Author’s Note

Nearly a decade and a half ago, I was entrusted with writing a history of the Muslims of Bengal. The plan was to write the history of this long period from the Muslims’ first arrival in Bengal up to the Partition of India in 1947. It was specifically requested, however, that I mention in the history, with reliable evidence, how the British government and the Hindus treated the Muslims after the British had seized governing power. After writing the history up to the Government of India Act, 1935, I found no time at all to take up my pen again. I offer countless thanks to Allah Almighty for recently enabling me to complete the work of writing this history after several years of labor and effort.

I have included not the slightest untruth, fabrication, or exaggeration anywhere in this history. It may be bitter to many, but I have tried to record nothing but the truth throughout.

Because I was a devoted student of history, an inclination to learn and write true history had arisen in my mind from that time. While I was a fourth-year B.A. student at Rangpur Carmichael College, I wrote a research paper in English on Akbar and Aurangzeb. Despite some opposition and obstacles, the paper was published in the college magazine.

After completing my education, twenty-five years of my life passed in government and private employment. I was completely deprived of the opportunity to undertake any research on history. Rather, I gradually began to forget history itself. In carrying out the responsibility entrusted to me a decade and a half ago, I have had the opportunity to study history anew.

History infuses a nation with vitality. To destroy a nation, its past history must be made forgotten or presented in distorted form. If a so-called Muslim does not have the opportunity to acquire a correct understanding of Islam and remains ignorant of his nation’s past history, words hostile to Muslims and Islam will come from his mouth—words that a non-Muslim would think long and hard before uttering. The number of such consummate fools among Muslims is steadily increasing, and the sworn enemies of the Muslims are welcoming them with garlands of flowers.

To preserve the existence of the Muslim national identity, it is absolutely essential to undertake a broad effort to impart to the new generation both a correct knowledge of Islam and a correct understanding of its true past history. The fundamental principles of Islam have been discussed briefly in the history of the Muslims of Bengal where relevant. To resist the cultural aggression of hegemonic and expansionist forces, the study of history and the essence of Islamic culture must be brought before people at every level.

The Muslim way of life is an eternally striving life. There is no place in Islam for shying away from struggle. Therefore, one must play a leading role in the struggle against forces opposed to Islam and Muslims. Otherwise, the nation will be crushed under the millstone of the enemy’s oppression and slowly perish.

The History of the Muslims of Bengal recounts nearly two hundred years of Hindu persecution and injustice against Muslims. Some may call the account of the past fabricated. Do they not see what is happening in India today? Do they not notice that Muslims are being exterminated there in the horrific riots occurring continually? The verdict of the judicial inquiry commission formed for the riots that recently took place in Bombay has been published. The commission’s verdict held the police responsible for assisting the rioters. It also criticized the discriminatory conduct of the state government and the prime minister. After this, where is the security of the lives and property of Muslims in India, a country of extreme Muslim-haters? Perhaps a true history of these events will be written in the future.

It is a matter of profound regret that, as part of a conspiracy, the new generation of the nation has been kept completely ignorant of its past history. The specter of this conspiracy had also settled firmly upon the shoulders of Pakistan’s rulers in the post-Partition period. The new generation was told nothing about why Pakistan came into being, what its ideological background was, why the Pakistan Movement was pursued tirelessly and uncompromisingly for seven long years, or why millions of women, men, and children crossed a sea of blood and took refuge in Pakistan.

From 1952 to 1962, I had to serve as the headmaster of a high school. The history textbooks of that time made no mention of the history of the Pakistan Movement. As a result, the foundations of Pakistan continued to weaken for various other reasons. The people’s dissatisfaction and resentment toward Pakistan and its rulers grew, ultimately resulting in the secession of Pakistan’s eastern region and its emergence as the independent country of Bangladesh.

This history draws the attention of the new generation to the glorious past of the Muslim nation. The history of the Muslim nation did not begin at some particular point in time and end at another particular point. This history began with the arrival in the world of the first human being, Adam (peace be upon him). From then until today, it has continued uninterrupted, passing through the rises and falls of time, age, and circumstances, and it will continue as long as the world exists. Muslims must move forward by learning from their past history.

To write this history, I gathered material from the works of many renowned historians. For this, I shall remain eternally grateful to them all. Furthermore, since the Bangladesh Islamic Center has undertaken the publication of this book, I express my boundless and heartfelt gratitude to its director, my deeply respected friend, Professor A. K. M. Nazir Ahmad Sahib.

Respected readers, if you can gain some instruction and Islamic inspiration from this book, I shall consider the several years of my perseverance and labor worthwhile. May Allah Almighty accept this book—Ameen.

Dhaka, 15 Jumada al-Awwal

17 Kartik

1 November 1993.

The Author

The History of the Muslims of Bengal

Chapter One

The Arrival of Muslims in Bengal

Determining when the Muslims first arrived in Bengal, and the date of that arrival, is an extremely difficult task. There is no doubt that recovering it from the scattered heaps of ancient history is a very arduous undertaking. Nevertheless, I believe historians ought to devote attention to this task.

The Muslims who came from the outside world to the Indian subcontinent at that time can be divided into two groups. One group came to various regions of India for the purpose of trade and commerce and preached the sublime message of Islam. Some saints, dervishes, and jurists came solely to invite people to Islam and propagate it, spending their entire lives in this noble work and ultimately dying here.

Another group of Muslims came as conquerors, on campaigns to conquer the country. Their victories led to the political establishment of Muslims in this land. Needless to say, in 712 CE, Muhammad bin Qasim first came to India’s Sindh Province as a conqueror, and this was a great political victory for Islam. His conquest did not remain limited to Sindh Province; rather, it extended as far as Multan in Punjab. We shall insert its account in the appropriate place.

On the other hand, although the Muslims may have arrived in Bengal at some auspicious moment in the distant past, they achieved political establishment in 600 AH, that is, in 1203 CE. During the reign of Qutbuddin Aibak, then emperor of India, Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji achieved his political establishment in Bengal—one might say, almost miraculously. Detailed accounts of both these political victories of the Muslims are recorded in the pages of history. But it is also an incontrovertible truth that, long before these events, the seed of Islam had been sown in this land, and that the planted seed germinated and later grew into a great tree. The real task, however, is to determine when this occurred, something that is especially desirable for every inquisitive student of history. Let us try once to see whether some indication can be found on the historical horizon.

Before the advent of Islam, the Arabs were not merely a barbarous, quarrelsome, and bloodthirsty people. Rather, those among them who were noble and wealthy engaged in trade and commerce for their livelihood. In their desert land, they had always had to engage in trade and commerce in order to obtain food and other daily necessities for sustaining life. The group of merchants who rescued Joseph (peace be upon him) from the well and sold him to a noble royal official in Egypt were Arabs. Thus, the Arabs’ commercial profession was extremely ancient and extended across distant lands.

The Arabs conducted their trade by both land and sea routes. With camels by land and ships by sea, they traveled from country to country for the purposes of commerce. Even in the pre-Islamic era, they had extended their sphere of trade on the one hand by sea to Abyssinia and on the other to distant China in the Far East. Midway between Arabia and distant China lay one of their coastal districts. Geographically, the entire peninsula was called Malabar. In the records of Arab geographers, it is called Malibar (Arabic****).

Maulana Akram Khan says in his work ‘The Social History of Muslim Bengal’:

“The name of present-day Malabar is found mentioned in the modern Greek word MALI. But the encyclopaedia editor’s conclusion that the complete name ‘Malabar’ was given by the Arabs is quite reasonable. In our view, Malabar is an Arabic word—Malay + abar = Malabar. In Arabic transcription, (Arabic ***) Malay + abar. Malay is primarily the name of a mountain, while abar means a group of hills and a reservoir. The Arabs also called this country Ma’bar (Arabic *****) . Its meaning is a place of crossing, a ferry crossing. In present-day geography, these are the Eastern Ghats and Western Ghats. Since Arab merchants and sailors crossed these two ranges while travelling to Madras and the Hijaz, and travelled from Egypt to China and to other cities and ports along the route, these two names also show that their acquaintance with this country was very ancient and their relationship with it very close.” (The Social History of Muslim Bengal, pp. 47–48).

Long before the arrival in the world of the Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him), large numbers of Arab merchants had come to this country (Malabar). They travelled constantly along this route—that is, through Malabar—to Chittagong, and from there through Sylhet and Kamarupa to China. Thus Chittagong in Bengal and Sylhet in the Assam of that time were also used as bases for their journeys. It is quite clear from this that Arab settlements had been established in places such as Malabar, Chittagong, and Sylhet even in the pre-Islamic era.

In the latter part of the sixth century CE, the Prophet Mustafa (peace be upon him) was born in the city of Mecca in Arabia, and at the age of forty—that is, at the beginning of the seventh century—he began preaching the religion of Islam. His preaching movement was extremely revolutionary. It goes without saying that the waves of this revolution reached Malabar, Chittagong, Sylhet, and China through Arab merchants. Just as one group fiercely opposed the revolutionary movement of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), another group also embraced this movement wholeheartedly. The Arabs of Malabar most probably accepted Islam at the very beginning of the Hijri era. It is also a historical fact that, up to the seventh century, the message of Islam was spread in Asia and Africa by Arab merchants.

The Arab immigrants who settled permanently in Malabar after accepting Islam became known as Mappilas. Fishing with small and large boats and transporting goods and passengers were their principal means of livelihood. At times, they had to cross the Indian Ocean and travel to Arabia to earn a living and meet other needs. In this way, they came into contact with the revolutionary call of Islam.

I intend to discuss the Mappilas in a later chapter. Here I wish to say only this much about them: they were extremely industrious and persevering. They possessed handsome and sturdy physiques. They have long been renowned for their courage. They grew beards and wore caps, and many of them belonged to the fishing community; their principal task was to spread the message of Islam among the fishermen.

The influence of Islam gradually became evident even among Malabar’s non-Arab inhabitants. At that time in India, the followers of Buddhism and Jainism were subjected to cruel and inhuman persecution by Hindu Brahminism. In the face of these persecutions and oppressions, the companionship and close association of Muslim holy men attracted them to Islam.

The principal reason for the rapid spread of Islam among Malabar’s non-Arab inhabitants was the local king of Malabar’s acceptance of Islam. A remarkable account of the Malabar king’s acceptance of Islam has been related.

Maulana Akram Khan says in the work mentioned earlier:

“Some references to Malabar are found in the ancient scriptures and literature of Hindu society. The esteemed editor of the Encyclopaedia has quoted many of them. Most of these are nothing more than some bizarre legends about the deeds of Parashurama, quoted from the Mahabharata and the Puranas. However, this encyclopaedist himself has mentioned a particular incident concerning Malabar’s Hindu king. He says: It is known from history that the last king of the Chera kingdom, Cherumal Perumal, deliberately renounced the throne and went to Mecca with the intention of embracing the Muslim religion—(Encyclopaedia 14:234).”

The book Tohfatul Mujahideen, written by Sheikh Zaynuddin, also gives an account of a king’s journey to Mecca, his appearing in the presence of the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and his voluntarily accepting Islam. From this account it is learned that it was well known among the local Muslims that the king of Malabar had travelled to Mecca and, appearing before the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), had taken the pledge of allegiance to Islam from him.”

The Maulana further comments in his aforementioned work:

“Even if there are disagreements about the details of the time and place, and even if they are considered unbelievable, there is no reason to dismiss as baseless the account of the king’s going to Mecca, appearing in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), staying in Mecca for some time, and then travelling back to his homeland. It can in no way be considered reasonable to dismiss as unhistorical and baseless a tradition that all the inhabitants of a country, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, have collectively carried from time immemorial. In this connection, the account in the Encyclopaedia deserves particular consideration. The encyclopaedist says: ‘It is known from history that the last king of the Chera (Malabar) kingdom, Cherumal Perumal, deliberately renounced the throne and went to the city of Mecca with the desire to embrace the Muslim religion.’ Therefore, it cannot at all be reasonable to dismiss as baseless the account that the king of Malabar voluntarily abdicated the throne, appeared before the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and accepted initiation into the religion of Islam.” (The Social History of Muslim Bengal)

Now, in accordance with the account in Sheikh Zaynuddin’s Tohfatul Mujahideen, the account in the Encyclopaedia, and the age-old tradition of all the inhabitants of Malabar, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, there should be no hesitation or reluctance in accepting the king’s conversion to Islam as true. But one question nevertheless remains in the mind. It is this: why has such a major event not been described in any book of hadith? Of course, Sheikh Zaynuddin mentions several narrators in his account. But according to the hadith scholars, it has been stated that they are ‘not free from doubt.’ What, then, was the actual matter? If the event is considered entirely baseless, there is no question of its being mentioned in the hadith books. But it is not surprising that, just as the Arab immigrants of Malabar accepted Islam in large groups in the first Hijri year, the king of Malabar may perhaps have abdicated the throne and accepted Islam together with those Arab immigrants. It is also not impossible that his identity was concealed after he abdicated the throne—and for this reason, perhaps, his acceptance of Islam did not arouse any curiosity among the Companions. Nevertheless, the author of Tohfatul Mujahideen has mentioned several hadiths and narrators.

After the Arab immigrants of Malabar and the local king accepted Islam, the local people of Malabar were also attracted to Islam and accepted it in groups. Ten mosques were then built one after another in Malabar. The first mosque was built at Karnakror (Kodungallur), or Cranganore, the capital of Perumal, by Malik ibn Dinar. Mosques were also built at Kurkbe in Travancore, in the city of Mylore, in the city of Dharmapattanam, in the city of Chaliyam, at Surukundapuram, at Pantharini, and at Kanjarakota.

“The compiler of the Encyclopaedia says: There is no doubt that Muslim influence spread in this country at the same time as the mosques were established. Much property was also donated to bear the expenses of these mosques. At that time, the number of coastal Muslims and of the native inhabitants initiated into the religion of Islam had increased. Gradually, they became influential within the kingdom.” (The Social History of Muslim Bengal)

The discussion above makes it clear that as early as the seventh century CE, Malabar had developed into a strong centre of the Muslims of India. They had no political objective. Trade and commerce, and the propagation and spread of Islam, were their sole aims.

After Malabar, mention may be made of Chittagong and Sylhet, other destinations along the trade route of the Muslim Arab immigrants. After the Arab immigrants settled permanently in Malabar, small settlements of theirs naturally began to grow elsewhere. The question now is whether, just as Islam had taken root in Malabar in the first Hijri century, Islam was preached in Chittagong during the same period or much later. It is not possible to provide any reliable information about this. However, it can confidently be said that close contact was established between Arab Muslim merchants and Chittagong in the eighth and ninth centuries CE.

Dr Abdul Karim, in his ‘There was contact between Chittagong and Arab Muslim merchants. Further evidence of Arab traders’ coming and going to Chittagong is found in later periods. Although Arab merchants did not establish an independent state in Chittagong, their influence can still be observed in Chittagong’s culture as a result of the Arabs’ contact. A large number of Arabic words are used in the Chittagong language. The use of the negative word ‘na’ before verbs in the Chittagong language is also the result of the influence of Arabic. Many Chittagong families claim to be descended from Arabs. Many also believe that the facial features of the people of Chittagong resemble those of Arabs. Moreover, several areas of Chittagong, such as Alkaran, Suluk Bahar (Suluk-ul-Bahar), and Bakalia, still bear Arabic names. It has already been stated that some scholars believe that the Arabic word …’ (District Gazetteer, Chittagong, p. 1).

Although Muslims had lived in Chittagong for several centuries, they did not achieve any political establishment. Their work was trade and commerce and the propagation of Islam. Long after Muslim rule had been established in Bengal by Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, the independent Sultan of Sonargaon, Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah (1338–49 CE), was the first to conquer Chittagong and incorporate it into Muslim rule.

Chapter Two

Muslims in the Guise of Conquerors

It is generally well known that Muhammad bin Qasim led a campaign against the Sindh king Dahir and raised the banner of Islam’s victory in the province of Sindh. In reality, however, the undertaking of military campaigns as far as Sindh had begun much earlier. The campaign against Sindh began around the middle of the first Hijri century. Before Muhammad bin Qasim’s conquest of Sindh, the Muslims fought against the province of Sindh several times. But before Muhammad bin Qasim, the Muslims did not try to establish any lasting influence there. Because Muslim merchants were repeatedly plundered by pirates with the assistance of the king of Sindh, it became necessary to fight against them. After defeating them in battle, recovering the plundered goods, and freeing the captive merchants, the Muslims returned to their homeland.

In the fifteenth year AH, during the caliphate of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), Uthman ibn Abu al-As al-Thaqafi was appointed governor of Bahrain and Oman. Uthman left his brother Hakam in Bahrain and went to Oman himself. From there he sent an army to the Indian frontier. After that expedition, he again sent his brother Mughirah with an army toward Debal (present-day Karachi). Mughirah defeated the pirates of Sindh and their supporting forces and returned to his homeland.

At the beginning of 39 AH, during the caliphate of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Harith ibn Murrah al-Abdi conducted a campaign on the Sindh frontier and emerged victorious. He captured many enemy soldiers and seized a large amount of war booty.

During the rule of Amir Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), Muhallab ibn Abu Safrah attacked the frontier of Sindh and advanced as far as Banna and Ahwaz, places between Multan and Kabul.

During the reign of Caliph al-Walid, when Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was appointed governor of Iraq, he successively sent Muhammad ibn Harun Nasiri, Ubaidullah ibn Nabhan, and Budail ibn Tohfa Bajli for the purpose of campaigning against Sindh. Finally, in 93 AH, Muhammad ibn Qasim conducted a campaign by both land and water routes and conquered Sindh.

Long before Sindh province was finally conquered by Muhammad ibn Qasim, Islam had already been propagated and established in the western region of India at that time. The proof is that after Raja Dahir was killed in battle, the whole of Sindh province came under Muslim control. After establishing administrative order there, Muhammad ibn Qasim proceeded farther and encountered the people of Sawandar. The surprising fact is that the inhabitants of the attacked settlement were Muslims. Naturally, after reaching an accommodation with them, Muhammad ibn Qasim conquered many other places and arrived at Multan, a place in Punjab. Multan also came under his control.

The Political Establishment of Muslims in Bengal

As a result of Malik Ikhtiyaruddin Muhammad Bakhtiyar’s conquest of Bengal, Muslims achieved their first political establishment in this country. From this time onward, countless Muslims began arriving in Bengal continuously from western India, Afghanistan, Iran, Arabia, and Turkey. Most came as soldiers, while the remainder came for trade and commerce, the propagation of Islam, and refuge. In this way, the number of Muslims in Bengal continued to increase.

Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar’s conquest of Bengal was an extraordinarily remarkable event. Indeed, this man himself was a historical wonder. He belonged to the Khalaj lineage of Turkistan. Therefore, the word Khalji or Khilji was added to the end of his name to indicate his ancestry. The homeland of his forefathers was Garamsir or Dasht-i Margoh, situated on the eastern frontier of the frontier region. Ikhtiyaruddin Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji left his birthplace to earn a livelihood and came first to Ghazni and then to Badaun in India. He was short in stature, and both his arms were unusually long. Probably for this reason, his application for service in the military forces of Ghazni and Delhi was not accepted. But, recognizing his boundless courage and his ability to conduct daring expeditions, the sipahsalar of Badaun appointed him to the army. His rise to fortune began from there. After the battle of Tirouri or Tarain, Bakhtiyar’s uncle obtained the rights to Kashmandi or Kashtamandi from Ali Nagaori, the governor of Nagaor, Muhammad-i-Mahmud Nagaori. After his uncle’s death, Bakhtiyar acquired those rights. Some time later, he went to Malik Muazzam Hisabuddin of Ayodhya. At that time, he gathered horses and weapons. According to some, the two villages were Bhagwat and Doili; according to others, Sahland and Sahili, or Kampila and Patiyali. In Ghulam Husain Salimi’s Riyaz-us-Salatin, the names of the two villages are given as Kambala and Betali.

From there, Muhammad Bakhtiyar advanced toward Bihar, defeated the landholders or chiefs of several places, and seized a large amount of booty. With it, he continued to collect many horses and weapons. The fame of his valor also spread in every direction. As repeated rebellions, wars, conflicts, and bloodshed continued to occur in regions such as Ghor, Ghazni, and Khurasan, large numbers of their inhabitants left their countries, came to India, and wandered about in search of fortune. Hearing of Bakhtiyar’s good name and renown, they joined his army in groups. Thus Bakhtiyar became immensely powerful.

On learning of Bakhtiyar’s boundless valor, the then Sultan of Delhi, Qutbuddin Aibak, sent him a khilat as a mark of honor, and this increased Bakhtiyar’s strength and courage many times over. He then succeeded in extending his authority throughout Bihar province. Thereafter, he directed his campaign toward Bengal and, in 1203 CE, occupied the Rarh and Varendra regions of Bengal.

At the time of the invasion of Bengal, its ruler was Rai Lakshman Sen. The capital was Nadia. This region, including the capital, was called Lakshmanavati. An interesting story concerning this is related in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri.

A group of Brahmin astrologers at the royal court made a prophecy, saying that this country would soon fall into the hands of the Turkish Muslims. If the country were attacked, the king would have to submit. Otherwise, the people of the country would face extensive bloodshed and humiliation.

The king asked the Brahmin scholars whether the ancient religious scriptures described any identifying mark of such a Muslim invader by which he could be recognized in time. They said that when the Turkish soldier stood upright, both his arms would extend to his knees. King Rai Lakshman Sen appointed a group of trusted men to investigate the matter. After their investigation, they told the king that Muhammad Bakhtiyar possessed the aforementioned mark. Meanwhile, no one was unaware of Muhammad Bakhtiyar’s daring campaigns and his victorious triumphs. The Brahmin scholars, honored and learned men, landholders, and leading persons abandoned the country and took refuge in Jagannath, Kamarupa, and other safe places. The king still did not consider it advisable to abandon his capital. Suddenly, when Muhammad Bakhtiyar attacked Nadia and entered the capital, the king fled through the rear gate of the royal palace and took refuge in Vikrampur. Thus the whole of Lakshmanavati came under Bakhtiyar’s control. The astonishing fact is that Muhammad Bakhtiyar attacked and conquered Nadia with only seventeen horsemen.

Thereafter, his campaigns expanded, and Nabadwip and Gaur came under his control. The Tarikh-i-Firishta states that Muhammad Bakhtiyar built a new capital in Bengal called Rangpur. From this it may be understood that, except for eastern Bengal, the whole of the Rarh and Varendra regions—that is, western and northern Bengal—had come under his rule. Although Rai Lakshman Sen took refuge in Vikrampur, Bakhtiyar did not pursue him. As a result, eastern Bengal remained outside his rule. A century later, in 1330 CE, Muhammad Tughluq Shah conquered the eastern region and established capitals at Satgaon and Sonargaon respectively.

In any case, as a result of Muhammad Bakhtiyar’s conquest of Bengal, Muslims from outside the country settled here in groups. Countless Muslims came to this country to earn a livelihood through trade and commerce, service in the army, and various other means, and this stream of immigration continued uninterrupted until the middle of the eighteenth century.

From Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji’s conquest of Bengal until the fall of the Muslim kingdom on the field of Palashi in 1757 CE, 101 or more rulers governed Bengal during those 554 years.

The Muslim rule of Bengal may be divided into several periods:

Bengal—under the Khiljis—1230–1227 CE

Bengal—under Delhi—1227–1341 CE

Bengal—under the first line of the Ilyas Shahi dynasty—1342–1413 CE

Bengal—under Ganesh Jalaluddin—1414–1441 CE

Bengal—under the second line of the Ilyas Shahi dynasty—1442–1487 CE

Bengal under Habshi rule—1487–1493 CE

Bengal under the Husain Shahi dynasty—1493–1583 CE

Bengal under the Afghans (Sher Shah and the Sur dynasty)—1538–1564 CE

Bengal under the Karrani dynasty—1565–1576 CE

Bengal under Mughal rule—1576–1757 CE

Among those who sat on Bengal’s throne for more than five and a half centuries, some ascended the throne through their own strength and obtained the approval of the emperor of Delhi. Some rulers were completely independent. The remainder received letters of appointment from the court of Delhi and ruled Bengal as governors or nazims.

After coming to this country as conquerors, the Muslims came to love it wholeheartedly, accepted it as their permanent homeland, and wished to live together with its non-Muslim inhabitants. As rulers, they committed no injustice or oppression against their subjects. The common people also accepted their rule. After conquering Bengal, Muhammad Bakhtiyar established internal law and order. Although he founded mosques and madrasas in various places for Muslims, he adopted a policy of generosity toward non-Muslims. If he had wished, he could have pursued and defeated the fugitive Lakshman Sen. But he did not entertain that thought at all. Jadunath Sarkar says in his History of Bengal:

“…But he was not bloodthirsty. He did not approve of killing people or oppressing his subjects. By establishing a kind of jagir system, or feudal government, he satisfied the internal administration and the military chiefs.”…

—(History of Bengal, Vol. 2, Muslim Period, p. 9)

The rulers of BengalContemporary emperors of Delhi

1203–06 CE Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji Qutbuddin Aibak

1206–08 CE Malik Izzuddin Muhammad Shirin Khilji Same

1208–10 CE Husamuddin Iwaz Same

12010–13 CE Ali Mardan (Sultan Alauddin Khilji) Same

1213–27 CE Sultan Ghiyasuddin Iwaz Khilji Aram Shah (son of Qutbuddin Aibak)

The Independent Sultans of Bengal

The first independent sultan of the whole of Bengal was Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah. However, the Delhi emperor Firoz Shah Tughluq marched to war against him and returned disappointed. In 1358 CE, Ilyas Shah’s son Sikandar Shah ascended the throne as the independent sultan of Bengal and sent fifty elephants to Delhi as gifts in order to win the favor of the emperor of Delhi. Those who occupied Bengal’s throne from that time until 1409 CE were:

Sikandar Shah (I) 1358–91 CE

Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah 1391–96 CE

Saifuddin Hamza Shah 1396–1406 CE

Shamsuddin 1406–1409 CE

Raja Ganesh

At the beginning of the fifteenth century, a movement for the revival of the Hindu community began in Bengal. From Muhammad Bakhtiyar’s conquest of Bengal until the end of the fourteenth century, Muslim rulers governed Bengal sometimes as governors appointed by the sultans of Delhi, sometimes as independent sultans, and sometimes by keeping the court of Delhi pleased and satisfied through gifts and tribute. A discussion of the history of these two centuries shows that the Muslims were unable to rule in peace with complete security. Intense internal conflict and the strong desire to seize power by force were the causes that destroyed this peace. But this does not mean that the Muslim rulers ever oppressed the Hindu community or persecuted their subjects. Consequently, subjects of every race and religion enjoyed happiness, peace, and complete security for their lives and property. Before Bakhtiyar Khilji, many independent Hindu kings lived in this country. After Muslim rule was established, although they did not accept it wholeheartedly, they did not consider it advisable to enter into conflict with the Muslims. There could have been only two reasons for this. The first was that political power in Bengal was in Muslim hands, and from Bakhtiyar’s time onward countless Muslims continued to come to Bengal from foreign lands. Muslim religious preachers, awliya, and dervishes came to this country and continued to spread Islam’s sublime message, equality, and brotherhood. As a result, the Hindu masses oppressed by Brahmanism became attracted to Islam. Nevertheless, the upper-caste Hindus here could have taken advantage of the internal weakness and internal conflicts of the Muslim rulers and declared a rebellion. But they did not. There was also a reason for that.

“The second reason was that they were proceeding according to a long-term plan. That is, instead of becoming objects of the Muslim rulers’ displeasure, they would establish themselves at various levels of the administration and reveal themselves at some decisive moment. By the middle of the eighteenth century, they had achieved complete success in this plan. However, instead of taking power themselves at that time, they found satisfaction in abolishing Muslim rule and handing power over to the English. Although their success at the beginning of the fifteenth century did not last, it was the first manifestation of their long-term plan.

At this time, a Hindu zamindar of Bengal became exceedingly powerful. In histories written in Persian, his name is given as ‘Kans.’ Kans was actually ‘Kansa’ or ‘Ganesh.’ During the reign of Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah, he became head of the revenue and administrative departments. According to the account in Riyaz-us-Salatin, Ganesh killed Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah, the grandson of Shamsuddin. Thereafter, he also killed Shamsuddin, the grandson of Ghiyasuddin, and ascended the throne of Gaur and Bengal.

The Ilyas Shahi Dynasty

Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah (1339–58 CE)

Sikandar Shah (1358–89 CE)

Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah (1389–96 CE)

Saifuddin Hamza Shah (1396–1406 CE)

Shamsuddin (1406–1409 CE) Shahabuddin Bayezid Shah (1409–14 CE)

Blockman says that Ganesh did not himself ascend the throne. Rather, after killing Shamsuddin, he kept Shamsuddin’s brother, Shahabuddin Bayezid Shah, as a puppet and personally wielded the royal authority. In the second volume of his History of Bengal, Rakhaldas Banerjee mentions the names of two rulers of Bengal from 1409 to 1414 CE: Shahabuddin Bayezid Shah and Ganesh.

Raja Ganesh was a Bengali Varendra Brahmin. The powerful Raja Ganesh of Bhaturia pargana in northern Bengal (Dinajpur) maintained an army of his own. He recruited his soldiers from the formidable Sangol clan. Because of his influence and eminence, he was appointed to serve under the Sultan of Bengal, and gradually became the sole proprietor and mukhtar of the state treasury (Sahib-i-Ikhtiyar-i-Mulk wa Mal). In gratitude for this position, through a deep conspiracy he first killed Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah and, several years later, killed Shamsuddin Shah and ascended the throne of Bengal.

Ganesh’s accession to the throne of Bengal was the result of a long-standing plan and a deep conspiracy. Ganesh and the Hindu feudal lords who shared his views could not wholeheartedly accept Muslim rule in Bengal. Although the history of the preceding two centuries contains no example of any persecution of non-Muslims by Muslim rulers, they regarded Muslim rule as an extreme humiliation for the Hindu community. Therefore, after ascending the throne, Ganesh devoted himself to suppressing Muslims. In this way, his long-accumulated resentment toward Muslims found expression.

The Dinajpur account written by Buchanan Hamilton states that Ganesh killed a certain Shaykh Badr-e-Islam and his son Faiz-e-Islam because they did not salute him with bowed heads. Not only that, Ganesh cruelly killed many Muslim awliya, dervishes, thinkers, scholars, and experts in religious law. Once, Shaykh Badrul Islam, the father of Shaykh Muinuddin Abbas, incurred his great anger because he did not salute the infidel Raja Ganesh. One day thereafter, he summoned the shaykh to the court. The doorway to his chamber was made so narrow and low that anyone entering had to crawl in headfirst. Understanding the king’s intention, the shaykh first placed both his feet inside the chamber and entered without bowing his head. For, according to the injunctions of Islam, no Muslim may bow his head before anyone except Allah. Raja Ganesh immediately killed him and had the other ulama drowned in the river by taking them out in a boat.

Hearing this horrific account of the massacre of Muslims, Shaykh Nur Qutb-i Alam was deeply distressed and appealed to Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi, the governor of Jaunpur, to come to Bengal and protect the religion of Islam. Sultan Ibrahim marched toward Bengal with a huge army and set up camp at Sarai Firuzpur. On learning this, Raja Ganesh became frightened and sought Qutb-i Alam’s protection. Qutb-i Alam said that he could advise Sultan Ibrahim to withdraw on the condition that Ganesh accept Islam. Although Ganesh agreed, his wife prevented him. Finally, it was proposed that his son Yadu be initiated into Islam and that Ganesh relinquish the throne to him. Ganesh agreed to this. Yadu was given the Muslim name Jalaluddin and proclaimed Sultan of Bengal. Sultan Ibrahim returned deeply displeased. As soon as Ganesh learned of his return, he recovered the throne from Jalaluddin. The simple-hearted Qutb-i Alam did not understand Ganesh’s deception. Thus, when Ganesh wished to have his son initiated into Islam, he forgave the father’s crime of killing people.

After recovering the throne, Ganesh performed the purification of the apostate Yadu through the Suvarnadhenu ceremony. That is, the purification rite consisted of entering through the mouth of an artificial golden cow and emerging through its excretory opening according to a special religious procedure prescribed in Hindu scripture.

After this purification ceremony, Ganesh began the task of uprooting the Muslims from the country. He continued the massacre of Muslims with even greater ferocity than before. He sent Qutb-i Alam’s son, Shaykh Anwar, and grandson, Shaykh Zahid, as prisoners to Sonargaon. Thereafter, they were subjected to various forms of torture to make them reveal the whereabouts of their father’s and grandfather’s wealth. Shaykh Anwar was later killed. In this way, Ganesh established a reign of terror in Bengal for seven years and made the lives of Muslims unbearable.

After Ganesh’s death, Jalaluddin (Yadu) ascended the throne again.

The Revival of the Hindu Community

Rakhaldas Banerjee wrote in the second volume of his History of Bengal: “Ganesh had attempted to establish the predominance of the Hindu religion in the newly founded kingdom. The arrangement for Yadu’s penance through the Suvarnadhenu vow is only slight evidence of this. From the time of Raja Ganesh, the study of Sanskrit began in Gaur and Bengal. The composition of works in Sanskrit also began, and the advancement of the Bengali language commenced. For all these reasons, Ganesh attained a high position in the history of Bengal, the history of India, and the history of Indian literature.” (The said work, pp. 135–36)

It is difficult to say what the actual reason was that Ganesh’s eldest son became a Muslim. However, a highly powerful Brahmin, considering this extremely humiliating for the Hindu community, fabricated many tales.

Rakhaldas says in the aforementioned history: “According to a tradition current in Varendra, Yadu renounced his own religion after becoming enchanted by the beauty of a noble Muslim woman descended from the lineage of Ilyas Shah.”

Rakhaldas shifts the disgrace of his own community onto followers of another religion and says—

“The historian Stewart supposes that Yadu, or Jalaluddin, was the son born to Ganesh by a Muslim concubine.”

The account above is a glaring example of how the history of the Muslim nation has been tarnished.

It is an undeniable fact that the moral decline of Muslims at that time had not reached such a level that Muslim women had begun prostitution or had accepted the authority of a non-Muslim husband. Nor did Muslim women, as in the present age, move about unveiled before unrelated men, as a result of which Ganesh’s son Yadu supposedly fell in love with a beautiful young Muslim woman and became a Muslim in order to marry her. History bears witness that at that time Muslim faqirs and dervishes came to this country in large groups and preached the great message of Islam, and many of them also took part in governing the country. They wielded enormous influence over the rulers.

Let us consider the period of Ganesh. The renowned saint Nur Qutb-i-Alam and his son Shaykh Anwar were contemporaries of Ganesh. Their influence extended not only over the Muslims and rulers of Bengal, but also over Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi, the governor of Ayodhya, who was mentioned above. Hearing their conduct, spotless character, and the ambrosial words of Islam issuing from their lips, many Hindus willingly and gladly embraced Islam—among them was Yadu, Ganesh’s son. Despite their immense influence in society, the notion that a Muslim woman would practice prostitution—that is, become a man’s concubine—or that a Hindu, moving about without restraint, would fall in love with her, is utterly beyond imagination. Therefore, the stories that Ganesh kept a Muslim concubine and that Yadu fell in love with a Muslim woman are entirely fabricated and malicious. They are merely a ridiculous attempt to shift one’s own disgrace onto another’s shoulders.

Another point deserves special mention. Muslims came to this land as conquerors. Naturally, the immigrant Muslim conquerors possessed a sense of superiority (Superiority Complex). By “noble Muslims” was meant the immigrant Muslims. The idea that any of their women would accept a Hindu as her husband was inconceivable.

Then there is this matter: after Hindus of the lower castes embraced Islam, it was equally impossible that one of their women would accept Ganesh as her husband. For Ganesh was a Brahmin and a zealous standard-bearer of Brahminism. For Ganesh to marry into the household of one who, after embracing Islam, had become a yavana and mleccha, was inconceivable. There is therefore no doubt that these stories are merely products of fanciful imagination.

Some say that Yadu became a Muslim out of desire for the kingdom. This too is untrue. It is true that, to protect himself from Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi’s invasion, Ganesh entrusted his son to Nur Qutb-i-Alam so that he might embrace Islam. After Yadu embraced Islam and was proclaimed Sultan, Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi returned without invading Bengal. Immediately afterward, Ganesh removed Yadu again and reascended the throne himself. Yadu was then subjected to penance according to Hindu custom. Ganesh ruled with great power for seven years. He could not be removed from the throne by any means. If Yadu had embraced Islam solely to gain the kingdom, then after his penance and the purification by the golden cow, he could have ascended his father’s throne as a Hindu without hindrance. But Yadu did not renounce Islam.

Furthermore, human beings possess a conscience by which they can perceive truth and falsehood. Along with this, they possess a moral sense. Seeing Ganesh’s ability and efficiency, the Sultan of Bengal appointed him to the highest office in the kingdom.

But through conspiracy and murder he seized the throne of Bengal. First, he displayed treachery toward his sovereign, and then began a massacre of innocent Muslims. Nevertheless, because his son had embraced Islam, Nur Qutb-i-Alam forgave all his offenses. Yadu must surely have been impressed by Shaykh Nur Qutb-i-Alam’s conduct and by Islam’s tolerance and generosity. His father’s treachery, ingratitude, and cruelty must certainly have left a deep mark on Yadu’s mind. Moreover, through contact with the perfect saint, Yadu had truly been illumined by the light of Islam. This is our view. It is neither unreasonable nor impossible.

Now, according to historians hostile to Muslims, since Yadu remained steadfast in Islam, he had to be disgraced in various ways. First, he was called the son of a Muslim concubine. In other words, their claim is that he was not actually a Hindu at all, but an illegitimate (?) child.

Rakhhaldas Bandyopadhyay has related a remarkable story of this period in his history. On page 137 of his History of Bengal, Volume II, he says: “What Ganesh or Yadu could not do, or did not dare to do, was readily accomplished by another Bengali Hindu king.

His name was Danujmardan Dev.”

Later, repeating the statement on page 139 of the same work, he says: “What neither Ganesh nor Yadu, nor any Hindu king in Aryavarta, could do, he accomplished; therefore the names of Danujmardan Dev and Mahendra Dev will remain eternally memorable in history.”

The amusing point is that, while his book says nothing about what Danujmardan Dev did, it does not mention what Ganesh or Yadu could not do either.

In this connection, Sir Jadunath Sarkar says—

“In this very year we find coins with Bengali lettering issued from Pandua and Chatgaon by a king named Mahendra Dev—exactly resembling those of Danujmardan Dev. He was most probably the younger son of Ganesh, who remained a Hindu and to whom his elder brother Jadusen Jalaluddin had offered to leave the paternal throne in case he was not permitted to embrace Islam. Mahendra was evidently set up on the throne by Hindu ministers just after the death of Ganesh. I believe that Mahendra (then not more than 12 years old) was a mere puppet in the hands of a selfish ministerial faction… The attempt of the king-makers was short-lived and ended in their speedy defeat, as no coin was struck in Mahendra’s name after that one year, 1418 A.D.”

“In this very year, coins bearing the name of Mahendra Dev in Bengali script are found from Pandua and Chatgaon. They look exactly like the coins of Danujmardan Dev. He was probably Ganesh’s younger son. He had remained a Hindu, and Jadusen Jalaluddin had told him that, if he was not allowed to become a Muslim, he should leave his father’s throne. Immediately after Ganesh’s death, the Hindu ministers enthroned Mahendra. I believe that Mahendra (who was not more than twelve years old) was merely a puppet in the hands of a self-seeking ministerial faction. The ministers’ attempt to make him king did not last long, and they were soon defeated. For after this one year, 1418 A.D., no further coin was minted in Mahendra’s name.”

Jadunath Sarkar further says—

“Ganesh placed his son, a lad of twelve only, under protective watch in his harem and ruled in his own account under the proud title of Danujmardan Dev.”

“Ganesh kept his twelve-year-old son under protective guard in the harem and himself ruled as he pleased, assuming the glorious title of ‘Danujmardan Dev.’”

From this it is understood that Ganesh himself was Danujmardan Dev. Alternatively, Danujmardan was his title, which he considered glorious for himself and for the entire Hindu race.

This is where Rakhhaldas was mistaken. Considering Danujmardan a different person, he sang his praises without limit.

Now let us see what the word Danujmardan means. It means ‘destroyer of demons.’ Ganesh, who sought to establish militant Hinduism, could not tolerate Muslims or Muslim rule in any way. His sole desire was to wipe out the Muslims from Bangladesh and establish a militant Hindu kingdom. Like Ganesh, the Hindus regarded immigrant Muslims as ‘yavanas and mlecchas.’ But the Muslims were stronger than the Hindus in physical build and martial valor. They were therefore regarded as demons—yavanas and mlecchas. Crushing and exterminating these demonic yavanas and mlecchas was Ganesh’s mission. After Ibrahim Sharqi returned to his homeland, Ganesh carried out this crushing and extermination a hundred times more vigorously than before. Praising Danujmardan’s slaughter of Muslims enthusiastically, Rakhhaldas said, “Since he accomplished what no Hindu king in Aryavarta could do, the names of Danujmardan Dev and Mahendra Dev will remain eternally memorable in history.”

Immediately after Ganesh’s death, the Hindu ministers he had appointed enthroned his twelve-year-old son Mahendra and continued the suppression of Muslims, following in Ganesh’s footsteps. Thus, delighted by the actions of Danujmardan Ganesh and his son Mahendra, Rakhhaldas lavished enthusiastic praise on them. But Mahendra’s rule lasted only a short time.

Ganesh’s Dynasty

Ganesh Danujmardan

Jadusen, alias Jalaluddin Muhammad Shah (1414–31 A.D.) Mahendra

Shamsuddin Ahmad Shah (1413–42 A.D.)

