Indian Political Thought Presentation-

Reading: Dynamics of Muslim Political Thought by Moin

Shakir.

Submitted by- Maanya, Jayne, Samriddhi, Suhasni, Isha, Nikita, Shreya, Surmayi
and Mahi.

Muslim political thinking in the 19th and 20th centuries constitutes a part and parcel of what is called
Indian Political thought. The author opens the argument with the emphasis that Muslim and Indian
political thought are not necessarily distinct and the inherent differences present are due to several
external factors.
One of them being the British perception who recognised Indians on the basis of their ethnic, religious
and cultural identities, another element was the nature of national movement. Muslim political
thought may be analysed in terms of the Muslim response to colonialism and its effects or in terms of
the desire of the Muslims to develop and consolidate their positions in the emerging polity. The
presence of the British raj indeed was the determining factor of MPT. It is true that the British were
“the unconscious tool of history” in causing a social revolution in India wherein the ‘ancient’ world
was lost and the ‘new’ one was to emerge. It was claimed that British made an outstanding
contribution in making India modern, industrial, democratic and secular. The entire liberal thought of
which the great spokesmen were Sir Syed, Abdui Latif, Ameer Ali etc, revolved around these ideas.
The particular article is specifically written in context of the colonial policies, the development of
national movement, colonial economic and administrative measures as these influenced the Muslim
political thinking as well as the variations that existed within this tradition of political thinking.
The author begins by highlighting the fact that the time frame taken into account was around the
national movement before Indian became independent and at that time Muslims constituted a
significant number of the Indian population.
Within the Muslim communities’ different sects (like the shias, sunnis, bohras, khojas, memos)
existed. A significant point to be noted here is that the division between elites and masses were real
even between the Muslims as it was among the Hindus. For instance, the Hindu and Muslim
zamindars more often than not were against the Hindu and Muslim peasants. Another pointed to be
noted here is that the effects of the colonial policies had a great degree of variation. For instance,
among Muslims belonging to different regions, the experiences of the people of Bengal were different
when compared to people of UP. Similarly, the response of the lower classes of Muslim community to
colonialism and colonial changes was not like the upper classes. These conflicting patterns of
influence was visible in their political formulations as well. 
Thus Muslim Political Thought of this period also had multiple strands. The Muslim lower class
adhered to old politico-religious thinking and social institutions and considered the ‘purity’ doctrine
as supreme, and opposed everything representing the British. The upper-class Muslims, on the other
hand, focused on striking a compromise with the British and forging a share in power.  The Wahabis
and Faraizis, however, promised economic benefits to the poor peasantry and focused on cultivating
and labouring classes. The Ulemas represented by the Khilafat agitation and Deoband school.  They
held that supporting the British meant accepting slavery, and that went against the principles of Islam.
They focused on developing anti-imperialist strategies. They supported the cause of the unity of
people irrespective of their religious beliefs, proposed the idea of composite nationalism and saw
territorial consideration was seen as the most important. 
The Pro-Imperialist thought found expression in Sir Syed's Aligarh Movement which had its roots
in the characterisation of British rule as "emancipatory", "progressive" and "democratic".
The movement aimed at proving that Islam went hand in hand with reason and progress. According
to this belief, a good government should not have anything to do with religion and a sincere religion
is above worldly affairs. 
According to Sir Syed, western notions of Democracy and nationalism were not viable for a country
like India due to its diverse nature. He believed that amidst caste distinctions and antagonism
between religions- the introduction of elections would be a risky step and that it could not be safely
adopted. Since he was of the opinion that the larger community would override the interests of the
smaller communities and it may all play out in a way that we reach a situation wherein the difference
of race and creed is more violent than ever. Here, a parallel could be drawn between him and Raja
Rammohan Roy, however, unlike the Hindu Social Reform Movement, Sir Syed's movement did not
achieve notable success. To analyse the weakness of it we should also take into account the nature of
the two religions- Hinduism and Islam. For liberals Islam is a way to serve one’s interest and
supporters of Sir Syed Proposed the similarity between Shariat and English laws with same motive of
providing security, and denied opposition of British rule on religious ground. 
