussain Kadri - Creation of Pakistan - Army Book Club, Rawalpindi ,1983 -- p-414
22. Ayub Khan, op. cit., p-200
23. According to Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, the present state of affairs of the Moslem world. Dr. Iqbal said: "It seems to me
that God is slowly bringing home to us the truth that Islam is neither nationalism nor imperialism but a league of
nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for facility of reference only and not for restricting
the social horizon of its members." (Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, p-159) Dr. Iqbal had apparently in
mind the following verse from the Holy Quran: O Mankind ! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a
female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. (49:13)
24. Qureshi, op. cit., p-378
25. Afzal Iqbal, Islamization in Pakistan, p-26
26. Ayub Khan, op. cit.,p-202

27. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Modern Islam in India, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963, p-173
28. Afzal Iqbal, op. cit., p-29
29. Qureshi, op. cit., p-383
30. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in History, p-215
31. Munir Report, p-205
32. Ibid. p-218
33. Ibid. p-219
34. Anita M. Weiss, Reassertion of Islam in Pakistan, p-2
35. Leonard Binder, Islam and Politics in Pakistan, University of California Press, 1961, p-29
36. Anita M. Weiss, p-21
37. Ibid. p-21
38. When Pakistan appeared on the map, they (Ulema) found no place for themselves in India and they all came to
Pakistan and brought with them the curse of Takfir (calling one another infidel). Munir, From Jinnah to Zia, p-38
39. Prof. Rafi-ullah Shehab - The Quaid-e-Azam and the Ulema - The Pakistan Times, Islamabad 25.12.1986.
40. Ahmad Bashir, Islam, Shariat and the Holy Ghost, Frontier Post, Peshawar, 9.5.1991
41. Ibid.

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/ulema-and-pakistan-movement.305745/#ixzz3zNrYXMgl