Revival of the Ilyas Shahi Dynasty

It has been mentioned above that Ganesh seized the throne after murdering two Sultans of the Ilyas Shahi dynasty. After Ganesh’s grandson, Shamsuddin Ahmad Shah, was killed, the Ilyas Shahi dynasty was reestablished on Bengal’s throne.

Nasiruddin Mahmud Shah (1442–59 A.D.)

Ruknuddin Barbak Shah (1459–74 A.D.)

Shamsuddin Yusuf Shah (1474–82 A.D.)

Sikandar Shah II (1482 A.D.)

Jalaluddin Fateh Shah (1482–86 A.D.)

Abyssinian Sultans on Bengal’s Throne

For some time, people from Abyssinia began arriving in Bengal. Barbak Shah and Yusuf Shah appointed them to various important posts. When Fateh Shah, angered by their conduct, attempted to suppress them, he was killed, and a certain Sultan Shahzada Barbak ascended the throne.

Sultan Shahzada Barbak (1486–87 A.D.)

Saifuddin Firuz Shah (1487–90 A.D.)

Nasiruddin Mahmud Shah (1490–91 A.D.)

Shamsuddin Muzaffar Mah (1491–93 A.D.)

Alauddin Husain Shah (1493–1519 A.D.)

The fourth Abyssinian Sultan mentioned above, Shamsuddin Muzaffar Mah, appointed an obscure man of unknown lineage named Husain to a position in his government. He was gradually promoted and eventually killed his own master, Muzaffar Shah, and seized the throne of Bengal. In Bengal’s history he is known as Alauddin Husain Shah Sharif Makki. Later he also assumed the title ‘Khalifatullah.’

Husain Shah

Husain Shah is one of history’s great wonders. Enormous books have been written in his unqualified praise. Yet today various questions arise in the minds of inquisitive students of history concerning him. The answers must be sought in history.

While discussing Husain Shah in his book A Social History of Muslim Bengal, Maulana Akram Khan says—

“Despite much investigation, we have so far found no reliable evidence concerning the race, religion, ancestry, or title of this gentleman known as Sultan Husain Shah.”

In reality, a confused mixture of some history, some legend, and some fictitious tales has been created about him.

Sir Jadunath Sarkar says in his History of Bengal—

“Almost all historical accounts describe him as an Arab. He came to Bengal and settled there with his father. The events of his early life became the subject of many folk tales and legends. Most of these stories center on a village in the Jangipur subdivision of Murshidabad district, called—‘In a Rarh village named Ekani Chandpara, he was entertained at the home of a local Muslim qazi. Learning the guest’s ancestry, the qazi married his daughter to his younger son, Husain. After receiving an education, Husain obtained a minor position under the Abyssinian Sultan Muzaffar Shah in Gaur. Salim recorded this kind of story on the authority of an anonymous pamphlet.”

Another story current about him is that, in his childhood, Husain worked under a local Brahmin. Seeing miraculous signs in the boy indicating that he would become a great man in the future, that Brahmin took him to Gaur.

Later, when Husain became Sultan of Bengal, he granted that Brahmin the village of Chandpara in exchange for only one anna in revenue. This story exactly resembles the account of the early life of Hasan Gangu Bahmani. It cannot, however, be accepted as true without examination. When an ordinary person becomes the master of a kingdom, all sorts of bizarre stories are created about him. We believe that the same happened in the case of Husain Shah.

Some historians say that Husain’s father, Sayyid Ashraf, was the Sharif of Mecca, but lived in Tirmiz for a long time. Buchanan Hamilton says there is also a popular belief that Husain was a resident of Rangpur district. He was born in the village of Debnagar, sixteen miles from Gobindaganj. Some historians again identify him as the great-grandson of Sultan Ibrahim Shah of Gaur. It is therefore clear that there is considerable disagreement even among historians regarding his ancestry and birthplace.

Some historians say that he was not merely an Arab but belonged to the Sayyid lineage. Then, in an attempt to embellish Husain’s ancestry with the colors of imagination, it was claimed that his father, Sayyid Ashraf, was the Sharif of Mecca. In search of fortune, he came to Bengal with his two sons.

Now a perfectly reasonable question arises: quite apart from Husain’s father being the Sharif of Mecca, was he even an Arab? There is sufficient reason to believe that not only is Husain’s being a Sayyid doubtful, but even his being a Muslim is not beyond question. His conduct and actions after attaining power bear witness to this.

First, let us consider his ancestry. No reliable evidence can be found in history that his father, Sayyid Ashraf, was a resident of Mecca and its Sharif. Moreover, the story that the Sharif of Mecca came to Bengal with his two sons in search of fortune is pure fantasy. For what reason had he been removed from the office and dignity of Sharif and deprived of his movable and immovable property, forcing him to come to Bengal in search of food and clothing? Some also call him a resident of Tirmiz. Which account, then, can be accepted as true? It should be noted that the Sharif of Mecca was at that time the supreme authority of the Hijaz, an absolute monarch, owner of immense wealth, and possessor of an incomparable royal palace. No information can be found in history that any Sharif of Mecca ever abandoned his throne and came to Bengal with his wife and children in search of advancement, becoming dependent on others. It is possible that the clever and deceitful Husain attracted the reverence of Muslims by presenting himself as a Sayyid and the son of a Sharif.

Then there is the curious matter that, after gaining the throne, Husain granted the entire village of Chandpara to the qazi of that village (his father-in-law)—or, according to another account, to a certain Brahmin master under whom he had served in his childhood—in exchange for only one anna in revenue; the village or estate later became known as ‘One-Anna Chandpara.’ But nowhere in history is there any account of whether Husain made arrangements for the livelihood of his unfortunate father and elder brother.

Observe further that Husain’s alleged father, Sayyid Ashraf, took shelter in the house of a certain qazi in Chandpur village in the Jangipur subdivision of Murshidabad. Seeing that the man belonged to the Sayyid lineage, the qazi hastily gave him his daughter in marriage to Husain. It is equally common to say that Husain worked as a cowherd under a Brahmin in Chandpara village. One day during this period, the Brahmin beat him mercilessly with a cane for some serious offense. Elsewhere Husain is said to have been a resident of Debnagar village in Rangpur district. These contradictory accounts make it clear that Husain was in fact of unknown lineage. It is hardly surprising that, for the interests of a man of unknown lineage, someone who was not a Muslim might take advantage of circumstances and present himself as one. In short, after ascending Bengal’s throne through conspiracy and deception, various imaginary tales were created about his ancestry and childhood. Imaginative storytellers might perhaps have discovered a tomb of Husain’s alleged father and mentioned that Husain had built a great mosque and madrasa beside it, but they were so absorbed in composing tales about Husain, Bengal’s supremely powerful king, that they completely forgot his unfortunate father and brother.

Let us examine in detail how Husain attained power and what he did after attaining it.

The Abyssinian ruler Muzaffar Shah first appointed Husain to a minor position. Then, through his keen intelligence, Husain pleased and satisfied his master and eventually obtained the post of prime minister. The shrewd Husain understood that the Abyssinian rulers were unwelcome to the people of Bengal. He therefore conspired to seize power himself by making his master increasingly unpopular with the army, the nobles, and the general population. He continually gave his master Muzaffar Shah various forms of bad advice.

Rakhhaldas Bandyopadhyay says: “Sayyid Husain Sharif Makki was appointed vizier and chief officer of Muzaffar Shah. Following his advice, Muzaffar Shah reduced the soldiers’ pay and devoted himself to saving money.” (History of Bengal, Vol. II, p. 187).

The Riyaz-us-Salatin and Tarikh-i-Firishta state that after becoming vizier, Husain began treating the people well. At the same time, he kept telling them that Muzaffar Shah was a man of extremely low character and wholly unfit to be king. On Husain Shah’s advice, Muzaffar Shah would undertake undesirable actions. This gave Husain opportunities to portray him to the people as guilty and contemptible. In this way he incited the army, the amirs and umara, and the people against Muzaffar Shah. At last, under his leadership, a vast army engaged Muzaffar Shah in battle. Historians say that 120,000 soldiers from both sides were killed in the war. It is said that nowhere else in the world at that time had such a bloody battle taken place.

Muzaffar Shah was killed in the battle. Some say that after winning over the palace guards, Husain entered the palace and killed his own master with his own hand.

Maulana Akram Khan, citing the Encyclopaedia in his book A Social History of Muslim Bengal, says—

“Muslim feudal lords of every class and Hindu kings considered him (Sayyid Husain) the proper person for the royal throne and installed him as king. To please them, he in turn ordered the capital city of Gaur to be plundered at the appointed time. At that time, many wealthy Hindu subjects of Gaur were reduced to ruin.”

The curious fact is that those whom Husain had ordered to be plundered were again killed on Husain’s orders. They numbered more than twelve thousand. To satisfy his own base interests, Husain stained his hands with the blood of hundreds of thousands. Perhaps the order to plunder was merely a pretext for killing some Muslims.

After this mass slaughter, which included army personnel, amirs and umara, officials, learned men, and others, no one remained who dared utter a word against Husain. As a result, he became the absolute master of the country.

Readers will surely be curious about the role played by Sayyid Husain Makki (?) after gaining the throne. After ascending the throne, he reorganized his council of ministers. His vizier and chief official was Gopinath Basu, alias Purandar Khan; the royal physician was Mukund Das; the chief bodyguard was Keshav Chhatri; and the mint-master was Anup. The scriptural scholars and Vaishnava crown jewels Sr Rupa and Sanatan also became his ministers. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, citing Vaishnava writers, says that Husain Shah sincerely believed that Sri Chaitanya was an incarnation. When Chaitanya came to the city of Gaur, Husain showed him special respect and issued an order to the royal officials that they should honor Lord Chaitanya and provide him with every opportunity and facility to travel wherever he wished.

The respected Akram Khan says on page 98 of the aforementioned work—

“According to Hindu writers, from the accession of Husain Shah, ‘Rama’s reign’ began in the land of Gaur. The esteemed Dineshchandra Sen says by way of introduction to this subject: Wherever Muslims may have come from—Iran, Turan, or elsewhere—after coming to this country they became completely Bengali. Durga Puja, Rama festivals, and Dol festivals began to be celebrated beside the mosques… It was amid such circumstances that Sultan Husain rose to power. Freed from royal affairs, he most probably was the first to present himself at the service of Chaitanya Deva and became one of his devotees. The Chaitanya Charitamrita states that he (Husain) became a devotee of Sri Chaitanya.”

Sultan Husain and Sri Chaitanya were contemporaries, and Husain’s close relationship with Chaitanya is a historical fact. Therefore, a brief discussion of Sri Chaitanya here will certainly not be irrelevant.

Sri Chaitanya

The Vaishnava community believes with all its heart that Shri Chaitanya was an incarnation of Shri Krishna, indeed Shri Krishna Himself. Shri Chaitanya created a new awakening throughout Hindu society.

Sir Jadunath Sarkar says:

“This was an age when the full development of the Bengali mind took place in the image of Lord Gauranga. His message of love and forgiveness enchanted the whole of India. The hearts and minds of the Bengalis, breaking all bonds, became captivated by the lyrical songs of Radha and Krishna’s divine play. The outpouring of the mind in the emotion, sentiment, poetry, songs, social tolerance and religious devotion of Vaishnavism continued unabated for the next century and a half. This Hindu renaissance was intimately connected with the Husain Shahi dynasty. In order to understand the progress and advancement of Vaishnavism and Bengali literature during this period, one must necessarily recall the liberal and cultured rule of the Muslim lords of Gaur.”

‘Jadunath Sarkar, The History of Bengal, Vol. 2, p. 147)

In fact, we can learn clearly from Chaitanya’s own words what the purpose of his advent was. On page 120 of Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi-lila, he says unequivocally—

“This incarnation of mine is to destroy the heretics.

Having destroyed the heretics, I shall preach devotion.”

It is now clear that destroying the heretics was the true aim of his life. Historical discussion shows that when the Muslims conquered Bengal, Buddhist doctrine had disappeared from the country. The Brahmins refused to bring the vast numbers of lower-caste Hindus living in this land under the shelter of religion. As a result, they began entering the Vaishnava community. Thus, at that time, there were no adherents of any religion in this country other than Hindus, the Vaishnava community, and Muslims. Who, then, were the heretics whose destruction had brought Chaitanya into the world?

Maulana Akram Khan says in the book mentioned above:

“According to Manu’s view, every non-Hindu belonging to a different religion falls within this category (Saral Bangla Abhidhan). The lexicographer Subal Chandra Mitra, in his Beng-Eng Dictionary, gives the meaning of the word heretic as follows: ‘Not conforming himself to the tenets of the Vedas: Atheistic. Jaina or Buddha. A non-Hindu.’ These three interpretations of heretic—one who rejects the Vedas, one who bears the marks of another caste, and a non-Hindu—have been widely accepted.”

There is now no room for doubt that by heretics he meant only the Muslims.

The question now is: did Chaitanya actually succeed in expelling the heretics, that is, the Muslims, from this country? At first sight, it appears that Muslim rule remained established in this country for several centuries even after Sultan Husain Shah, Chaitanya’s contemporary. But the filth of shirk and bid‘ah that accumulated in the beliefs of the Muslims through Husain Shah’s becoming Chaitanya’s disciple and his assistance in establishing the Vaishnava community later became the cause of the decline of Muslim society.

The author of the book A Social History of the Muslims of Bengal says—

“The truth is that after uprooting Buddhist society and Buddhist religion from their motherland, their favorable attention turned toward Muslim society. Thus, simultaneously, they began trying to destroy and ruin the ‘Yavana’ rulers through political intrigue. On the other hand, they sought to spread a web of illusion in the name of religion and keep Muslim society oblivious of itself and spellbound. As I said earlier, this was the ultimate and supreme aim of the incarnation of that time and his devotees and associates.”

The method of worshipping Satya Narayan is mentioned in the Hindu Puranas. This worship is performed in almost every Hindu household. But it was impossible to have Muslims worship Satya Narayan. Therefore, with the lofty (?) aim of removing the division between Hindus and Muslims, Sultan Husain established Satya Pir and introduced his mode of worship. In reality, establishing a shrine to Satya Pir, making vows in his name and distributing offerings, and observing ceremonies at his shrine with drums and other instruments were actually a Muslim version of the worship of Satya Narayan, introduced by Husain Shah. For these reasons, Hindu society accepted Husain Shah as an incarnation.

King Husain Shah became a great sage,

Whose supreme fame spread throughout the fifth Gaur.

Highly learned in weapons, his glory was boundless.

In the age of Kali, he would be like the incarnation of Krishna.”

(Dinesh Chandra Sen, Bengali Language and Literature).

Dinesh Chandra Sen says in his Bengali Language and Literature:

“Kavindra Parameshwar described him (Husain Shah) as an incarnation of Krishna. It appears from the Chaitanya Charitamrita and Chaitanya Bhagavata that he acknowledged Chaitanya Prabhu as an incarnation of God. By the quality through which Akbar has become a necklace adorning the neck of Indian history, Husain Shah will likewise be regarded as a shining jewel in the history of Bengal.”

According to the general religious belief of Hindus, Chaitanya was an incarnation of Shri Krishna, or Shri Krishna Himself. For this reason, his devotees became intensely attracted to Krishna’s divine play. The complete imitation of the highly amorous love-play among Vaishnava men and women in the name of religion is described in many Hindu scriptural works. Thoughtful members of Hindu society acknowledge the ruin caused by sexual misconduct in Hindu society as a result of the propagation and expansion of Vaishnavism. It is a matter of profound regret that a powerful Muslim of Bengal caused millions of Bengalis also to adopt these filthy and obscene rites and practices as the ideal of their lives, thereby cursing and degrading Muslim society. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Shri Chaitanya achieved complete success in destroying the heretics.

Here we wish to repeat Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay’s statement, with some corrections:

‘Sultan Husain Shah’s name will remain eternally memorable in history because he accomplished what Danujmardan Deb—what no Hindu king of Aryavarta—could accomplish.’”

After all this discussion, doubts concerning Husain Shah’s ancestry, caste and religion are becoming even more concentrated. It may be that Husain Shah was not a Muslim at all. He may have assumed the identity of a Muslim of Sayyid descent, attracted the devotion and respect of Muslims, and gradually attained the highest power through deception. Alternatively, a Brahmin from the village of Chandpara in Murshidabad may have taken in a destitute boy of unknown Hindu or Muslim lineage from Bengal and employed him as a herdsman. The Brahmin perceived immense talent in the boy and, after training him ‘for the destruction of the heretics,’ introduced him at the court of Muzaffar Shah. Through Muzaffar Shah’s favor, his fortunes began to change rapidly. After considering his entire life, the contradictory accounts of historians concerning him, his later religious beliefs, activities and conduct, and the fact that after killing countless talented Muslims he adorned his council and royal court with members of Hindu and Vaishnava society, would it be wrong to hold the above view concerning his caste and religion?

In short, whether Husain Shah was a Muslim or whatever else he was, after killing countless Muslim soldiers, amirs, nobles and distinguished Muslims, and gratifying powerful Hindu feudal lords, where did he have the opportunity to consider what catastrophe he had brought upon Muslim society? At various times in history, the enemies of Islam have dressed one Muslim after another as a wooden puppet and fulfilled their objectives through them. That is why we find non-Muslim historians and literary figures lavishly praising Husain Shah.

During his reign, the Hindu renaissance movement gained strength through the Bengali language. The Bengali authors Maladhar Basu, Bipradas, Vijayagupta and Yashoraj Khan expressed gratitude and exuberant praise for Husain Shah in their writings. Maladhar Basu translated the Tenth and Eleventh Books of the Bhagavata into Bengali. He composed a Bengali epic called Shri Krishna Vijay on the subject of Shri Krishna’s amorous play. Pleased with him, Husain bestowed upon him the title ‘Gunaraj Khan.’ He says—

“I am without virtue, the lowliest of the low; I possess no wealth.

The Lord of Gaur gave me the name Gunaraj Khan.”

Maladhar Basu’s brother Gopinath Basu, also known as Purandar Khan, composed an epic called Krishnamangal concerning Shri Krishna’s amorous play. The Brahmin Bipradas composed the Manasamangal poem. Husain granted Paragal Khan extensive landed property in Chittagong.

These books and the epic Manasamangal exerted such influence on the religious beliefs of Muslims that the worship of Manasa later became established in Muslim society. For the information of readers, I am inserting here a small excerpt from Maulana Akram Khan’s book.

“We find a partial account of Manasa in the Mahabharata and the Devi Bhagavata. Although opinions differ concerning her birth, we may take her to be the daughter of Shiva. It is not possible to relate the story of Manasa while maintaining propriety of language. In brief, immediately after her birth she became fully mature, and Shiva, or Mahadeva, took her to his own home. For whatever reason, Shiva’s wife Chandi, or Durga, burst into fury as soon as she saw her. As a result of the conflict that arose between the two goddesses, Manasa lost one of her eyes. Manasa became enraged with Durga. Shiva was not spared her wrath either. (We omit here the account of snake-charming—Manasa, however, is worshipped as the goddess of snakes.) Manasa vowed that she would not rest until she had avenged this insult. After consulting her companion Netravati, she decided to compel the devotees of Shiva and Durga to worship Manasa. With this purpose she appeared in a special form in Bangladesh and, with very little effort, gradually succeeded in inducing herdsmen, fishermen and poor Muslims to worship her. (The Story of Bengali Literature, p. 16)”

The wife of Chand Saudagar was a woman devoted to Manasa. But her husband would not agree to worship Manasa under any circumstances. Enraged, Manasa began subjecting him to various dangers and losses. Yet even after all his ships, along with his seven children and immense wealth, sank in the sea, the merchant remained firm in his position. Finally, despite stern warnings, his only surviving son Lakhindar was killed by a snakebite, and Lakhindar’s wife Behula, through her profound devotion and Manasa’s mercy, was able to bring him back to life. All of Chand Saudagar’s lost sons and wealth were restored to him. This worship of Manasa, together with Behula’s related floating procession, remained prevalent among Muslims in the regions of Jessore, Khulna and the Twenty-Four Parganas until the first quarter of the twentieth century.” (A Social History of the Muslims of Bengal, pp. 78–79)

Not only in southern Bengal but in almost every region of Bengal, a section of Muslims, holding the aforementioned beliefs of shirk and kufr, used to organize Behula’s floating procession, or Bhasan Yatra, enthusiastically from village to village.

We can now see clearly how, with the assistance of Husain Shah and his descendants, the poisonous vapor of idolatry infected the religious beliefs of Muslims. As a result, the ridiculous effort to make Hindu and Muslim society and culture one and the same was later undertaken.

The Husain Shahi Dynasty

Alauddin Husain Shah (1493–1519 AD)

Daniyal        Nasiruddin Nasrat Shah                                     Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah

                                    (1519–32 AD                                       (1532–38 AD)

                          Alauddin Firoz Shah (1532 AD)

A study of the history of Bengal shows that it was during the Husain Shahi period that idolatry first entered the conduct and religious beliefs of Muslims. There is no doubt that the immense influence of Shri Chaitanya and the Vaishnava community corrupted the religious beliefs of Muslims. The killing by Husain Shah of millions of distinguished Muslim amirs and nobles, religious figures and pirs and saints, together with Husain Shah’s own becoming a disciple of Shri Chaitanya, made it easier for idolatrous ideas to enter Muslim society.

M. R. Tarafdar says in his book Husain Shahi Bengal:

“Some of the influential Muslims used to worship the snake goddess, Mannasa, out of fear of snakebite. It is probably the result of Hindu influence on the Muslims. Nasrat Shah constructed a building in honor of the Prophet. But the preservation of the Prophet’s footprint does not find support in Orthodox Islam.”

(Husain Shahi Bengal, M. R. Tarafdar, pp. 164, 166, 167, 89–91)

“Some influential Muslims worshipped at the altar of Manasa out of fear of snakebite. This was probably the result of Hindu influence on Muslims. Nasrat Shah constructed a building. Paying homage to the Prophet’s footprint is not supported by true Islam.”

Dr. James Wise says that the Brahmins of Gaya made considerable earnings by showing pilgrims Vishnupad (the footprint of Vishnu). Following their example, the worship of Qadam Rasul began in Muslim society in Husain Shahi Bengal.

After the Husain Shahi dynasty ruled Bengal for forty-five years, no further trace of it was found. Then the Sher Shah, Sur and Karrani dynasties occupied the throne of Bengal until 1575. Thereafter, governors appointed under the Mughal Empire of Delhi continued to administer Bengal. However, peaceful administration in Bengal was not possible after the death of Emperor Akbar in 1605 until Jahangir appointed Man Singh governor of Bengal for the second time. Mughal authority in Bengal was repeatedly resisted and imperiled. After Man Singh, Jahangir appointed Qutbuddin Khan Koka as subahdar of Bengal. In 1607, Jahangir appointed Quli Khan, and nine more subahdars governed Bengal until 1639. After Prince Shuja was appointed governor of Bengal in 1639, the English first arrived in Bengal in the guise of merchants, and in 1757 they permanently uprooted Muslim rule and became the masters of Bengal and Bihar.

Those who occupied the throne of Bengal after Prince Muhammad Shuja until 1757 were:

Prince Muhammad Shuja — 1639–60 AD

Muazzam Khan, Mir Jumla — 1660–63 AD

Dilir Khan–Daud Khan — 1663–64 AD

Shaista Khan (brother of Mumtaz Mahal) — 1664–78 AD

Fida Khan, Azam Khan Koka — 1678 AD

Prince Muhammad Azam — 1678–79 AD

Shaista Khan — 1679–88 AD

Khan-i Jahan — 1688–89 AD

Ibrahim Khan — 1689–98 AD

Prince Azimuddin — 1698–1717 AD

Murshid Quli Khan — 1717–27 AD

Suzauddin Muhammad Khan — 1727–39 AD

Sarfaraz Khan — 1739–40 AD

Alivardi Khan — 1740–56 AD

Sirajuddaula — 1756–57 AD

Chapter Three

The Arrival of the East India Company in Bengal

We need to know well the arrival and subsequent activities in this country of the East India Company, under which the English, through more than a century of determined effort and endeavor, transformed themselves from merchants into rulers, uprooted the Muslim rule established for five and a half centuries, and bound the people of this land in the chains of slavery.

At the end of the sixteenth century (1599 AD), the East India Company was founded in London through the joint efforts of several merchants. With the approval of Queen Elizabeth, they began trading with India. In 1612, having obtained a charter from Emperor Jahangir, the company established its first trading post at the port of Surat.

At first they had to proceed through many hardships and reverses and therefore could not make much progress in trade and commerce. In 1644, while Emperor Shah Jahan was in the Deccan, his daughter was burned in a fire. Dr. Gabriel Boughton, a highly skilled surgeon sent by the head of the English factory at Surat to treat her, cured her. Emperor Shah Jahan became extremely impressed with him, and at Boughton’s request the English merchants obtained the right to trade in Bengal duty-free. When they arrived in Bengal in 1644 with the emperor’s farman, Prince Muhammad Shah Shuja was the subahdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.

It must be said that the company was exceedingly fortunate that Dr. Boughton was entrusted with treating a member of Shah Shuja’s family, and that he earned a reputation for his medical skill here as well. Consequently, Shah Shuja granted the English the opportunity to trade freely in Bengal in exchange for only three thousand rupees as a salami. The extreme generosity and favor shown to the English by Emperor Shah Jahan and his son were later used by the ungrateful English merchants as the death warrant of the Mughal Empire and the independence of Bengal and Bihar.

By virtue of Shah Shuja’s farman, the English merchants established their trading post at Hooghly and an agency at Patna.

From Mir Jumla to Sirajuddaula

After Shah Shuja, Aurangzeb’s general Mir Jumla was appointed subahdar of Bengal. The astute Mir Jumla kept a sharp watch on the activities of the English. Once, Mir Jumla detained several boats laden with goods traveling from Patna to Hooghly. In retaliation, the English factor at Hooghly detained a boat laden with a Muslim’s goods and seized the merchandise. Because of this insolence, Mir Jumla ordered that the Hooghly factory be seized. Seeing that the situation was hopeless, the factor returned the detained boat and goods to their owner and begged Mir Jumla’s forgiveness.

Nawab Shaista Khan

After Mir Jumla, Shaista Khan was appointed to the office of nawab and subahdar of Bengal. The English were terrified everywhere because of Shaista Khan. Because of their insolence, Shaista Khan revoked the previous farmans. When they apologized for their conduct and promised to trade honestly, the earlier farmans were restored. Thereafter, Shaista Khan left Bengal.

Fida Khan and Prince Muhammad Azam

After Shaista Khan, Fida Khan and Prince Muhammad Azam, son of Emperor Aurangzeb, were appointed Subahdars of Bengal successively. After Muhammad Azam was appointed Subahdar in 1678, the Company bribed him with twenty-one thousand rupees to serve its selfish interests. When Emperor Aurangzeb learned of this, he dismissed him and sent Shaista Khan to Bengal again. At this time the insolence of the English reached its height. A certain person named Akbar engaged in a conspiracy against the Emperor, and the English assisted him with arms and weapons. On learning of this conspiracy, Shaista Khan imprisoned Mr. Peacock, commander of the Patna factory. As the Company’s trade suffered, several warships were sent to India from London under the leadership of Captain Nicholson, with orders to seize Chittagong. But Captain Nicholson was unsuccessful. Because of such treachery by the English, Nawab Shaista Khan expelled them from Sutanuti. In 1687, when Job Charnock, head of the Kasimbazar factory, accepted all the conditions laid down by the Nawab, they were again permitted to trade. When news reached England that Job Charnock had accepted the conditions imposed by the Nawab, the Company’s officials considered it humiliating. They then fitted out a warship named the Defence with various weapons and sent it to India under the command of a formidable sailor named Captain Heath. On reaching Sutanuti, Heath went to Balasore with the Company’s men to wage war against the Mughals. There they subjected the people to inhuman oppression and plundered all their possessions. Heath then went from Balasore to Chittagong and sought the assistance of the King of Arakan. He failed there as well and, disappointed, went to Madras. Learning of these treacherous schemes and conspiracies, Emperor Aurangzeb confiscated the English trading factories at Masulipatnam and Vizagapatam. Thus the Company faced utter disaster for its misdeeds.

Subahdar Ibrahim Khan

After Shaista Khan, Khan-i-Jahan became Subahdar of Bengal for a short time, and in 1689 Ibrahim Khan was appointed Subahdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Company’s position was reconsidered with a view to expanding trade and commerce in the country. The English prisoners in Orissa were then released, and Job Charnock was again permitted to establish a trading factory in Bengal. Job Charnock had fled and was residing in Madras. As soon as he obtained permission, the cunning Job Charnock returned to Bengal in 1691 with the English merchants and founded the city of Calcutta, establishing themselves so firmly that, as a far-reaching consequence, the English retained their domination and imperialism over Bengal and the whole of India until 1947.

At this time a serious charge was brought against the English. The Shaykh al-Islam of Constantinople informed Emperor Aurangzeb that the large quantity of saltpetre the English collected from India was exported to Europe, where it was used to manufacture ammunition and employ it against Muslims. Aurangzeb prohibited the purchase of saltpetre. But they continued to smuggle it secretly. Thereafter Emperor Aurangzeb issued a farman prohibiting trade with the Europeans. When the head of the Hooghly factory appealed to the Subahdar of Bengal, he reduced the severity of this prohibition.

Subahdar Azim-ush-Shan

Because of Ibrahim Khan’s incompetence, Emperor Aurangzeb appointed his own grandson Azim-ush-Shan as Subahdar of Bengal in his place.

Azim-ush-Shan was extremely pleasure-loving and greedy for money. Taking advantage of this, the English presented him with lavish gifts and obtained permission to fortify their trading factory at Sutanuti. They then once again acquired the three villages of Sutanuti, Govindapur and Calcutta by paying sixteen thousand rupees in nazrana and giving valuable gifts.

After Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, Azim-ush-Shan’s father, Bahadur Shah, ascended the throne of Delhi. Consequently, Azim-ush-Shan was again appointed Subahdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Murshid Quli Khan was appointed Diwan and sent to Bengal to assist the incompetent, inactive and pleasure-loving Subahdar in revenue matters.

Murshid Quli Khan

Azim-ush-Shan was killed by Farrukhsiyar while competing for the throne after Bahadur Shah’s death, and Farrukhsiyar appointed Murshid Quli Khan himself as Subahdar of Bengal. Murshid Quli Khan was not a man to become a puppet in the hands of the English or to be subdued by money. The English therefore failed to obtain illegal privileges from him. Seeing their situation worsen, they sent a delegation to the Emperor. Among them was a highly skilled physician named Hamilton. The Subahdar of Bengal was hostile to the English, and the Emperor was unwilling to do anything against his wishes. But here the opening of a romantic drama caused the English fortune to become extremely favorable.

The young Emperor Farrukhsiyar fell in love with an exceptionally beautiful daughter of the Maharana of Udaipur Singh. After the marriage was arranged, he suddenly fell seriously ill. The marriage was postponed indefinitely. No treatment produced any result. At last the Emperor came under the care of Dr. Hamilton. Under his treatment he made a complete recovery, and the marriage with the Maharana’s daughter was solemnized.

After obtaining his beloved, Emperor Farrukhsiyar became greatly impressed by Dr. Hamilton and granted the English merchants thirty-eight villages on both banks of the Hooghly River south of Calcutta. Their nominal annual revenue was fixed at only eight thousand one hundred and twenty-one rupees. Even after obtaining so much from the Emperor, they could not secure any particular advantage because of their fear of Murshid Quli Khan.

Shujauddin

After Murshid Quli’s death in 1725, his son-in-law Shujauddin assumed the office of Subahdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. During his tenure the English made considerable progress in trade and commerce, and their insolence also increased many times over. Once the Faujdar of Hooghly detained an English boat laden with goods for a legitimate reason. On learning of this, the English sent a group of soldiers and seized the boat from the guards. When the Subahdar learned of this insolence, he promptly admitted his offense, paid a substantial fine and begged forgiveness. Thus they escaped.

Sarfaraz Khan

After Shujauddin’s death, his son Sarfaraz Khan was appointed Subahdar. Nadir Shah’s invasion of India took place during his tenure.

Alivardi Khan

Sarfaraz Khan was incompetent and faint-hearted. He was killed in a clash with his general, Alivardi Khan, and Alivardi Khan became Subahdar of Bengal in 1741.

During Alivardi Khan’s time, the Bargi raiders repeatedly attacked Bengal. To protect the country from their depredations, he several times exacted large sums of money from the English and other foreign merchants. He encouraged trade and commerce for the country’s economic development.

Despite adopting many precautionary measures, the Bargi raiders once entered the country and carried out plunder and slaughter. Alivardi Khan felt the need for the assistance and cooperation of the English to suppress the Bargi raiders arriving by water, because Bengal had virtually no naval power. The English, on the other hand, possessed a powerful fleet. Alivardi’s chief general once advised him to expel from the country a growing evil power such as the English. In reply, the aged Alivardi said that, on one side, the Bargis had set the land ablaze. If the English were angered, they would set the sea ablaze, and Bengal had no power to extinguish it. Taking advantage of Alivardi’s old age and the delicacy of the situation, the English consolidated themselves and planned to establish a political foothold in the country; this culminated fifteen years later, in 1757.

Siraj-ud-Daulah

In 1756, after remaining bedridden for a long time, Alivardi died and Siraj-ud-Daulah became his successor. After ascending the throne, he skillfully thwarted all the conspiracies of Alivardi’s daughter, Ghaseti Begum, and his grandson Shaukat Jang, governor of Purnia. Immediately after Siraj-ud-Daulah’s accession following Alivardi Khan’s death, Ghaseti Begum succeeded in gathering twenty thousand soldiers to her side and set out toward Murshidabad. Siraj-ud-Daulah swiftly defeated Ghaseti Begum’s army and imprisoned the Begum in the royal palace. Meanwhile, when Shaukat Jang declared himself Subahdar of Bengal, he was killed by Siraj-ud-Daulah in battle.

Rajballabh, the Diwan of Nawajish Muhammad, was instigating the rebellion of Ghaseti Begum and Shaukat Jang. When Siraj-ud-Daulah learned this, he demanded the accounts from Rajballabh. As Diwan under Nawajish Muhammad, the governor of Dhaka, he was responsible for collecting the revenue. Since he was unable to render accounts because he had embezzled a vast amount of the collected revenue, Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah ordered the seizure of Rajballabh’s wealth in Dhaka. Seeing the situation worsen, Rajballabh’s son Krishnaballabh pretended to go for a bath in the Ganges and fled with the collected revenue and all the wealth illegally acquired, taking refuge with the English in Calcutta in 1756. Siraj-ud-Daulah ordered Mr. Drake, the Governor of Calcutta, to hand over the fugitive Krishnaballabh, together with the treasure, to him. On the advice of Mahtab Chand, one of the wealthiest men in India at the time and a highly influential Hindu notable of the state, and other Hindu merchants and moneylenders, Drake refused to carry out Siraj-ud-Daulah’s order. Then the web of conspiracy spread by the ungrateful, power-hungry English and their Hindu notable collaborators to depose Siraj-ud-Daulah and abolish Muslim rule forever was finally put into effect—on the field of Plassey. Before discussing the Battle of Plassey, its background and the fall of Siraj-ud-Daulah, we need to know what the religious, social and cultural condition of Bengal’s Muslims was at that time.

Chapter Four

The Background to the Abolition of Muslim Rule in Bengal

There is no denying that, after the decline of the Mughal Empire, extreme disaster descended upon the lives of the Muslims of India. Although a merely nominal central government remained in Delhi, it was extremely weak, and taking advantage of this, Muslim rulers in various places enjoyed a kind of independence. They made every effort to satisfy the zamindar-jagirdar and wealthy merchant classes. As a result, they naturally became victims of inferiority. The opportunistic conquered people took advantage of this opportunity to dare to intrude into the religious beliefs and cultural sphere of the Muslims. The translation, propagation and expansion of Hindu scriptures in Bengali and Sanskrit, the introduction of Vaishnavism by Sri Chaitanya, and the filthy, obscene and sexually stimulating activities of Vaishnava society plunged Muslim society into the abyss of decline. When there is no means of defeating an enemy in open battle, he can easily be defeated by gaining dominance over his religious beliefs and culture. The astute Hindu people of India, and especially of Bengal, thus took revenge for their accumulated resentment of several centuries. Moreover, at various stages of history they accelerated the decline of the Muslim nation and, to achieve their desired ends, selected and installed in power a Muslim in name who was entirely to their liking. Through this puppet they were able to fulfill their interests completely. Along with this, the intrusion of disbelief and idolatry into Islamic iman and aqidah, and the dominance of the Hindu people over Muslim culture, turned Muslims into their mental slaves. Its entirely natural consequence was what happened.

Dr. A. R. Mallick comments in his book:

“Thus, long years of association with a non-Muslim people who far outnumbered them, cut off from the original home of Islam, and living with half-converts from Hinduism, the Muslims had greatly deviated from the faith and had become Indianised. This deviation from the faith apart, the Indian Muslims, in adopting the caste system of the Hindus, had given a disastrous blow to the Islamic conception of brotherhood and equality in which their strength had rested in the past and presented thus in the 19^th century the picture of a disrupted society, degenerated and weakened by division and subdivision to a degree that seemed beyond the possibility of repair. No wonder Sir Mohammad Iqbal said, ‘Surely we have out-Hindued the Hindu himself—we are suffering from a social caste system, a religious caste system, and sectarian and social caste systems—which we have either learned or inherited from the Hindus. This is one of the quiet ways in which the conquered nation revenged itself on its conquerors.’” (British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal—A. R. Mallick)

“The Muslims, cut off from the original source of Islam, lived together for many years with the majority non-Muslims, including the half-converted Muslims of India, moved away from the original faith and became Indian. Moreover, these Indian Muslims adopted the caste system of the Hindus and dealt a severe blow to the Islamic brotherhood and equality in which their strength had rested in the past. Consequently, in the nineteenth century they appeared as a nation divided into many parts, fragmented and degenerate, with no means of reform. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in this statement of Sir Muhammad Iqbal:

‘Surely we have surpassed the Hindus. We are afflicted with a twofold caste system—the religious caste system, sects and subsects, and the social caste system—which we have learned from, or inherited from, the Hindus. This is one of the silent ways in which the conquered take revenge on their conquerors.’”

It is an undeniable fact that the Hindus of Bengal and India could never accept Muslim rule. Therefore, they worked silently for centuries to destroy Muslim solidarity at its root. Through their efforts they achieved complete success. They separated the Muslims from the fundamental beliefs of Islam and smeared their tahdhib and culture with the stain of idolatry. They knew very well that it was extremely easy to serve Hindu interests by turning Muslims into Hindus in outlook without converting them to Hinduism, and they achieved complete success in this work.

The Religious, Social and Cultural Condition of the Muslims

To properly understand the paths by which the decline of Bengal’s Muslims occurred and what evil force was instigating it from behind the scenes, we must know how distorted their religious beliefs, society and culture had become at that time.

In fact, idolatry began to enter the aqidah, beliefs, society and culture of Bengal’s Muslims from the time of Alauddin Husain Shah, the ruler of Bengal. Husain Shah, whose government was administered by a ministry filled and surrounded by supporters and bearers of the Hindu Renaissance movement, became attracted to Sri Chaitanya and accepted him as his teacher. If this account given by historians is true, it is then easy to estimate how much faith Husain Shah had in tawhid. Under his patronage, the powerful flood of Vaishnavism swept away Bengal’s Muslim society. The criminal, obscene and vile practices of Hindu tantrics, the Panchatattva of the left-hand practitioners—that is, filthy sexual rites—and the love-play of the Vaishnavas easily attracted and influenced Muslims converted from the lower Hindu classes. Although these rites and love-plays largely destroyed the purity, taste and moral sensibilities of Hindu society, this weapon of cutting off one’s own nose to spite another caused decay in religious belief. The Muslim-named poets and writers of the time whom the standard-bearers of the Hindu Renaissance movement, in the name of developing the Bengali language, actually used as puppets, adopted the Hindu poets of the later period as their models. These Muslim poets began composing poems, lyrical verses and literature praising Hindu gods and goddesses. They wrote many manuscripts based on Sri Krishna’s amorous play, sexually suggestive kirtans, songs of Manasa’s immersion ceremony, hymns to Durga and Ganga, and Hindu mythological tales.

Sheikh Faizullah composed an epic entitled Goraksha Vijay and, becoming devoted to Goraksha Nath, the founder of the Nath community of Bengal and the Calcutta Kali Temple, composed a hymn to the Ganges in Sanskrit—(Bangla Bhasha o Sahitya: Dinesh Chandra Sen). Similarly, Abdus Shukur and Syed Sultan, attracted to Shaiva and Tantric doctrines, composed literary works. (See Shukur Mahmud’s Panchali, published by Golam Rasul.)

The poets Alaol and Mirza Hafez composed poems respectively describing praise of Shiva and Kali (Bangla Bhasha o Sahitya: Dinesh Chandra Sen). Syed Sultan included Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna in the genealogy of the prophets—(British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal: A. R. Mallick). During Husain Shah’s time, Muslims began worshipping Satya Narayan under the name Satya Pir. This has been mentioned earlier.

There is no way to know anything about the religious views and life histories of the poets and writers mentioned above. Only their names are found in the field of literature. Perhaps they were merely born into the homes of converted Muslims and their lives were shaped in a completely Hindu environment. Or perhaps, after converting from Islam, they became apostates like Haridas. Nevertheless, their poetry, literature, panchali songs and other works influenced Muslim society and culture at that time.