Liberals were vocal about their hatred towards lower classes as portrayed in Sir Syed speech in
Lucknow, where he made it evident that to be at a dignified position, like owner of property wealth or
honour, government official, or even the ability to share office with them was limited to Nobel men of
upper class, and that Indians would not like lower men to have authority. Therefore, Protection of
aristocracy and upper caste interest was kept above equality. 
But questions arose on how did partition happen with such prevalent differences within one
community, and how did Jinnah become the leader for all? With validity of Islam as an ideology, this
became possible according to the anti-imperialist tradition.  Whereas for imperialist the Interaction
between progressive religion and liberal politics is important and justified islamisation of language
and idioms of politics by early 20th century.
 Leaders like Abdul Kalam Azad, Mohamed Ali were concerned about the impact of contemporary
situation in context to which even Marx wrote about tradition being applied to islamisation in India.
By explaining the intersection between the old traditions along with past generations and the
revolution of contemporary times where one always goes back to native language until and unless all
the ties are broken and the language is forgotten. 
The process of Islamisation was strengthened by the upward mobility and the increasing access to
education of the underprivileged (like the Sunnis in UP leading to the Shia-Sunni problem) as they
asserted themselves politically. Muslims, now rejected typical local customs, wanted to learn Urdu,
and preferred Muslim culture.
Islamisation influenced the political process by bridging linguistic, economic and regional differences
and generating solidarity within the community. While the antagonism with the imperial rule
remained, decision making power was transferred to the middle-upper class intelligentsia. The stress
was now on elaborating the ‘historical’ ‘spiritual’ differences between Hindus and Muslims leading to
Jinnah’s two nation theory. Notably, the politicisation of religion did not benefit the poor as it kept the
exploitative economic structure intact.
Islamisation also affected the ideological and social character nationalist movement as it weakened
the consolidation of the educated middle and upper class in the positions of leadership within the
movement. Very few Muslim members of this class joined the movement. The liberal, extremist and
Gandhian strategies towards the communal problem was one of forging pacts between the leaders and
not involving the masses in the process
This denial of participation led to the flourishing of communal movements outside the nationalist
discourse and in opposition to it.
The constraints of electoral politics led to the further alienation of the masses as the middle- and
upper-class leaders assumed importance- this was exacerbated by separate electorates. Thus, it is
argued the national movement was dominated by middle- and upper-class interests. The national
movement was however dominated by the middle and the upper class, promoting the interests of the
zamindars and the Indian capitalist and cornering the peasantry and asking them to abide by the
agreements made with the zamindars.
The Indian bourgeoisie did not see the mass movement as a threat to its interests as long as it was
confined within the limits that did not threaten its hegemony over social development. Further the
ideology of the national movement and the functioning of the Congress promoted the Islamised and
exclusive image of the Muslim middle class and upper class. In the forties, the Muslim league did not
only receive patronage and support but was also backed by several Muslim bourgeoisie. Several
businesses families having connections throughout the nation helped Jinnah like the Ispahanis in
Calcutta and Adanjee from Gujarat, who also financed the Muslim league paper," Stars of India and
Dawn ".
Moreover, the Muslim league promised hedging off a part of India, so that small Muslim industrialists
could thrive and the Muslim could find employment.
G.D Birla who supported the Hindu lobby within the congress, wrote in a letter to Desai, he did not
think the idea was impractical or against the interests of the Hindus. Thus, the character of movement
and the congress, the aspirations of the Muslim upper class, were the bases that shaped the consensus
of the Muslim masses and noble of the community. In addition, the political thought of Mohammed
Iqbal and Jinnah clearly reflected the basic characteristics of this emerging political situation. 