Later, the enemies of Islam succeeded in using Emperor Akbar to achieve their aims. Jodhabai, the beautiful daughter of Raja Bihari Mal of Jaipur, adorned the Mughal harem as Akbar’s chief wife. Akbar is known to have had several Hindu wives. At that time Hindu kings gave their daughters in marriage to Akbar and used him for their own interests. These Hindu wives were given complete freedom to practice idolatry and all religious rites within the royal palace. The imperial palace of the Muslim Mughal emperor became a temple of image-worship and fire-worship. Thus Akbar was greatly influenced not only by the Hindu chief wives but also by Hinduism. It is not difficult to estimate how direct the influence of idolatry was on the minds of the children born to these wives, whose eyes were opened to knowledge and who were raised and nurtured in such an environment. As a natural consequence, we find that Emperor Jahangir, born of a Hindu chief wife, observed the Diwali worship and invited Brahmin scholars and yogis to dine with him at night on Shivaratri. In the eighth year of his reign, he performed the Hindu-style shraddha ceremony for his father at Akbar’s mausoleum in Sikandra.

Dara Shikoh, son of Shah Jahan, attempted in his book Majma-ul-Bahrain to reconcile Hinduism and Islam.

In the middle of the eighteenth century, Alivardi Khan’s nephews Shahamat Jang and Saulat Jang observed the Holi festival for seven days at the Motijheel palace. Abir and kumkum were piled up at this ceremony. Mir Jafar also took part in the Holi celebration with the city’s dignitaries. It is said that, at the time of his death, Mir Jafar drank the foot-washing water of the goddess Kiritेशwari—the water used to wash the idol. (British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal: A. R. Mallick; Social History of Muslim Bengal: Maulana Akram Khan)

Holi, strictly speaking, is Sri Krishna’s swing festival. Sri Chaitanya, an incarnation of Sri Krishna, established Vaishnavism. Sri Krishna’s swing festival is one of their principal religious ceremonies. Thus, it can be clearly understood from the account above that the influence of Vaishnavism had by then entered the very foundation of Muslim society.

In determining the cause of this religious decline in Muslim society, historians say that the foremost reason for the entry of idolatrous ideas into Muslim society was that the new Muslims of India remained half-converted from idolatry to Islam. That is, an idolater became a Muslim without understanding Islam. Afterwards, no provision was made for his Islamic training. His thinking was not purified. He had no opportunity to learn about the futility of idolatry and the truth and beauty of Islam in contrast to it. Living in an Islamic environment did not change or reform his conduct, character or mentality. Therefore, this type of Muslim may try to gain some enjoyment by decorating with lights and setting off fireworks on Shab-e-Barat in imitation of the Hindus’ Durga festival. Akbar, Jahangir and the later rulers of Bengal did not hesitate to participate openly in Hindu religious ceremonies.

The historian M. Grasin de Tassy says that the Muharram tazia is an exact imitation of the Hindu Durga Puja. Just as the Durga festival continues for ten days and, on the final day, the worshippers parade with the idol amid drums and musical instruments before immersing it in a river or pond, Muslims likewise celebrate Muharram for ten days. On the last day, the tazia is paraded to the beating of drums and immersed in water, just as Durga is immersed.

Dr. James Wise described the Muharram festival as resembling the Hindus’ Rath Yatra festival. Mrs. H. Ali says that, through prolonged contact with Hindus, Muslims have made their religious festivals externally elaborate in the form of processions, imitating the Hindus. Like the Europeans, foreign Muslims regarded such religious festivals among the Muslims of Bengal as a distortion and profanation of Islam. (British Policy and the Muslims of Bengal: A. R. Mallik).

Amid this decline of Islam and the Muslims, the maladies of saint-worship and grave-worship spread through Muslim society. According to the historian M. T. Titus, this superstition was imported from Afghanistan, Persia, and Iraq. The ancient guru-disciple system of the Hindus and their unshakable faith in the worship of numerous local gods and goddesses encouraged Muslim society to become involved in this superstition. He says that they worshipped pirs with many times more enthusiasm and zeal than they observed Islam’s obligatory religious rites. The saints and dervishes who had once preached Islam’s sublime message were later made by ignorant Muslims into centers of grave-worship.

Dr. James Wise gives the following number of the saints and dervishes in Bengal whose graves Muslims alone visited to offer flowers, shirni, and votive offerings in fulfillment of their wishes:

Shah Jalal of Sylhet, the Five Pirs, Munnashah the dervish, Khondkar Muhammad Yusuf of Sonargaon, Shah Ali Baghdadi of Mirpur, Pir Badr of Chittagong, Shah Jalal of Dhaka, and Adam Shahid of Bikrampur. In Chittagong there is reportedly a dargah said to be that of Bayazid Bostami—perhaps entirely fictitious—which was probably discovered by Dr. James Wise at a later time.

Blockman’s work mentions many such dargahs in Bengal and Bihar.

It is said that both Hindus and Muslims of Sonargaon used to perform worship and festivals. Farmers would bring several sheaves of rice to the dargah in hopes of obtaining a good harvest. Rice and offerings were presented at the dargah to obtain protection from all kinds of illness and danger.

At a dargah on the bank of the Shitalakshya River, east of Dhaka city, there was a black stone called Qadam Rasul (the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) footprint). It is said to still exist today. Dr. James Wise says that the Brahmins of Gaya earn considerable money by showing pilgrims Vishnupad (Vishnu’s footprint). Likewise, the mutawalli of the dargah earns considerable money by showing Qadam Rasul to the ignorant and credulous people of the village.

In Ajmer, the shrine’s brokers remove the covering of Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti’s (may Allah have mercy on him) tomb and show visitors the gate of Paradise (?), earning considerable money from those who come to pay homage.

Countless graves and dargahs of this kind filled whatever remained of Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan through bands of fraudulent pirs and fakirs. In the name of religion, they even introduced sexual immorality, imitating the Vaishnavas and left-hand Tantrics. Since the doctrine and path they adopted in the name of Islam originated in Bengali Vaishnavism, I consider it necessary to mention here briefly the customs, rituals, and practices of the Vaishnavas. Maulana Akram Khan discussed this matter at length in his book A Social History of Muslim Bengal. I shall present a brief extract from his work to the readers.

“Chaitanyadeva is the worshipped deity of the Chaitanya sect of Bengal’s Vaishnavas. According to the ordinary belief of the Hindus, Chaitanya is an incarnation of Shri Krishna or, in the fullest sense, Shri Krishna himself. For this reason, after his death, his devotees removed the human Chaitanya from his being and elevated him wholly into Krishna Chaitanya, becoming disastrously attracted to Krishna’s amorous pastimes. The vile sexual immorality that flows among the shaven-headed Vaishnava men and women in the name of religion is nothing but a repetition or imitation of the sexually impassioned love-play of Shri Krishna described in the Puranas.

The Tantric text gives explicit instructions that, in the Kali age (the present age), drinking alcohol is not merely permitted; rather, the practice of drinking alcohol was prescribed, and likewise in this Kali age, regardless of caste or religion, you shall drink it—(Mahanirvana Tantra, Fourth Ullasa, verse 56).”

“Mahadeva says to Gauri: Just as sowing seed on stone makes its germination impossible, worship and devotion without the Five Principles are likewise fruitless. Moreover, if one performs worship and devotion without the Five Principles, the worshipper must face various dangers, calamities, obstacles, and difficulties—(Mahanirvana Tantra, Fifth Ullasa, verses 23–24).”

We invite the readers to hear from Mahadeva’s own lips an explanation of the mystery of these Five Principles:

“O Primordial One, in the practice of Shakti worship, instructions are given that drinking alcohol, eating meat, fish, and mudra, and sexual intercourse are essential obligations.”

(Wine, meat, then fish, sexual intercourse and mudra—these five principles are prescribed in the worship of Shakti—Mahanirvana Tantra, Fifth Ullasa, verse 22).

“Swami Dayananda, founder of the Arya Samaj, writes about this method of worship of the left-hand Tantrics: The left-hand practitioners have accepted these highly irreligious acts, contrary to the Vedas, as the highest religion. They consider the tasteless mixture of wine, meat, fish, mudra, and sexual intercourse desirable. In the matter of the Five Principles, that is, sexual intercourse, each man may imagine himself to be Shiva and each woman Parvati, recite mantras, and engage in intercourse as a religious ritual. Intercourse with a menstruating woman is prohibited in the scriptures. But the left-hand practitioners regard them—that is, menstruating women—as extremely sacred.

“The Rudramangal Tantra, the scripture of the left-hand practitioners, states: Intercourse with a menstruating woman is like bathing in a pond; intercourse with a Chandali is like a pilgrimage to Kashi; intercourse with a female leatherworker is like bathing at Prayag; intercourse with a washerwoman is like a pilgrimage to Mathura; and intercourse with a hunter’s daughter is like visiting the holy site of Ayodhya.”

“When the left-hand practitioners gather in the Bhairavi Circle (a circle of men and women assembled for unrestricted sexual intercourse), there is no distinction between a Brahmin and a Chandala. A group of men and women gather in an inaccessible, secluded place, form a circle called the Bhairavi Circle, and sit or stand there. All the men among these sensualists choose one woman, strip her naked, and worship her. Likewise, all the women choose one man, strip him naked, and worship him. After the worship is over, the round of frenzied drinking begins. When sexual excitement increases as a result of drinking, they throw off all their clothing, become completely naked, and revel in unrestricted sexual intercourse, each with whomever he or she wishes and with as many partners as possible—even if a sexual partner is a mother, sister, or daughter, they do not care. The Tantric scriptures of the left-hand practitioners prescribe that, except for one’s mother, no woman must be excluded from sexual intercourse, and that sexual acts are to be performed with every other woman, whether daughter or sister. (Jnana-Sankalani Tantra: ‘Having excluded the mother’s womb, let one sport in all wombs.’) These Vaishnava-Tantric left-hand practitioners have many other such vile and obscene practices that it is impossible to express them in words.” (A Social History of Muslim Bengal, Maulana Akram Khan).

Under the influence of the vile and filthy environment described above, the Muslim society of Bengal at that time descended to an extremely miserable level of religious and moral decline and social and cultural disorder. To present this picture of decline clearly to the readers, it is necessary here to mention the spiritual practices of the so-called Muslim Marfatis, or shaven-headed pirs and fakirs. These fraudulent fakirs were divided into various sects and subsects, namely Aul, Baul, Kartabhaja, Sahajiya, and others. These were Muslim versions of the Hindu Vaishnava and Chaitanya sects, intended to lead ordinary ignorant Muslims astray.

Among them, the Baul sect appears to be the vilest and most sexually inclined. Drinking alcohol and unrestricted sexual relations between men and women were invariably included in the spiritual practices of all these sects. The Bauls, however, regarded sexual intercourse as sexual worship, or true worship, just like the Tantric left-hand practitioners described above. As part of this sexual worship, they had to perform a ritual called ‘breaking the Four Moons.’ They considered it an indispensable sacred practice. According to them, human beings obtain these Four Moons, or the essences of the human body—blood, semen, feces, and urine—from the father’s testicles and the mother’s womb. Therefore, they also practiced the ‘Five Essences’ alongside the practice of the Four Moons. In their terminology, the Five Essences were black, white, red, yellow, and the murshid’s word. These four colors respectively signified wine, semen, menstrual fluid, and feces. After intercourse with one’s wife or another man’s wife, they consumed these four-colored substances in observance of the murshid’s word.

The respected Maulana Akram Khan says the following about these Bauls in the book mentioned above:

“The interpretation that these Satanic, shaven-headed fakirs have given to various words and fundamental concepts of the Holy Quran is also astonishing. By ‘Hawd al-Kawthar,’ they understand female menstrual fluid instead of the life-giving nectar of Paradise. At the beginning of the worship ritual in which these despicable fakirs drink semen, they pronounce the word ‘Bismillah,’ meaning ‘Bija mein Allah’ (‘Allah resides in semen’; God forbid, God forbid).

“The priests or pirs of these Muslim mendicant, shaven-headed fakirs perform a dramatic ritual resembling Krishna’s stealing of the gopis’ clothing. When the pir pays a visit to the home of one of his disciples, all the young women and unmarried girls of the village, dressed in fine clothes and imitating the gopis of Vrindavan, gather with the pir in a room. In the first act of the drama, all these women begin dancing and singing. A prose version of this sakhi song is given below:

O sister, if you wish to love Shri Krishna,

Come quickly, without deceiving yourself,

Raise your eyes and look at him

The guru has come to save you

You will find no guru like this anywhere.

Yes, whatever pleases the guru

Do not be ashamed to do it.”

‘When the song has been sung, all these women remove their coverings, become completely naked, and continue dancing joyfully, turning around and around. The pir assumes the role of Krishna here, and just as Shri Krishna steals the gopis’ clothes, lifts them into a tree, and keeps them on a high shelf in the house, this pir, since he has no flute like Krishna, sexually arouses these naked women by singing the following words with his mouth:

‘O young women, the path to your salvation is to offer your bodies as an offering to the priest of the devotees.’

It goes without saying that their principal religious duty is to satisfy the pir’s sexual lust without feeling any hesitation.” (A Social History of Muslim Bengal).

There is no doubt that sexual activity is pleasurable and gratifying. But people fear and feel apprehensive about illicit sexual intercourse; they feel shame and embarrassment—for fear of sin, for fear of religion. But if religion itself declares that this act is not sinful but meritorious, and that salvation is attained through it, why would people not be drawn to this path? A class of depraved sinners trapped, deceived, and led ignorant, foolish people astray in this way in the name of religion.

The fraudulent pirs and fakirs described above had many more misdeeds and obscene practices. Only a brief discussion has been offered above by way of example. The readers will undoubtedly be able to understand from this the religious and moral decline of Muslim society at that time. Although the decline had not affected the entire Muslim society to this extent, Muslim society lacked the power to resist the powerful flood of idolatrous and Vaishnava doctrines that was sweeping away the Muslims’ religious feelings and merging them with those doctrines. This was because the Muslim rulers of that time directly or indirectly supported idolatry and Vaishnavism. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Islamic movement of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid (may Allah have mercy on him) built a strong wall of resistance against these things; history has incorrectly named it the ‘Wahhabi Movement.’ That discussion will come in its proper place. Sayyid Titumir and Haji Shariatullah also fought against them. Nevertheless, the poison of those misguidance and deviations continued to afflict a section of Muslim society until the first few decades of the twentieth century. Proof of this is found in the census report of 1911 CE, which states that, during the enumeration, some communities were found who admitted that they were neither Hindu nor Muslim, but rather a mixture of both. (Census of India Report, 1911 A.D.)

Yet a number of Vaishnavism-devoted and idolatrous-minded Muslim poets writing in Bengali have kept the essence of idolatrous thought alive among some Muslims. The devotional poet Lal Mamud was one of them. He became so devoted to Vaishnavism that he planted a tulsi tree beneath a banyan tree and continued to tend and worship it properly. On the day Goswami Prabhu arrived at Lalu’s ashram, he honored the master by singing the following song.

Where is my merciful Hari?

I have fallen into the prison of worldly existence; who will rescue me?

Because I was born into the Yavana community, branded guilty of a hundred sins,

My life has passed in vain.

Next comes the poet Lalon Shah. Several of his songs are given below: ‘Carry me across, O fair Gaur, the day has sunk

Through my carelessness, carelessness, and neglect, my days have flowed away.

The worldly river is there to cross

Nitai Chand is the helmsman.

O fair Gaur, if I can find you, O fair Gaur,

I will cast my lineage into ashes

Says fakir Lalon, I shall become a servant of the holy feet.’

Above, the poet Lal Mamud laments that, having been born in a Muslim household, his life became futile. Lalon Shah says that if he finds Gaur and Nitai, he will abandon Islam and devote himself to serving their holy feet.

A song by Lalon Shah concerning love for Krishna:

Hoping to love Krishna, I wander throughout my life

Hoping to love that love in full

I have not had even a fraction of my desire fulfilled.

The burden of Radha Rani’s debt

Gaur has come to Nadia—Kanhai and Balai of Vrindavan

Coming to Naide, Gaur and Nitai have taken the name.

A section of idolatrous-minded people in Muslim society is trying to keep Lalon Shah’s doctrine alive within Muslim society.

Historians comment as follows in explaining the causes of this decline of Muslim society:

“Just as the various nations of the world have been influenced by conquered peoples, so the Muslims of India have been especially influenced by the conquered Hindu nation. This influence is still evident in their customs, conduct, outlook on life, and even their beliefs. Interaction between Islam and Hinduism continued during the period of Muslim rule. At various times, this interaction intensified as a result of the liberal policies of the Muslim rulers. Consequently, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Islam in India assumed such a form that an Islamic Renaissance movement arose. Indian Muslims, especially the Muslims of Bengal and Bihar, adopted various unbelieving customs and practices alongside their religious beliefs, something rare among Muslims of other countries. Just as the number of Muslims in Bengal and Bihar was vast, their customs and practices were likewise irreligious and immoral.” (British Policy and the Muslims of Bengal: A. R. Mallik).

“The reason for the penetration of un-Islamic customs and practices into Indian Islam is that the conversion of non-Muslims was incomplete.” (History of India—Elliot and Dowson) The religious, social, and cultural condition of the Muslims of Bengal from the sixteenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century has been described above. When Muslims who followed tawhid were thus confined within a web of distortions, and hostile forces launched a pincer attack from within and without to defeat and annihilate them, no vitality remained to repel that attack. Those of whom only seventeen had once established political authority over Bengal could not, several centuries later, preserve that political establishment even when joined by their millions.

Political Causes of Bengal’s Decline

The defeat of Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah and the fall of Bengal in the fifth decade of the eighteenth century were not the result of an isolated event. Truth-seeking readers should certainly know the chain of political events that brought the tragic drama of Plassey to its conclusion. In reality, the fall of the Mughal Empire brought about the fall of Muslim rule throughout the subcontinent. In the fifty years from the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707 to the Battle of Plassey in 1757, at least seven men ascended the throne of Delhi. None of them, however, possessed the ability to save the declining empire. Some shortsighted historians naturally hold Aurangzeb responsible for the destruction of the Mughal Empire. A thorough examination and review of history makes clear that the seed of destruction had been sown much earlier by Emperor Akbar himself and had gradually grown into a vast, mighty tree. Aurangzeb restrained that destruction with all his strength throughout his life. Had his successors been as strong and prudent as he was, the history of India might have been written differently. The respected Akram Khan comments in his book A Social History of Muslim Bengal:

“The consequences of all the misdeeds of Akbar’s reign did not end with his death. Until the final moment of the Mughal Empire’s existence, all his successors had to pay for these misdeeds with everything they possessed in life. The ten crore Muslims of India have not yet been freed from the remaining inherited responsibility of compensating for Akbar’s misdeeds. We do not think any detailed discussion of the nature of this inheritance is necessary for Muslim readers.”

Akbar was, so to speak, illiterate or very poorly educated. He gained the throne at the age of fifteen or sixteen. It would have been utterly impossible for an illiterate boy-prince to govern Delhi, surrounded by enemies, had the highly discerning and capable Bairam Khan not assisted him in every way as prime minister. Lacking good company, after acquiring a vast empire Akbar naturally became immersed in luxury, licentiousness, and moral decline. Despite every effort, Bairam Khan could not bring him back to the right path. Drinking and its attendant sins, together with his extraordinary political success, gave him no opportunity to develop or reform his character. Yet this diseased genius sowed the seed of his future descendants. Akbar’s keen but unhealthy genius fully assisted in exhausting all the strength of the Muslims’ cultural and political life and turning them into the political and mental slaves of others. To preserve his political power in India, Akbar did not stop at forming marital alliances with Hindus; rather, to please them, he made every effort to destroy the Muslims’ religion and culture by establishing a bizarre religious doctrine called ‘Din-i Ilahi.’ A detailed account of this can be found in the Akbarnama.

The amusing fact is that, despite various political and personal interests, Akbar’s greatest dream, this self-invented ‘Din-i Ilahi,’ did not attract the Hindu nation at all. Apart from Birbal, no one agreed to accept this new faith. Among the jewels of his court’s Nine Jewels, Man Singh and Todar Mal rejected this doctrine. When Akbar appeared at court dressed as a Hindu ascetic, with a rudraksha rosary around his neck and sandalwood smeared over his body, the Hindu scholars and courtiers would fill the air with cries of ‘Dillishwaro’ or ‘Jagatishwaro’; and although those cries echoed from one end of India to the other, displaying artificial loyalty and offering homage to him, they showed not the slightest allegiance to his bizarre religion. Therefore, any conscientious person can easily understand that some extremely evil force used Akbar’s genius solely to destroy the Muslims’ belief in tawhid and Islamic culture. But Akbar utterly failed to realize the dream of his life.

That was one side of his life. His political life, too, was marked by extreme failure and the disgrace of despair.

Akbar destroyed the Pathan power of India at that time, namely, the formidable Muslim military power. Far from building another Muslim power to replace this shattered military force, he weakened and exhausted even what remained. His destructive policy is revealed in the killings of Bairam Khan, Ahsan Khan, Muazzam Khan, and others. He even adopted repressive measures against various distinguished Muslim families from outside India. Thus, at the prompting of the enemy, he set fire to his own house with his own hands and reduced it to ashes. By destroying every strength and talent that might have been useful in the future dangers of the Mughal Empire, he became overwhelmed with fear. He had observed that the Christian nations of the West were rapidly expanding their political power and that the waves of their sinister activities were striking the borders of the Mughal Empire. Yet even by concluding dishonorable treaties with the Christians’ political interests and professing respectful allegiance to their religion, he could not prevent the destruction of the Mughal Empire he had brought about by destroying Islam.

Akbar was not unaware that, like the foreign infidel powers, the Hindu power within the country was also rapidly raising its head. But politically he had become completely dependent on India’s Hindu power. Therefore, he adopted various means to placate them. Even after bringing Hindu women into the imperial palace as queens and regularly conducting idol worship and fire worship there, he could not save the Mughal Empire from destruction. He abandoned the Almighty Being, the Lord of the earth and the heavens, and sought refuge with various other gods, yet gained nothing.

His ridiculous plan to mold Islam completely in the pattern of idolatry, preserve Hinduism intact, and make the Hindus and Muslims of India one nation under the shadow of a new religion called the “Dīn-i Ilāhī” also failed. But the mentality he created in this matter and the evil legacy he left behind were not merely clung to by his worthy son Jahangir; even in the latter half of the twentieth century, a section of Muslims are being raised and nurtured by that legacy.

There is no doubt that this is an extremely painful example of the religious, national, and cultural decline of Muslims.

Jahangir hastened the destruction of the Mughal Empire. When Captain Hawkins arrived in Agra in 1609, he was given a royal reception. Emperor Jahangir accepted him as a close companion, bestowed a title and a stipend on him. When he expressed a desire to marry and live in India, he proposed the marriage of a fair-skinned young woman from the imperial palace.

Christianity had gained such influence in the imperial palace that several princes were initiated into Christianity, and under Hawkins’s leadership they went to church in processions accompanied by other Christian expatriates and surrounded by fifty horsemen. Jahangir would remain absorbed in drinking throughout the night in the imperial palace with his European friends. It has already been stated that Akbar himself undertook the work of preparing the tomb of the Mughal Empire. Thereafter, his unprincipled, alcoholic son Jahangir, Sir Thomas Roe, and his adviser and mentor, the shrewd diplomat Reverend E. Febi, together hastened the work of preparing this tomb. Thomas Roe persuaded Jahangir to grant their various demands. Through the factory established at Surat, the English gained not only commercial advantages; rather, this factory became a powerful military base for them. Under the terms of the imperial charter, English factories, that is, military bases, arose not only at Surat but also at other places in the Mughal Empire, namely Agra, Ahmadabad, and Broach. It has already been stated that Akbar himself had done this. Thereafter, his unprincipled, unprincipled, alcoholic son Jahangir, Sir Thomas Roe, and his adviser and mentor, the shrewd diplomat Reverend E. Febi, together hastened the work of preparing this tomb. Thomas Roe persuaded Jahangir to grant their various demands. The factory established at Surat became a powerful military base for them. Under the terms of the imperial charter, English factories, that is, military bases, arose not only at Surat but also elsewhere in the Mughal Empire, namely Agra, Ahmadabad, and Broach. Thus Akbar and Jahangir dug canals within the Mughal Empire and imported all-devouring crocodiles from distant lands.

On the one hand, the foreign English power flew into India and settled itself there; on the other, India’s Hindu power also grew stronger. The Rajput and Maratha powers became the greatest enemies of the Mughal Empire. The Muslim power that Akbar had destroyed was the lost power whose restoration Emperor Aurangzeb Padshah Ghazi struggled for throughout his life. He had to remain preoccupied for a long time with suppressing the Maratha and Rajput powers. If his successors after him had been strong and prudent, perhaps the declining empire could have been saved. But, to our utmost regret, all those who occupied the throne of Delhi from his death until the Battle of Plassey were incapable of governing, luxurious, and short-sighted.

It should be particularly noted here that non-Muslim historians hold Aurangzeb alone responsible for the decline of the Mughal Empire. While they were lavish in their praise of Bengal’s Husain Shah and Emperor Akbar, they were equally vocal in casting disgrace upon Aurangzeb’s character. He has been portrayed as an extreme hater of Hindus, and it has been said that his policy of governance, contrary to Hindu interests, especially the reintroduction of the jizya system, compelled the Hindu nation of India to become hostile to the Mughals. But these allegations are purely imaginary and malicious. No evidence of them can be produced from history. To speak the truth, the Rajputs and Marathas could never wholeheartedly accept Muslim rule in India. Observing their growing power and hostile attitude, Akbar adopted an exceedingly liberal policy to placate them, yet failed. The Marathas, under Shivaji’s leadership, fiercely opposed Aurangzeb. Shivaji died in 1679, one year before Aurangzeb introduced the jizya tax. Therefore, it is not at all reasonable to say that the jizya tax was the cause of the Hindu nation’s opposition.

It is undeniable that, generally speaking, all those who wrote the history of India at that time were Muslims. Therefore, to learn the true history of that period, it will be necessary to study Badauni, the Akbarnama, Khafi Khan, Tarikh-i Firishta, Ma’asir-i Alamgiri, and others. But European Christian historians presented many events of history in distorted form. Later, their empire spread across half the world. Throughout their empire, English was used as the official language. Through this English language, under the shelter of political power, they presented English-language students with a distorted and imaginary version of Muslim history. During the two hundred years of English rule in India, this distorted and erroneous history was deeply embedded in the minds of students.

There was also a reason for this distortion. Let us take Emperor Aurangzeb as an example. Because Emperor Akbar and Jahangir had unjustly given the English excessive indulgence, they were developing into a power against the Mughal Empire. Emperor Aurangzeb understood this. During his reign, Bengal’s Mir Jumla and Nawab Shaista Khan repeatedly subdued and restrained the arrogance of the English. They were repeatedly punished, and their factories were confiscated, because of commercial corruption, smuggling, conspiracies against the Mughal Empire, and the like. Eventually, Emperor Aurangzeb issued a decree prohibiting all their trade with the Europeans. Akbar had destroyed the Muslim military power and exposed the Mughal Empire to its enemies; Emperor Aurangzeb spent his entire life trying to rebuild that Muslim military power. For the foregoing reasons, Aurangzeb was guilty in the eyes of the Christians and the Hindu nation. Therefore, they became eager to portray his reign as disgraceful and spread various slanders about him. In his book “A Glance at Aurangzeb Alamgir,” Shibli Nomani refuted, with reliable historical evidence, all the blemishes that non-Muslim historians, motivated by self-interest, had attributed to Alamgir Aurangzeb’s character. In this brief but informative book, he gave an appropriate answer to the allegations raised against Aurangzeb.

Therefore, from the standpoint of history, it may be said without hesitation that there is not the slightest truth in the allegations made against Aurangzeb. He cannot be held even minimally responsible for the fall of the Mughal Empire. The actual fact is that, after Akbar abolished the formidable Muslim army, his dependence on India’s Hindu Marathas and Rajputs, the accumulation of political power by the foreign and infidel English in the name of trade, the sinister alliance between Hindus and the English to overthrow Muslim rule, together with the religious and cultural decline of the Muslims, brought about the abolition of Muslim rule from Bengal and India. Against this background, we see how, on the field of Plassey, the sun of Bengal-Bihar’s independence set and English rule was established.

A major political design lay hidden behind the establishment of English trading centers in various parts of India. Becoming the master of a vast empire after arriving to conduct trade was not the result of any sudden or miraculous event. The geographical discoveries of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries opened the way for international trade and began mutual colonial and commercial competition among the European nations. As a result, the Spanish Empire was established in America, the Dutch Empire in the Spice Islands, the French Empire in Southeast Asia, and the British Empire in South Asia. In the latter part of the seventeenth century, the East India Company of England adopted a Forward Policy in India, and its earnest desire was that the areas where its representatives lived for commercial purposes should become political powers. In 1682, after suffering a defeat at the hands of the Dutch in Indonesia, the English withdrew from there. In the following year, 1683, the charter granted to the East India Company by the English court authorized it to wage war against, make peace with, or enter into any agreement with any ruler of India. The charter granted by James II gave them still greater powers. As a result, in 1686 they declared war against the Mughals and suffered defeat. It has already been mentioned that a warship named the “Defence,” equipped with arms, was sent to India under the leadership of Captain Heath. Heath advanced from Sutanutti for war but met with failure. Although the Company’s directors were somewhat discouraged as a result, the representatives stationed in India continued their work with renewed enthusiasm. Their attention now turned to the French merchants. The French had their principal trading center at Pondicherry, with factories under it at Masulipatam, Karikal, Mahé, Surat, and other places. The English, on the other hand, had their commercial headquarters at Madras, with important factories under it at Bombay and Calcutta. Fierce rivalry began between them and ultimately took the form of war. The French helped their nominees, Muzaffar Jang and Chanda Sahib, to gain the thrones of Hyderabad and the Carnatic respectively. In 1751, Robert Clive seized Arcot, the capital of Karnataka. Thus the English became extremely powerful.

The English Ambition to Gain Political Power in Bengal

With the aim of fulfilling their political ambitions in Bengal, the English began carrying out the construction of a fort in Calcutta on a large scale. The Nawab of Bengal, Alivardi Khan, had by then become extremely old and weak, and taking advantage of this weakness, the clever English were rapidly advancing their fort-building work. The Hindu Seths and merchant class of Bengal encouraged and emboldened them in this work. From the latter part of the seventeenth century to the second quarter of the eighteenth century, a section of Hindus became exceedingly wealthy and influential by working as brokers and employees in the English trade that had developed in Bengal. Moreover, they occupied various responsible posts in revenue administration during the Nawab’s rule. Through moneylending and banking, they were also firmly established in the economic sphere. They could not accept Muslim rule wholeheartedly. They did not have the courage to revolt openly against it, nor did they consider that appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, to bring Muslim rule to an end, they had no alternative but to obtain English help and cooperation. The English made excellent use of this golden opportunity. Hindus had gained such influence in administration and economics that they had become the kingmakers of Bengal’s Nawabs. When Sarfaraz Khan, the grandson of Murshid Quli Khan, was nominated as his successor after his death in 1727, the leading Hindus opposed it, because they considered him contrary to their interests. They installed Sarfaraz Khan’s father, Sujauddin, on the throne. During his reign (1727–39), these Hindu Seths and merchants in fact became the principal instigators of palace conspiracies. Their leaders, Alam Chand and Jagat Seth, had become the actual rulers of the country (de facto ruler).

After Sujauddin’s death, this conspiratorial group helped Alivardi Khan, the Naib Nawab of Orissa, gain the throne of Bengal. During his reign, palace conspiracy reached its peak. Taking advantage of this situation, the Marathas repeatedly raided Bengal. Finding himself in difficulty, Alivardi Khan became completely dependent on these palace conspirators. He appointed them to important posts. As a result, under the leadership of Rai Durlabh Rai, Mahtab Rai, Swarup Chand, Raja Janaki Rai, Raja Ram Narayan, Raja Manik Chand, and others, this group became extremely powerful. After Murshid Quli Khan, the number of eminent Muslim officials gradually declined until it reached zero, and at this time they were effectively cast behind the curtain. The Jagat Seth–Manik Chand group could obtain only a few important posts under the Nawab. Therefore, only by colluding with the East India Company and bringing Muslim rule to an end could they extinguish the fire of their vengeance against the Muslim rulers.

The Hindu nation of Bengal, under the leadership of the Jagat Seth–Manik Chand circle, had two objectives. One was political and the other economic. Their political interests were to be fulfilled by changing or transferring the government of Bengal, while their economic interests were to be fulfilled by installing the East India Company in political power and gaining commercial advantages. To achieve these two objectives, they were always ready and extremely eager to form an alliance with the Company.

The East India Company, on the other hand, was also bound to the Hindus by ties of gratitude for the expansion and advancement of its business. Its trade and commerce could not function at all without the assistance of Hindu brokers, gomastas, and contractors. Moreover, from 1736 to 1740, fifty-two local merchants participated in the investment of the Company’s capital in Calcutta, and all of them were Hindus. Twenty-five Hindu merchants were involved in establishing the factory at Cossimbazar, and all of them were Hindus. Twenty-five Hindu merchants were associated with the establishment of the factory at Cossimbazar. In Dhaka alone, only two of its twelve partners were Muslims. (The Fall of Siraj-ud-Daulah—Dr. Mohar Ali)

In a letter written to Colonel Scott, the military engineer of Fort William in Calcutta, Charles F. Noble said that the Hindu kings and inhabitants were extremely hostile toward Muslim rule. How this rule could be brought to an end was their secret ambition. They expressed the view that if the English could bring about any revolution, they would join them.

Noble said, “I believe Urmichand will be of great use to us. The priest Nimu Gosain has considerable influence over the Hindu kings and the common people. A large armed group is entirely devoted to him. We can also make use of the sanyasi group. I believe this work can be accomplished through Nimu Gosain.”

Nimu Gosain gave Colonel Scott important news and advice about the situation in the country and said that, if necessary, with English assistance he could produce one thousand armed men in only four days. (The Fall of Siraj-ud-Daulah—Dr. Mohar Ali, p. 11)

It must be remembered that, as a result of the Hindu nation’s revival movement, an armed group had secretly been organized in Bengal under the name of the Sanyasi movement, and they too had assisted in ending Muslim rule. To achieve its political objective, the Fort William Council completed the construction of the fort in Calcutta. On the other hand, it established sovereign authority over the zamindari that the East India Company obtained from the Nawab of Bengal. Criminals began taking refuge under the Company’s zamindari to escape punishment under the law of the country. All these criminals were Hindus. The Company gave refuge to a merchant named Ramakrishna Seth, who was guilty of smuggling, and disobeyed the order to hand him over to the Nawab. They likewise violated many other lawful orders of the Nawab. In addition, they violated many commercial agreements.

It was not that Nawab Alivardi was unaware of the English conspiracies, misdeeds, and vile conduct. However, the bedridden, dying Nawab had no power to do anything. His future successor, Siraj-ud-Daulah, became an object of their displeasure because he wanted to thwart the English conspiracy. After Alivardi, two claimants emerged for the throne of Bengal: Alivardi’s widowed daughter, Ghaseti Begum, and the Nawab of Purnia, Shaukat Jang. The English supported Ghaseti Begum’s claim. The Begum and her diwan Rajballabh placed all their wealth under the Company’s supervision in Calcutta for safekeeping. They sent Rajballabh under the Company’s protection. By giving refuge to Krishnaballabh, the English committed the ultimate treachery against the Nawab, and by encouraging Ghaseti Begum to march against Siraj with twenty thousand soldiers, they committed an act of treason. After learning all this, Siraj proceeded through mutual discussions instead of taking strict measures against them. But the English were not prepared to heed anything he said.

William Tooke, an English factory owner, said that according to the ancient custom of the East, after a new coronation foreign nationals would meet the new king or Nawab with various gifts. But this was the first time they violated this custom. He further said that their sheltering of Krishnaballabh and refusal to hand him over to the Nawab proved that the East India Company had a deep collusion with the political enemies of Siraj-ud-Daulah, which emboldened them to display such arrogance. (Hill’s History, Vol. I, and The Fall of Siraj-ud-Daulah—Dr. Mohar Ali)

The arrogant conduct of the East India Company’s Fort William Council resembled that of a rival government to the government of Bengal. Siraj-ud-Daulah failed in every effort to reach a settlement with them. Thereafter, he decided to expel them from the country. The substance of the letter he wrote in this connection to Khwaja Wajid, an influential merchant of Hugli, on 1 June 1756, was as follows:

There are chiefly three reasons why the English can no longer be permitted to remain in this country. The first is that, by violating the law of the country, they have built a strong fort in Calcutta. Secondly, they have violated commercial agreements, adopted dishonest methods, and caused the government enormous financial losses by evading trade taxes. Thirdly, by giving refuge to a person who embezzled government funds, they have committed the crime of treason.

On 3 June, Siraj-ud-Daulah seized the English factory at Cossimbazar and pressured them to reach a settlement. After seizing the factory, he showed such generosity that he locked it and arranged strict guards so that it would not be looted. William Watts and Matthew Collet were the directors of this factory, and they themselves made the foregoing comment. (Hill’s History, Vol. II)

Siraj released all the employees of the Cossimbazar factory. Taking only Watts and Collet with him, he set out toward Calcutta. Before his departure, he repeatedly wrote to the Fort William Council urging it to reach a peaceful settlement. But they paid no attention at all. On the contrary, they remained ever ready to engage in a confrontation. Their courage increased considerably after receiving military assistance from the Deccan. One week before the Nawab reached Calcutta, Drake sent troops to seize the Thana fort, situated downstream on the Hugli River, and Sukh Sagar, between Hugli and Calcutta. The advance force sent by the Nawab repelled the English attacks at both places. On 16 June, Siraj arrived at the gates of Fort William with thirty thousand troops. After two days of fighting, Drake fled to Fulta with his main army. To facilitate the retreat, Holwell was kept engaged in the fighting and was told that he too should take refuge at Fulta the next day with his handful of troops. But Holwell was forced to surrender to the Nawab’s forces. The testimony given by William Took (William Tokke) before the Select Committee of the House of Commons stated that no mistreatment was inflicted on the surrendering English soldiers. (Hill’s History, Vol. I.) After heavy drinking at night, some English soldiers began violent activities, so they were confined in a room measuring 18 by 14. The room had been built by them for the purpose of confining disobedient and unruly soldiers; between forty and sixty people were confined in it. About twenty soldiers died because of extreme exhaustion from the battle. This incident was greatly exaggerated and given a place in the pages of history. To commemorate this imaginary event, the victorious rulers erected in Calcutta’s Dalhousie Square a monument called the Holwell Monument. This pillar was installed by the Nawab as a monument in Calcutta’s Dalhousie Square. This pillar, bearing the imagined stain of disgrace upon Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah, remained until the first half of the twentieth century. As a source of deliberate and purely malicious propaganda, the pillar was demolished before 1937 in the face of vigorous protest.

In any case, everyone except Holwell and three other persons was released. On 24 June, after appointing Manik Chand to administer Calcutta, Siraj-ud-Daulah returned to Murshidabad with Holwell and his three companions. On 26 June, the remaining English soldiers went from Calcutta to Fulta.

On 30 June, Siraj-ud-Daulah wrote to George Pigot, Governor of Fort St. George. The substance of the letter was that if the English reached a peaceful settlement, abandoned their ambition to gain political power, and continued to conduct business according to the terms of trade, they would be given full opportunities for trade in Bengal.

The English at Fulta

Siraj-ud-Daulah sincerely wished to reach a just settlement with the English. But their attitude was entirely the opposite. Their attitude was revealed by the web of conspiracy being spread from Fulta in cooperation with the local Hindu chiefs.

Roger Drake counted the days while awaiting the military assistance requested from Madras. Meanwhile, with the intention of deceiving the Nawab, they began talks on 6 July for a settlement. But there was no sincerity in them. As soon as military assistance arrived from Madras, they would resume testing their strength. In this matter, the local chiefs and merchant class encouraged the English in every way. In particular, an influential man named Shiv Babu, the principal assistant of Khwaja Wajid, continually told the English that Nawab Siraj-ud-Daulah was no longer a person who would grant them any commercial opportunities or advantages. After suffering defeat in Calcutta, reaching a settlement would in no way be honorable for them. Another man named Gobindaram had created an obstacle during Siraj-ud-Daulah’s expedition to Calcutta by uprooting trees and leaving them across the road. He now began supplying secret information on behalf of the English. Manik Chand, who had been entrusted with the administration of Calcutta, betrayed that trust and continued to help the English at Fulta in every way. He kept presenting the Nawab with misleading information that the English were eager to reach a peaceful settlement. Thinking that nothing could be done with a small force, Major Kilpatrick temporarily refrained from engaging in war and called for greater military assistance and a naval fleet from Madras. On 15 August 1756, Kilpatrick informed the Nawab that they were seekers of his favor. On the other hand, he wrote requesting Manik Chand, Jagat Seth, and the other Hindu chiefs to help the English in every possible way.

The Nawab was misled by Manik Chand’s false assurances and said that, if the English did not wish to fight, they should be given every facility in trade. The Nawab, practically speaking, had no naval power. Even if he expelled the foreign merchants from Bengal’s territory, he had no power to drive them from the seacoast. The English took full advantage of this. Secondly, a new danger appeared before Sirajuddaula. Shaukat Jang of Purnia succeeded in obtaining a farman from the Mughal emperor, by virtue of which he was appointed subahdar of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. The English sided with Shaukat Jang and cherished hopes of his victory. But when Shaukat Jang was killed in the battle of August 6, their hopes were temporarily reduced to dust.

In reply to the letter written by Drake and Kilpatrick concerning the fall of Calcutta, a substantial amount of military assistance arrived at Madras from England in mid-August. In September, two Company ships, Chesterfield and Walpole, reached Madras. In October, the Fort St. George Council decided to send a military expedition to Bengal under the leadership of Robert Clive and Admiral Watson. Colonel Clive was instructed to begin a fierce war immediately upon reaching Bengal. On behalf of the Fort St. George Council, letters were sent to the deputy nawabs of Dhaka, Purnia, and Cuttack requesting them to cooperate with Clive. A letter was also sent to the Nawab expressing indignation over the alleged ill-treatment of the English. In the letter from George Pigot, governor of the said Council, it was stated: “I am sending a powerful commander named Clive. He is going with cavalry and infantry and will govern in my place. You must provide satisfactory compensation for the losses inflicted upon us. You must surely know that we have been victorious everywhere in war.” (Hill’s History, Vol. I)

The meaning of this letter was clear: no avenue for settlement remained. On December 15, Clive reached Fulta. That very day, Clive wrote to Manik Chand thanking him for his friendly conduct and assistance toward the Company. Manik Chand replied, expressing his joy at Clive’s safe arrival. He further stated that he would devote himself to serving the Company to the best of his ability. In addition, he sent a man named Radhakrishna to Clive to exchange secret information. What greater treachery by a Bengali against Bengal could there be?

Chapter Five

The English Attack and the Nawab’s Defeat

On December 29, Clive’s warships advanced along the Hooghly River and captured Bajbaj. Four days earlier, Clive had written to the Nawab through Manik Chand, saying that the Nawab had caused them losses and that they had come to obtain compensation for them, not to apologize to him. Their army alone was sufficient to secure their demands. It is not known whether Manik Chand delivered the letter to the Nawab. Perhaps he did not. Had he done so, the Nawab would certainly have taken precautionary measures. Manik Chand continually kept the Nawab misinformed. As a result, Clive recovered Thana Fort without opposition on December 31 and Fort William on January 1, 1757. Had Manik Chand wished, he could easily have repelled the English attack with the help of the Nawab’s vast army. He made no such attempt, because he was delighted to see the English fulfill his aspirations and those of his community. He did not even feel it necessary to inform the Nawab that these places had been occupied by the English.

Having, in effect, handed over Fort William to the English, he went to Hooghly and began creating the conditions for handing Hooghly over to them as well. In a letter written to him at Hooghly, Clive requested that he show the same friendship there as before. Two days later, Clive attacked Hooghly and easily captured it. After the English had occupied so many important bases, Manik Chand informed the Nawab that the English attitude had changed. After capturing Hooghly, the English troops created widespread terror throughout the city through looting, arson, and destructive activities.

As soon as he received news of Hooghly’s fall and devastation, Sirajuddaula appeared on January 20 near Hooghly with a vast army. The English then hastily fled from Hooghly and took refuge in Calcutta.

Nawab Sirajuddaula repeatedly urged them to reach a settlement. After much discussion, a treaty was signed between the Nawab and the English on February 9. In history it is known as the Treaty of Alinagar. Under this treaty, all the villages were to be returned to the English in accordance with the farman of 1717. Their goods would be duty-free, and they would be allowed to fortify Calcutta further. In addition, they would be allowed to establish their own mint there.

Sirajuddaula had been compelled to sign such a humiliating treaty. The first reason was the extreme treachery of his highly trusted men, such as Manik Chand. The second was the possibility of Ahmad Shah Abdali’s invasion of India and campaign in Bengal.

For the cunning Clive, on the other hand, this treaty was merely a temporary expedient. At the same time, the English felt the need to depose the Nawab and expel the French from Bengal. For this purpose, Clive sent Watts and Omichand to Sirajuddaula to say that they wished to capture the French-occupied city of Chandernagore and that the Nawab must assist them. This was a major strategy of theirs. The Nawab faced a grave dilemma. He had always followed a neutral policy toward foreign merchants within his kingdom. How could he violate that policy? The difficulty, however, was that if he did not help the English, they would accuse him of hostility toward them and friendship toward the French. In the end, he decided to remain firm in his neutral policy. Accordingly, he instructed his commander Nandakumar that if the English attacked Chandernagore, the French were to be helped. Likewise, if the French attacked the English, the English were to be helped. Clive bribed Nandakumar with ten to twelve thousand rupees and won him over. By the same means, he also subdued the head of the Nawab’s intelligence department. Thus Clive spread such a web of bribery and treachery all around that Sirajuddaula could display firmness in no matter. Moreover, the Hindu bankers, merchants, and his disloyal officials, who had long sincerely desired the end of Muslim rule, continually gave Sirajuddaula bad advice. They said that the English must not be angered under any circumstances. At the same time, they gave him the bad advice to send a vast army there for the defense of Bengal and Bihar. In this way, the path of the English advance was made easy.

Meanwhile, on March 5, a new ship, Cumberland, arrived at Calcutta from England with troops and equipment. On March 8, Clive besieged Chandernagore. The Nawab sent an army toward Chandernagore under Rai Durlabh Ram and Mir Jafar. But before they arrived, the French surrendered. They agreed to leave Chandernagore and hand over all their factories in Bengal to Admiral Watson and the Nawab. Thereafter, Clive demanded that the Nawab eradicate the French from Bengal. In addition, he requested the Nawab’s permission for two thousand Company troops to advance by land as far as Patna in pursuit of the French. The Nawab rejected this unjust request. He was then accused of having assisted the French. On April 23, the Fort William Council Committee adopted a resolution to depose the Nawab. They further alleged that the Nawab had violated the Treaty of Alinagar.

A firm conspiracy to depose the Nawab was formed with Rai Durlabh Ram, Omichand, and the Jagat Seth brothers—men supposedly close to Siraj himself. On their advice, the Nawab’s bakhshi (paymaster) Mir Jafar was nominated to succeed him. The English and Mir Jafar also reached final decisions on every matter. Only Omichand created some difficulty. He demanded five percent of all the Nawab’s wealth and threatened otherwise to expose the entire conspiracy. To please Omichand, Clive prepared a document bearing Watson’s forged signature. In the treaty concluded with Mir Jafar, he agreed that he would be bound to fulfill all the terms of the Treaty of Alinagar in full. He further agreed to pay the Company ten million rupees as compensation, five million to the Europeans, two million to the Hindu chiefs, and seven hundred thousand to the Armenians. Calcutta and all the territory south of it were to be ceded to the Company forever.

The astute Clive withdrew his troops from Chandernagore to allay the Nawab’s suspicions. Mir Jafar agreed to give Clive an additional five.2 million rupees as a reward for hastening the planned revolution.

After Ahmad Shah Abdali left India, Sirajuddaula ordered Mir Jafar, with an army, to oppose the English at the field of Plassey if they advanced northward in pursuit of the French. Clive informed Sirajuddaula that, since he had failed to observe the Treaty of Alinagar, Mir Jafar, Jagat Seth, Rai Durlabh Ram, Mir Madan, and Mohanlal should be entrusted with reviewing the matter. Meanwhile, however, Clive immediately sent his troops toward Murshidabad. Siraj faced the English troops on the field of Plassey. The Nawab’s forces were commanded by Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh Ram, and others. At the decisive moment, they refrained from directing the troops. As a result, Clive won without fighting. The unfortunate Siraj fled from the battlefield, but on the way Miran, the son of Mir Jafar, killed him. Thus the curtain fell on the tragic political drama of Plassey.

Several matters become clearly evident from the detailed account of the background to the Battle of Plassey.

One. The leading zamindars, wealthy merchants, and trading groups of Bengal entered into a conspiracy with the English to end Muslim rule, even at the cost of the country’s independence.

Two. Having understood the attitude of the Hindu chiefs, the English used the Hindus fully to achieve their political interests.

Three. All those who held the Nawab’s important offices were Hindus, and he had to depend entirely upon them. Yet the very people upon whom he depended were engaged in a conspiracy for his downfall.

Four. The Battle of Plassey cannot be called a battle. It was a farce of a battle. The Nawab’s troops outnumbered the English many times over. Had the Nawab’s army fought, the English forces would have been annihilated and history would have been written differently. Or, had Sirajuddaula himself directed the battle, he too would not have had to suffer defeat.

Five. Siraj’s fatal mistake was failing to understand that those whom he considered patriots and well-wishers would sell the country’s independence to serve their base interests. Or perhaps he understood it but could do nothing. The venomous serpent that he and his predecessor rulers had nourished, enlarged, and reared with milk and bananas eventually bit him and brought the drama of his life to an end.

After the tragic drama of Plassey

Sirajuddaula’s defeat on the field of Plassey was not merely the defeat of one man. It was the defeat of Bengal, Bihar, and the entire Indian subcontinent. This defeat revealed British colonial domination over India—indeed, Asia’s defeat before Europe, and the East’s before the West. The subsequent sequence of events bears witness to this. British supremacy and domination over the Indian subcontinent continued for at least one hundred and ninety years.

History has not failed to identify who directed this tragic political drama of Plassey and who placed the chains of subjugation around the neck of Bengal, Bihar, and the Indian subcontinent for two hundred years. Through a most detestable conspiracy, treachery, the purchase of heads with bribes, and a brutal policy of revenge based on imaginary accusations, Clive and his group succeeded in defeating and killing Sirajuddaula without wielding weapons on the battlefield and in establishing their domination in this country.

History has been distorted in determining the causes of Sirajuddaula’s downfall. In the fabricated history conceived by those whose victory cries echoed throughout the vast territories of India and Asia for nearly two hundred years after 1757, and whose active role had helped achieve that victory, an attempt was made to place the blame on Sirajuddaula himself. But is that the true history?

The vast Mughal Empire had fallen apart, and independent and semi-independent rulers had risen in various parts of India. The Maratha power was advancing with plans to swallow northern and central India. But Ahmad Shah Abdali shattered their power in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761) and returned to his homeland. Emperor Akbar had destroyed India’s formidable Muslim military power. No alternative military power could be formed. It may be said that the Muslims had virtually no naval power. The English merchants came to this country with two objectives. Under the pretext of trade and commerce, they gradually grew stronger by building forts in various places, establishing fleets, importing armies from their homeland, and so forth, with the aim of establishing political supremacy. The patriotic (?) Bengali Hindu wealthy merchant class of Bengal helped and assisted them in every way in achieving this aim.

From the time of Murshid Quli Khan in Bengal, Muslims had been removed from every field of administration, making room there for the Hindus of Bengal. This was the result of extreme love of country and one-sided generosity, though later its price had to be paid in full. From the time of Alivardi, they became the absolute masters of the state. The acquisition of Bengal’s throne depended entirely upon their favor. They were Bengal’s king-makers.

When Sirajuddaula was nominated to succeed Nawab Alivardi, the Jagat Seth brothers, Manik Chand, Durlabh Ram, and others were so powerful that it was impossible for Siraj to remain in power while incurring their displeasure. Yet these powerful officials, though nourished and maintained by the state treasury, showed not the slightest gratitude toward their master. They not only continually gave Siraj bad advice, but also secretly maintained solidarity with the Company. They made every effort to end Muslim rule through Siraj’s downfall and establish English rule in this country.

Sirajuddaula was not merely a patriot; he was also an exceptionally courageous hero. The speed with which he suppressed the rebellions of Ghaseti Begum and Shaukat Jang immediately after assuming power demonstrated his courage and wisdom. He also achieved victories in several clashes with the English. Had Hindu chiefs such as Alam Chand and Jagat Seth not played a role of extreme treachery, Bengal’s history would have been written differently. Mir Jafar’s role was no less condemnable. Yet he has been made the most detested and accursed person in the drama of Plassey. After decisively defeating the English in the battle for Fort William in Calcutta, Nawab Sirajuddaula entrusted Manik Chand with the administration of Calcutta. Manik Chand reestablished the English in Calcutta and Hooghly. The conspiracy to depose the Nawab was consolidated on the advice of Rai Durlabh Ram, Omichand, and the Jagat Seth brothers. There is no doubt that Mir Jafar was guilty in this matter. But how much of a part did he actually play in this vile conspiracy? At most, one anna. Yet it must be called the irony of his misfortune that no one in history is more detested than he. Thus the word “Mir Jafar” is always used as an epithet before the name of a traitor.

The patriotic Sirajuddaula repeatedly and earnestly appealed to the Hindu chiefs, including Mir Jafar, not to sell the independence of Bengal and Bihar into the hands of a foreign power. But all his pleas and appeals became cries in the wilderness.

The band of traitors took revenge for their long-accumulated resentment at the price of the country’s independence. Even this did not fully satisfy their vengeance. Only by murdering Sirajuddaula in a bestial manner did they extinguish the blazing fire of their hatred.

It was not the English intention merely to remove Sirajuddaula from the earth and place someone else on Bengal’s throne. They wanted to establish their political supremacy in this country. Since Mir Jafar proved unable to satisfy their ever-increasing unjust demands, he too eventually had to step aside. Sirajuddaula was not the only person disliked by the Hindu chiefs. If that had been so, they would not have disliked Qasim in his place. Their sole desire was the end of Muslim rule. Thus, without hesitation, they willingly placed the chains of foreign rule around their necks in place of Muslim rule, sacrificing their own country’s independence. After Mir Jafar, Mir Qasim sincerely wished to bring about substantial improvements in the country’s administration and restore economic stability along with them. But he too could not feed the English’ insatiable appetite, and therefore had to leave Bengal’s political arena. (Hill, Jadunath Sarkar; Malleson, Dr. Mohar Ali)

After British rule was established in Bengal, Bihar, and India, the people of the country experienced what they were destined to experience over two hundred years. Although some material improvements were achieved, the curse of subjugation, humiliation, and insult tormented the nation, and the exploitation and oppression inflicted upon the Muslims had few parallels in history. Famine, epidemics, and poverty engulfed the country. This will be discussed in detail in a later chapter.

The Economic Condition of Bengal after Sirajuddaula’s Fall

After the battles of Plassey and Buxar, Bengal’s independence disappeared completely. In 1765, after the nominal Mughal emperor of Delhi, Alamgir II, granted the East India Company the diwani of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, its legal authority over this region became firmly established. Thereafter, the economic picture of Bengal was extremely painful and bleak. Although Mir Jafar and others remained nominal nawabs after the Battle of Plassey, the East India Company controlled the military power. After 1765, the country’s economy also came entirely under its control. As a result, Bengal’s Muslim society suffered the greatest damage in every respect.

The economic demands of the conspiratorial agreement concluded between the Company and Omichand–Mir Jafar to depose Sirajuddaula emptied Bengal’s treasury. It has been stated earlier that under the terms of this agreement, the Company had to be paid ten million rupees as false compensation, five million to the Europeans, two million to the Hindu chiefs, and seven hundred thousand to the Armenians. Clive had to be paid 5.2 million rupees even before the treaty was signed, to hasten the revolution. (Fall of Sirajuddowla—Dr. Mohar Ali)

After Mir Jafar ascended Bengal’s throne as a puppet nawab, the Company’s demands continued to increase. Mir Jafar was compelled to keep them pleased and satisfied. After the revenue department came under the Company’s control, Hindu and English collectors, in order to satisfy the authorities, continued to collect revenue through extreme exploitation and oppression and fill the Company’s treasury. Previously, all the money collected from the subjects had been spent among the people of the country for their own benefit. From then on, it began to be transferred to English banks and commercial centers.

One-third of Bengal’s people died in the famine of 1776. Yet no mercy was shown in revenue collection. When the famine reached its peak, six hundred thousand rupees more revenue was collected than in the previous year; the following year, an additional 1.4 million rupees was collected from Bengal and Bihar. While human beings cried out in the agony of hunger, thirst, and death, the English and their revenue collectors danced in demonic delight as they sucked their blood. These revenue collectors were the Hindu merchants of Calcutta, usurious moneylenders, and traders. What could be more ruthless and demonic toward humanity than this? (Baden-Powell—land system, etc.; British Policy & the Muslim in Bengal—A. R. Mallick)

The wealth of this country was plundered by another hateful method. The Company and its employees could install whomever they pleased as nawab and depose whomever they pleased. In only eight or nine years, from 1757 to 1765, at least £6,261,165 went into the pockets of the Company and its local and foreign employees through this process. Each nawab, besides granting the Company various commercial privileges, kept it satisfied with many valuable gifts.

Abdul Mawdud says:

The exact account of the enormous price at which the conspirators purchased the British scepter for the people of this country on the eve of the Battle of Plassey has not yet been determined. Nor can it be. The reason is that only some portion of it can be known from written accounts. But how can the immense wealth shipped across the seas beyond the accounts be measured?

The economy of Bengal under British rule means, in essence, a poignant history of carefully planned exploitation. Historians have estimated that in only twenty-three years, from 1757 to 1780, approximately £38 million was shipped from Bengal to England—equivalent to six billion rupees at contemporary values. At the value of money in 1900, however, it amounted to thirty billion rupees. (I. O. Miller, quoted by Misra, p. 15)

Fifteen hundred thousand pounds in cash were found in the Murshidabad treasury, along with precious gems, of course. As compensation, the British land and naval forces received four hundred thousand pounds; the six members of the Select Committee received nine hundred thousand pounds; the council members each received between fifty and eighty thousand pounds; and Clive himself received two hundred and thirty-four thousand pounds, in addition to the title ‘Sabat Jang,’ conferred by the Emperor, together with a zamindari yielding an annual income of thirty thousand pounds. Indeed, in the words of Clive, the victor of Plassey, ‘he himself was astonished at having shown such restraint.’ Mir Qasim gave two hundred thousand pounds in cash to assist the Council. Mir Jafar’s son, Najm-ud-Daulah, gave one hundred and thirty-nine thousand pounds. Besides this, it is difficult to say how many hundreds of thousands of pounds the ordinary soldiers and the English factory officials embezzled. The famous surveyor James Rennell was appointed in 1764, at the age of twenty-two, on an annual salary of one thousand pounds, and returned to England in 1777 after embezzling thirty to forty thousand pounds. From this it may be inferred to what extent the Company’s employees embezzled money. As representatives of the Company’s rule in this country, and after retiring from service and returning home, they lived in such royal style that they came to be known as ‘Indian Nabobs.’

…Clive himself admitted, “I can only acknowledge that such a barbarous spectacle of anarchy, disorder, bribery, corruption, and forcible plunder has not been witnessed anywhere except Bengal.” Yet the shameless Clive himself was the chief priest of this sacrificial rite of exploitation. (The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, Abdul Mawdud, pp. 60–62).

Chapter 6

The Distress of Muslim Society

The boundless distress that befell Muslim society after the East India Company destroyed Bengal’s independence will become clear from the discussion below.

Before the Battle of Plassey, aristocratic Muslims predominated in military and civil employment. After the Company seized power, the Muslim army was disbanded in the very first stage of administrative reorganization. As a result, even some high-ranking employees became unemployed. Consequently, millions of people were pushed into unemployment and poverty.

Secondly, the reorganization of the country’s entire revenue department according to the English system deprived large numbers of Muslims of employment. Under the government’s land-revenue policy, many Muslim zamindars were evicted from their zamindaris. The abolition of the village police system in 1793 also left thousands of Muslims unemployed. Thus, with the establishment of British rule in this country, upper-class Muslims were deprived not only of government employment but also of other opportunities and facilities for earning a livelihood.

The occupations of lower-class Muslims were generally agriculture and weaving. From the third quarter of the eighteenth century, the large-scale import of mill-made textiles from Manchester destroyed Bengal’s weaving industry, and millions of weavers also faced ruin. Thereafter, making a living by relying solely on agriculture became extremely difficult for them.

From the time the Company arrived in this country, the Hindu banias of Calcutta became extremely prosperous by serving under it. They were called ‘gomastas.’ The new political circumstances after the Battle of Plassey brought them extraordinary good fortune. These gomastas played an important role in the Company’s monopoly salt trade and other internal commerce and amassed enormous wealth. But they destroyed the commerce of this country and left the people in extreme distress. The Company’s Indian and European employees compelled the public to buy goods imported from England at excessively high prices and to sell locally produced goods at extremely low prices. Describing their oppression and persecution would require a separate book. Bengal’s Hindu employees gave full assistance to the Company’s tyranny and oppression. In 1786, a gomasta named Kalicharan was removed from Tripura and appointed diwan, or manager, of the revenue department in Chittagong for the crime of having driven the Tripura region toward ruin through his oppression and exploitation. In one year, he unjustly collected thirty thousand rupees from the zamindars of Chittagong. When the matter was brought before Lord Cornwallis, Mr. Bird, the revenue controller of Chittagong, said that Kalicharan would be dismissed and his gomasta Nityanandan appointed in his place. But owing to the intervention of the highly influential Calcutta gomasta Jai Narayan Gosain, the matter ended there, and Kalicharan remained honorably in his post.

This single incident gives an indication of the disastrous role played by the Company’s Hindu employees in the destruction of rural Bengal. An Englishman remarked: The one class whom the English and their laws saved from destruction was the class of native gomasta-brokers and agents employed under them. The way these people rapidly devoured rural Bengal like locusts meant that they were striking at the very foundations of India’s existence. —(Muinuddin Ahmad Khan, Muslim Struggle for Freedom in Bengal, p. 8).

The policy of the English was to establish throughout every level of society those with whose help they had deprived this country of its independence and gained political supremacy here, and thereby to uproot the Muslims completely, so that they could never again acquire the strength to regain their independence. As a result of Hastings’s land-leasing policy and Cornwallis’s Permanent Settlement, Hindus took the place of Muslim zamindars. Because the policy of leasing land to the highest cash bidder was implemented, the old aristocratic Muslim zamindars suddenly became unable to pay the highest price in cash. The Hindu bania class, moneylenders charging interest, bankers, and Hindu wealthy merchant classes, on the other hand, seized this golden opportunity. As a result of the Permanent Settlement, most of the old zamindaris were soon transferred to these wealthy merchants. The underlying purpose of the Permanent Settlement was to recognize the Hindu naibs, managers, and others appointed under Muslim zamindars. Information published in the 1844 Calcutta Review states that among a dozen zamindaris, each of which covered an area equal to a district, only two remained in the possession of the former zamindars, while the rest passed into the hands of the descendants of the old zamindars’ junior employees. Thus, throughout Bengal, a new zamindar class was established, which became wholly loyal and trusted by the new foreign masters.

Hunter says in his book The Indian Mussalmans: The Hindu tax collectors who had until then been employed in subordinate positions were elevated to the zamindar class by virtue of the new system. The new system gave them proprietary rights over land and opportunities and facilities for acquiring wealth. Yet Muslims had enjoyed these opportunities and facilities exclusively under their own rule. —(Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, translated by Anisuzzaman, p. 141).

Under Muslim rule, the law required zamindars to keep a close watch on antisocial persons, criminals, and robbers and thieves. If caught, they were to be handed over to the government along with the stolen goods. In 1772, the Company repealed this law. Consequently, instead of suppressing robbers and thieves, the new zamindars began to support them and share in their stolen goods. It should not be difficult to guess who these robbers and thieves were, and who constituted the unfortunate victims plundered in rural Bengal. Information published in the Calcutta Review in 1944 states that these new zamindars supported robbers and thieves in order to acquire wealth. The magistrate’s report on Dhaka-Jalalpur, published in 1799, also acknowledged the truth of these criminal practices.

—(Muinuddin Ahmad Khan, Muslim Struggle for Freedom in India, p. 10).

The Permanent Settlement not only uprooted Muslim zamindars and established a new zamindar class; it also gave them full authority to determine land rents anew. In this matter they displayed extreme arbitrariness. These zamindars assigned the management of their zamindaris to contractors, or patnidars, at very high rates in the form of government revenue. The latter, in turn, assigned responsibility to subordinate patnidars in exchange for high rents. Thus, they forcibly collected from the peasants four to ten times the revenue that went into the government treasury. In short, this new zamindar class became the absolute master of the ryots’ lives and deaths.

Government records found in the magistrate’s office of Faridpur district reveal that at least twenty-three kinds of ‘unjust and illegal’ cesses were collected from the ryots. Buchanan says, “It was a common practice to seize ryots from their homes, confine them for several days, beat them, and collect the rent. Moreover, they collected the zamindar’s rent from illiterate peasants with false receipts and embezzled it.” (M. Martin, The History, Antiquities, Topography & Statistics of Eastern India, London, 1838, Vol. 2).

The story of the inhuman oppression of the Hindu zamindars and Titumir’s anti-zamindar movement will be discussed in its proper place.

To draw an accurate picture of the condition of Bengal’s Muslim society as a whole in the early nineteenth century, it is necessary to know what conditions prevailed among its three principal components or sections. These three sections of society were the nawabs, the upper classes, and the peasant community.

1. The Nawabs

After the Battle of Plassey, the Nawab of Bengal became a puppet in the Company’s hands. He had to surrender the Twenty-Four Parganas, Burdwan, Midnapore, and Chittagong to the Company. It was granted a monopoly in internal trade and commerce. In addition, substantial gifts had to be paid to the Company and its European and Indian employees. According to the accounts of the Company’s Select Committee of 1772, the value of the gifts given by Mir Jafar was one million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. After 1865, the Nawab was granted an annual allowance of 5,386,000 rupees. In 1770 it was reduced to thirty-two lakhs, and in 1772 to only sixteen lakhs of rupees. Formerly, the nawabs employed many Muslims under them. They gave considerable financial assistance, jagirs, and other grants to aristocratic families. When all this came to an end, those families fell into extreme distress. Some left Bengal and went elsewhere in search of their fortunes, while the rest continued to be crushed by poverty.

2. Aristocratic or Upper-Class Muslims

Aristocratic Muslims came to this country at various times as conquerors or as daring adventurers seeking their fortunes. Thereafter, they came to love this country wholeheartedly and accepted it as their permanent homeland. As conquerors, they naturally had the right to occupy various high offices of the government. Hunter says that an aristocratic Muslim family derived its wealth from three principal sources: leadership of the military, revenue collection, and service in the judiciary and administration.

The first source was, so to speak, entirely their monopoly. Mir Jafar himself dismissed eighty thousand soldiers from service. Najm-ud-Daulah could retain only as many soldiers as were necessary to preserve his personal dignity. As a result, several hundred thousand Muslims in Bengal and Bihar were crushed by unemployment and poverty.

Hunter says that the first source of livelihood was the army. There, access for Muslims was closed. No son of an aristocratic Muslim family could any longer enter our army. Even when, on rare occasions, they were given a position to meet our military needs, it offered them no opportunity to earn money.

Their second source of income was important positions in revenue collection. But it has been described above how subordinate Hindu revenue collectors, through the Company’s favor, suddenly became the owners of Muslim zamindaris.

Lord Metcalfe remarked in 1820: The land and property of the country were taken away from their true owners and transferred to a class of babus who had grown wealthy through bribery and extreme corruption. This was done on the basis of such a terrible policy of oppression that its like is rare in the world.

—(E. Thompson, The Life of Charles Lord Metcalfe; A.R. Mallick, British Policy and the Muslims of Bengal).

Even before the nineteenth century, the English and Hindus had taken the place of Muslim employees who occupied high positions in the revenue department and of the true owners of the land.

From time immemorial, the Muslim rulers of India had granted Muslim scholars revenue-free landholdings under such names as jagir, tamgha, ayma, and madad-i-ma‘ash, in order to promote education among the people. Buchanan’s

According to him, twenty-one kinds of revenue-free land grants had been made to various individuals and institutions in Bihar and Patna district alone. During the English period, these lakherajdars were dispossessed of their ownership on various pretexts. As an example, it may be mentioned that in Burdwan, the Special Deputy Collector, Mr. Taylor, pronounced judgment in one day against 429 lakherajdars in their absence.

Under the English government’s Tribunals of Resumption, lakheraj properties were resumed by the government. An officer of the Chittagong Board of Revenue made the following comment: There will be nothing surprising if the lakherajdars become suspicious of the government’s intentions. It is entirely natural. In all 1,463 cases, decisions were made in favor of the government in the absence of the lakherajdars. After this bitter experience, they could hardly be expected to retain confidence in the Tribunals of Resumption (Comment by Smith in Harvey’s Report of 19^th June 1840; A.R. Mallick, British Policy and the Muslims of Bengal).

Various vile methods were adopted to dispossess Muslim lakherajdars of their rightful ownership of the land, and a hostile mentality prevailed among English officials in this regard. Many lakheraj properties were confiscated because the lakherajdars’ deeds were not registered. The district collectors deliberately delayed registering the deeds in time. Consequently, despite their efforts, the lakherajdars could not have their deeds registered.

In Chittagong, no notice was given to lakherajdars to appear in court. In many cases it was even found that the property had been settled elsewhere long before the decree in the case was issued. Between 1828 and 1851, spies, false witnesses, and resumption officers spread throughout Bengal and Bihar like locusts to gather false information about the lakherajdars and involve Muslims in lawsuits. In these cases, apart from the government, a third party also benefited enormously. Those who gave false testimony and those who supplied government officials with fabricated information earned considerable sums of money. On the other hand, the Muslim upper and middle classes were ruined. The confiscation of lakheraj properties also caused many educational institutions to close.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru says:

After the English established themselves in Bengal, many ‘muafi,’ that is, revenue-free landholdings, existed there. Many were private, but most had been endowed as waqf to meet the expenses of educational institutions. Nearly all primary schools, maktabs, and many institutions of higher education depended on the income from these ‘muafi’ holdings. The East India Company needed to raise money quickly to pay profits to its shareholders in England, because the Company’s directors were applying great pressure for this purpose. A policy was then adopted of confiscating ‘muafi’ landholdings through a carefully planned process. Orders were issued requiring the production of strong evidence in support of these landholdings.

But the old deeds and related documents had by then either been lost somewhere or eaten by insects. Consequently, almost all ‘muafi’ or lakheraj properties were confiscated. Many old landed proprietors were deprived of their rights. The sources of income of many schools and colleges were cut off. Thus, much land came into the government’s khas possession, and many old-established families were uprooted. The educational institutions that had depended on the income of the aforementioned ‘muafi’ holdings were closed. Many teachers and employees of the education department became unemployed. —(Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, pp. 376–77)

The third means of livelihood for upper-class and aristocratic Muslims was government employment in the judicial and administrative departments. Even after the Company acquired the diwani, they remained in service for nearly fifty years because Persian was still the official language. But suddenly English was made the official language in place of Persian. Muslims had been wholly unprepared for this. In 1832, Captain T. Macam submitted a proposal before the Select Committee that English should be introduced gradually and that Muslim employees should at least be given five or six years’ notice. Hunt Mackenzie also submitted a similar proposal. He said that English should be introduced gradually and successively in the districts. But because the change was suddenly implemented everywhere, thousands of Muslim employees were dismissed from service, their livelihoods having depended entirely on their employment. In 1829, English began to be taught in schools and colleges as the vehicle of all forms of education. From 1 April 1837, the first day of the financial year at that time, English was suddenly introduced as the official language.

Mr. Hunter also acknowledged these facts and said sarcastically:

“Now these former rulers of India can find a place nowhere except in one or two subordinate jobs in the jails. In various offices, in clerical posts, in responsible positions in the courts, and even in the higher ranks of the police service, enthusiastic Hindu youths from government schools are being appointed.”

The Hindu community reaped the full benefit of this change. Having learned English at various colleges, they gained a monopoly over government employment everywhere. On the other hand, as a result of the political transformation, aristocratic Muslim families were deprived of every opportunity and facility for earning a livelihood and were cast into poverty, starvation, and ruin.

3. Lower-Class Muslims: Peasants and Weavers

A glimpse of the extreme distress suffered by the peasantry as a result of the Permanent Settlement has been given above.

It has also been mentioned that two further tiers existed between the zamindars and the actual peasants: the patnidars and sub-patnidars. Through these two classes, several times more than the rent due to the zamindar was collected from the ryots, and thus there was no limit to the exploitation and oppression of the ryots or peasants. Their lives became unbearable under the persecution of the zamindars and patnidars. Compelled by necessity, they had to turn to Hindu moneylenders. They had to borrow money at interest rates ranging from 37 to 60 percent. In addition, they had to mortgage their cattle or buffaloes to the moneylenders. If, because of poverty, they accepted grain in advance from a moneylender, they had to repay twice the amount. Again, since the harvested crop had to be delivered to the moneylender’s house, they were cheated there as well. In short, these zamindars and moneylenders took pleasure in playing with the lives of the unfortunate peasants.

There was no means of redress for the peasants’ suffering and distress. This was because it was extremely costly. Moreover, through bribery and various forms of corruption, the zamindars and their agents multiplied the costs several times over. The eventual result was that the zamindars and moneylenders evicted them from their homesteads and lands and turned them into destitute vagrants.

Along with producing rice and other crops, the peasant community also cultivated indigo. Indigo cultivation had been practiced in this country from much earlier times. In the middle of the seventeenth century, indigo dye was first exported from India to Europe. The British established indigo cultivation in their American and West Indian colonies. After these colonies slipped from their hands, Bengal became the principal indigo-supplying country. In 1805, the quantity of indigo cultivated in Bengal was 64,803 maunds, and in 1843 it had doubled. In Bengal and Bihar, and especially in the Muslim-populated districts of Dhaka, Faridpur, Rajshahi, Pabna, Nadia, Murshidabad, and others, indigo was cultivated on a large scale under British supervision in the middle of the eighteenth century. But the foreign rulers fixed such a low price for indigo that the cultivators lost seven rupees per bigha, which was seven times the rent per bigha. Nevertheless, the cultivators were forced to grow indigo. History records the heartbreaking and horrifying stories of the inhuman oppression and persecution inflicted by the rulers upon Bengal’s indigo cultivators. The rulers intoxicated by power and their agents had lost all sense of humanity. Otherwise, the heartbreaking cries of men, women, children, and the elderly in the peasant community, caused by their oppression, would not have torn apart Bengal’s sky and air.

The poor and destitute peasants hoped to earn some money through indigo cultivation in order to survive. Taking advantage of their poverty and helplessness, the English indigo planters forced them to enter into various contracts contrary to the peasants’ interests. Often they seized unwilling cultivators and set them on fire. When even this failed to make them agree, the indigo planters fraudulently seized their lands on the basis of forged contracts and had indigo cultivated on them by their employees. Sometimes an oppressive zamindar, in order to punish a tenant, took land away from him and gave it to the indigo planters. Once, while testifying before the Indigo Commission in 1860, Ashley Eden stated that various criminal records showed forty-nine cases in which indigo planters had been involved in serious crimes such as rioting, murder, arson, dacoity, plunder, and forcible abduction. Many years earlier, a magistrate remarked before a Christian missionary that not a single box of indigo was sent to England without being stained with human blood. (The Indigo Commission Report of 1861 and the Calcutta Christian Observer, November 1855).

There was no remedy for the suffering and misery of the indigo cultivators. Even when the cultivators were brutally tortured in front of the village watchmen and police officers, the watchmen had no power even to utter a word of condemnation about it. Once, when the cruel indigo planters set fire to a village, a man gathered people by shouting to have it extinguished. For this, he was brutally beaten and kept for four months in a dark room while injured. The indigo planters, meanwhile, kept the police under their control by paying them hefty bribes. (Report of the Indigo Commission, 1861).

The unfortunate, helpless peasants could expect neither any remedy nor justice from the magistrates. The said Indigo Commission Report stated that the white-skinned magistrates took the side of their fellow countrymen. The criminal laws had been framed in such a way that punishing an English subject was virtually impossible. A poor subject from a remote area could not dare leave his wife, children, and family behind, travel to Calcutta, and file a lawsuit. For in his absence, the lives, property, honor, and modesty of his wife, children, and family would be destroyed by the indigo planters. Indigo cultivation was carried out on a larger scale in Muslim-majority areas. Consequently, lower-class Muslims became the continual victims of the indigo planters’ extreme oppression and persecution.

Weavers

Like the peasant class, the weaver class of this country also fell into extreme distress. Millions of Muslims in Bengal and Bihar earned their livelihoods through the weaving industry. Before the end of the nineteenth century, the weaving industry had died as a profitable business. Nevertheless, since the Muslims who had clung to weaving until then had no alternative, their number, according to the 1891 census, was 771,237 in Bihar Province and several districts of Bengal. The weavers of Nadia, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Bogra, Jalpaiguri, Noakhali, Tripura, and Chittagong were outside this figure. Therefore, it may be stated without hesitation that in the early days of Company rule the number of Muslim weavers throughout Bengal and Bihar was at least ten times the figure given above. A brief account of how these weaving merchants were ruined is given below.

Before the East India Company arrived in this country, its weaving industry had attained the highest level of excellence. Every district produced exceptionally fine textiles of distinctive kinds. Large quantities of cotton were imported to meet demand. Both coarse and fine fabrics were produced by these weaving industries. India was the market for coarse cloth, while fine and superfine fabrics were exported to various parts of Europe. With the assistance, cooperation, and patronage of Muslim rulers, Dhaka’s superfine silk textiles were exported to various parts of Europe. Under the assistance, cooperation, and patronage of Muslim rulers, Dhaka’s superfine silk ‘muslin’ had created an enormous attraction in European markets for two centuries. Whether coarse cloth or superfine silk, both fabrics were a great contribution of Muslim weavers. An English merchant named William Bolts, describing the unspeakable oppression inflicted on weavers by the Company, said that all trade and commerce were the Company’s monopoly. The English, together with their subordinate Hindu merchants and gomastas, fixed the prices of cloth according to their own whims and forced the weavers to supply specified quantities of fabric at those prices. Like the indigo planters, they also forced the weavers to sign contracts contrary to their interests. The weavers were compelled to supply fabrics of a specified quality and quantity, at prices fixed by them, within a specified time—these were called contracts. The prices fixed by them were again fifteen to forty percent lower than the market price. If the weavers failed to satisfy the Company and its oppressive agents, they were flogged. It was as though living skin were being stripped away and human flesh consumed. It is said that in ancient times, uncivilized barbarous forest-dwellers would, when necessary, satisfy their hunger with the flesh of men and women. But in what respect were these so-called civilized Englishmen and their agents superior to them?

Later, the Company’s directors dealt a devastating blow to Bengal’s textile industry. Instead of importing finished textiles from Bengal to England, they began importing cotton and silk as raw materials. Subsequently, they recommended that the artisans of silk textiles be forced to work in the Company’s own factories rather than at their own looms. As a result, this industrially advanced country became a market for raw materials for England’s textile manufacturers. After 1789, exports of Dhaka’s fine silk textiles began to decline. In 1799, textiles worth twelve lakh rupees were exported from Dhaka alone. The twelve lakh of that era may easily be called twelve crore in terms of today’s money. In 1813, exports fell to three lakh rupees. In 1817, exports of textiles produced in Dhaka ceased altogether.

In short, by destroying the textile industry of Bengal and Bihar, the textile industry of Manchester was built upon the flesh and blood of the impoverished weaver community. Gradually, an exporting country was turned into a market for imported goods. From 1786 to 1790, textiles worth twelve lakh pounds were imported annually into this country. By 1809, the amount had risen to one crore eighty-four lakh pounds. It was British policy gradually to eliminate the weaver community of this country, which was predominantly Muslim. (Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle Class).

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru painted a poignant picture of the weavers’ suffering and misery in his book The Discovery of India. He said that the weavers’ old profession had been completely shut down. No door to a new profession was open. Only the door of death was open. Millions died. In his 1834 report, Lord Bentinck said that their suffering had no parallel in the history of commerce. The roads and fields of India were filled with the bones of the weavers. —(Pandit Nehru: The Discovery of India, p. 352).

In short, from the accurate history and various facts of the hundred years following the surrender of this country’s independence and sovereignty to foreign imperialists in the Battle of Plassey, it becomes clear that the history of this period is the history of the exploitation, plunder, oppression, persecution, deceit, fraud, and slaughter of Bengal’s Muslims. The local ‘babus,’ favored by the Company government, incited and assisted this work in every way. They received the full reward for their treachery to the country. That reward was this: all the country’s zamindaris and tenures were taken away from their rightful owners and given to these ‘babus’ forever, to be enjoyed by them and their descendants. Through bribery and corruption, they became owners of immense wealth and riches. —(E. Thompson: The Life of Charles Lord Metcalfe; A. R. Mallic: British Policy & the Muslims of Bengal).

A tragic example of exploitation and oppression is this: during the Famine of ’76, one-third of Bengal’s people died, and agriculture suffered a catastrophic decline. Yet Warren Hastings, calculating and exacting more than the stipulated revenue through severe pressure, did not spend it to alleviate the suffering of the dying peasants. Instead, he sold 33,913 maunds of rice from Bakarganj District and pocketed a profit of 67,593 rupees. He stored 40,000 maunds of rice from Dhaka in the cantonment at Bankipur, says Abdul Mawdud in his book The Development of the Middle Class (p. 63).

Abdul Mawdud further says that the Taj Mahal, which architects describe as the finest example of architectural art on earth, whose construction cost 230 million dollars, and whose conception shames even the mind of the greatest world conqueror by making it appear dull, was once contracted by Lord Bentinck—celebrated in India as one of its most benevolent and welfare-minded viceroys—to be sold to a Hindu contractor for only 150,000 dollars, so that it could be demolished and its materials appropriated. (The Round the World Traveller, Loreng: p. 379). Warren Hastings removed the bathhouse of the Diwan-i-Khas and sent it as a gift to George IV in Britain, while Lord Bentinck sold other parts of the palace and increased India’s revenue (India: Chirol, p. 54; The Story of Civilization, Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant, pp. 609–10).

Likewise, the priceless looted Koh-i-Noor still enhances the splendor of England’s royal palace. Such acts of plunder reveal the extreme base instincts of the English, who pride themselves on education, learning, civilization, and refinement.

Edmund Burke truly made this incisive remark: “If we have to leave India today, there will remain nothing to prove that this country was ruled by an animal better than an orangutan or a tiger.” (Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle Class, p. 64).

On the eve of the end of the Company’s rule, John Bright said, “The history of one hundred years over the innocent people of India is a history of unspeakable crimes” (Oxford History of India: p. 680).

Hindu-Muslim Relations: Religion and Culture

From the beginning of the medieval period, Muslims came to Bengal and the Indian subcontinent from Arabia, Turkey, Iran-Turan, Afghanistan, and other lands. Thereafter, they loved this country with all their hearts and souls, accepted it as their permanent homeland, and lived alongside its Hindus for century after century. But the harsh historical truth is that, although Hindus and Muslims lived side by side for more than a thousand years, grew up under the same sky and in the same climate, these two peoples not only failed to merge into one, but were also unable to develop a spiritual relationship. Of course, during this long period they sometimes worked together and shared one another’s joys and sorrows. But that occurred only in particular places, times, and circumstances—not as nations, but as neighbors. Even then, only incidentally. Permanent roots of friendship and unity never became established between them. In describing why this distance remained intact despite their living side by side, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar says:

“The religious beliefs and social institutions of these two communities are completely opposed… Hindus derive the inspiration for Bengali literature from Sanskrit, while Muslims derive it from Arabic and Persian. The religious fanaticism of the Muslims also made them similarly hostile toward them. …The leaders of Hindu society had imposed strict regulations so that Hindus could not show even the slightest sympathy toward Muslim society.” (Ramesh Chandra Majumdar: History of Bangladesh, Medieval Period, pp. 242–43 and 334–50).