The understanding of Muslim political thought can be developed further by grasping the essentials of
Abul Kalam Azad and Abal Ala Maudoodi. Azad was a fundamentalist and believed secularism and
democracy.  He rejected the "Aligarh Tradition " of loyalism and attempted to provide an Islamic
programme of unity and participation in the national movement. His beliefs were influenced by that of
Jamaluddin Afgani and Shibli Numani. He was convinced over the course of time witnessing several
tragedies that an imperialist rule could not be democratic.  Ergo he sided the Indian national congress
fighting for the political independence of the country.  Abul Kalam Azad was a democrat and secular
in politics, he rejected Aligarh Tradition of loyalism and instead tried for Islamic Unity in the national
movement. This Islamic Programme reflected ideas of Jamaluddin Afghani and Shibli Numani. His
views of Islam did not conflict with anti-imperialism or territorial nationalism. Numerous incidents
like the Jallianwala Bagh and annulment of Bengal partition convinced him that imperialist rule could
never be democratic. Azad found himself siding with the Indian National Congress for political
independence. The end of the institution of Khilafat marked the end of the romantic phase of
Muslim politics. Along with highlighting the futility of spiritualised politics and pan-Islamism as an
instrument for independence. Azad cited a prayer of the Prophet about the truth of brotherhood and
how differences created within people are humanmade, irrespective all of us have been united
together by God, by the single bond of humanity. Wherein Azad concludes that Islam fosters
nationalism and the idea of avoiding communal and racial prejudices. Unlike his contemporaries,
Azad urged individuals to view their positions and interests as peasant or zamindar, labourer or
capitalist as opposed to Hindus and Muslims since equality of opportunity and economic freedom
were of importance. 
He viewed Islam as a liberating force opposing slavery, wherein he concluded that there lies no
conflict between democracy and Islam. The concept of Khilafat means representations, hence under it,
a nation can have free will, unity, suffrage and elections. 
People have the right to rebel against a government founded on untruth and injustice. He highlighted
the fact that they were in an age of democracy and the spirit of equality and fraternity, and hence
Asian countries must reconstruct along the same lines. Azad is often unjustly rejected (as Muslim
League Leaders did) or wrongly accepted (as anti-Muslim League Leaders did). 
Although Azad’s political thought would have served the interests of the upper classes, his leadership
was not accepted as the Muslim League’s politics of ‘religion in danger’ and the promise of an
Islamic State worked with the masses. On the other hand, Congress wrongly tried to project Azad as
the Muslim Leader, which failed since he supported bourgeoise hegemony. Abu Musleh inspired
Madoodi’s concepts of Islam, Indian politics and his approach towards the past. Madoodi propagated
the movement called Jammat-e-Islami with the main aim of the movement as establishment of rule of
god on earth.  Madoodi’s notion of Islam is that it is a religion which determines the relation between
man and goes as well as man and man and is a complete guide to life and conduct. He propagated the
idea of all Muslims belonging to one and same community UMMAT and all Islamic countries as one
single unit because of the spiritual bonds. According to him greatest obstacles to Islam are western
system and communism. Western system because it focuses on utilitarian morality and materialist
welfare and seeks to make man independent and sovereign and replaces the sovereignty of god with
sovereignty of man. Western concepts of nationalism and democracy are socially selfish and
unaccountable because they are embedded in the sovereignty of people. While Islam believes in
sovereignty of god and franchise is a violation of the fundamental principle of unity and supremacy of
god. 
According to Madoodi, Communism is an obstacle because unlike communism Islam upholds
institutions of private property and ownership. Several implications of Madoodi’s interpretations of
Islam and Islamic politics are view that fight against British was futile and not the ‘right path’ as per
Islam. Objectives of freedom movement were un-Islamic and anti-Islamic. Madoodi talks about
Islamic socialism which is similar to hitler’s national socialist and his ideas are anti-secular, anti-
democratic.