The poet Rabindranath Tagore described the reasons why the divide between the two communities was not removed and a spiritual relationship did not develop. He said:

“The deepest current of kinship flows through the blood, not through spoken words. If, among those who imagine themselves to be one great nation, the path to unity in the blood remains forever blocked by the dictates of religion, then their union can never be a union of the soul.” —[Rabindra Rachanabali (Centenary Edition), vol. 13, p. 308]

Thus it is clear that this difference and distance are not merely external and artificial. At their deep root lie the separate and opposing religious beliefs and cultures of the two communities. The observation made by H. V. Hodson, constitutional adviser to Lord Linlithgow, the former Viceroy of India, concerning India’s two nations, Hindus and Muslims, may be quoted here. He said:

“…There are two great communities here living in the same country, so to speak, in the same village, sharing the same joys and sorrows and under the same government. They are not different in their original racial stock. For most Indian Muslims are descended from the ancestors of their Hindu neighbors. Yet they are separate and distinct. They are distinct not only in religious beliefs and rites and customs, but also in the whole pattern of life and mental outlook. Each group or community is permanently hereditary. There is neither a practice of intermarriage between them nor any prospect of their merging into one.” —(H. V. Hodson, The Great Divide, p. 10).

In Bengal and the Indian subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims have preserved their religious and cultural distinctiveness from time immemorial. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar says:

“From the beginning to the end of the medieval period, Muslims lived side by side with Hindus for seven hundred to thirteen hundred years in different places, yet remained exactly as before. …When Muslims conquered Sindh and first settled in India at the beginning of the eighth century, the fundamental differences between Hindus and Muslims were exactly the same even after a thousand years, except for the difference of language. …Since the beginning of the present century, a doctrine has become current in our country that, as a result of the mixing of Hindu and Muslim cultures in the medieval period, both lost their distinctiveness, and a new culture was formed which was neither Hindu culture nor Islamic culture—Indian culture. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Raja Rammohan Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, and others, and in the latter half Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and other leading figures of contemporary Bengal, held precisely the opposite view, and nineteenth-century Bengali literature supports this opposite view. The truth will be demonstrated simply by comparing what Hindu society and Hinduism were in 1200 CE with what Hinduism and society had become in 1800 CE.” —(Ramesh Chandra Majumdar: History of Bangladesh, Medieval Period, pp. 242–43 and 334–50).

After Muslims came to India and lived with Hindus for more than a thousand years, instead of the two joining to form one nation, their distinctiveness became clearer and more firmly established. K. M. Panikkar remarks in his book Survey of Indian History: “The chief social consequence of the introduction of Islam as a religion in India was that the social body was divided vertically into two. Before the thirteenth century, the divisions that had appeared in Hindu society were somewhat horizontal in nature. Buddhism had been able to absorb these subreligions, and in time they had established their respective regional homes within the bounds of Hinduism. Islam, by contrast, divided Indian society clearly into two from top to bottom. What in today’s language is known to us as the two-nation theory was born on that very first day. From then onward, two parallel societies continued to exist, vertically divided upon the same foundation. In every sphere of life the two societies became separate and distinct and expressed themselves separately. No kind of social relationship or exchange in the sphere of life remained between them. Conversion from Hinduism to Islam, of course, continued without interruption. But simultaneously new doctrines and communities arose, along with a new defensive and protective outlook. As a result, the Hindu social body gradually appeared increasingly stronger.”

The harsh truth spoken by the distinguished scholar Dr. Syed Mujtaba Ali, educated at Visva-Bharati founded by Rabindranath Tagore, may be presented to the readers. He said:

“The sons and grandsons, proud of the tradition of the great Aryan philosophers, studied philosophy in their respective traditional schools for hundreds of years after the arrival of the Muslims, but they found no trace of the philosophical studies conducted for hundreds of years in Arabic in the neighboring village madrasa—from Plato and Neoplatonism to Kindi, Farabi, Avicenna, al-Ghazali, Averroes, and other thinkers. The Muslim maulanas were no less negligent—they never once inquired what was being studied in the traditional school next door. …Sri Chaitanya was reportedly acquainted with Islam …but we do not know that Chaitanya Deva ever attempted a scriptural conference between the two religions. The principal aim of his life was the organization and reform of Hinduism and taking it from the path of destruction toward renewed youth. …The knowledge, science, religion, and philosophy brought by the Muslims, and the thousands of poets, scholars, theologians, and philosophers who came to this country from Iran-Turan, ravaged by the Mongols, especially during the later period and under the Mughal Empire from Akbar to Aurangzeb, and poured out their poetry and learning at the Mughal court—Hindu scholars of religion, scriptures, and philosophy in this country gained not the slightest benefit from them… No connection was established with Hindu scholars.” —(Barobabu, Syed Mujtaba Ali).

The revolutionary and stirring message of Islamic tawhid, surrendering everything to the Creator, Islam’s universal brotherhood and love, its message of equality and justice, and its democratic ideal created an irresistible appeal and thrill in people’s minds. Consequently, Hindus began to seek refuge in large numbers under the cool shade of Islam. Hinduism then turned to self-preservation. Self-preservation in the face of Islam’s message was not easy. Thus, messages of religious synthesis and unity were preached and echoed here and there in India through the appearance of saints and preachers such as Ramananda, Ekalavya, Dadu, Nanak, and Kabir. Taking Islam’s monotheism as their basis, they sought to reform Hinduism in order to protect it from Islam. Or they merely attempted to introduce Hindu influence and infiltration into Islam and push it, like Buddhism and Jainism, before the all-consuming force of Hindutva.

In this connection Abdul Mawdud says:

“These movements naturally served the considerable opportunities of the Brahmanists in the political sphere of the twentieth century, and Hindu politicians, giving them the label ‘nationalist,’ raised the smoke-screen of a single Indian culture. Moreover, before long they became actively engaged in efforts to obstruct and, if possible, expel Islam and the powerful Muslim force. Their political role and state needs then made the slogan of this synthesis clear. (Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle Class: Transformation of Culture, p. 25).

Citing Ahmad Sharif’s ‘Muslim Pad Literature’ (Sahitya Patrika, monsoon issue, 1367), Abdul Mawdud says:

“There is much evidence that this objective had become clear in the Sikh or Vaishnava movements. For reasons of state, the path of synthesis continued from Emperor Akbar to Gandhi’s time. Gandhi’s ‘Ramdhun’ song and several poems by Nazrul may be regarded as the final efforts along this path.”

He then says that in reality these were novel efforts of all-devouring Brahmanical Hindutva—desperate attempts along this path to absorb Islam like a python. For reasons of state, this great mantra of religious synthesis and cultural unity was sung in the past and continues to be sung today. (Abdul Mawdud—same work, p. 25).

The brief discussion above has made it clear that the ridiculous effort, from Emperor Akbar through the second quarter of the twentieth century, to create a mishmash by combining Hindus and Muslims and pass it off as one Indian nation and culture or one Bengali nation and culture, was rejected by truth-minded people as a counterfeit and invalid coin. For it was unnatural, irrelevant, and impossible.

 Communal Conflict

It is as clear as daylight that the two great peoples of Bengal and the Indian subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims, are the bearers of two distinct religious beliefs and cultures. But the question is why two peoples of distinct faiths could not live together peacefully and without conflict in the same country. Why, despite belonging to different religions, could they not develop goodwill, friendship, and cordial relations? Who is responsible for this? Both of them, or only one group? Surely, it will not be especially difficult to find the correct answer in the pages of history.

There is no doubt that the main cause of Hindu-Muslim conflict and clashes was primarily political. To achieve political ends, fellow believers were summoned in the name of religion, and the opponent was branded a destroyer of religion and a plunderer of others’ property. The opponent was portrayed as a foreign invader, a murderer, and a woman. The opponent was depicted as a foreign invader, murderer, rapist, and destroyer of idols and temples, thereby creating religious frenzy among one’s own people.

It has already been mentioned that the Muslim rule established in this subcontinent in place of Hindu rule could not be accepted wholeheartedly by the Hindu nation. From the eighth century onward, for several centuries, the military power of the Muslims—like a flood of youthful waves surging across country after country—was spreading everywhere. Indian political power could not withstand this irresistible force, and Muslim rule could not be prevented. But that did not mean that the conquered Hindus of this country could accept Muslim rule in their hearts, amid grief, humiliation, and shame over their lost kingdom. Their innermost souls were bursting with agitation. The fire of resentment and vengeance accumulated over many centuries erupted through the rebellions of the Rajputs, Marathas, and Sikhs in central India, and this found fulfillment in the fall of Sirajuddaula in 1757. From then until the end of the nineteenth century, for a century and a half, the Muslims’ lives were plunged into extreme adversity. Every effort and strategy was adopted to uproot them from the face of the earth through the combined power of Hindus and Englishmen. During this period, the Hindu nation lavished praise on the English and spread unspeakable slander against the former Muslim rulers and rule. Bengali literature and poetry became filled with fabricated slander against Islam and Muslims. From the poets Ishwar Chandra Gupta, Rangalal Bandyopadhyay, Hemchandra Bandyopadhyay, and Nabin Chandra, and the writer and novelist Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay onward, Hindu poets and writers, great and small, took it as a vow to place stigma upon the character of Islam and Muslims. Many believe that Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay was foremost of all in distorting the character of Muslims, but his pen too was hardly less venomous.

There had been no shortage of efforts and endeavors to bring Hindus and Muslims together in the Indian subcontinent. While such efforts at unity were underway, Sarat Babu’s pen did not fail to take jabs at Muslims. In one place in his essay entitled ‘A Tale of a Few Directions,’ he says—

“…I heard that Hindu-Muslim unity had been successfully achieved one day at the National Congress. Everyone came outside, sighed with relief, and began saying—thank goodness, all is well, there is no more worry. The leaders had solved the Hindu-Muslim problem; now there was only work to do, only the liberation of the country. The delegates, having received leave, hurried in groups by hiring tongas, ekkas, and motorcars to see all the ancient monuments. Not just one or two—many. With a guide beside them and paper and pencil in hand, they went around collecting and returning with extensive information: which mosques had been built by demolishing how many Hindu temples, how much of each ruin was Hindu and how much Muslim, who had cut off the nose and ears of which idol and when, and so on. Finally, at the end of the day, many sat down beneath a tree with tired bodies, and with long sighs their lips began to utter—ah, Hindu-Muslim unity.” —(Bijli, 25 Ashwin, 1330).

Chattopadhyay Mahashaya further says,

—Whatever other faults the English may have, they do not break the spires of temples in whose sanctity they do not believe, nor cut off the noses and ears of idols they do not worship. Therefore, merely by looking at the top of any temple, one can understand how old it is. Swamiji pointed them out: “That is the temple of such-and-such a deity—it was destroyed by Emperor Aurangzeb; that is the temple of such-and-such a deity—it was razed to the ground by such-and-such a king; that temple was demolished and a mosque built in its place by the English,” and so forth. Our hearts thoroughly sweetened by these pious tales, we returned to the ashram late one night.

—(Bijli, 23 Kartik, Bengali year 1330)

With the same pen, flowers are showered in praise of the English while the Muslim rulers of the past are beheaded. Not only that, in Hindu temples people are being incited against Muslims. It must therefore be said that the effort to promote Hindu-Muslim unity is merely a farce; it contains not the slightest trace of sincerity.

The poet Hemchandra Bandyopadhyay sang in exuberant praise of the English master:

“Had this Englishman not been here

Today a wilderness—who would teach, who would show

Who would lead you along the path

The path you had forsaken for so long?”

—(The Passage of the Centuries, edited by Dr. Hasan Zaman, p. 284)

In the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the Muslims of Bengal were being persecuted, oppressed, and tormented by Hindu zamindars and Company rule, and in protest the Faraizi movement and the movement of Syed Titumir assumed formidable proportions in Bengal. Later, the jihadist movement of Syed Ahmad Shaheed created a stir throughout India. Thereafter, India’s first movement for independence began in 1857. The manner in which Indian Muslims, after all these movements ended in failure, fell under English persecution and led an intolerable life will be discussed in its proper place. While Muslim society was tormented by imprisonment, hanging, transportation, confiscation of movable and immovable property, and various other inhuman and fiendish atrocities committed by the English, Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay began inflicting the merciless blows of his pen upon the already battered body of the Muslim nation. In his novels Anandamath, Rajsingha, Durgeshnandini, Devi Chaudhurani, and others, his venomous denunciations of Muslims were such that readers could hardly fail to shudder. Through his literature, a successful attempt was made to create hatred against Muslims and to kindle the Hindu nation’s fire of vengeance through statements attributed to Muslims such as “the destruction of Hindu temples” and “the rape of Hindu women.” At the 1898 session of the Muslim Education Society, a resolution was adopted, on the initiative of Nawab Nawab Ali Chowdhury, strongly protesting the propagation of hatred against Muslims in Bengali literature. The resolution was published in English and sent for publication in Hindu newspapers and periodicals. No newspaper printed it; only the periodical Bharati made a sarcastic comment. —(Bengali Muslim Public Opinion as Reflected in the Bengal Press, 1901–30: Mustafa Nurul Islam, pp. 141–42).

Some quotations are given below as examples of Bankimchandra’s propagation of hatred toward Muslims through literature:

“The princess said, ‘I am placing this portrait of Emperor Alamgir on the ground. Let everyone kick him once in the face with his left foot. Let us see whose kick breaks his nose.’” —[Rajsingha, Part I, Chapter Two, Chitralekha.]

“Aurangzeb had two sisters—Jahanara and Roshanara. Jahanara was the principal support of Shah Jahan’s reign. …She was especially devoted to her father. But to the extent that she possessed all these virtues, she was even more given to sensuality. Countless men were available to her for the gratification of the senses. Among them, European travelers mention the name of one person, but I could not write it without defiling my pen!”—(Rajsingha, Part II, Chapter Two: Jebunnisa.)

“Aurangzeb had three daughters. …The eldest, Zeb-un-Nissa, did not marry. Like her paternal aunts, she wandered about drinking honey from flowers like a bee in spring.” —(Rajsingha, Part II, Chapter Two: Zeb-un-Nissa.)

Every student of history will acknowledge how much stigma has been imposed upon the character of chaste and virtuous Muslim women. Bankimchandra expressed regret, saying that he “could not defile his pen.” But readers need little help understanding how distorted and diseased a person’s conscience and taste must become through sheer hatred of Muslims for him to slander in this manner the character of a secluded, veiled, chaste, devout, God-fearing Muslim woman.

Bankim did not hesitate for a moment to portray the character of the virtuous Zeb-un-Nissa in an even more vile manner. Indeed, he had no reason to hesitate. In his blind hatred of Muslims, Bankimchandra gratified his desire by thoroughly distorting the characters of Emperor Aurangzeb-Alamgir and his learned daughter Zeb-un-Nissa in the vilest form.

In Durgeshnandini, the story is told of an illicit love affair between Jagat Singh and an imaginary Muslim woman named Ayesha. Sir Jadunath Sarkar says of Durgeshnandini: “How much true history is there in Bankimchandra’s Durgeshnandini? Man Singh, Jagat Singh, Kutlu Khan, Khwaja Isa, and Usman—all of them are historical figures…. Apart from this, everything else in Durgeshnandini is imaginary….

Ayesha, Tilottama, and Bimala are all imaginary. They came from the writing of a famous but thoroughly fanciful historian, Captain Alexander Dow. This gentleman, claiming to have frequently translated into English the history of Hindustan written by Firishta, and adding Firishta’s name to the title page of his own book, circulated inadequate fabricated material—things Firishta never wrote, and which no Persian author could possibly have written.” —[Bankim Rachanavali, sixth edition, 1382 Bengali year, “On the Novels,” pp. 29–30.]

It is true that both the English and the Hindus displayed eloquence in distorting the history and character of Muslims. However, it is difficult to say which of them went further in this matter.

In Anandamath, Bankimchandra, denouncing Muslim rule, says: “Look at all the countries—Magadha, Mithila, Kashi, Kanchi, Delhi, Kashmir—which country has suffered such misery? In which country do people, unable to find food, eat grass? Eat thorns? Eat termite clay? Eat forest vines? In which country do people eat jackals and dogs, eat corpses? In which country do people have no peace keeping money in their chests, no peace placing a Shalagrama on the throne, no peace keeping maidservants and wives at home, no peace bearing sons in the wombs of maidservants and wives? They rip open their bellies and take out the children. …Where do our Muslim kings protect us? Religion is gone, caste is gone, honor is gone, lineage is gone, and now even life is being lost. If these drunken, shaven-headed ones are not driven out, what Hinduism will remain for the Hindus?”—(Anandamath, Part I, Chapter Ten.)

Bankimchandra and his devoted disciples considered it a sin to take up the pen in their literature, poetry, and essays without placing before Muslims’ names such epithets as “shaven-headed,” “common shaven-headed,” and “Mlechchha.” In Durgeshnandini, Jagat Singh and the imaginary Ayesha are shown as lovers. Even so, self-satisfaction is found in calling Ayesha a Yavani. At the end of the twenty-second chapter it is said: “Although Ayesha was a Yavani, because of her greater affection for Tilottama and Jagat Singh, she became an inhabitant of the inner quarters of the fort together with the female companions.”

Mocking Allah, the Holy Qur’an, and the five daily prayers, Anandamath, Part IV, Chapter Five, says:

The Muslims began to say, “Allah-o-Akbar! After so many days of fasting, has the Holy Qur’an become completely useless? We perform the five daily prayers, but this group of oil-smeared Hindus has been unable to conquer that?”

Bipin Chandra Pal comments on Anandamath:

“In Anandamath he placed the motherland in the portion of Mahavishnu or Narayan and united our love of country and vow of service to the motherland with love of humanity in general and service to humanity as a whole. The motherland cannot be worshipped apart from Mahavishnu, Narayan, or universal humanity. This is one of the most important ideas in Anandamath.” —(Bengali Literature of the New Age, p. 109)

Ramesh Chandra Dutt says in his article on Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition, Volume VI, p. 110):

“The central idea of Anandamath is to bring an end to oppressive Muslim rule by accepting British rule and the British system of education. …Whether sooner or later, Anandamath is inspired by the ideal of establishing a Hindu kingdom in India.”

In short, by writing Anandamath, Bankimchandra on the one hand incited his own people against the Muslim nation, and through the song Vande Mataram created among the Hindu nation, in the name of religion—in the name of the goddess Motherland—the inspiration for a revival. The idea that this revival was possible by crushing Muslims and by welcoming and firmly establishing British rule in this country flows through every line of Anandamath. The Vande Mataram mantra of Anandamath found its effective outward expression in the movement to annul the partition of Bengal at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The partition of Bengal and the movement against it will be discussed in their proper place. Here, however, I shall give a glimpse of the terrorism that arose from the ideology of Vande Mataram.

Abdul Maudud says:

Terrorism found no foothold on Bengali soil in the nineteenth century and received no sympathy from the bhadralok. Before 1903, Barindrakumar Ghosh returned from London to Calcutta and tried to increase agitation, but received no sympathy.

…Having failed, he went to Baroda to see Aurobindo Ghosh. Aurobindo was highly educated in England. At that time he was vice-president of Gaekwad College. Sitting in Baroda, Barindra realized that political agitation alone would achieve nothing unless politics was integrated with religion. He therefore planned the Anushilan Samiti with the aim of teaching politics alongside the reading of the Gita, and continued waiting for the appropriate time.

“The opportunity came in 1904, and Aurobindo joined in 1905. The partition of Bengal was implemented, and the educated Bengali Hindu community burst into protest. The partition was given a religious form by calling it the dismemberment of the ‘Mother Bengal,’ and all Hindu Bengal became absorbed in the movement.” —(Abdul Maudud, The Development of Middle-Class Society: Cultural Transformation, p. 202.)

It was by receiving initiation into the Vande Mataram mantra of Anandamath that terrorism arose on Bengali soil. Aurobindo Ghosh’s acknowledgment proves it. On 16 April 1907, referring to Bankimchandra’s contribution, he wrote an essay in English. A brief quotation from it is given below:

“The earlier Bankim was only a poet and stylist—the later Bankim was a saint and a nation-builder.”

That is, “The Bankim of the early period was a poet and artist; the Bankim of the later period was a sage and a nation-builder.” He further says:

“It was thirty-two years ago that Bankim wrote his great song. The mantra had been given, and in a single day a whole people had been converted to the religion of patriotism. The Mother had revealed herself. A great nation which has had that vision can never again be placed under the foot of the conqueror.”

That is, “Thirty-two years ago Bankim composed his famous song Vande Mataram. The mantra was breathed into them, and in a single day the entire nation was initiated into the religion of the Motherland. The Motherland revealed herself …A great nation that cherished this fulfillment of a dream would never again be trampled under the conqueror’s feet.” —[Sri Yogesh Chandra Bagal, author of the introduction to Bankim Rachanavali, “Introduction to Bankim,” pp. 25–26.]

In the first quarter of the twentieth century, Muslim newspapers and periodicals published vehement protests and expressions of indignation against the denunciation of Muslim society through Bankim’s literature. But nothing came of it. Rather, terrorism and violence on the Hindu side continued to increase. The following sensational report was published in the Jaistha issue of the Bengali year 1314 (1907) of the monthly Islam Prachar, published from Calcutta:

“With the resolve to drive out the English and Muslims, Hindus of every class—from the highly educated to schoolchildren—are being enrolled in groups to learn stick-fighting and wrestling. Their frightening activities have lit the fire of rebellion throughout Bengal. These thugs have killed one Muslim in Comilla, slaughtered two in Jamalpur, and are spreading terror throughout Bengal in disguise as Hindu and Muslim fakirs and ascetics. In the disguise of maulvis, they are inciting Muslims to plunder Hindus, marry Hindu widows, and rape Hindu women, claiming that assured assistance in these matters will be obtained from the government and the Nawab of Dhaka.”

That issue of Islam Prachar also reported that protest meetings were being held by Muslim associations in Punjab against Hindu terrorist activities, particularly those of Arya Samaji Congress touts. They were declaring unequivocally that Muslims had no connection whatsoever with this Hindu terrorism and anarchy.

The subject of our discussion in this chapter is “communal conflict.” The principal source of this communal conflict is Bankim’s literature. In Bankim’s literature, Muslims were described in vulgar terms such as “Yavans,” “Mlechchhas,” “shaven-headed,” and “common shaven-headed,” and the killing of these Yavans and Mlechchhas was presented as a Hindu duty and meritorious act. The Vande Mataram mantra inspired them to kill Yavans. Yet in the first quarter of the twentieth century, while songs of Hindu-Muslim unity were being sung throughout the country, the Vande Mataram song was inevitably sung at joint Hindu-Muslim meetings and assemblies. Despite the many objections and protests of Muslims, they did not desist.

In an editorial in the Agrahayan issue of the Bengali year 1335 (1928), the monthly Shariyate Islam demanded that the singing of Vande Mataram at joint Hindu-Muslim meetings be stopped. The editor of The Mussalman, Maulvi Mujibur Rahman, submitted a resolution to the Congress National Committee requesting that Vande Mataram be prohibited at meetings and assemblies. But even this produced no result.

Another cause of Hindu-Muslim conflict was the playing of musical instruments by Hindus in front of mosques and the obstruction of Muslims’ cow sacrifice under Hindu zamindars and in Hindu-majority areas. The many arguments and protests over this achieved nothing.

The Arya Samaj’s movements for “purification” and “organization” dealt a severe blow to Muslim India. A statement by one of the movement’s leaders, Lala Har Dayal, published in the Times of India on 25 July 1925, said:

“The Muslims must either accept Hinduism or leave India with their lives and honor.” Satyadev, the chief disciple of Swami Shraddhanand of the Arya Samaj, declared at the same time:

“After we acquire power, we shall present these conditions to the Muslims: the Qur’an shall no longer be regarded as a revealed scripture; Muhammad shall no longer be acknowledged as God’s prophet; Muslim rites and festivals must be abandoned and Hindu festivals observed. Muslim names must be abandoned and names such as Ramdin and Krishnakhan adopted. Worship must be conducted in Hindi instead of Arabic.” Taken from A History of the Freedom Movement, p. 262. —(Mustafa Nurul Islam, Bengali Muslim Public Opinion as Reflected in the Bengal Press, 1901–1930, p. 125).

The first outbreak of political agitation occurred in Bombay, when the Hindu leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak began to inflame and excite Hindu public opinion by giving prominence to two Hindu religious festivals. One was the worship of Ganesha and the second was the Shivaji festival. By providing military training to school and college youth and centering it on these two festivals, Hindu martial strength was awakened. While presiding over the Shivaji festival, Tilak quoted the Bhagavad Gita and declared that, unless done for oneself, killing a teacher or relative for the sake of the nation or the motherland involved no sin. Inspired and agitated by his teachings, school and college students and teachers began forming secret societies for violent activities.

After the partition of Bengal, this movement suddenly gained strength in 1906, and efforts were made to revive Hinduism throughout India by observing the Shivaji festival. All the renowned Hindu social leaders, politicians, poets, and writers gladly joined this festival. The poet Rabindranath directly joined the movement for the revival of Hinduism by writing “The Shivaji Festival.” He pronounced “Victory to Shivaji amid auspicious conch-blowing” and accepted initiation into this “meditation mantra”:“}]},{

I shall raise as a flag the ascetic’s ochre garment—

The strength of the poor.

“One religious kingdom shall arise in this India”—this great saying

He made his support.

(Indian Sedition Committee Report, 1918, p. 2; B. B. Misra, The Indian Middle Class: Their Growth; see also Abdul Maudud, The Development of Middle-Class Society.)

In Bengal and throughout India, politics and the movement for the revival of Hinduism became merged into one. Religious fanaticism made the political atmosphere poisonous and polluted, and as a result Hindu-Muslim opposition and conflict began everywhere. They began staining their hands with one another’s blood.

During the Khilafat Movement, Hindu-Muslim relations improved, at least temporarily. But at this time the Hindu nation, so to speak, had been afflicted by the disease of “Muslim terror.” This disease was spread mainly by Bipin Chandra Pal, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Swami Shraddhanand. These four men were the initiators of the Shuddhi-Sangathan movement, and their contribution to establishing the dominance of Hindutva in the Congress’s national politics was greatest. Moreover, they strongly advocated introducing the Hindi language in Devanagari script throughout India.

In an editorial titled “Rabibabu’s Terror,” published in the Jaistha issue of 1923 of the Calcutta weekly Sultan, edited by Riyazuddin Ahmad and Maulana Maniruzzaman Islamabadi, it was lamented:

“We are sorry that even Rabindranath Tagore has been afflicted by this disease. He has been heard to say: ‘If self-government is established in India, Muslim rule will be established. Therefore, it will be a fatal mistake for Hindus to join the Khilafat Movement. Muslims have turned Mahatma Gandhi into a puppet. Hindu interests have no connection whatsoever with Turkey or the Khilafat.’”

In conclusion, Sultan says: “Of course, we accept Rabindranath as a poet, a renowned poet, a world-famous poet …but he is not a practical politician; he is terrified by the imagined prospect of Muslim rule in India.”

—(Mustafa Nurul Islam, Bengali Muslim Public Opinion as Reflected in the Bengali Press, 1901–1930, pp. 147–48).

In short, the Congress’s participation in the Khilafat Movement was not sincere at all; Muslims had thought that perhaps the conflict between Hindus and Muslims would now come to an end. But it did not.

S. K. Majumdar says in his book Jinnah and Gandhi:

“During the Khilafat Movement, Hindu-Muslim unity was not founded on any strong basis. For Muslims it was a religious movement; it contained no thought of liberating India. Gandhi, on the other hand, adopted it as the principal instrument for achieving his own purpose. Gandhi said, ‘I believe that Khilafat was a central issue for both of us—for Maulana Muhammad Ali it was his religion. For me, it means sacrificing my life for the Khilafat in order to ensure the safety of cows and make them secure. In other words, I am protecting my religion from the Muslim knife.’”

It need hardly be said that by “religion” Gandhi meant “the religion of the cow.” To protect “the religion of the cow,” or the cow community, from the Muslim knife meant permanently stopping cow sacrifice by Muslims in India.

If we examine the record of all the Hindu-Muslim riots from 1870 to 1893, we find that their immediate cause was this: during the first four years, Hindu Durga Puja and the Muslim sacrifice coincided, so to speak, on the same day. If the position had been that both should observe their respective festivals—Hindus should celebrate Durga Puja and Muslims should perform the sacrifice—that would have been acceptable. But it was not so. Muslims were not to be allowed to sacrifice cows at all, while Hindus would certainly celebrate Durga Puja. Indeed, on the day of immersion they would pass in procession in front of mosques, beating drums and other instruments. Riots and disturbances were therefore inevitable. Deliberately creating provocation, causing riots and disturbances, and placing Muslims in the dock as accused murderers, the verdict would be: “My son, now go back to the country from which you came, taking your life, property, honor, and dignity with you.” There is good reason to believe that these things were being done according to a prior plan. Later, the Arya Samajists and the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha repeatedly said precisely this. In Anandamath, Bankim initiated people into the Vande Mataram mantra for the ritual slaughter of “Yavans and Mlechchhas,” and their message was: “Those of you who survive the slaughter, leave India.”

The English, too, had a strong desire to support the Hindu side in the planned riots and disturbances. Until the end of the nineteenth century, Muslims had been a thorn in their eyes. In 1883, John Bright formed an association in London called the Indian Committee and made fifty English MPs its members. In 1885, Allan Hume formed the Indian Congress. Hume was a retired officer of the Bengal Provincial Civil Service. Three Englishmen became presidents of this Congress, and they conducted its propaganda in England, presenting it to the people of England as a popular institution. In 1888, Charles Bradlaugh was appointed the Congress’s full-time salaried worker. William Digby was assigned to conduct the Congress’s propaganda in London. In 1889, £2,500 was spent on Congress propaganda. Digby propagated that the Congress was the sole representative of all the nations, communities, and classes of India—including Muslims.

When India was being bloodied by Hindu-Muslim riots, there was neither any person nor any institution to speak on behalf of the Muslims. Yet Britain’s India Committee, supporting the Congress, would say, “Communal amity remains intact in India.”

In Britain’s 1905 election, a considerable number of retired ICS officers who had returned from India became members of the House of Commons. They formed the Indian Parliamentary Committee. Sir Henry Cotton was one of its members. He took pride in undertaking the responsibility of presenting the hopes and aspirations of Indians in the British Parliament. He propagated the view, “All Indians, regardless of race or religion, take pride in belonging to one nation.” When fierce communal riots were raging in Lahore, Karnal, and other places, and Hindu terrorists were creating terror through looting during the anti-Partition of Bengal movement, Henry Cotton said, “The interests of the Muslims are supported nowhere except in the Hindu newspapers.” What the English gentlemen, allies of the Hindus, did regarding the annulment of the Partition of Bengal has been discussed in the preceding chapter.

It has been stated above that an attempt was made to bring about Hindu-Muslim unity through the Khilafat Movement. But after the Partition of Bengal, the mentality of the Hindu community became so clearly exposed throughout Bengal and India that the attempt to apply an artificial coating over it through the Khilafat Movement also ended in failure. The most agonizing and horrific incident of this period was the inhuman and satanic persecution and oppression of the Muslim Mopla community.

Contradictory reports about this began appearing in the newspapers of India. Hindu newspapers and leaders, especially the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Arya Samaj, greatly exaggerated the actual events and thereby incited Hindu India to riots and disorder. In 1922, a pamphlet entitled ‘Dastane Zulm’ was published from Amritsar. Another pamphlet, entitled ‘Malabar Ki Khooni Dastan,’ was published from Saharanpur. Most of the reports in these two pamphlets were exaggerated, imaginary, and taken from unreliable sources.

The following is a summary of the information published in the first pamphlet:

The armed Mopla community of Malabar was engaged in murder, looting, rape of women, the forcible conversion of Hindus to Islam, and similar activities. It was said that they would first bathe a Hindu man. Then they would cut his hair in the Muslim manner, after which he would be compelled to recite the Muslim kalima. After dressing the girls in Mopla clothing, they would pierce their ears and put earrings in them.

The second pamphlet stated that the Muslims of Malabar were forcing Hindus to join the Khilafat Movement and become Muslims. If someone refused, he would be confined in his house and cow meat would be stuffed into his mouth. His own family members and relatives would be beaten before his eyes. If he still refused to become a Muslim, he would be killed, cut into pieces, and thrown into a well, while his house would be burned down. Temples were being destroyed and idols smashed to pieces. Hindu ascetics were being forced to wear raw cowhide. —(A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 158–159; Dastane Zulm—Secretary, Malabar Hindu Support Association, Amritsar, 1922).

The Hindu community was being fervently called upon in these words:

“Awake, Hindu community. Your sleep will bring death upon you. Resolve firmly to defend yourselves. Your weakness will destroy you. Death is a hundred times preferable to living a life of humiliation. The suffering and distress of your brothers are your own.” —(A. Hamid, Muslim Separation in India, p. 159; Dastane Zulm, same source).

A committee formed by the central Khilafat organization was assigned the task of discovering the actual facts. The following is a summary of the report submitted after its on-the-spot investigation: The official declaration describing the events in Malabar as a ‘rebellion against the government’ was incorrect. The situation was normal, and there was not the slightest sign of rebellion. Like Muslims elsewhere in India, the Moplas joined the Khilafat Movement. But the secretary of the local Khilafat committee was seized and tied to a tree. His wife was brought there, and her skin was flayed before his eyes. Then, for the trivial offence of violating traffic regulations, a police constable slapped a respected Mopla in the face. Another Khilafat worker was unjustly implicated in the offence of manufacturing weapons. Finally, the police forcibly entered Mopla homes, looted everything they possessed, and subjected the householders to barbarous torture. Not stopping there, the police fired recklessly upon them. The Mopla community was extremely brave and warlike. Consequently, they defeated the police in the ensuing clashes. The enraged Moplas then damaged telegraph wires and railway lines. Until that point, they had maintained complete goodwill with the Hindus. Though Khilafat workers, they were also Congressmen. They went about preaching Hindu-Muslim unity and guarded Hindu neighborhoods and their property. —(A. Hamid, Muslim Separation in India, pp. 159–160; Kashfe Haqeeqat-e Malabar, Badaun, 1923).

After two weeks, a large force of police and soldiers, equipped with heavy weapons, returned and brought the situation under control. Most Hindus began working as spies to provide information about the ‘rebel’ Moplas. As a result, the Moplas became hostile toward the Hindus. The police incited the Hindus against the Moplas. Arya Samaj workers also helped them. The police and military jointly set about taking revenge on the Moplas. Under military rule, they had to endure inhuman torture. Hundreds of Moplas became homeless and destitute. Hundreds were imprisoned, and two hundred were sentenced to death. —(A. Hamid, same work, p. 160; Kashfe Haqeeqat-e Malabar).

The Indian Annual Register reported that, after defeating the police and the government administrative machinery, the Moplas established a Khilafat and declared jihad against the rulers. The reports of the mass conversion of Hindus were baseless. The Moplas hid in the forests and jungles and conducted guerrilla activities.

The said register mentions an unparalleled act of barbarity. One hundred captive Moplas were packed into a railway goods wagon, its doors were shut, and they were sent elsewhere. When the doors were opened upon arrival, it was found that 66 had died and the rest were in a critical condition. The register comments: Only the future can reveal how many unknown, inhuman, horrifying incidents lie hidden in the dark chapter of Malabar’s history during this period. —(A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 160; Indian Annual Register 1922, p. 266).

These events attracted the attention of Hindus and Muslims throughout India. Muslim India was deeply grieved and appealed for assistance for the Moplas. An extraordinary response came from all sides. On the other hand, Hindu newspapers and leaders continued to incite Hindus to take revenge.

Fresh Hindu-Muslim clashes began throughout the country. The first centered on the Muharram festival. It was repeated in 1923, when fierce clashes occurred in Saharanpur. The number killed there was said to exceed three hundred. In the following year, eighteen riots and disturbances left 86 dead and 776 injured. The fiercest clashes occurred in Kohat. Their main cause was the publication of an anti-Islamic poem by a Hindu. In the two-day riot, 36 people were killed and 145 injured, shops were looted, and property worth approximately seventy thousand rupees was destroyed. Although conditions became somewhat calmer in 1925, in 1926 the flames again rose high. That year, a total of 36 riots occurred throughout the country, resulting in the deaths of two thousand people. The riots that year began in Calcutta over Hindus playing musical instruments in front of a mosque. Before the situation could be brought under control, two hundred shops were looted, twelve sacred buildings were destroyed or damaged, 150 incidents of arson occurred, and the number of casualties reached fourteen hundred and fifty.

In 1927, thirty-one riots occurred throughout the country, breaking all previous records. This time the number of casualties was 1,600. The number killed was 140.

Conditions eased somewhat in 1928. But between February and May 1929, riots occurred in Bombay, bringing the number of casualties to 1,100. As in the earlier Calcutta riots, shops were looted there as well. In 1931, fierce riots and disturbances began in Kanpur, and murder, looting, and arson continued for three days. Hindu-Muslim clashes began when an attempt was made to force shops to close in honor of a Hindu murderer. Numerous mosques and temples were destroyed, and many houses were burned. —(A. Hamid, Muslim Separation in India, p. 162; Cumming, Political India, pp. 114–117).

When accounts of these clashes from the Hindu and Muslim sides were presented to Gandhi, he placed the blame on the Muslims. Gandhi commented: “I have no doubt in my mind that in most quarrels the Hindus occupy the second position. My comment is based on my personal experience: Muslims are naturally of a rowdy disposition, while Hindus are naturally timid. And wherever timid people exist, there will always be gangs of rowdies.”

(The Indian Quarterly Register, p. 647; A. Hamid, Separation in India, p. 105).

Mr. Gandhi did not help suppress Hindu-Muslim disunity and conflict. On the contrary, his aforementioned comment branded the Muslims as guilty and became a powerful certificate of justification for Hindu rioters.

It is not that Mr. Gandhi did not become troubled upon realizing that Hindu-Muslim disunity or conflict was an obstacle on the path to India’s independence. Yet no effort of his to devise a sound and lasting solution to Hindu-Muslim unity can be observed.

He once said that a lasting settlement between Hindus and Muslims could be achieved only on the basis of an agreement or pact. But later he said, “Unity may be achieved by a pact, but people cannot become one through it. If a pact is the basis for becoming one, it will be utterly meaningless, or rather worse than that. The nature of a pact is separatist. A pact does not awaken the desire to draw one another closer; it does not create a spirit of sacrifice, nor can it bind the parties together in pursuit of the fundamental goal. Instead of drawing one another closer, the parties bound by the agreement try to extract as much as possible from one another. Instead of making sacrifices for the common interests of all, the parties to the agreement always ensure that the sacrifice of one party does not benefit the other. …Without a unity of hearts between Hindus and Muslims, ‘Swaraj’ will remain merely a dream.”

But immediately afterward he again said, “‘Swaraj’ is no less important than the cow-protection problem; until we are able to protect cows, we will not be able to attain freedom.” These statements by Gandhi prove that Indian independence was merely another name for securing the narrow interests of Hindutva. In a speech as president of a unity conference in Lahore, he expressed fear of a Muslim majority in Punjab. He also expressed apprehension that the peace of the subcontinent would be destroyed if Punjab became, in the near future, the homeland of a warlike people. —(Muhammad Amin Zuberi, Sirasat-e Millat, pp. 175–184).

When Hindu and Muslim society was bleeding from riots and disturbances, he could have used his great personality and influence for the welfare of both. Instead, he withdrew from politics and began living in seclusion at the Sabarmati Ashram near Ahmedabad, spending his days as an impartial observer of Indian politics. Yet he did not sit entirely idle: he wrote essays on the importance of khadi and handwoven cloth, the benefits of goat’s milk, the harmfulness of vaccines and injections, the nutritional value of soybeans, and similar subjects, while remaining silent on Hindu-Muslim relations. (Muhammad Amin Zuberi, Sirasat-e Millat, p. 170).

The true face of the Hindu community in India was revealed through the Indian National Congress after 1937, when, under the India Act of 1935, ministries were formed in the provinces of India on the basis of provincial autonomy. Muslims gained responsibility for forming ministries in four provinces and Hindus in seven. The Indian Congress claimed to be the sole representative political institution of all nations and communities in India, regardless of Hindu or Muslim identity. India’s future governing power, it insisted, must be entrusted solely to the Congress. On the other hand, the Muslim League, the sole representative institution of Indian Muslims, had continually expressed the fear that if governing power were transferred to the Congress, all the interests of Indian Muslims would be crushed and the Muslim nation would have to abandon its religion, traditions, and tahذib-tamaddun and become the slaves of the Hindus.

After 1937, the Congress’s claim was proved false and the Muslims’ fears became reality. The Congress formed majority ministries in Madras, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, Bombay, and the North-West Frontier Province.

Before the elections, it was hoped that in the Muslim-majority provinces, especially the United Provinces and Bombay, the Congress would form coalition ministries including Muslim League members. The governors were instructed that they should be included in the ministries. Muslims constituted one-sixth of the total population in the United Provinces. Their influence and unity were much greater relative to their numbers, and for this reason an unwritten understanding had arisen between the Congress and the Muslim League that at least two ministers would be taken from the Muslim League. But no Muslim League member was given a place in the ministries of the United Provinces or Bombay. Here the Congress made a grave mistake. The Congress declared unequivocally that it alone represented all of India. To the Muslims, this meant submission to Hindu rule. Consequently, the cry ‘Islam is in danger’ arose, and ‘Congress Raj’ came to be regarded as much worse than British rule. In the correspondence exchanged between Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mr. Jinnah in early 1938, Nehru demanded a secular united India, while Mr. Jinnah demanded that the League be recognized as equal in status to the Congress. No settlement could be reached on the basis of any formula or compromise. —(H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide, p. 63, pp. 66–67).

The Congress’s grand pronouncements—that once Congress rule was established in India, justice would be done to all classes and communities and the interests of minorities would be protected—were proved false after 1937. From 1937 to 1939, the Congress’s two-and-a-half-year rule in seven provinces of India became notorious as ‘Hindu Ram Raj,’ and through injustice toward Muslims and attempts to abolish their religion, tahذib, and tamaddun, the Congress completely lost the trust of India’s Muslims. At the Muslim League session held in Patna in December 1938, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared that all hopes of communal peace and harmony had been shattered by ‘Congress fascism.’ Throughout India, Muslims continued to demonstrate, demanding an end to oppressive Congress rule.

The Muslim League formed a committee to investigate the injustices committed against Muslims in the Congress-ruled provinces. The report submitted by this committee became known as the ‘Pirpur Report.’ A committee formed by the Provincial Muslim League of Bihar submitted a report entitled ‘The Grievances of the Muslims of Bihar.’ It was called the ‘Sharif Report.’ The ‘Sharif Report’ was submitted in March 1939, after the ‘Pirpur Report.’ Then, in December, Bengal’s Prime Minister, Mr. A.K. Fazlul Huq, submitted a report entitled ‘The Sufferings and Distress of Muslims under Congress Rule.’ Hindu newspapers denied the allegations described in the reports, and the Bihar government rejected the ‘Pirpur Report.’

H.V. Hodson says in his book The Great Divide:

“It is a well-known fact in the history of India that ever since Hindus and Muslims began living side by side in this land, a degree of religious tension has persisted. Consider, for example, cow worship, obstruction of the call to prayer, desecration of mosques, rape and abduction of women, and other personal attacks. On the other hand, new political and administrative complaints have arisen, especially those described in the well-reasoned ‘Pirpur Report.’ Urdu is being pushed aside in favor of Hindi; the police and magistrates are showing partiality; Muslims are being deprived of their rightful share in government employment; they expect no justice of any kind from the Congress ministries; parallel governments are being allowed to operate under Congress committees; Congress rule means Hindu rule; Congress flags are being flown everywhere, the anti-Islamic song ‘Vande Mataram’ is being sung as the national anthem, and village education is being introduced according to the ‘Wardha Scheme.’ This is Mr. Gandhi’s fanciful ideal, based on nonviolence, spinning and weaving, and abstinence from religion. Muslims are forced to rebel against it, because their elementary education had always been based on the Quran.” —(H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide, pp. 73–74).

Mr. Hodson further says:

“The British governors of the Congress-ruled provinces generally held the view that although their ministers often tried to remain politically neutral in communal matters, the Congressmen’s lust for power in district towns and rural areas led them to engage in arrogant and provocative conduct. In short, in the future it would be governed by a majority center. Behind it would stand an organization that would never tolerate opposition and would not agree to make anyone a partner in its power. There is no doubt that the two and a half years of provincial autonomy from 1937 to 1939 were a cause of the propagation of the two-nation theory and the Pakistan Movement.” —(H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide, p. 74).

To resolve Hindu-Muslim conflict and discord in India, the poet Iqbal advised the division of the courtyard on June 21, 1937. On July 7, the poet Rabindranath Tagore addressed Muslim students, saying:

Make that calamity precious at the price of religion

You insult God

Dividing the courtyard, you and I on either side

Whom do we worship—the devil?

The next ten years passed amid increasing discord and conflict. The foregoing has indicated the notorious two-and-a-half years of Congress rule. On October 17, 1939, during the Second World War, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow issued a statement calling upon the Congress and the Muslim League to assist and cooperate with the British government in the war. Not out of sympathy with the Muslims’ protests, but because it could not agree with the Viceroy’s statement, the Congress High Command ordered the ministries to resign. They quietly obeyed the order, and Congress misrule ended in seven provinces. For this reason, under the leadership of the Muslim League, Muslims throughout the country observed ‘Deliverance Day.’

Whether or not observing ‘Deliverance Day’ throughout the country at the initiative of the Muslim League was justified, one thing became as clear as daylight: Hindu-Muslim unity and reconciliation in the sphere of governance in this country were no longer possible. Therefore, apart from dividing the courtyard, as advised by Allama Iqbal, no other path to a lasting solution remained. But the other side was not at all willing to divide the courtyard. Thus, further conflict between the two became inevitable. At last, after ten bloody years, the courtyard was divided. In other words, by dividing India’s courtyard, the state of Pakistan was born for the Muslims on August 14, 1947. But the Muslims who remained in India’s courtyard had to pay a heavy price for many years for the crime of wanting its division.

Chapter Seven

The Muslims’ Traditional Education

Muslims have always attached immense importance to learning and the acquisition of knowledge. This was the command of their Prophet. No matter how expensive or difficult it might be, and even if necessary by traveling from country to country, learning and acquiring knowledge had to be pursued—this was the clear instruction of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him). In the past, the Muslim nation followed this instruction to the letter. At one time, they lit the torch of knowledge and illuminated darkened Europe in the world of education and learning. This is a historical fact. Throughout the Muslim world, learned people are regarded with special honor and respect. A Muslim father does everything within his means to educate his children, considering it his religious duty and obligation.

A discussion of the past history of Indian Muslims reveals that when a child completed four years and four days of age, his education was begun. Through a special ceremony, the child was made to listen to the recitation of portions of the Holy Quran, and the child would repeat them. This was an indispensable custom of every Muslim family. (A.R. Mallick, Br. Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 149; M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 1; L.F. Smith, Appendix to Chahar Darvesh, p. 253).

Mr. Smith witnessed this ceremony firsthand in the North-West Frontier Province in 1801 and described it in his book Chahar Darvesh.

The Muslim rulers of India encouraged learning and the acquisition of knowledge in various ways and allocated substantial funds for it. Scholars and learned men were especially honored at the royal courts. Large quantities of revenue-free land were donated in different parts of the realm for education. There was no mosque or imambara where professors were not engaged in teaching Arabic and Persian.

Where the Muslim population was large, maktabs were opened for elementary education, and Muslim children learned Arabic, Persian, and Islamic studies there. The sultans of Bengal in particular were deeply devoted to learning and gave every possible assistance to the spread of education. Inspired by them, Muslim zamindars, lakhiraj holders, ayma holders, and other eminent Muslim leaders established maktabs and madrasas in their respective areas and donated considerable wealth and land to meet their expenses.

The first Sultan of Bengal, Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, was exceptionally devoted to learning. Following the example of the Emperor of Delhi, Qutbuddin Aibak, he established mosques, colleges, and dargahs (centres for the study of the Qur’an and Hadith) in various parts of the country. (S.M. Jaffar, Education in Muslim India, 1935, p. 66; N.N. Law, Promotion of Learning in India during Muhammadan Rule, pp. 19–22).

Soon after ascending the throne of Bengal, Ghiyasuddin I (1212–27 CE) built a very beautiful mosque, a college, and an inn at Lakhnauti, or Lakshmanavati, the capital of Bengal. Ghiyasuddin II (1367–1373) was himself a renowned poet. He established a college at Darsabari, near the village of Ompur. (M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 4). Education also made tremendous progress during the reigns of Sultans such as Husain Shah and Nasrat Shah.

Murshid Quli Khan was highly learned and a fine man of letters, and he always honoured the learned and talented. He supported nearly two thousand ulama and scholars. They were constantly engaged in reciting the Holy Qur’an, religious instruction, and religious rites and ceremonies. Ghulam Husain relates in his history that, inspired by Murshid Quli Khan, a zamindar named Asadullah of Birbhum spent half of his income on supporting learned people and on other charitable works. Ghulam Husain further says that Alivardi Khan invited learned scholars from the western regions of India to settle in Murshidabad and arranged substantial allowances for each of them. They brought with them such a large number of valuable books that the library of one Mir Muhammad Ali alone contained two thousand or more volumes. -(M. Fazlur Rahman: The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 5; Ghulam Husain Seiyere, Mutakherin, Vol. 2, pp. 63, 69, 70 & 165).

It is extremely difficult to obtain an accurate account of the innumerable educational institutions, maktabs, madrasas, colleges, and other establishments that existed throughout the country for learning and the pursuit of knowledge during Muslim rule. After the end of Muslim rule, these educational institutions almost disappeared. A fragmentary account of what survived can be found in the educational reports prepared by Buchanan-Hamilton and W. Adam, respectively between 1807 and 1814 and between 1835 and 1838. W. Adam states that forty-two villages in Kasba Bagha, Rajshahi District, were donated for educational institutions and public-service activities. (Adam, Second Report, p. 37). All the expenses of the students studying at the educational institution of Kasba Bagha—including lodging, food, clothing, books, food and pencils, ink and pens, toiletries, and so forth—were borne by the institution. -(A.R. Mallik, Br. Policy & Muslims in Bengal, p. 150).

Inspired by the Qur’an and Hadith to promote education, wealthy members of society arranged for poor students to study. Among affluent and respectable families, it was also customary to educate their children through suitable private tutors. Poor students, too, received instruction from them free of charge. In Pandua, it was customary for Muslim landowners to appoint teachers at their own expense to educate poor students from neighbouring areas. There was no wealthy landowner or village head who did not appoint a teacher for this purpose. -Adam, First Report, p. 55; M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims and English Education, p. 6).

Teaching the Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic learning was considered a meritorious deed, and almost the entire expenses of educational institutions were borne by individuals, either directly or through donations, waqf properties, or trusts. They paid the teachers’ salaries and covered all expenses for the institutions, their buildings, and so forth. Since there were no textbooks in those days, education was provided free of charge. Teachers generally earned their livelihoods independently—as mosque imams or through minor government employment. Consequently, they taught students without payment. In this way, many private educational institutions were established among Muslims, financed by wealthy and charitable people. It was particularly noticeable among the teachers and these generous benefactors that their purpose in teaching was not to earn a livelihood. Rather, their aim was to improve the religious and moral condition of the community through the spread of education. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 7–8).

W. Adam’s report also makes it perfectly clear that in those days education could be obtained very cheaply, indeed virtually free of charge. Every mosque was a central attraction for the Muslim people, and in the madrasas attached to the mosques any boy could learn to read and write without paying. Since there were no printed textbooks, there was no expense for purchasing books. Ink and pens could be made at home. Some fee, of course, had to be paid for higher education, but even that was very small. After the arrival of the English, English was taught in Christian missionary schools. No one could study there without paying fees. If someone accepted Christianity, his children were given the opportunity to study free of charge. The sole reason Muslims had access to education either free of charge or at very little cost was that Muslim rulers and wealthy Muslims generously donated money, property, and land for educational purposes. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 11).

After the Arrival of the English

The education and cultural development of every nation depend on patronage, assistance, and cooperation. Needless to say, shortly after Muslim rule in Bengal was abolished on the field of Plassey, the ‘political economy’ collapsed, the entire country became afflicted with poverty and misery, and the Muslim national life in particular was overwhelmed by the horror of ruin. From the early days of Company rule, the Muslims of Bengal became imperilled and distressed. Crushed under the millstone of the limitless oppression and persecution resulting from the charter of the ‘Diwani’ obtained by the East India Company so that it could hold power without responsibility, the established social system of the Muslims began to disintegrate completely.

After being removed from political power, all avenues of livelihood gradually closed to them. As a result, the social structure was shattered, and the mutual relationships among the various classes were also severed. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 14).

As a result of the transfer of power from the Muslims to the English, the Muslims’ education suffered as much as their political and economic life. As stated above, their educational system depended entirely on government assistance and the donations of Muslim rulers, waqf properties, trusts, and the like. Muslims regarded the promotion and expansion of education as a highly meritorious religious act, and for this purpose they freely donated substantial wealth, property, and land. In many places, through religious trusts or institutions, the children of everyone, rich and poor alike, could receive education without fees or expense. After being removed from political power, this educational system of the Muslims was destroyed. Muslims were removed from all government employment, high and low; Muslim military leaders either went abroad or went to remote parts of the country in search of a livelihood—where modern education, namely English education, was distributed among the English and Hindus—as a result of which the Muslim middle class disappeared and a new Hindu middle class emerged. It was therefore entirely natural that, in the absence of a Muslim government, senior Muslim government officials, and a Muslim middle class, the Muslims’ educational system should be completely ruined—and so it was.

Education for Muslims was out of the question; indeed, truthfully speaking, for a century after the beginning of English rule, the very existence of the Muslim nation was in fact imperilled. When the question before them was merely how to survive, how could they think about educating their children?

It was proved in the previous chapter that the East India Company brought an end to Muslim rule through a deep conspiracy with Bengal’s Hindu financiers, merchants, baniya class, bankers, and others. Needless to say, the interests of both sides were equally involved. On the one hand, the Company, ambitious for political power, gained power; on the other, the Hindus who desired the end of Muslim rule obtained material, commercial, and economic opportunities from the Company. After the Company came to power, the Hindus established close relations with it. To obtain employment and conduct trade and commerce under its authority, they felt the need to learn English.

Calcutta developed as a commercial centre, and its inhabitants were, so to speak, almost entirely Hindu. Hindu merchants, bankers, baniyas, and the middle class sought to build their future around the city of Calcutta. To obtain employment and conduct trade and commerce under the Company, they believed that ‘English is money’—that English was another name for wealth—and therefore became intensely eager to learn as much English as they could. In the second half of the eighteenth century, English schools sprang up here and there around Calcutta like mushrooms, and Hindus learned enough English from these schools to get by.

Let us also briefly discuss what the condition of the Muslims was on the other hand. W.W. Hunter says in his book: “Hundreds of formerly prosperous Muslim families have been ruined. Consequently, the educational system of the Muslims, which was maintained by rent-free landed properties, has also come to an end forever.” -(W.W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, Bangladesh Edition, 1975, p. 167).

Quite apart from the ordinary Muslims, Hunter himself has painted in his book a pathetic picture of the tragic fate that befell the descendants of the nawabs as a result of the barbarous and oppressive treatment inflicted on Muslim society after the arrival of the English—

“In every district, some descendant of a former nawab is slowly dying in anguish in a roofless, ruined palace or beside a dilapidated pond covered with moss and weeds. I have had the opportunity to become personally acquainted with many such families. Their ruined mansions are teeming with their grown sons and daughters, grandchildren, nephews, and nieces, and none of these starving descendants has any opportunity to accomplish anything in life. They sit in decaying verandas or reception rooms with leaking roofs, counting the hours until death and sinking deeper into the abyss of debt. At last, a neighbouring Hindu moneylender picks a quarrel with them and creates such a situation that suddenly they have to mortgage all they possess against their debts. Thus debt devours them, and the existence of the ancient Muslim families is being erased from the face of the earth.” -(W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, Dhaka Edition, 1975, p. 138).

After the arrival of the English, the entire Muslim nation of India suffered. The Muslims of Bengal, however, suffered the most.

Hunter says: “I am particularly familiar with the events of this province. Consequently, as far as I know, it is the Muslim inhabitants here who suffered most during the English period.” -(W.W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, pp. 140–141).

At that time, Bengal meant Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. A petition submitted at that time by the Muslims of Orissa to the Divisional Commissioner, Mr. E.W. Soloni, C.S., presents a picture of their miserable condition. The petition stated:

“As loyal subjects of Her Gracious and Benevolent Majesty the Queen, we believe that we have equal rights to all positions in the administration of the country. But, to speak the truth, the Muslims of Orissa are being steadily pushed down, and they have no hope of standing upright. Although born into respectable families, we have become poor because the means of earning a livelihood have been closed to us; and, lacking state patronage, our condition is like that of fish lifted from water onto dry land. We present this pitiable plight of the Muslims before you in the belief that you are the Queen’s representative in the Orissa Division, and we hope that you will administer justice to all classes, regardless of race, caste, or religion. Deprived of government employment, we have become penniless. Our condition has become so wretched that we are willing to go to any remote region of the world—whether the snow-covered peaks of the Himalayas or the sparsely inhabited wastes of Siberia—if we are assured that, after travelling from country to country in this way, we shall obtain some government employment at a salary of only ten shillings a week.” -(W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, pp. 158–159).

It was not only the Muslim aristocratic families whose members had held various government posts that were ruined by poverty and wiped out after the arrival of the English when they were deprived of employment; the condition of Bengal’s ordinary Muslim families became similar. Bengal’s peasant and weaving communities also faced extreme hardship.

In the early period of Company rule, the sufferings and hardships of the Muslims knew no bounds. The established social system was shattered by the oppression and persecution of the Diwani, under which power was held ‘without responsibility’ (Power without responsibility). Before the Diwani was obtained, land revenue was not collected with the severity with which it is collected now. Moreover, previously, however state revenue was collected, it was spent within the country, so that the inhabitants benefited in one way or another. In the words of an Indian poet, the tax collected by the king is like the moisture of the earth. That moisture dries in the sun and returns to the earth as rain that restores its fertility. But today the moisture being drawn from the soil of India descends as such rain in another country, not in India. (R.C. Dutt, Economic History of India, pp. 11–12). After the arrival of the English, one-third of the total revenue was being sent to England. The royal treasury was no longer the ‘Bayt al-Mal’, from which the people could receive assistance in times of danger. The revenue was also doubled. The so-called last Nawab of Bengal collected £817,553 in revenue in his final year (1764); only thirty years later, the English collected £2,680,000. (R.C. Dutt, Economic History of India, p. 9; M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 14).

No one is unaware of the utter ruin that the peasant community faced in the few years after the Battle of Plassey and thereafter. On the one hand, the wealth of the country was continually flowing abroad in ever-increasing amounts; on the other, as a result of the Permanent Settlement, the new zamindars were subjecting the peasants to inhuman oppression. Consequently, they were unable to improve their condition in any way, and to this day they continue to farm for the interests of the zamindars like slaves. (M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 20; R.C. Dutt, p. 27).

Let us also briefly discuss how greatly the fortunes of Hindu society improved. They were extremely fortunate in land administration as well as in trade and commerce. As a result of Cornwallis’s Permanent Settlement, almost all the zamindaris of the Muslims passed into Hindu hands. Yet no Hindu lost any zamindari. Admittedly, some old Hindu zamindaris encountered difficulties, but their management was entrusted to new favoured Hindus and upstarts. A new wealthy class arose in place of the old aristocratic community. This was an important aspect of the development and expansion of Hindu society. For the Muslims, by contrast, it amounted to nothing. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 25).

Muslims were driven out of government employment, zamindaris, jagirdaris, cottage industries, and the like, and a growing Hindu middle class was established. The history of Bengal in the early nineteenth century is essentially the history of this new middle class. This class emerged from the Hindu mercantile class. It is therefore not surprising that it attracted the government’s full attention. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 118).

The caste system of the Hindu nation made it easier for this middle class to emerge. It was this caste system that separated a particular class of them for earning a livelihood through trade and commerce. Members of this class became interested in the new English education. Since they were closely associated with the Company and were employed as commercial brokers and in the government’s lower offices, they were able to attract the special attention of the new rulers. Reading the small pamphlets written by early officials and missionaries about the administration of the country reveals that the government repeatedly referred to these Hindu gentlemen (the middle class) and was extremely eager to please them and improve their condition. The government was influenced in this matter by several other considerations as well. First, it regarded Muslim rule as foreign domination under which the people of this country, that is, the Hindus, had been oppressed. Second, when certain measures were being taken to improve conditions, the distressed Muslims had left the cities and gone to remote areas to make a living. As a result, they could not attract the government’s attention.

Third, regarding the Muslims, the government adopted an extreme laissez-faire policy, because it naturally distrusted and had little confidence in those from whom it had seized power. The Hindus of Bengal and of other regions occupied by the English, on the other hand, attracted the government’s attention in such a way that it focused on pleasing them. Moreover, Christian missionaries found Hindus more receptive than Muslims to Christian doctrine and propaganda; consequently, they drew the English rulers’ excessive attention and became eager to acquire at least a superficial knowledge of English. In this respect, the Muslims had no opportunity whatsoever. Above all, there was no middle class among the Muslims to put forward their demands and obtain advantages in the changed circumstances. The General Committee of Public Instruction, later formed by the government, actually remarked that they lacked the middle class that was ‘the national wealth, strength, and true guardian’ of those who possessed it; consequently, they could not take advantage of education and other opportunities. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 25–27; C.E. Trevelyan, On the Education of the People of India, pp. 4–8).

Christian Missionaries and the Beginnings of English Education

During Muslim rule, countless educational institutions existed everywhere according to their own educational system; how these were destroyed was discussed in English in the previous chapter. This was entirely natural. The Hindu class understood the changed circumstances very well and therefore moved quickly to learn English. It is not that the Muslims failed altogether to understand this. But we wish to discuss here the obstacles to accepting the new education, namely English education, and why, despite their many efforts in this regard, they often failed.

In fact, the teaching of English in Bengal and India was connected with British missionaries’ propagation of the word of Jesus, or the Gospel. In a message in 1659, the Court of Directors expressed its deep approval of propagating the word of Jesus by every possible means. Missionaries were permitted to travel to India on their ships, and, after arriving here, they were encouraged to learn the vernacular of the country in order to preach the word of Jesus among the poor and ignorant. The charter granted to the East India Company in 1698 emphasised that they had to learn the vernacular of the place where the Company resided so that they could train the people there. For they would be servants or slaves of the Company, or its representatives in the Protestant religion. -(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 28; Shap, p. 3; Parochial Annals of Bengal by H.B. Hyde; Court of Directors’ letter to Fort St. George, 25 February 1695; Law, Promotion of Learning in India by Early European Settlers, p. 19).

Sir John Shore, Governor-General of Bengal, says that converting the people of this country to Christianity is more necessary for political reasons than for religious ones.

“Until our subjects have become animated by a religious faith shared with us, the kingdom we occupy will not be safe from external invasion and internal agitation and unrest.” -(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 34; Sharp, Review of Buchanan’s Treatise, Vol. 1, p. 113).

It is now clearly proved that, in order to consolidate and prolong British rule in Bengal and India, they deemed it necessary to learn the language of the people of this country so that they could easily propagate Christian doctrine among them.

The spread of English education in this country proceeded in stages. In the first stage, Christian missionaries, with government patronage, established Bengali-language schools. In the second stage, they established English-language educational institutions for the purpose of teaching Western education and Western civilisation.

The missionaries worked continuously year after year. They established a printing press at Hugli Serampore and published many Bengali books through it. They encountered no obstacles in their missionary campaign; rather, they received encouragement. Through such tireless efforts, by 1815 they had established 202 schools in and around Calcutta alone. Much earlier, in 1794, a certain Carey established a school with free boarding at Malda. After coming to Bengal, he began working as an overseer on an indigo plantation. Sanskrit, Persian, and Bengali were taught at the school he established. Instruction was also given in various other subjects, as well as in Christian doctrine. A certain Mr. Archer established a school for boys in 1780 and, shortly afterward, another school for both boys and girls. John Stranshenow established yet another. Brown’s school, however, had the distinctive feature that it was established for Hindu youths.

-(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 30; Calcutta Review, 1913: ‘Old Calcutta’: Its Schoolmaster by K.N. Dhas, p. 338).

With state assistance, several societies were established in England for the propagation of Christian doctrine. Among the most notable were SPCK (Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge), S.P.G. (Society for the Propagation of the Gospel), CMS (Church Missionary Society), and others. Their contribution to the propagation of Christian doctrine in Bengal is undeniable. The missionaries in Bengal submitted the following reports to their respective societies:

“Trade and commerce have opened up a new way of thinking and a new capacity for action. If we can provide education free of charge with efficiency, hundreds will throng to learn the English language. I hope that we shall eventually be able to do so, thereby opening an agreeable avenue for propagating the message of Jesus Christ.” —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 35; Mussalmans—Vol. 1, pp. 130–131).

Christian missionaries, while propagating Christian doctrine under the pretext of establishing Bengali and English schools, did not hesitate to campaign against Islam and its মহান Prophet. Cornwallis prohibited the propagation of Christianity on public roads and in villages (Beveridge: Hist. of India. Vol. 2. pp. 850–51).

Nevertheless, they continued this work. Finally, after Minto assumed office, he took strict measures against the missionaries for publishing pamphlets containing indecent and irrelevant remarks about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, p. 36; Lethbridge, p. 59).

Serampore (Hugli) College was established in 1818 under the presidency of William Carey. The purpose of establishing this college was to impart Eastern and Western knowledge and to convert the people of this country to Christianity through the vernacular. At that time, Serampore College was the only degree college in Asia. —(Mc. Cully, p. 41; M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & Eng. Education, pp. 39–40).

As stated earlier, the primary purpose of Serampore College was the propagation and expansion of Christianity in India. For this, native Christians were needed who would also translate Christian doctrine into Bengali and undertake its publication. For this purpose, the college’s doors were open to non-Christians, and influential local people were encouraged to help and cooperate in propagating Christian doctrine. By December 1838, it was found that, out of a total of 101 students at the college, only 34 were non-Christian students. They were the sons of Brahmins and members of other families from Serampore and its surrounding areas (Mc. Cully, pp. 64, 65).

There were no Muslim students there for two reasons. First, the purpose of teaching at the college was the propagation of Christianity; and second, the Bengali taught there was unintelligible to Muslims. This was because that Bengali was based on knowledge of Sanskrit grammar, which Muslims could not be expected to possess at all. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 140).

In the schools established by the missionaries and in the Fort William College (1800) established by the government, Bengali continued to be enriched according to the system of the Sanskrit language with the assistance of Hindu teachers, and this kind of Bengali was unfamiliar to Muslims. Although the Muslims of Lower Bengal spoke Bengali, their Bengali was mixed with Arabic and Persian. Giving evidence before the Select Committee of the British House of Commons, D.H.H. Wilson said that Bengali and Hindi had a close relationship with Sanskrit. According to him, Shakespear’s Hindustanee Dictionary contained 305 Sanskrit words out of 500. In the Bengali college textbook entitled ‘Hitopadesh,’ only 5 of the first 147 words were non-Sanskrit. [A.R. Mallik: Br. Policy and the Muslims in Bengal, p. 156; Sixth Report, Select Committee (HC), 1853, Minutes of Evidence, p. 9. In answer to a question, Wilson said that no one could understand Bengali without some knowledge of Sanskrit.]

In the vernacular schools, Bengali rich in Sanskrit words was taught—the doors of these schools were closed to Muslims. Again, in Bihar, Hindi was taught in the Devanagari script, which too was completely unfamiliar to Muslims. —(Report of Bengal Provincial Committee, Education Commission, p. 215. Evidence of Abdul Latif in reply to Q1).

Moreover, Dakshina, Amar Singh, Chanakya, Saraswati Vandana, Manabhanjan, Kalanka Bhanjan, and the like.

Hindu books such as Dana Lila, Dadhi Lila, and others, which were written about Krishna’s amorous exploits during his childhood. In Bihar, Sudama Charit, Ram Yamuna, and others were also taught. —(A.R. Mallick: British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal, p. 156).

These facts clearly prove that this was a conspiratorial plan by Christian missionaries, English rulers, and native agents to deprive Muslims of the light of education. Alexander Duff established an educational institution in Calcutta for English education, which, through Duff’s efforts, became a particularly notable educational institution. But it was intended only for lower-caste Hindus and was established with the cooperation of Raja Rammohan Roy. Deliberately, the school was established in a Hindu neighborhood and on premises where the Hindu College had once been built. Duff made no attempt whatsoever to establish a school in any Muslim area. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 41; N. Chatterjee: Life of Mahatma Raja Rammohan Roy (Bengali), p. 394).

Between 1807 and 1814, Dr. Francis Buchanan surveyed the districts of Bengal and Bihar on the government’s orders. His report was published in three volumes by R.S. Martin in 1938. During Lord Bentinck’s tenure, between 1835 and 1838, W. Adam prepared three reports on the basis of Buchanan’s papers. The third report was prepared in 1838 after his own examination and observation in the field. He presented the following comparative account of education among the Hindu and Muslim communities:

Hindu                             Muslim

(a) Indigenous primary schools                         11                         16

(b) High schools                                         38                         0

(c) Families in which children were educated

by their parents or friends                         1277                     311

The above account is given by way of example for Natore police station in Rajshahi District, where at that time the Hindu population was 656,558 and the Muslim population 1,296,401. In such a Muslim-majority police station, the proportion of Muslim education was as negligible as described above. The said account gives the total number of teachers, among whom there was only one Muslim teacher.

Describing the reason for this condition in the field of Muslim education, he said that financially they were living an extremely impoverished life. He further said that, in such circumstances, advising them to pursue education was like climbing to heaven by means of a ladder—an entirely impossible and absurd undertaking. Adam said that throughout Rajshahi District there was only one school for Muslim education, at Kasbabaghat in Bilmar ia police station; it was several hundred years old and had been established under the patronage of Bengal’s Muslim sultans and benevolent Muslim chiefs.

W. Adam prepared his third report (1838) after visiting five districts of Bengal and Bihar. On its basis, he prepared the following account:

Account No. 1: Arabic-Persian schools, their number and number of students—Hindus and Muslims.

District             Persian         Arabic schools         Hindu students         Muslim students         Total

Murshidabad         17         2         62         47         109

Bardhaman           93         8         477        494        971

Birbhum             71         2         245        245        490

Tirhut              234        4         445        153        598

South Bihar         279        12        867        619        1486

Total               694        28        2096       1558       3654

Interestingly, the number of Hindu students attending Arabic-Persian schools was greater in the ratio of three to four. Then, if the number of Hindu students attending Sanskrit schools is included, their number rises to 4,651, against 1,558 Muslims. Account No. 2: Vernacular schools—their number, number of students, and Hindus and Muslims.

District         Bengali schools         Hindi schools         Hindu students         Muslim students         Others         Total

Murshidabad         62         5         998         82         0         1080

Bardhaman           630        0         12408       769        13        13190

Birbhum             407        0         6125        232        26        6383

Tirhut              0          80        502         5          0         507

South Bihar         0          286       2918        172       0         3090

Total               1099       376       22951       1260       39        2425

The above account shows that Muslims lagged far behind Hindus in vernacular education. The reason is also very clear. First, Bengali, rich in Sanskrit, was unintelligible to them; second, the subjects of the textbooks were filled with idolatrous essays and stories; and third, Muslims remained backward in education because there were no schools in place of Hindi schools. W. Adam recommended opening Urdu schools for Muslims and writing Bengali textbooks suitable for Muslims. But the government paid no attention to this matter.

[Note: A.R. Mallick, British Policy and Muslims in Bengal, pp. 161–65]

At the initiative of the Calcutta branch of the Christian Missionary Society (C.M.S.), an English school for Hindus was established in Bardhaman in 1819. When the representatives of the Calcutta branch, Mr. Shew and Mr. Thompson, regularly moved the school to its premises, the school fell into decline because of the fear that the students would be converted to Christianity. Similarly, in 1832 Bishop Corrie established an English school in the Muslim-populated area of Kalinga in Calcutta. But when a church was built beside it, a large number of Muslim students abandoned the school. In his report, Mr. Thomson explained the reason for the decline in student numbers, saying (1841) that Hindus were as fond of Western languages and literature as Muslims were not. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 44–45; Long: Handbook of Bengal Mission, p. 125).

Mr. Thomson concealed the real reason and placed the blame on the Muslims. The real reason was that the question of Western religion was intimately connected with Western languages and literature. It was much more difficult for Muslims than for Hindus to prepare themselves mentally to attend missionary schools. Muslims were deeply averse to Christianity—indeed, it may be said that they even hated it—because they had built their religious faith by rejecting Christianity. Hindus, on the other hand, had no such prior knowledge, and therefore they were easily influenced by Christianity.

The missionaries knew that their contact had led a greater number of Hindus to accept Christianity. Therefore, all their efforts were directed toward Hindus. In 1858, a missionary commented in a pamphlet he wrote that no genuinely sincere effort had been made to spread education among Muslims. The Europeans employed to inspect government educational institutions had no knowledge whatsoever of the language, character, or customs of Muslims. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, p. 46; India Office Tract 242).

The end of Muslim rule in the second half of the eighteenth century and the East India Company’s acquisition of the Diwani made the English, so to speak, the masters of this country. Consequently, their trade and commerce centered in Calcutta expanded a hundredfold. Huge mansions began to rise in Calcutta. The Hindus whose assistance and cooperation had made the establishment of English rule in this country possible advanced in groups to obtain employment under the Company, become partners in its businesses, or work as its commercial agents. They realized the urgent need to learn English. Thus, the first initiative to establish English schools came from them. Hindu businessmen and wealthy merchants, with the help and cooperation of their European merchant friends, established English schools privately in various places. In the 1790s of the eighteenth century, a certain Nityananda Sen established such a school in Kalutola, Calcutta.

Another point deserves special mention here. In this country, the missionaries undertook the widespread propagation of Christianity by establishing Bengali-language schools. When they began to go too far in this regard, the British government imposed some restrictions on their activities. But the Charter Act of 1813 removed the restrictions imposed upon them. By this Act, the way was opened for establishing episcopacy in India. In 1814, Bishop Middleton came to Calcutta. Through his enthusiasm and energy, the missionaries began working with renewed vigor. He became closely associated with Bishop’s College in Calcutta. At his request, the Governor-General donated sixty-two bighas of land for the college. Subsequently, greater government assistance was provided for it. Bishop Middleton himself donated five hundred pounds and five hundred books to the college library for the establishment of the college church.

European merchants came forward to assist and cooperate with the missionaries, and in reality it was through them that English education was initiated in Bengal. Through their efforts, especially with the assistance and cooperation of Mr. David Hare and Sir Edward Hyde East, Hindu College was established in Calcutta in 1817 for the education of Hindu youths. On 27 August 1816, at a general meeting held at Sir Edward’s residence in the presence of Hindus, the constitution and rules of the proposed college were formulated. It was stated that the primary purpose of the institution was to educate the sons of respectable Hindus in English and Indian languages and in the literature and sciences of Europe and Asia. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 48–51, quoted from the Rules approved by the Subscribers and general meeting held on 27 August 1816, Calcutta Christian Observer, July 1832, p. 72).

This Hindu College became a government college in 1832. Thus, the government patronized a particular community in the field of education. Muslims are generally accused of being strongly averse to English and Western education, and even of being indifferent to the Bengali language. It has already been stated how Bengali was made rich in Sanskrit in order to keep Muslims away from the field of education. Was this really the reason why Muslims refused to learn English? To hold such a view would be an injustice to them. Studying at English schools and colleges was extremely expensive, while Muslims were afflicted by poverty. Wealthy Hindu merchant-bankers, with the assistance and cooperation of their English friends, established private English schools themselves and, without government assistance, opened the way for their children to receive English education. Such efforts were impossible and impracticable for Muslims. It may be stated without hesitation that Muslims were, by birth, by race, and in religious terms, more devoted to education than any other people. But the destruction of their political and economic structure caused them to fall behind in education. They were also attracted to English, or Western, education. But in this matter they could not obtain even the slightest sympathy from the government. As a government institution for Muslim education, the Calcutta Madrasa was established by Warren Hastings in 1780. But the forty-year history of this madrasa from 1780 to 1829 is extremely painful. The government could have developed this institution into an institution of higher education for Muslims, including English and Western education. But they did not do so. Despite repeated demands to open English classes at the Calcutta Madrasa, the government continued to delay for a long time. In addition to Hindu College, many English schools for the higher education of Hindus were established by Hindus, Englishmen, missionaries, and the Calcutta School Society. But Muslims had no means of entering anywhere. According to Mr. Adam’s account, there were two schools in Calcutta’s Upper Circular Road and Bara Bazar, established by a Christian and a Hindu. They also taught at the schools. There was another in Shobhabazar, where three hundred students were studying. This school too was managed by a Christian and a Hindu. Since these schools were private, high fees were collected from the students. It is not known whether Muslims were admitted there. But even if they were, it can certainly be said that they could not send their children there because of poverty. Calcutta Review (1850) mentions several more schools of this kind, among which Oriental Seminary was particularly notable. The school was established in 1823, and in 1850 its number of students was 585. It ranked immediately after Hindu College. It is said that a certain Gaur Mohan Addy established the school for his countrymen and appointed a certain Mr. Charnbull and a certain barrister, Herman Geoffery, to teach there. In all likelihood, Muslim students were not admitted there either. Besides these, some special schools were established for the children of Christians, where Hindus and Muslims were admitted. These included The Calcutta High School, The Parental Academic Institution, The Philanthropy-Academy, and The Verulam Academy. The Parental Academy was situated in a place where affluent Muslims could send their sons. Respectable and affluent Muslims sent their children to St. Paul’s School and the Parental Academy. The reason for sending them to these two institutions was that the boys acquired proficiency in English there and neither was a missionary-type school. Explaining why Muslims attended these two schools, Mr. Mouat (Mouat 1952)—[F.J. Mouat, Secretary to the Committee of Education]—said that, because studies at the Calcutta Madrasa were not good and there were also various shortcomings, they had to go elsewhere. —(M. Fazlur Rahman: The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 57–58; Calcutta Review, 1850, p. 457; Adam, op. cit., pp. 37, 41).

The Calcutta Madrasa established in 1780 for the education of Muslims was treated with such neglect by the Company and the British government that it seems the authorities’ purpose was to provide illiteracy and miseducation rather than education. It is necessary to shed some light on this matter.

At the request of a considerable number of distinguished Muslim scholars, Hastings established the Calcutta Madrasa in 1780 for Muslim education. Until that time, Muslims held various responsibilities in the criminal and civil courts and the police department, and since Persian was in use in administration, it was also necessary for the Company government, for the time being, to maintain an educational system for Muslims in order to conduct the administration. Responsibility for running the madrasa was assigned to [him]. But from 1780 to 1791, no progress whatsoever was observed at the madrasa. Defects were found in Majduddin’s administration, and after he was removed, a certain Muhammad Israel was given responsibility. The Madrasa Committee was reorganized, and the following curriculum was prepared:

Natural Philosophy, jurisprudence, law, astronomy, geometry, mathematics, logic, and grammar. But there was no change in the situation up to 1822. Therefore, Dr. Lamsden, an influential member of the Madrasa Committee, recommended in his report the appointment of a European principal. The government rejected that recommendation, but Lamsden again requested in his report that a European principal be appointed. In 1818, the committee proposed appointing a European secretary. The government accepted the proposal but placed the financial responsibility on the committee so that there would be no pressure on government revenues. Unfortunately, the proposals made by Dr. M. Lamsden for translating books on Western knowledge and science into Arabic and Persian, introducing English education at the madrasa, and teaching English to Muslim students were rejected by the government, or delayed for many years. —(M. Fazlur Rahman, Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 68–70; A.R. Mallick, British Policy & the Muslims of Bengal, p. 176).

When a responsible member of the committee, Dr. M. Lamsden, proposed opening English classes at the madrasa, it must certainly be understood that Muslim students and guardians were interested in English education. Otherwise, they would have opposed the proposal. It should be remembered that a proposal to open English classes at the Benares Sanskrit College had been made in 1815. The Madrasa Committee lagged behind in this matter. On the other hand, Hindu College was established in 1816 and began teaching in English. In 1854, at the petitions and representations of Muslims, this Hindu College was transformed into Presidency College, and its doors were opened to students of all religions and communities. (Abdul Moudud, Development of the Middle Class: Transformation of Culture, p. 94; Through the Centuries: Dr. Hasan Zaman, Professor Abdur Rahim, p. 239).

However, in accordance with Lamsden’s proposal, Captain Irvine was appointed secretary of the committee at a monthly salary of three hundred rupees. In August 1821, the first examination was held under the new regulations, and the results were satisfactory. The results of the following two years were also good. In 1823, Mr. John Adam formed the General Committee of Public Instruction. The Committee observed that the results of the examinations of 1824 and 1825 were satisfactory. Lamsden again proposed that English textbooks be translated into Arabic and Persian in order to inspire the students to learn English. He strongly emphasized the necessity of establishing a Preparatory School to improve the standard of primary education at the madrasa. The madrasa committee, however, which was influenced by the Europeans, accepted all of Lamsden’s proposals except the provision for expanding European education. Most members expressed the opinion that introducing English or European education would defeat the purpose for which the madrasa had been established. (Board’s Collection, 909, p.321. pp.365-67,909. p.322; Lamsden to Madrasah Committee, 30 May, 1823; Madrasah Committee to Governor-General, 3 July 1832). Consequently, the Committee’s refusal created an extreme obstacle in the path of English education for Muslim students. On the other hand, the General Committee of Public Instruction considered with enthusiasm the proposal to open English classes at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, and took the Hindu College under its control for proper administration. Dr. H. H. Wilson was appointed secretary of the Committee and government inspector of this college. A considerable amount of government money was also allocated for it. Although repeated demands were made to introduce English education at the government educational institution, the madrasa, the government attached no importance to them. Yet the government’s favor, assistance, sympathy, and donations to the private Hindu College were overflowing. This clearly shows how indifferent the government was toward Muslims, and especially toward their English education. This also proves that the accusation made against Muslims—that they had rejected English education—was baseless. The accusation that they were responsible as a particular class was also unfounded. The blame was placed on the shoulders of Muslims merely to conceal the crime of showing favoritism toward a particular class. Anyone well acquainted with the history of the activities of Christian missionaries and the propagation of Christianity among Hindus, and even with the history of the Hindus’ own institution, Hindu College, must admit that the Hindus’ aversion or lack of interest in English education was no greater than that of the Muslims. -(M. Fazlur Rahman Bengali Muslims & English Education p. 73-74).

After the annual examination of the madrasa in 1825, the examiners, Mr. Mill and Mr. Thomson, observing the students’ commendable performance in the examination, proposed that Western knowledge and science be taught. Encouraged by their proposal, Lamsden pressed for the introduction of English education at the madrasa. In a report submitted to the Committee, he stated that, as a result of his long and close association with Muslim students and the general public, he had come to believe that if the English language were accepted merely as a vehicle for acquiring necessary knowledge, Muslims would have no objection to it; rather, they would accept it eagerly. But if the textbooks were used to facilitate the propagation of the Bible, or if Muslims’ religious beliefs were attacked, objections would naturally be raised. -(M Fazlur Rahman Bengali Muslims & English Education p.74; Board’s Collection, 909, pppp. 713; Lamsden to General Committee. 19 February 1825). Lamsden further proposed that each student be granted a scholarship of eight rupees to encourage English education. Macaulay strongly opposed this, and the proposal was rejected.

Although no English classes were opened at the madrasa, the students had become so eager for English education that they began learning some English from teachers for a very small fee. As a result, they could not learn English properly either. Lamsden then proposed to the Committee that a teacher of the English language be appointed. This also produced no result. Thus, it was not through any fault of the Muslims, but because of the authorities’ biased conduct and their lack of sincerity in expanding education among Muslims, that the madrasa students were deprived of English education.

Meanwhile, the highly influential educationist Dr. H. H. Wilson, who was associated with Hindu College, demanded greater government assistance for the college’s continued development. Mr. Holt Mackenzie, the official responsible for the Education Department, proposed establishing a private college for a particular class and community. But the government rejected the proposal on the grounds that it would involve considerable expense. This rejection proved a great blessing for Hindu College. From then on, the Committee’s entire favor was directed toward this Hindu College, and it was given the position of the sole foundation of English education. In its report on the college for 1825, the General Committee expressed satisfaction, saying that the number of students had increased from one hundred to two hundred, and that if so many students could be trained in the necessary knowledge and the English language, the development and improvement of the intellectual qualities of the Principal Inhabitants of Calcutta could undoubtedly be expected. Here, the phrase “Principal Inhabitants of Calcutta” deserves particular attention. There can be no doubt that it referred exclusively to Calcutta’s “Hindu middle class.” This phrase has made the true attitude of the British government in the field of education unmistakably clear.

In reality, the education policy of the English rulers was the Policy of Filtration, by which the opportunities and facilities for higher education, that is, for learning Western knowledge and science through the English language, were restricted to a selected class of Hindus known as the Principal Inhabitants of Calcutta, that is, the Hindu middle class. They would receive English education and devote themselves to spreading this education throughout the country. In other words, the educational institutions established by them would be staffed by Hindus, and their students would likewise be Hindus. That is what actually happened. In fact, this education was again largely restricted to the upper-class Hindus, that is, the Brahmins. The Hindu business class also benefited from this filtration policy. Not only Muslims, but other classes of the Hindu community as well, were deprived of it. Reverend Lal Behari Dey commented: “The filtration of the upper classes in India is in no sense filtration. It is an earthen vessel whose mouth is sealed in such a way that no light or air from outside can enter. On the one hand, a Brahmin is feeding himself to satiety on the knowledge of logic, metaphysics, and theology; on the other, the Shudra, including those afflicted with leprosy, gazes greedily, waiting to see when a morsel of food from his master’s table will fall to his lot.” (L.B. Dey in reply to Babu Kishori Chand Meeting of British India Association, 1868 –Quoted by H.A. Stark Vernacular Education in Bengal. P.89).

In accordance with this filtration policy, the government gave its greatest attention to Hindu College. Eight scholarships of sixteen rupees each and assistance of three hundred rupees per month were granted to the students. Subsequently, 49,376 rupees were provided for printing elementary books and 5,000 rupees for procuring books from England.

Having given Hindu College the opportunity to ascend to the highest heights of progress, Wilson turned his attention to Sanskrit College. As soon as the opening of English classes was announced there, 40 of the 136 students expressed interest in studying English. A certain Mr. Tytler, a professor at Hindu College, was appointed to teach at Sanskrit College as an additional responsibility. After doing all this, the government perhaps out of shame decided in 1829 to open English classes at the Calcutta Madrasa. The report for April of the first year revealed that the number of students had fallen from 136 to 102. Poverty was described as the main reason. Most Muslim students came from remote areas of the province to study English. Because of their poverty, they studied in the servants’ quarters of English gentlemen and with the financial assistance of the sahibs. -(M. Fazlur Rahman Bengali Muslims & English Education p. 74-80; Hunter The India Mussalmans, p.203).

The lengthy discussion of the education of Muslims during the British period was undertaken for two reasons. One was to prove the British government’s stepmotherly treatment of Muslims. The second was to prove baseless the accusation made against Muslims that they had rejected English education. I hope the above discussion has made these two matters clear. As further evidence, let me mention one or two more points.

Lord Macaulay was appointed a law member of the British Parliament in 1834. Describing the purpose of the British government’s education policy in India, he said:

“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. (Woodrow Macaulay’s Minutes on Education in India, 1862: Abdul Mawdud, Development of the Middle-Class Society: Transformation of Culture, p. 97).

Macaulay further said, “I firmly believe that if our educational policy is implemented, within thirty years from today there will be no idolater left in educated and respectable Bengali society.” (Trevelyan –Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay Vol.1, p.455)

What Macaulay had wanted to see thirty years later in his first statement had already begun, though he may not have been able to see it while sitting in England. Information on how much the demand for British goods had increased was collected in 1832. The report stated that not only had the demand for British textiles increased among Calcutta’s middle class; the demand for and appreciation of British liquor had also increased. Their attraction to British luxuries had grown. They had houses furnished with British furniture, carriages, and were also drinking alcohol. The natives certainly drank more liquor. They wanted to prove that they had no reluctance, hatred, or aversion to Firingee ways—that is, in Macaulay’s words, that in taste, opinions, and morals they would be genuine Englishmen. They drank liquor, brandy, and beer. (Select Committee Report, House of Commons, 1831-32, Mawdud; p. 10).

Explaining the government’s “filtration policy” regarding education, Mr. Trevelyan said, “The wealthy commercial and educated classes will benefit first; a new body of teachers will appear; more books will be published in the vernacular languages. Through these, we shall then advance from the towns to the villages, from the few to the homes of the vast population—the primary schools will be established; but our means are limited, while millions have to be educated. This is why selection is necessary, and attention has first been directed toward the upper middle-class people. For if they are educated, the opportunity will spread among the general population as well.”

(Abdul Mawdud: Development of the Middle-Class Society, pp. 97-98; Trevelyan p.48).

The English rulers’ innermost thoughts came out through Mr. Trevelyan’s mouth. With the cooperation of the wealthy merchants and the Hindu middle class, they had snatched political power from the Muslims. Through trade and commerce, their friendship with this middle class had grown closer. By keeping them completely satisfied, they would be able to preserve their governing power in this country. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that their full favor was showered upon this particular class, even though it was unjust. The Christian missionaries made efforts to spread education in this country. Their purpose, however, was not noble at all. Since their appeal to Muslims to accept their “Gospel” in the name of education ended in failure, they could not regard Muslims favorably. This failure ultimately led them to engage in propaganda against Islam and its great Prophet. Thus, in the circle formed by the missionaries, the English rulers, and their Hindu middle-class allies, the Muslims’ fate was crushed; they were driven away from education and livelihoods and deprived of all other opportunities and benefits.

The people of this country did not have to bring from Britain the money required for education and comforts. The money of this country was meant to be spent for the people of this country. It was never considered a favor or act of generosity. It was the right of the people of this country. But Muslims were deprived of this right. Far from allocating money from government funds for Muslim education, they even misappropriated donations given for the education of Muslims and spent them on improper purposes. Take, for example, the donation of the philanthropist Haji Muhammad Muhsin. Instead of presenting the Muslims’ account of this matter, what the renowned Englishman and Christian Mr. Hunter said is reproduced below:

In 1806, a wealthy and distinguished Muslim of Hooghly District, at the time of his death, donated his vast zamindari for expenditure on charitable purposes. Later, a dispute began between his two trustees. When, in 1810, they brought accusations against each other of misusing the property, the crisis reached a climax, and the English Collector of the district took possession of the property pending the court’s decision. As the lawsuit continued until 1816, he dismissed both trustees and the government took the management of the zamindari into its own hands. The government assumed the responsibility of one trustee and nominated a new person in place of the second. The following year, the entire property was leased on the condition that the prescribed revenue be paid. The total income received from the lease, including arrears due during the litigation, amounted to £105,700 sterling. (The cost of the college building was paid from this income.) In addition, an excess of £12,000 sterling had accumulated from the annual income of the zamindari by that time.

“As I have already stated, the trust was established to spend the income of the zamindari on various charitable purposes. Among the good works specified in the will were the observance of certain religious ceremonies, the maintenance of the Hooghly Imambara or Great Mosque, a cemetery, certain scholarships, and the expenses of various religious institutions. Providing funds for an educational institution falls within the purposes of the trust. But, according to the founder’s wishes, it had to be an educational institution specifically for Muslims. In Muslim countries, establishing colleges for talented poor students is regarded as a religious work. But spending the money of this will on any non-Muslim college would be considered contrary to the testator’s wishes and would constitute a serious abuse of the trustees’ powers.

“It can therefore easily be imagined with what anger Muslims could accuse the English government of embezzling the funds when the money from this fund was spent on establishing an English college. In fact, that is exactly what happened. With money from property dedicated exclusively to Islamic religious purposes, the government established an educational institution where subjects contrary to the principles of Islam were taught and from which Muslims were effectively excluded.

At present, the principal of this institution is an English gentleman who does not know a single letter of Persian or Arabic. For teaching subjects hated by Muslims, this principal receives an annual salary of £1,500 sterling from a fund dedicated exclusively to expenditure for Muslims. Of course, this is not any fault of the principal. The government that appointed him to this responsibility is guilty. For the past thirty-five years, the government has been deliberately embezzling the money of that vast educational fund. As an unsuccessful attempt to conceal its serious breach of trust, the government attached a small Muslim school, the Hooghly Madrasa, to the English college. In addition to embezzling the fund’s money for constructing the college building, £5,000 sterling is spent annually from the fund on maintaining the college. Thus, the actual situation is that, of the fund’s income of £5,260 sterling, only £250 sterling is spent on the small Muslim school, and this small Muslim school alone survives as evidence of the trust’s essential character.

“It is very difficult to argue over the allegation of embezzlement, because it is impossible to refute it. Muslims are asserting that, with the malicious intention of taking possession of this vast religious property belonging to Muslims, the infidel English government took advantage of the mismanagement of the property by the Muslim trustees; and then, in violation of the donor’s sacred religious purpose, the government established an educational institution opposed to Muslim interests, thereby making the government’s offense even more serious. It has been said that a few years ago, among the total three hundred students of the English college in question, not even one percent were Muslims. Although this humiliating discrimination has since diminished, Muslim dissatisfaction with the injustice continues to this day. A civilian who examined the matter deeply wrote—

established an institution where subjects contrary to the principles of Islam are taught and from which Muslims have effectively been excluded.

At present, the principal of this institution is an English gentleman who does not know a single letter of Persian or Arabic. For teaching subjects hated by Muslims, this principal receives an annual salary of £1,500 sterling from a fund dedicated exclusively to expenditure for Muslims. Of course, this is not any fault of the principal. The government that appointed him to this responsibility is guilty. For the past thirty-five years, the government has been deliberately embezzling the money of that vast educational fund. The government attached a small Muslim school, the Hooghly Madrasa, to the college. In addition to embezzling the fund’s money for constructing the college building, £5,000 sterling is spent annually from the fund on maintaining the college. Thus, the actual situation is that, of the fund’s income of £5,260 sterling, only £250 sterling is spent on the small Muslim school, and this small Muslim school alone survives as evidence of the trust’s essential character.

“It is very difficult to argue over the allegation of embezzlement, because it is impossible to refute it. Muslims are asserting that, with the malicious intention of taking possession of this vast religious property belonging to Muslims, the infidel English government took advantage of the mismanagement of the Muslim property; and then, in violation of the donor’s sacred religious purpose, the government established an educational institution opposed to Muslim interests, thereby making the government’s offense even more serious. It has been said that a few years ago, among the total three hundred students of the English college in question, not even one percent were Muslims. Although this humiliating discrimination has since diminished, Muslim dissatisfaction with the injustice continues to this day. A civilian who examined the matter deeply wrote—

“Regarding this matter, I can prove that it is not difficult to exaggerate the hatred and humiliation the British government has earned through its own actions: during my twenty-eight years’ residence in India, I investigated the truth of the matter (I visited Hooghly within a few weeks of my first arrival in this country), and I can say that at that time I heard nothing else from either a native or a European. Whether justified or not, Muslims believe that in this matter the government treated them unjustly and narrowly, and for them it has become a lasting bitter experience.”

(W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, Bengali translation by M. Anisuzzaman, pp. 163-165).

These were the candid statements of two English gentlemen who had come to this country as highly responsible officials of the British government. Seeing the extreme injustice toward Muslims, their consciences may have cried out in anguish. Their writings expressed that very feeling. But did this make the thoughtless and oppressive government take notice? They regarded one class in this country as their enemy and another as their bosom friend. They satisfied their friend by appropriating the enemy’s rightful share. This injustice continued until the end of British rule. The author spent his childhood from 1925 to 1930 at the small Muslim school adjoining the college in question. No change could then be seen in the condition described by Mr. Hunter. It can be stated without hesitation that no greater embezzlement and misuse of a religious endowment can be found anywhere in human history. It must be called the Muslims’ misfortune that after the British left this country, the property and fund of that endowment passed by inheritance to their former allies. Therefore, a change in the situation is unthinkable.

As a result of the deep conspiracy of this threefold alliance—the English ruling group, the Christian missionaries, and Bengal’s Hindu middle class—Muslims were deprived of state patronage, and consequently the paths of education and livelihood were closed to them. From 1 April 1837, English was introduced into government work and the offices and courts. It is noteworthy that the English, resorting to cunning, quietly introduced a policy of Anglicization, implementing their resolve without making the masses aware. Their favored class knew of this secret conspiracy. Thus, as soon as English suddenly became the language of government from 1 April, they established themselves in all government offices. Meanwhile, through the devious maneuvering of the English missionaries, Hindustani, rich in Sanskrit words, was created by displacing Urdu, the Muslims’ superior linguistic contribution, which was based on Arabic and Persian vocabulary; it was recognized as the only government-approved vernacular and as a certificate for obtaining employment.

(Abdul Mawdud: Development of the Middle-Class Society … pp. 98-99). Its purpose was to close all avenues of employment to Muslims.

Thus, English education was initiated primarily for political purposes and for the welfare of a single urban class. In reality, English education became the only passport for the people of this country to obtain employment in government offices and courts. For this reason, education in the language spread rapidly, reliably, and widely. But the most serious aspect of this education policy was that it was restricted to the genteel middle class, while the general population was tragically neglected. Moreover, the Hindu middle class appropriated all the opportunities and benefits of English education; the aristocratic Hindus and the entire Muslim community were left far behind. In this struggle of infiltration to make the country English in character, the followers of Macaulay emerged victorious. (Abdul Mawdud: Development of the Middle-Class Society pp. 99-100; John Marshal, An Advanced History of India, pp. 818-19).

The following figures are appended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the condition of Muslims in the educational and employment spheres during the nineteenth century.

Number of Hindu and Muslim students in government schools and colleges on 30 April 1852:

Educational institution Hindu Muslim Other Total

Hindu College 471 0 0 471

Pathmala 216 0 0 216

Branch School 255 0 0 255

Sanskrit College 299 0 0 299

Madrasa 0 433 0 433

Hooghly College 389 6 2 397

Hooghly Branch School 160 2 2 164

Hooghly Madrasa 18 145 0 163

Hooghly Maktab 9 47 0 56

Sitapur Madrasa 0 40 0 40

Dhaka College 323 29 31 383

Krishnagar College 205 7 1 213

Chittagong College 97 8 20 125

Comilla College 81 6 4 91

Sylhet College 80 11 1 92

Baulia College 83 0 2 85

Midnapore College 117 7 1 125

Jessore College 96 7 0 103

Burdwan College 71 3 0 74

Bankura College 74 0 0 74

Barasat College 174 0 0 174

Howrah College 123 6 0 129

Uttarpara College 175 0 0 175

Barrackpore College 88 2 0 90

Raspagla College 10 37 0 47

Total 3841 796 64 4674

(A.R. Mallick British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 280)

The number of students in the aforementioned educational institutions in April 1856. In the meantime, Hindu College had become Presidency College, and an Anglo-Persian department (A.P.) had been opened at Calcutta Madrasa for English education.

Educational institution Hindu Muslim Other Total

Presidency College 127 0 5 132

Hindu College 462 0 0 462

Colootola School 567 0 4 571

Madrasa (Arabic) 0 59 0 59

Madrasa (A.P.) 0 111 0 111

Kalinga School 124 15 4 143

Sanskrit College 339 0 0 339

Pathshala 345 0 0 345

Medical College 148 96 34 278

Hooghly Madrasa 4 175 0 179

Hooghly Branch School 169 8 0 177

Dhaka College 390 24 41 455

Krishnagar College 240 7 0 247

Berhampore College 227 10 5 242

Howrah School 229 3 4 236

Uttarpara School 203 0 0 203

Birbhum School 104 10 0 114

Midnapore School 145 10 0 155

Bankura School 146 1 0 147

Baulia School 129 5 0 134

Raspagla School 40 63 0 103

Barasat School 192 3 0 195

Barrackpore School 116 2 0 118

Jessore School 134 5 2 141

Patna School 144 4 0 148

Faridpur School 102 4 0 106

Barisal School 209 22 3 234

Comilla School 93 16 7 116

Noakhali School 66 1 4 71

Chittagong School 166 42 14 222

Bogra School 85 6 0 91

Dinajpur School 114 8 4 126

Mymensingh School 167 9 8 184

Sylhet School 157 5 2 164

Total 6338 731 147 2216

(A.R. Mallick British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 281)

In his book, Hunter appended a statement showing the position of Muslims in government-sponsored employment in Bengal in April 1871. It is as follows:

European Hindu Muslim Total

Covenanted Civil Service

(Appointed by the Queen from England

Appointed 260 0 0 260

In the districts outside the Regulations

Judicial officers 47 0 0 47

Extra Assistant Commissioners 26 7 0 33

Deputy Magistrates and Deputy Collectors 53 113 30 196

Income-tax assessors 11 43 6 60

Registration Department 33 25 2 60

Judges of Small Causes Courts and

Subordinate judges 14 25 8 47

Munsifs 0 178 37 216

Police Department, all grades of

Gazetted officers 106 3 0 109

Public Works Department, Engineering

Establishment 154 19 0 173

Public Works Department, subordinate

Establishment 72 125 4 201

Public Works Department, accounts

Establishment 22 54 0 76

Medical Department,

In medical colleges, jails,

charitable dispensaries, sanitation

and vaccination departments

employees and district

medical officers, etc. 89 65 4 158

Public Instruction Department 38 14 1 53

Customs, navigation survey, opium

control, and various other departments 412 10 0 422

Total 1334 681 92 2111

W W Hunter The Indian Mussalmans, Bangladesh Edition 1975, p. 152).

After appending the foregoing statement, Hunter made the following comment:

A hundred years ago, all government posts were the exclusive preserve of Muslims. If the rulers occasionally distributed some favors, Hindus would accept them gratefully; and one might see one or two Europeans here and there, or a few in clerical posts. But the figures above show that subsequently the proportion of Muslims, compared with Hindus, has fallen to less than one-seventh. The number of Hindus is more than half that of Europeans, while the number of Muslims is less than one-fourth that of Europeans. Those who had exclusive rights in government service a hundred years ago now account for only one twenty-third of the total. This is so even in the case of gazetted posts, where considerable care is exercised in distributing state patronage. The employment of Muslims in the relatively ordinary posts of the Presidency city has almost ceased. A few days ago it was found that there was not a single employee in some department who knew the language of the Muslims, and it is rarely possible to see in Calcutta a government office where even one Muslim is employed above the rank of a peon or orderly.

Is the reason for all this that Hindus are more qualified than Muslims and that only they are entitled to justice? Or is it that they do not wish to enter government employment and have left their positions to the Hindus? Hindus are certainly endowed with superior talent; but they do not presently possess the kind of universal and extraordinary ability required to monopolize government posts, and their past history also contradicts this claim. The real truth is that, until the governing power of this country passed into our hands, Muslims were the superior nation. They were superior not merely in courage and physical strength, but also in their ability to conduct political organization and their practical knowledge of governing the state. Despite this, the path of entry for Muslims into government and private employment has been closed. (W W Hunter: The Indian Mussalmans, pp. 152–53).

The condition of Muslims in the Department of Public Instruction shown in the foregoing statement makes it clearly evident how they were kept away from the field of education in order to close off their means of livelihood. Repeated demands were made to the government to arrange English education for Muslims. But all of them were cries in the wilderness. Muslims were crushed by poverty. They could not bear the cost of higher education. Yet even the money donated by Muslims for this purpose was not properly used. Rather, it was embezzled.

In 1837, a Muslim from Patna named Syed Amir Hossain was appointed a member of the Bengal Legislative Council in place of Ishwar Chandra Mitra. He published a booklet on Muslim education and strongly urged the expansion of education among Muslims. He said:

Muslim education in English is not progressing. The government is indifferent in this matter. Because they do not study English, Muslims cannot compete with the other communities of India. Yet Muslims are eager to learn English…. Many people educated in Arabic and Persian have been heard lamenting that they did not have the opportunity to learn English. Consequently, they have no means of livelihood. The kind of madrasa education provided with the money of the Mohsin Fund in Hooghly, Rajshahi, and Chittagong brings no benefit. Therefore, Hooghly Madrasa should be abolished. The expenditure of the madrasas at Rajshahi and Chittagong should be reduced. In this way, the 93,000 rupees left over in the Mohsin Fund should be used to open a separate degree college in the premises of Calcutta Madrasa. As a result, higher education in English among Muslims will increase, while the government will incur no additional expense.

But the government did not accept such sound reasoning. The governor of the time paid no heed to Amir Hossain’s proposal. Using this excuse, it said: “Muslims’ interest in madrasa education has not yet declined, nor has their interest in English education increased. On average, 32 Muslim boys throughout Bengal pass the entrance examination each year. At most 20 of them attend college. It would not be reasonable to open a college like Presidency with so few students. It will be sufficient to arrange for Muslim students to study in the colleges of Calcutta at one-third of the usual fees.”

On the one hand, there was oppression, indifference, and neglect arising from the hostile attitude of the foreign ruling power; on the other, there was the heartless deprivation of Muslims by the neighboring community favored by that same power, driven by the urge to protect its own interests. This carefully planned expulsion of Muslims from every field of education and livelihood was the cause of their backwardness.

(Abdul Maudud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society, pp. 332–34).

It was not only Muslim boys who, realizing the necessity of English education, yearned for it. Muslim girls behind the veil were also eager for it. But no arrangements were made for them. Although Calcutta’s Bethune School was established in 1849 and later converted into Bethune College, Muslim girls were not permitted to enter it. Citing the Muslim Bangla periodical published on the 23rd of Magh in the year 1309, Abdul Maudud says in his book:

An article in the Mihir o Sudhakar newspaper, entitled ‘English Education in Muslim Female Society,’ stated:

We never dreamed that the census of 1901 would tell us of 400 Muslim women who had received English education. Once this has been revealed, what is our duty? If it is possible to introduce English education within the inner quarters, why should there be any objection to establishing schools and educating girls? Muslim girls are not permitted to enter Calcutta’s Bethune School. They can study in schools other than Bethune School. In particular, arranging English education in our girls’ madrasas would be the best course. (Abdul Maudud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society…, p. 335).

But all the petitions and representations of Muslims, all their demands for the establishment of their rights, turned into cries in the wilderness. As a result, the unfortunate Muslim community remained deprived of the light of education for nearly a century. In 1925, during the first quarter of the twentieth century, the Calcutta Memorial Girls’ School was established for the higher education of Muslims. A short while before the Partition of India, Lady Brabourne College was established in Calcutta for Muslims.

The Muslims of Bengal and the New Bengali Language That Was Created

Scholars of the Bengali language have discussed at length the birth and gradual development of Bengali, particularly Bengali prose, and enormous books have been written on the subject. There is no scope for that discussion here. However, omitting a discussion of the Bengali language from the history of the Muslims of Bengal would be an injustice to history. Therefore, even if briefly, it is necessary to state the main points on this subject. In discussing the history of the Bengali language, it can be seen that before 1778 its form and structure were one way, and afterward the language assumed another form.

Before the arrival of the English in this country, Bengali was filled with countless Arabic and Persian words. It was then the common mother tongue of all Bengal. Its literature developed mainly in verse. Prose literature was not so widespread; even where it existed, no effort was made to improve it. This Bengali, rich in Arabic and Persian words, was not merely the language of the Muslims of this country. It belonged to everyone, Hindus and Muslims alike. Both Hindus and Muslims used it in letters, legal deeds and documents, and petitions to the government. As an example, a letter written by a certain Hindu, taken from an old record, is presented below:

Sri Ram. Garib Newaz Salamat. In my zamindari pargana Kakjol, two villages have been devastated; those two villages have since been restored—Sri Hare Krishta Ray Chowdhury of Chakale Ekbelpur is today forcibly occupying and enjoying them. I am being ruined in supplying the land revenue. I earnestly request that, from the government, a chopdar be sent with me to the spot, summon the opposing party, hold court, and have me granted my due. Thus, 11 Shravan 1185. Your slave, Jagatadhib Ray. (The English date of the letter would be 26 July 1778).

Referring to this letter, Sajanikanta made the following comment on contemporary Bengali literature and culture:

In one sense, the language whose authentic emergence is witnessed in 1778 was the result of Muslim influence in the country. Later, Henry-Peter Forster and William Carey, taking Bengali to be the child of a Sanskrit mother, vigorously advocated against the unauthorized intrusion of Arabic and Persian. (History of Bengali Literature, p. 62).

Sajanikanta further says: But if the English had not arrived, even today we would have had to begin by saying ‘Garib Newaz Salamat’ and end by saying ‘Fidwi.’ Whether that would have been beneficial or harmful is no longer worth judging. … In 1778 this ritual for destroying Arabic and Persian began, and in 1838 it reached its full oblation when, by law, Bengali and English were introduced in place of Arabic and Persian in the Sadar and mofussil courts during the Company’s rule. Bankim Chandra was also born in this year. The history of this ritual is extremely fascinating. In those days, several dictionaries were compiled and published to promote supposedly pure words by treating Arabic and Persian as impure. Whenever it suited them, the sahibs opposed Arabic and Persian and gave precedence to Bengali and Sanskrit. As a result, within ten or fifteen years the form and character of Bengali prose had completely changed. (History of Bengali Prose Literature, p. 32).

The reason for the above-mentioned William Carey Sahib’s advocacy against Arabic and Persian was this. Abdul Mawdud rightly said: Europe’s conquest of the East was carried out through three carefully planned means: as merchants carrying goods; behind them, with weapons, under the pretext of protecting the goods; and behind them, with missionaries, with the noble aim of imparting Western education and culture. (Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society…, p. 363).

Christian missionaries came in the third phase to impart Western education and culture. This fact is highly significant. A number of religious organizations were formed in England to propagate Christianity in the countries under the British Empire; among them, the Clapham Sect (Clapham Seer), led by Wilberforce, deserves special mention. Charles Grant was a member of this group and a director of the East India Company. After visiting India, he presented a bleak picture of the religious and moral condition of its inhabitants and said, “The only remedy for the darkness in which they are immersed is to kindle among them the light of Christianity. The Hindus are mistaken because they are ignorant. Their errors have not been pointed out to them. The best way to remove the disorder and sin in which they are involved is to distribute our light and knowledge among them.”

(Grant’s Observations, published in the printed parliamentary paper relating to the affairs of India Several Vol. 8 (734), Appendix 1. Published 1832, pp. 3–60; M. Fazlur Rahman: The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 30–32).

The Christian missionaries chiefly chose the Hindus of this country for the propagation of their religion. For this purpose, they necessarily needed to learn and teach the Bengali language. They established a printing press at Hooghly Serampore for this purpose. As stated earlier, the form that the Bengali language had acquired in Bengal up to that time was mixed Bengali, that is, Bengali mixed with Arabic and Persian words. Although this Bengali was the spoken language of both Hindus and Muslims, Hindu Brahmin scholars nevertheless despised it. To them, the Muslim nation consisted of “mlechchhas,” “Yavanas,” and contemptible creatures. Their Arabic and Persian languages were likewise hateful to them. Perhaps orthodox Hindu scholars sensed the odor of “cow flesh” among Arabic and Persian words. They condemned this language by calling it Prakrit or vulgar. Earlier, many Hindu religious texts had been translated into this language during the reign of the Muslim sultans. The scholars of this age issued the following fatwa:

The eighteen Puranas and the deeds of Rama

and so on—in the vernacular, that is, in the common language—whoever hears the eighteen Puranas, the story of Rama, and the like shall be consigned to the Raurava hell.

(Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society…, p. 344).

The Christian missionaries also understood very well that it would be difficult to attract people to Christianity through a language despised by Hindu scholars unless that language was purified. Thus they proceeded with a plan to kill two birds with one stone: to protect the language from the taint of Arabic and Persian and make it acceptable to Hindus, and to carry out the ritual of extermination—or destruction—of the Muslims’ Bengali mother tongue, as Sajanikanta has mentioned. With this great (?) objective, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed prepared a Bengali grammar in 1778 under the title A Grammar of the Bengali Language, which was published by the Serampore Press. As a printed book, it was the first to use Bengali letters. Through this grammar, a new Bengali language was created in place of the Bengali language traditionally in use. It was entirely free of Arabic and Persian words and rich in Sanskrit words. In the preface to the grammar, Halhed says, “In this age, only those speak refined language who mix an abundance of Arabic and Persian nouns with Indian verbs.” Thus there can be no doubt that the refined Bengali spoken and prose language of the eighteenth century contained an abundance of Arabic and Persian words—a fact illustrated by the letter of a certain Hindu Jagatadhib Roy mentioned above.

It is noteworthy that, in 1801, a Bengali department was opened at Fort William College to teach the Bengali language to the Company’s English civilians. William Carey became the head of this department. Eight scholars were appointed under him. Among them, Mrityunjay Tarkalankar and Ramram Basu were especially renowned. With their assistance, Carey continued writing and publishing Bengali prose books. First came Kathopokathan, followed by Itihasmala. Needless to say, the language of both books was in the Sanskrit style, and their subject matter excluded Muslims. Pratapaditya, Rupa Sanatan, and Birbal were the principal characters drawn from Indian history. Thus, in terms of language and subject matter, English patronage opened the field for the scholars’ efforts and for establishing the greatness of Hinduism. On the one hand was the missionaries’ boast of bringing an uncivilized nation from darkness into light. On the other was the scholars’ immense zeal and eagerness to establish Bengali as Sanskrit’s daughter and proclaim the greatness of the Hindus. These two aims are fully reflected when evaluating the language and subject matter of the books written by the scholars under Carey’s leadership at that time.

(History of Bengali Prose Literature, Sajanikanta Das, p. 112; Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, p. 364).

Therefore, on the basis of these facts, it is now as clear as daylight that, through the collusion of the English and the Hindus, Muslims were not driven out only from the political and economic spheres. Their mother tongue, which had developed over several centuries, was also nullified. They were hurled down from the higher levels of society. The food from their mouths was snatched away and given to others, and even their last resource—the language of their mouths—was destroyed through the “ritual of extermination.”

The respected Abdul Mawdud says: “Just as literature in this mixed Bengali style was beginning to develop, the merchant’s scales were transformed into the ruler’s scepter, and the missionaries, the merchants’ lackeys, also changed the form of the language of literature.

The promoters of Western education also fashioned the structure of the Bengali language in a new mold—for the babu community. As a result, the language in which babu culture was ushered in was not merely close to Sanskrit, but thoroughly Sanskritic. This too happened in the expectation of introducing a new language and culture, and the missionaries became active in depriving Muslims of the language on their lips and impoverishing them in literature and culture as well.”

(Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society, p. 358).

The new Bengali language of the Muslims that developed on the basis of the Bengali language as it existed before the English and the missionaries, and which drew its strength and inspiration from Arabic and Persian, may be called Muslim Bengali. Naturally, it was not at all acceptable to the Hindus. After 1837, when Hindu Bengali—Bengali rich in Sanskrit words and free of Arabic and Persian words—was recognized by the government as the provincial mother tongue, the progress of Muslim Bengali was obstructed. The Persian language long used in offices and courts lost its former status, while the newly created Bengali language began receiving state patronage. The new Bengali advanced step by step, and after the establishment of the University of Calcutta, this language gained prestige as the vehicle of Hindu culture and national hopes and aspirations.

This new Bengali language was made compulsory as the mother tongue in schools and colleges. Even at the Calcutta Madrasa, where many students did not know Muslim Bengali, this new Bengali was made part of the curriculum. European educators such as Professor Wilson began such vigorous advocacy of Sanskrit that learning Sanskrit became an extreme obsession among the sahibs. Wilson wrote a simple Sanskrit grammar, thereby facilitating the sahibs’ study of Sanskrit. In 1828, he became president of the Society for Translating European Knowledge and Science into Bengali and, under the patronage of the General Committee of Public Instruction, wrote many books in the new Bengali language. These books became textbooks. The difference between Muslim Bengali and the new Bengali was so vast—not only in language, but also in subject matter, culture, and religious beliefs—that accepting the new language became extremely dangerous for Muslims.

For example, the names of several books are given below:

Karunanidhan Bilas, Padanka Dut, Vishva Mangal, Gita Govinda—relating to Shri Krishna,

Chandi, Ananda Mangal—relating to Durga,

Mahima Stava, Ganga Bhakti—relating to Shiva and the Ganges

Chaitanya Charitamrita, Rasa Manjari, Adirasa, Padavali, Ratikal, Rati Bilas—arousing love

Adopted as school textbooks:

Shishu Bodhak—which was taught extensively in all kinds of schools and village schools throughout Bengal. It contained translations of many Sanskrit verses, written mainly about Hindu gods and goddesses. Its first lessons began with prayers to Saraswati, the Ganges, and others.

Then there was Ananda Mangal. It too was filled from beginning to end with praise and glorification of Hinduism and its gods and goddesses. Many more textbooks of this kind can be found. (M. Fazlur Rahman: The Bengali Muslims & English Education, pp. 106–108).

It is noteworthy that, before Sanskritized Hindu Bengali, the Bengali language that had been cultivated and nurtured for several centuries consisted mainly of verse literature or puthi literature. In modern times, this literature is identified specifically as puthi literature. But two of those who practiced this literature, Male Muhammad and Muhammad Danish, called its style “colloquial Bengali,” while Rezaullah (1861) called it “Islamic Bengali.” In 1855, Reverend Long called this language “Muslim Bengali” in his bibliography and named the literature written in it “Muslim Bengali literature.”

(Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society… The Transformation of Culture, p. 355).

Mr. Hunter’s attention was drawn to this literature, and he said:

To this day, the peasant population of the delta region is Muslim. Islam is so deeply rooted in Lower Bengal that it has produced a distinctive religious literature and vernacular dialect. The dialect known as “Muslim Bengali” differs from Urdu to the same extent that the Urdu of northern India differs from the Persian of Herat. (W. W. Hunter: The Indian Mussalmans, p. 146).

Whatever name is given to this literature, it was not lifeless. For several centuries it raised waves of literature in the hearts of millions of men and women. It influenced their thoughts, feelings, hopes, and aspirations. Shri Shri Kumar Banerjee says—

The story treasury of Muslim literature was by no means poor. Such narratives as The Arabian Nights, Hatemtai, Laila Majnu, Chahar Darvesh, and Gule Bakavali certainly opened before Bengali readers a hitherto unimaginable world of mystery and beauty. In the middle of the nineteenth century, when our novel literature was gradually taking shape on the model of English literature, translations of this class of Muslim stories became a major part of our literary endeavor. Had they not touched the readers’ hearts and appealed to their taste, a major part of our literary effort could never have been devoted to translating them. At the very least, these stories possessed a dazzling, colorful romance and an immense abundance of unrestrained beauty and pleasure; this irresistibly attracted the jaded, fatigued taste of a section of our readers wearied by religious scriptures. (The Course of the Novel in Bengali Literature, Shri Shri Kumar Banerjee, 4th ed., pp. 18–19).

Modern Bengali Literature and Communalism

Among those who contributed to the creation, enrichment, and development of modern Bengali literature, the names of Ramram Basu, Mrityunjay Vidyalankar, and Raja Rammohun are especially notable. The first two belonged to the scholars appointed by William Carey. Ramram Basu’s book Pratapaditya was published in 1801. Mrityunjay Vidyalankar wrote five major works, among which Rajabali (1808) is especially notable. Then came Rammohun’s name. His prose literature was powerful and vibrant. Yet there was no communalism or hatred of Muslims in their literature. Mrityunjay’s Rajabali, however, was the first attempt to write a continuous history from the legendary accounts of the Chandravamsha through the establishment of Company rule in Bengal, and the Muslim period was written with extreme negligence and in a hostile manner.

Later, two great figures appeared in the arena of Bengali literature: Michael Madhusudan in Bengali poetry and Bankimchandra in prose. Their outstanding contributions to Bengali literature are undeniable.

Abdul Mawdud says—

When the noonday sky prevailed over the field in which Bankimchandra’s talent developed, the political sky of Bengal had also turned. One section was now becoming self-conscious and forcefully demanding the full share of the English favor. Unemployment was appearing among the educated upper-caste Hindu society, and the resulting despair in their minds was a child of the age-spirit. He appeared in Bengal’s literary sky as the representative of the conservative Hindu social mind and as the sage who initiated the mantra of Hindu nationalism. In this way, the poisonous mark of intense communalism that he spread through his pen has no second example in the history of the world. Although endowed with profound learning, razor-sharp intellect, and deep analytical power, he became a plaything of the ideals and purposes of a narrow, reactionary, conservative Hindu society, and the harm and dishonor he inflicted on humanity likewise have no parallel in world history. A wound made by a weapon is ultimately erased by the passage of time.

But a wound made by the pen has no end and no cure—from age to age, that wound continues to bleed.

—(Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, pp. 369–70).

We discussed, with examples, in an earlier chapter some of the poisonous fire that Bankim kindled through literature against Muslim society and the Muslim nation. His literature is chiefly responsible for the extreme deterioration of Hindu–Muslim relations in Bengal and the Indian subcontinent.

The poisonous fire of hatred for Muslims that Bankim vomited forth in his Rajsingha and Anandamath caused the slender stream of harmony that existed between the two great communities of this vast subcontinent to dry up completely and disappear. … Bankimchandra also denied the existence of Muslims in this subcontinent, drove them out, and repeatedly raised his voice to invite and establish the benevolent British nation. (Ibid., p. 370).

The literary work of Muslims before modern Bengali literature was not a reflection of everyday life in its ideological influence, disguised allegorical intent, or events. It was imbued with the delicate emotion and extraordinary touch of a higher ideal of imagination born from life.

—(The Course of the Novel in Bengali Literature, Shri Shri Kumar Banerjee, 4th ed., pp. 18–19).

It should be noted that Bhudev Mukhopadhyay first sowed the seed of communalism in the literary sphere through his Anguri Binimay (1857). Probably inspired by him, Bankim turned that seed into a vast poisonous tree of communalism. Bengali literature could not free itself from the filth of communalism after Bankim’s death. Following in his footsteps, both learned and ignorant, literary and nonliterary members of the upper-caste Hindu community continued to wield their pens.

The writings of the two eminent poet-scholars who adorned and crowned Bengali literature with beauty—Rabindranath Tagore and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay—could not remain untouched by that filth either. We have quoted above an example of Sarat Chandra’s communalism-tainted writing.

But when I see the poet Rabindranath also plunge into this vortex, a Muslim instinctively cries out in pain, anger, and shame. Rather than expressing a personal opinion about Julius Caesar, I request readers to read Rabindranath’s story “Durasha” and poem “Shivaji Utsav.”

(Abdul Mawdud: The Transformation of Culture, p. 317).

Chapter Eight

Modern Bengali Literature and the Muslim

When Bankimchandra’s literary work was at the height of its success, a Muslim contemporary of his rose in the sky of Bengali literature. He was Mir Mosharraf Hossain. His writing was truly modern Bengali literature and stood far above politics and communalism. While Bankimchandra was spreading the poison of communalism in the literary sphere, Mosharraf Hossain, taking no notice of it, devoted himself with an artist’s sensibility to writing instructive literature for Muslims. He pursued literary work for more than forty years, encompassing novels, biographies, historical narratives, dramas, humorous writing, poetry, and songs. His greatest work is Bishad Sindhu. Although the characters of Bishad Sindhu were taken from history, it cannot be called a historical work. Nevertheless, it was the most widely read book in Muslim society.

Another luminary appeared in the sky of contemporary Bengali literature: the rebel poet Kazi Nazrul Islam. Many other Muslim poets and writers also entered the field of Bengali literature during the same period, including Kaykobad, Ismail Hossain Siraji, Moniruzzaman Islamabadi, and Munshi Meherullah. By creating literature in their own distinctive traditions, they inspired the Muslim nation with self-awareness and a sense of distinct identity. Many Muslim poets and writers had appeared in Bengali literature before Nazrul, but there was a clear difference between their literary tradition and Nazrul’s. The others seem to have entered the literary arena with timid steps and weak hearts. Considering Bengali literature the Hindu’s daughter, born of Sanskrit, they cautiously avoided allowing the Arabic, Urdu, and Persian vocabulary of Muslims to touch it, and even carefully avoided Muslim features and signs in similes, ornaments, and style. But Nazrul’s sudden appearance in the history of Bengali literature created wonder and initiated a revolutionary age. The Bengali language and literature of Muslims had been awakened and directed toward the Vedas, Puranas, and Hindu nationalism; Nazrul turned its course toward the Muslim qibla. Returning from a battlefield reddened with fresh human blood, he entered the battlefield of literature with fierce momentum and heroic force. Hesitation, timidity, and cowardice never found a place in his mind. Thus he was able to raise his banner of victory in the literary arena. By removing the hesitation of the Muslim poets and writers of his time, he brought a Muslim-like freedom to the field of literature. The resonance of Arabic and Persian began to be heard again in every line of his poetry. His use of Arabic and Persian vocabulary was so skillful, disciplined, and vibrant that the language gained a free-flowing movement, the meter became smooth, and the musical resonance became sweet and appealing. By introducing Arabic and Persian words into modern Bengali, he not only beautified the language but also reestablished the distinctiveness and rightful possession of Muslims in Bengali. He opened a new horizon for Muslim practitioners of literature in Bengali. The poet Nazrul was a great wonder of the poetic and literary world. His talent was wholly God-given. He appeared like a comet at a time when Rabindranath Tagore had already secured an honored place in the court of world literature. The revolutionary poet Nazrul had to acknowledge Tagore’s genius in these words:

Come, come, O comet,

Build a fiery bridge through the darkness,

Upon that fortress-head of evil days—

Fly your banner of victory.

Let the mark of ill omen

Be written to the rhythm of the night,

Awaken, with a flash of brilliance,

Those who remain half-conscious.

Just as Nazrul’s poetic genius seated him on a lofty throne in the literary world, so his revolutionary poetry awakened the dormant Muslim mind and gave it invincible inspiration and vitality on its new path. The disgrace of Muslims, who had hitherto been outcasts in the literary field, was removed. Their inertia was broken. They threw themselves into every sphere of life with renewed enthusiasm and energy. Nazrul called out to the dormant Muslim:

In every direction the red torch of the faith of Islam is blazing anew,

O heedless one, you too arise and awaken; light your own lamp of life.

His call did not go unanswered. Not only in literature, but also in politics, a new Muslim caravan began its journey with ceaseless momentum.

The Muslim in the Nineteenth Century

The Muslim Facing the Severest Trial by Fire

The period from 1800 to 1857 and for several decades thereafter was an age of fire for the Muslims. At that time, the Muslims of Bengal stood as a community on the brink of a fiery abyss. After political power had passed from their hands, extreme catastrophe also appeared in their economic, religious, and cultural spheres. Despite the persecution and oppression of the foreign rulers and their locally favored collaborators, the Muslim community could not accept their rule and exploitation. This found expression many times and in many places during this century through rebellions and skirmishes against the rulers. The Fakir Rebellion, the Faraizi Movement, Titumir’s Movement, the Jihad Movement of Sayyid Ahmad, and the War of Independence of 1857 were tremendous explosions against the inhuman and demonic treatment of Muslims by the British and Hindus. A separate discussion of each of these forms the main subject of this chapter.

The Fakir Movement

Such history of the Fakir Movement as can be learned proves that the ‘Fakir Rebellion’ began after the Battle of Plassey, particularly after Mir Qasim’s defeat in 1764, when the East India Company obtained the Diwani and began exercising its oppressive rule, and that it ended in 1833 or 1834. It is difficult to say whether the Fakir Rebellion had any lofty objective behind it or whether there was any well-organized and disciplined force to conduct it. It is likewise difficult to say whether the Fakir rebellions that occurred at different times and in different places had any connection with one another. However, the reason they declared their rebellion was the inhuman oppression and persecution inflicted jointly by the East India Company and the new Hindu zamindars and moneylenders favored by it.

The main purpose of their campaigns was to expel the exploitative zamindars created and protected by the East India Company and to plunder their treasuries. As a result of their campaigns in North Bengal, many zamindars had already taken refuge in various places in Mymensingh District by 1773. (The Fakir Campaign in Mymensingh, Khalekdad Chowdhury, in Shatabdi Parikrama, edited by Dr. Hasan Zaman, p. 26.)

Among those who led the Fakir Movement were Majnu Shah, Maju Shah, Tipu Pagal, and Ghazanfar Turkshah. In his essay The Fakir Campaign in Mymensingh, Khalekdad Chowdhury identifies Majnu Shah as Maju Shah’s elder brother. All that is known about him is that he formed an armed force against the rule of the East India Company. Mir Qasim Ali’s defeat in 1764 firmly established English domination in this country. But at the same time, at Kumarkhali in present-day Kushtia District in the south, the British forces had to suffer defeat at the hands of Majnu’s (Majnu Shah’s) followers. (Azizur Rahman, ‘The Contribution of South Bengal to the Revolutionary Movement,’ in Shatabdi Parikrama, edited by Hasan Zaman, p. 180.)

In 1784, Majushah plundered all the wealth of the zamindars of Mymensingh, Alapsingh, Jafarsahi, and Sherpur parganas. A report spread there that Majnu Shah, the brother of Maju Shah, was coming to Jafarsahi Pargana with two hundred formidable Fakirs. Fearing his campaign, the zamindars and peasants fled elsewhere. But a report by Mr. Day, the Chief of Dhaka, reveals that it was the Begambari troops who resisted that campaign. As a result, the Fakirs withdrew. Mr. Day’s report further states that the alleged plundering of the zamindars’ wealth was untrue. Cunning and dishonest zamindars had sent this false report to the Revenue Committee in order to evade revenue. (Shatabdi Parikrama, p. 27.)

The Fakir campaign began again two years later, in 1786. Lieutenant Field was sent to Dhaka to protect Mymensingh from Fakir attacks. Captain Creighton was sent from Goalpara in Assam to assist Mymensingh’s Collector Roughton. In the fierce clash between the Fakirs and the well-equipped English troops, the Fakir force was defeated and scattered. After that, nothing was known of their activities for a long time.

After the Fakir campaigns ceased, the zamindars began collecting increased revenue from the peasants in the name of recovering their losses and imposing new taxes. As a result, the peasants’ misery reached its extreme.

In 1826, an influential Fakir named Tipu Pagal formed a powerful force with peasant cultivators in order to end the oppression of the peasants. The zamindars, disregarding all principles of justice and Regulation No. 8 of 1793, continued imposing various ‘abwab’ on the peasants. These abwab and ever-new oppressive taxes were forcibly collected. Moreover, the zamindars temporarily leased their estates at high prices to influential men. Within the stipulated period, the lessees collected revenue from the peasants at high rates through oppression. Tipu organized the peasants to stop these abuses.

Many historians have called these campaigning Fakirs plundering bandits. In fact, that was not so. They were actually members of the class of awliya and dervishes revered by the people.

Tipu Pagal was the mastan of an influential Fakir from the village of Letirkandi in Subub Pargana. Everyone believed that he was a kamil dervish. Many miraculous stories about him are still current, and many people still gather at his shrine on the occasion of the urs. (Khalekdad Chowdhury, Shatabdi Parikrama, pp. 28–29.)

Teaching people religious practices was the work of these Fakirs. But their souls cried out at the extreme misery of the common people. As a result, they sometimes conducted campaigns against the oppressors.

Nor were these bands of Fakirs uncivilized barbarians. They were educated and possessed good taste. Even Tipu’s mother had exceptional organizational ability. Tipu’s mother inspired Tipu and his force. In 1825, under Tipu’s leadership, the Fakirs launched a movement to stop the zamindars’ revenue collection. In a clash between the zamindars’ barkandaz force and the Fakirs, the barkandaz force was annihilated. In another clash involving the zamindars, the barkandaz force was annihilated. The zamindars sought the Company’s assistance. The Company sent an armed force to arrest Tipu and his associate Ghazanfar Turkshah. One detachment was defeated and fled, but another captured Tipu. Turkshah attacked that Company detachment with his men and freed Tipu.

After this incident, Magistrate Dampier arrived at Sherpur with a powerful and well-trained army. In a fierce battle with Tipu’s force, Tipu and his mother were captured.

Later, in 1833, the Fakir band regrouped under the leadership of two of Tipu’s powerful associates and attacked and burned the Sherpur police station. An army under Captain Seal and Lieutenant Younghusband was then sent to suppress the Fakir force. A fierce clash took place, in which the Fakir force was defeated and scattered.

Some account of the Fakir Rebellion has been given above. However, there is sufficient reason to suspect that the false notions about the Fakirs recorded in the works of English writers and historians were deliberate. Warren Hastings called them Bedouins, while Hunter called them ‘robbers.’ Through their campaigns, the newly established British Raj was shaken here for several decades; perhaps out of that resentment their history was distorted. Majnu Shah and Maju Shah were called brothers above. We have no historical information or evidence by which to verify this. Some, however, have said that Majnu Shah was born in the Mewat area of the Indian state of Gwalior. Majnu Shah lived at the shrine of Shah Madar in Makanpur, forty miles from Kanpur. From there, accompanied by thousands of armed followers, he campaigned against the English and oppressive zamindars in various parts of Bengal and Bihar. It is said that his field of activity included Purnea in Bihar and Rangpur, Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri, Cooch Behar, Rajshahi, Maldah, Pabna, and Mymensingh in Bengal.

At the beginning of 1772, Majnu Shah appeared in North Bengal with a large number of armed followers. His appearance is mentioned in a letter written to the Company by the Supervisor of Rajshahi on January 22, 1772. It stated that a band of three hundred Fakirs had taken one thousand taka of collected revenue, and it was feared that they might even seize the pargana treasury. They were equipped with swords, spears, matchlocks, and fireworks weapons. Some said they even possessed swivel guns. (History of the Struggle for Independence, Abu Zafar, p. 33.)

In 1776, Majnu Shah came to Mahasthan in Bogra and built a fort. At that time, Mr. Gladwin was the Supervisor of Bogra District. Terrified, he requested military assistance from the Provincial Council. In August and September 1786, the Fakir chief, Majnu Shah, had to face two successive clashes with the English. In both cases, just as some Fakirs were killed or wounded, the English likewise suffered some losses. Historical evidence suggests that Majnu Shah then crossed the Ganges and returned to his homeland. He was never seen in Bangladesh again. According to official sources, he died around 1787 in the Makhnapur area of Kanpur District. His body was taken from there to his birthplace, Mewat, and buried. (History of the Struggle for Independence, Abu Zafar, pp. 40–41.)

After Majnu Shah’s death, his son Parag Ali, adopted son Cherag Ali, close devotee Musa Shah, Sobhan Shah, Shamsher Shah, and other disciples continued the struggle against the English until the end of the eighteenth century.

Ninth Chapter

The Faraizi Movement

The English did not stop after defeating Siraj al-Daulah through deceitful tactics by staging a battle at Plassey and defeating Mir Qasim in 1764, thereby obtaining the reins of government of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. Rather, they began seeking new schemes to annihilate the Muslim community. Their insatiable greed for wealth exposed them to oppressing the peasants. The Muslims’ ayma and lakhraj lands were confiscated. To collect revenue from the Muslims, they began subjecting the peasants to cruel exploitation and oppression. To create a market for British textiles, they began the work of eliminating the weavers (1770–1825). In 1766, by imposing a tax of two rupees per maund of salt, they placed the salt trade under the Europeans’ monopoly. Thus the Muslims were driven out of every economic sphere and gradually crushed by poverty.

Not only that, Muslims also began to face obstacles in observing religious rites. Cow sacrifice and the call to prayer were prohibited in the territories of oppressive Hindu zamindars. Hindu zamindars imposed a tax on Muslim peasants’ beards. Muslims were forced to contribute to their Hindu festivals, provide offerings for worship, and perform unpaid labor. Muslims were forced to wear dhotis, shave their beards, and keep moustaches. A disastrous plan began to destroy the Muslims’ religion and tahdhib-tamaddun and merge them into the Hindu nation. Religious Muslims became bewildered. During this extremely difficult period for Bengal’s Muslims, Haji Shariatullah was born in 1784 in Bandar Pargana of Faridpur District. At the age of eighteen, he remained there and received instruction in religion, social science, and politics. It was probably during this period that he gained a clear understanding of Islam and knowledge of the Islamic philosophy of life. Islam is not merely a collection of certain rituals; rather, it is a complete way of life. He also realized that it is impossible to observe Islam’s complete injunctions in every sphere of life without political power. He returned to his homeland in 1820.

While staying in Mecca, he also became acquainted with Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Najdi’s Islamic reform movement and was attracted to it.

In Delhi, an Islamic reform movement was also begun in India under the leadership of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, following Abd al-Wahhab Najdi; historians gave it the distorted name ‘Wahhabi Movement.’ Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, Shah Ismail, the nephew of Shah Abdul Aziz, and his son-in-law Maulana Abdul Hai devoted themselves to an active movement to declare India ‘Dar al-Harb’ and transform it into ‘Dar al-Islam,’ that is, an Islamic state.

Haji Shariatullah too declared this country ‘Dar al-Harb’ and announced that, until it became ‘Dar al-Islam,’ Friday and Eid prayers were not valid here. He described any financial or physical assistance to Hindu worship and festivals as contrary to Islam (shirk and haram). He further said that Muslims must abandon the dhoti and wear tahband-pajamas, keep beards, and repent of all forms of superstition. In short, they had to abandon every sinful act and begin living an Islamic life anew.

The exploited, deprived, and oppressed Muslim masses felt a new vitality in response to Haji Shariatullah’s call and began receiving initiation from him in groups. Within a short time, ten thousand Muslims joined his group. This was a matter of great alarm for the Hindu zamindars. Muslim oppression would now cease, and the poor Muslims of the lower classes whom they had reduced to abject servitude and driven away from Islam would also slip from their grasp. Therefore, they naturally became anxious and terrified. “The Zaminders were alarmed at the spread of the new creed which bound the Mussalman peasantry toghetrer as one mai” —(Dr. James Wise; Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. LXII, 1894, No. 1).

The Hindu zamindars united and became determined to suppress Haji Shariatullah. A number of self-interested semi-Muslims, who were the abject servants of the Hindu zamindars, joined them. Short-sighted mullahs, maulvis, and pirs, who earned a few coins from the Muslims in the name of superstitions such as shirk and bid‘ah, also opposed the Faraizi Movement.

On one side the British, and on the other the repeated oppression of the tyrannical Hindu zamindars and moneylenders, had left the Muslims helpless, bowing their heads and enduring everything. At Shariatullah’s call, oppressed Muslims began gathering before him in groups and vowed to build an irresistible movement against the British and Hindus. Faraizi apparently derived from the word ‘farz’; Muslims had begun forgetting the obligatory duties and had introduced many un-Islamic customs and ceremonies into Muslim society. Abandoning all practices opposed to Islam and re-establishing the Islam founded by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the principal objective of the movements of such thinkers as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Najdi of Arabia, Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Haji Shariatullah, Sayyid Nisar Ali, alias Titumir, and others.

Because Haji Shariatullah’s movement dealt a severe blow to Hindu interests, they used all their strength, with the aid of the English rulers, to suppress him. Evidence of how hostile the attitude of contemporary Hindu society was toward Haji Shariatullah is found in a letter published in the Samachar Darpan dated April 22, 1837. The letter is quoted below:

It has recently been heard that in Bahadurpur village, within the limits of Shibchar police station in Faridpur District, a man named Saritulla, aspiring to become a king, has organized approximately twelve thousand weavers and Muslims, issued a new sharia, caused his followers to grow beards and remove their waistcloths, tied religious cords around their waists, and attacked the houses of the surrounding Hindus, inflicting countless injuries upon the worship of the gods and goddesses. He has broken the twelve Shiva lingas erected by Dewan Mrityunjay Ray, a resident of Rajnagar under Matlabganj police station in the Dhaka District, and immersed them in the river; and after attacking at night the house of a gentleman in Poragacha village within the limits of that station, plundering everything, and setting fire to his house and reducing the remainder to ashes, one of these heathens has been killed and brought to Dhaka for trial.

It has also been heard that when the wicked heathens belonging to Saritulla’s party committed various outrages against Babu Tarini Charan Majumdar of Patkanda village in Faridpur, attacking the worship of gods and goddesses in his house and committing such evil acts as cow slaughter, Majumdar Babu, considering a face-to-face fight with the heathens permissible, reported these outrages to the Faridpur magistrate. The magistrate, after hearing the case, imprisoned several heathens and is investigating the matter thoroughly. Sir, editor, the wicked heathens, not stopping these oppressions and outrages in the mofussil, have instead begun attacking the courts. It has been heard that all the clerks and pleaders appointed in the Faridpur magistrate’s court are followers of Saritulla the heathen. Their practice is this: whenever a false accusation must be made against someone, one person appears as complainant and another as witness, and a case is brought; thus twelve thousand people are organized. What defect can there be in the complainant’s or witness’s testimony in such a matter? I believe that as the heathen Saritulla’s organization continues to grow, Hinduism will disappear within a short time and destruction will come prematurely. Titumir did not commit even one hundredth of Saritulla’s violence. Dated 24 Chaitra, Bengali year 1243.” (“Accounts of Those Days in Newspapers,” edited by Brajendranath Bandyopadhyay, Shatabdi Parikrama, pp. 194–95.)

The attitude of Hindu society toward Muslims is vividly revealed in every line of this letter.

Haji Shariatullah was also attracted to Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi’s movement to establish an Islamic state and sent many mujahids from Bangladesh, along with large sums collected from zakat, fitra, and lillah and various other forms of assistance, to the Sittana center in western India.

Shariatullah’s new field of activity was first established at a place called Nayabari in Dhaka District. But because of the extreme opposition of the Hindu zamindars, he had to return to his own village and begin his preaching work there. His movement spread through Dhaka, Barisal, Nadia, Pabna, Mymensingh, and other districts. The introduction of prayer and fasting among illiterate cultivators, weavers, and other ordinary Muslims, the use of tahband and caps instead of dhotis, and the repair of mosques continued with full vigor. Haji Shariatullah himself wore a huge turban and a hudria over his shirt, clothing that Muslims generally did not wear. After his death in 1840, his capable son Dudu Miah continued his movement.

Haji Shariatullah’s son, Muhammad Muhsin, alias Dudu Miah, was born in 1819. In 1831, he went to Mecca to perform the Hajj and stayed there for five years; after returning, he assisted his father in his work.

Like his father, Dudu Miah also began a movement against the oppressive zamindars. He repeatedly came into conflict with the zamindars. In 1842, he attacked a zamindar’s house in Faridpur and captured and later killed Madan Narayan Ghosh. The police arrested 117 Faraizis, including him. Twenty-two were sentenced to imprisonment, but Dudu Miah was acquitted for lack of evidence. In 1846, Andrew Anderson’s gomasta, Kali Prasad, attacked Dudu Miah’s house with seven or eight hundred men on his master’s orders and looted much wealth, including ornaments worth approximately 150,000. Even after seeking justice from the magistrate, he obtained no result.

Having sought justice against the oppression of the zamindars and indigo planters and received none, Dudu Miah now resolved to punish his enemies with his own hands. In November 1846, one month after his house had been looted, he burned down the indigo planter Dunlop’s factory, which fueled his enemies’ oppression, and killed the gomasta Kali Prasad. After the case continued for two years, Dudu Miah was released from the charges brought against him.

The government became troubled upon observing Dudu Miah’s extraordinary influence and prestige among the people. During the War of Independence of 1857, he was detained in prison on the pretext that he might create unrest. He was first held in Alipore and later in Faridpur Jail. After being released in 1859, he came to Dhaka, where he died.

Dudu Miah certainly strengthened his father’s movement. But in terms of principles, he modified his father’s ideals to some extent. The six matters on which Haji Shariatullah based his movement were as follows:

>> Friday and Eid prayers are not valid anywhere except in a Muslim-ruled country;

>> Observing the festivals and ceremonies of Muharram is contrary to Islam and sinful;

>> The terms ‘ustad’ and ‘shagird’ should be used instead of the two terms ‘pir’ and ‘murid.’ The reason is that a murid surrenders all that he possesses to his pir, which is not right. A shagird, on the other hand, is not required to do so.

>> There will be no distinction of high and low, ‘Ashraf’ and ‘Atraf,’ among those who join this movement. Rather, equal status will be established among all, something absent in the pir-murid relationship.

>> He strongly protested against the worship of pirs and graves, declaring them condemned by Islam.

>> Instead of the custom then prevailing of pledging allegiance by placing one’s hand in a pir’s hand, those joining the Faraizi Movement would sincerely repent of all sinful acts and vow to lead a complete Islamic life.

>> He declared that even cutting the umbilical cord of a newborn by a midwife was contrary to Islam, saying that this was the father’s task, not that of an unrelated midwife.

James Taylor says that the purpose of the Faraizi Movement was to follow the Qur’an literally, and that all ceremonies not endorsed by the Qur’an were to be rejected. Not only was observing the ceremonies of Muharram prohibited; watching the activities of those ceremonies was also prohibited. (Dr. A. R. Mallick: British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 69.)

After Haji Shariatullah’s death, Dudu Miah divided all of East Bengal into several areas to strengthen the movement and appointed one khalifa in each area. Their duties were to call people toward the movement, recruit workers, and collect funds to administer the organization. Thus, an organizational structure was created at whose head Dudu Miah presided as a ‘pir,’ the very pir system his father had rejected. (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. LXIII, pt. 2, No. 1, 1894, p. 50; Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 2, p. 59.)

The movement conducted during Haji Shariatullah’s lifetime was primarily a religious reform movement. Apart from one or two clashes instigated by oppressive zamindars, his movement did not come into conflict with entrenched interests. But during Dudu Mian’s time, the movement assumed a largely political character. All the zamindars and indigo planters united against his movement. Thus, Dudu Mian spent his entire life struggling against them. On the one hand, the various forms of oppression inflicted by the zamindars and indigo planters upon the poor tenants, and on the other, Dudu Mian’s all-out efforts to alleviate their suffering, united them under his leadership. Dudu Mian also possessed extraordinary organizational ability. The zamindars of Bengal were almost all Hindus, while the indigo planters were English Christians and their gomastas and employees were all Hindus. For this reason too, the peasant tenants united under Dudu Mian’s leadership against the zamindars and indigo planters. Dudu Mian’s entire life was spent struggling against the zamindars and indigo planters. He was entangled in ever-new false lawsuits. Ultimately, these brought him into poverty.

After Dudu Mian’s death, his first and second sons, Giasuddin Haider and Naya Mian respectively, led the Faraizi Movement. After Naya Mian’s death, Dudu Mian’s third son, Aladin Ahmad, conducted the movement. He cooperated with Nawab Salimullah in support of the Partition of Bengal in 1905. After Aladin, his son Badshah Mian led the movement. In 1922, he joined the Khilafat Movement, and the government arrested him at that time. Thereafter, the Faraizi Movement gradually subsided. The religious reform movement with which this movement had begun gradually faded and flowed into another channel. The pir-muridi that Haji Shariatullah had rejected, giving the movement the form of a pure Islamic reform movement, ultimately transformed this movement into that very pir-muridi. As a result, the earlier jihadi inspiration and militant spirit departed from the activities and methods of the adherents of this movement.

Chapter Ten

The Martyr Titumir

The Martyr Titumir was an exceedingly oppressed man of his time. Like Haji Shariatullah, he too began a reform movement in the degenerate Muslim society. In his purely religious reform movement, the Hindu zamindars did not merely create obstacles; their blind hatred of Islam and the Muslim nation became manifest. It is deeply regrettable that Titumir’s character has been grossly distorted in contemporary histories. The reason is also quite clear. The hostile comments that have been made are distorted, imaginative, and motivated. A man of pure character and God-loving intellectual stature like Titumir has been called a man of bad character, a criminal, and a bandit. On page 76 of his book British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, Dr. A. R. Mallick presented distorted information, citing Calcutta Review, Boards Collections, 54222, p. 401, Colvin to Barwell, 8 March 1832, para. 6, Magistrate of Banaset to Commissioner of Circuit, 18 Div., 28 November 1831, para. 35, and others. It has been stated that Titumir was not born into any notable family, but married into the family of a respectable jotedar named Munshi Amir. It has further been stated that Titumir was known as a man of bad character and a criminal, and worked as a hired ruffian under a Hindu zamindar of Nadia. These statements are nothing but complete denials of the truth. On the basis of these accounts, or blinded by hatred of Islam, Mr. Hunter too remarked: “Among the disciples, assistants and followers of the religious leaders in Calcutta at this time was a man named Titumir, a professional wrestler and of a ruffianly nature. Although this man began life as the son of a respectable peasant, he improved his position by marrying into a zamindar’s household. But because of his fierce and unruly character, he did not retain that position.” (W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans, B. D., First Edition, 1975, pp. 34–35).

The English Christian Mr. Hunter also made a well-known statement about Syed Ahmad Shahid, the eternally remembered and eminent intellectual of the Muslim world. His discussion will be presented in its proper place. We shall discuss Titumir’s movement and activities on the basis of whatever reliable information about the Martyr Titumir has been discovered. I hope this will prove that there is not the remotest connection between his teachings, character, love of God, and lifelong spirit of struggle against falsehood, injustice, and oppression, on the one hand, and the fabricated account above, on the other.

Twenty-five years after the Battle of Plassey and seventy-five years before the all-India struggle for independence in the fifth decade of the nineteenth century (1857), Syed Nisar Ali, known as Titumir, was born in 1782 in the village of Chandpur in the Twenty-Four Parganas district of West Bengal. His father’s name was Mir (Syed) Hasan Ali, and his mother’s name was Abeda Rokeya Khatun. (Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 1).

English historians, out of contempt and in order to belittle Titumir, described him as having come from an insignificant peasant family. In reality, however, he was born into the renowned Sayyid lineage. Among the saints and dervishes who came to Bengal in ancient times to preach Islam, the names of Sayyid Shah Hasan Razi and Sayyid Shah Jalal Razi are found in old records and documents. Mir Nisar Ali, known as Titumir, was born in the thirtieth generation descended respectively from Sayyid Abbas Ali and Sayyid Shah Shahadat Ali, two brothers descended from Sayyid Shah Jalal Razi and Sayyid Shah Hashmat Ali. (Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, pp. 3–4).

Titumir married Maymuna Khatun Siddiqi, granddaughter of the renowned dervish of that time, Shah Sufi Muhammad Asmatullah Siddiqi, and daughter of Shah Sufi Muhammad Rahimullah Siddiqi. (Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 16).

Abu Jafar says that Mir Nisar Ali’s father was Mir Hasan Ali and his mother was Abeda Rokeya Khatun. Titumir married Maymuna Siddiqi, daughter of Hazrat Shah Sufi Muhammad Rahimullah Siddiqi. Fourteen days after the marriage, his paternal grandfather’s younger brother, Sayyid Umar Daraz Razi, passed away. Six months later, his father, Mir Hasan Ali, died. (History of the Struggle for Independence, Abu Jafar, pp. 117–18). His own grandfather, Sayyid Shah Qadam Rasul, passed away before Nisar Ali was born. It was at the hands of his younger brother, Shah Umar Daraz Razi, that Nisar Ali’s father, Mir Hasan Ali, became a murid.

These facts prove that Syed Nisar Ali, known as Titumir, was born into a very high lineage. Yet he has been portrayed as an unruly, ill-natured young man and a paid member of a Hindu zamindar’s gang of ruffians. On the basis of reliable information concerning his education and character formation, the discussion will prove the above remarks about him to be unfounded.

According to the custom prevailing in respectable Muslim families of that time, when Nisar Ali was four years, four months, and four days old, his parents appointed their son’s ustad, Munshi Lalmia, to teach Nisar Ali Arabic, Persian, and Urdu. His parents were by no means indifferent to the education of his mother tongue. For this reason, they appointed Pandit Rarkamal Bhattacharya of the neighboring village of Sherpur to teach him Bengali, elementary arithmetic, mathematics, and so forth. When a skilled scholar named Hafiz Niamatullah came to Chandpur village from Bihar Sharif at this time, the village guardians appointed him head teacher, and Nisar Ali became a hafiz of the Qur’an. In addition, he attained special proficiency in Arabic grammar, the science of faraiz, Hadith and philosophy, logic, tasawwuf, and Arabic-Persian poetry and literature. He could deliver fluent speeches in Arabic, Persian, and Bengali.

In the era when Titumir was born, the boys and young men of Bengal regularly practiced physical exercise. The madrasa grounds established midway between the villages of Chandpur and Haidarpur served as a training ground. Sheikh Muhammad Hanif, a resident of Haidarpur, taught physical exercise. At this training ground they were taught wrestling, kabaddi, stick fighting, shield-and-sword play, swordsmanship, archery and sling use, the handling of bamboo guns, and so forth. Hafiz Niamatullah continued to teach not only Arabic and Persian but also the Qur’an. Every day, during gatherings and in the evening and at night, he taught various techniques of physical exercise and weapons training. The senior students of this training ground were two men—Sheikh Muhammad Hanif and Syed Nisar Ali, known as Titumir.

He was probably married in the first decade of the twentieth century. About a year and a half later, he stayed with his ustad Hafiz Niamatullah in Calcutta and Talibtola (now called Taltala), at the home of Hafiz Muhammad Israel. Hafiz Israel was also a resident of Bihar Sharif. He was appointed pesh imam of the Taltala Jami Mosque; it was here that he married and became a resident of Calcutta. A part of Talibtola, or Taltala, was then called Misriganj. There was a wrestling ground or center here whose president was Jamaluddin Afendi. Professional wrestling competitions had not yet become customary in that age. Wealthy people gave prizes and robes of honor to the victor to encourage the acquisition of physical strength and valor, and gave only prizes to the defeated. The wrestlers had not yet adopted the idea that they should earn wealth by wrestling.

During Titumir’s stay in Calcutta, wrestling competitions were held at the Misriganj training ground, and the victorious wrestler received generous prizes. Titumir earned considerable renown in the wrestling competitions there. Hafiz Niamatullah and Hafiz Muhammad Israel were especially fond of wrestling competitions.

Another great enthusiast of wrestling was Mirza Ghulam Ambia. A brief account of him will not be irrelevant here. He belonged to a royal family and was childless. He was a zamindar, and because he had no children, he spent most of the income from his estate on charitable works.

His zamindar house stood in the Mirzapur–Ahharst Street area of Calcutta before the Partition of India. His house was called Mirza Manzil. Mirzapur Street was named after him. South of Mirza Manzil were Mirza Talab and Mirzabagh. Mirzabagh was later called Mirzapur Park. The place where his reception room stood was later named Baithakkhana Road. Mirza Sahib was always engaged in worship and devotion. In his old age, he donated the land at Mirzapur and Baithakkhana Road, Mirza Talab, Mirzabagh, and other properties to the Calcutta Municipality, sold his houses and other possessions, and migrated to Mecca. Mirza Talab and Mirzabagh, which were called and widely known as Mirzapur Park until almost the end of British rule, were renamed Swami Shraddhanand Park in the 1930s. The municipality had no lawful right to do this. Twenty to twenty-five thousand agitated Muslims gathered at Mirzapur Park to protest this injustice. But it produced no result.

After coming into the company of the aforementioned Mirza Ghulam Ambia, Mir Nisar Ali developed a strong desire to pledge allegiance to a perfected murshid. Subsequently, when a dervish named Zaki Shah came to Talibtola in Calcutta, Nisar Ali appeared before him and expressed his desire to become his murid. Shah Sahib gazed at his face for a while and said, “Unless you visit the House of Allah, you will not find the pir appointed for you.”

In the hope of finding a true murshid, Mir Nisar Ali eventually went to Mecca, where he met Syed Ahmad Barelvi. There, Mir Nisar Ali pledged allegiance to him and became his murid.

After completing the Hajj and other rites, Syed Ahmad Barelvi gave the following instructions to his khalifas, Maulana Shah Muhammad Ismail and Maulana Ishaq:

“When you reach your respective homes, rest for fifteen days. Then, when you reach Bareilly, I will travel with you to various parts of India. After resting for a few days in Patna, I will go to Calcutta.

His instructions to the khalifas of Bengal were as follows:

When I reach Patna, I will inform Maulana Abdul Bari Khan (the father of Maulana Akram Khan), Maulana Muhammad Husain, Maulana Haji Shariatullah, Maulana Syed Nisar Ali (Titumir), Maulana Sufi Khodadad Siddiqi, and Maulana Karamat Ali. You will learn from them the date of my arrival in Calcutta. At the meeting to be held in Calcutta, our final program will be adopted.

Thereafter, everyone returned from Mecca to his respective home. Later, at the appointed time, they gathered at Shansunnisa Khanam’s garden house in Calcutta. After discussion, it was decided that Patna would be the central capital of the mujahids and that each province would have a provincial capital. Funds for conducting jihad would be sent from the provincial capitals to the center.

After these decisions, the speech delivered by Maulana Syed Nisar Ali (Titumir) at that meeting is particularly noteworthy. He said:

The faith of the Muslims of Bengal has become very weak. Until they are made true Muslims, it will be dangerous to send them to jihad. I am taking responsibility for conveying the Islamic da‘wah among them. Not only that, I believe that lower-caste Hindus too can join our struggle.… For the lower-caste Hindus are not content with the Brahmins, Vaidyas, Kshatriyas, and Kayasthas. If we can make the Muslims firm Muslims and unite the lower-caste Hindus and Muslims, then … it will not be difficult for us to establish contact with the center and assist it.

The advisory council then decided that Bengal would secretly assist the center in all other matters, but would not openly participate in jihad. However, those who wished to join the center would not be prevented.

(Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, pp. 22–37).

Syed Nisar Ali then began his activities, which we wish to discuss in detail below. An account of his activities—from his student life through his life in Calcutta, his journey in search of a pir, performance of the Hajj, and becoming a disciple of Syed Ahmad Barelvi—has been given above. The claim that he ever worked as a hired stick-fighter in a Hindu zamindar’s gang of ruffians is entirely baseless and unfounded. This is a deliberate attempt to distort his lofty ideals, character, and greatness and make him despised and hated in the eyes of the public.

In the speech quoted above, Titumir said, “The faith of the Muslims of Bengal has become very weak.” Before discussing his movement and activities, we need to know how weak the Muslims’ faith was and in what circumstances he began his Islamic da‘wah. The Hindu community of Bengal, conspiring with the English and committing the utmost treachery toward its motherland, not only deprived the Muslims of their kingdom, but also closed every avenue of livelihood and left no stone unturned in trying to destroy the faith—the greatest resource of a Muslim. By leaving the Muslims Muslim in name only, driving them away from faith, the Islamic way of life, and Islamic culture, and reducing them to beings lower than the lowest Hindus, it sought to turn them into slaves of slaves.

We discussed in the preceding chapter, entitled ‘The Religious, Social, and Cultural Condition of the Muslims,’ how far the Muslim nation had declined religiously and culturally in the early eighteenth century. I feel it necessary to discuss briefly how much that condition had deteriorated by Titumir’s time.

The new Hindu zamindars of Bengal had become great favorites of the English. Their established rule in this country depended entirely on keeping them satisfied in every respect while suppressing the Muslims. Thus, the Hindu zamindars dared to issue lawful and unlawful orders over ordinary Muslims.

Just as the Brahmins deprived lower-caste Hindus of freedom in religious practice and the right to enter temples, the upper-caste Hindus similarly set up a group of people among the Muslims as Muslim Brahmins and deprived the Muslim masses of the light of Islam.

Abdul Gafur Siddiqi says in his book:

The Hindu zamindars and upper-caste Hindus of West Bengal explained to the illiterate Muslims: You are poor. Your households cannot survive unless you farm or work as day laborers. Under these circumstances, when will you have time for your daily, weekly, and annual prayers, fasting, Hajj, zakat, funeral prayers, supplication, bathing the dead, and other religious duties? And after performing all these acts, when will you have time to earn money, and how will you run your household? Therefore, we will perform these religious duties for you as well, and your time will not be wasted.

The Muslims of the peasant and agricultural-laborer classes of West Bengal, deprived of the teachings of the religion of Islam, sincerely accepted this advice from the babus. Gradually, this disease spread into Muslim society in East Bengal as well. At the same time, Azazil the Devil and the inciting self, nafs al-ammara, instigated them. In reply to the babus, they said:

Babu, you have spoken exactly right. Until now, no one has given us such good advice. We are ignorant and understand nothing. Do whatever you think is best for us.

(Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, pp. 5–6).

Needless to say, there was no shortage of people who would play the role of Muslim Brahmins. In ancient times, at the royal courts of the Muslims, a class of Muslims was honored with fine titles as a reward for their abilities; moreover, lands and various kinds of property, including ayma and lakhraj grants, were donated for their maintenance. After the arrival of the English, these possessions were confiscated. They became destitute and penniless. Since they were not accustomed to physical labor, their means of livelihood also disappeared. Nor did they have the ability to pursue education.

They had, so to speak, become a class of respectable beggars. Among them were some people bearing such names as Sheikh, Sayyid, Mir, and Qazi. They were descendants of old established families. But driven by poverty, they now had to turn to peasants, laborers, and workers. Taking advantage of their helpless condition, the upper-caste Hindus began telling them sympathetically:

The lower-class Muslims, such as peasants and laborers, no longer respect you as they once did, nor do they wish to. They do not show you reverence either. Their behavior causes us great pain in our hearts. But what can be done—it is the dark age. We wish to help you by entrusting you with the responsibility of performing their religious duties. Accept positions such as akhanji, mulla, ustadji, munshi, and qazi in Muslim society and exert influence over them. Then your future will be bright, and they too will remain obedient to you. The impoverished, ignorant or half-educated groups of Sheikhs, Sayyids, Mirs, and qazis claiming sharafat were misled by the words of the Hindu Brahmin, Kayastha, and Vaidya babus. They accepted the positions of akhanji, mulla, ustadji, and munshi and settled in as the Brahmins of the Muslim nation. They opened the way for the national ruin of the Muslim community. Following the model of Brahmins in Hindu society, the position of Brahmin was created in Muslim society as well. The ordinary Muslims, intoxicated by this outward sweetness, strayed far from the path of Islam and Islamic Shariah. As a result of the political conspiracy of the Hindu Brahmin caste, they committed suicide. (See Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 7).

The Muslims’ traditional national educational institutions had been deserted. Village schools run by Hindu pandits were established from village to village. Ordinary Muslims had to mix with the teachers, potters, washermen, barbers, astrologers, and others in these schools. All of them together prepared the ground for the Muslim Brahmins.

Those Muslims who could afford it sent their children to these schools. There, along with the Hindu students, the Muslim students too had to memorize hymns and praises to various gods and goddesses, especially invocations to Saraswati.

The textbooks were filled with glorification of Hinduism and invocations and praises of gods and goddesses. The imprint of Hinduism would be engraved upon the taste and tender hearts of Muslim students. After school, they had to recite the following rhyme, bow to the teacher, and go home:

Saraswati Bhagavati, grant me a boon,

Come, brothers, let us all study; let us go home.

Gleaming, glittering, the golden slate,

Take the writing board and slate; hail the revered teacher.

Then there was the moral aspect. When Vaishnavism was introduced by Sri Chaitanya in the sixteenth century, the Hindu community underwent extreme moral degeneration. The stream of vile sexual misconduct that flowed among the Vaishnava men and women—through the love-play of Sri Krishna and the shaven-headed Vaishnavas, in the name of religion—not only swept away a large section of Hindu society, but also attracted uneducated ordinary Muslims toward this misconduct. Influenced by the sexual corruption of left-handed Tantrics, a class of hypocritical sexual libertines also emerged among the Muslims, plunging ordinary Muslims into the filthy pit of sexual anarchy in the name of religion. Moreover, the widespread practice of pir-worship and grave-worship had brought the Muslims to the same level as the idolatrous Hindu community.

Nor did the Hindus desist from unjust interference in the naming of Muslims. In the name of Bengali-language-based nationalism, they led the Muslims astray. The Hindu teachers began saying:

Therefore, following the teachers’ arrangement, Muslims began to be given names such as Gopal, Nepal, Gobardhan, Nabai, Kushai, Padma, Chini, Champa, Badal, Patal, Mukta, and so forth. In my childhood, I became familiar with many Muslims in the villages who had such names.

Thereafter, misled by the advice of the Hindu teachers, Muslims abandoned the tahband and began wearing dhotis; they shaved their beards and began keeping moustaches. In effect, there was no way to recognize a Muslim as a Muslim.

It was during this period of extreme religious and moral degeneration among the Muslims that Syed Nisar Ali, known as Titumir, appeared. Although he could not complete his great work, the comprehensive struggle he began against religious and moral corruption and the unjust oppression of Hindu zamindars later served as a beacon on the path to the Muslims’ political, economic, and religious freedom.

After the conclusion of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi’s council of consultation in Kolkata, Titumir returned to his native village of Chandpur. After resting for some days, he began his Islamic missionary work.

The central message of Titumir’s da‘wah was to establish complete faith in Islam and to follow Allah’s and His Messenger’s commands in every action. He could not ignore the oppression and persecution inflicted by Hindu zamindars and indigo planters. He therefore said that the Hindu members of the peasant community must unite with them and build resistance against their oppression. At the request of the villagers of Sarfarazpur, he restored the ruined mosque dating from the Shahī period there and established a khanqah for preaching. After the Friday prayer, he delivered a highly significant speech here, calling together the assembled Hindus and Muslims. He said:

Islam is the religion of peace. Allah and His Messenger do not approve in any way of quarrelling or disputing with those who are not Muslims merely because they differ from us in religion. However, Islam teaches that if a powerful non-Muslim unjustly oppresses a weak Muslim, Muslims are obliged to help that weak person.

He further said that Muslims must be true Muslims in their speech and conduct. If they admire the customs, manners, ways, and actions of non-Muslims, then on the Day of Judgment Allah will place them with the non-Muslims. Titumir said that Sharī‘ah, Tarīqah, Haqīqah, and Ma‘rifah—these four together constitute the complete life of Muslims, and within them lies their salvation in this world and the hereafter. If anyone neglects them, Allah will punish that person severely. Performing prayer, fasting, keeping a beard, and trimming the moustache are obligatory duties for Muslims. Allah will severely punish those who abandon these practices following non-Muslim ideals.

This was the central message of his initial da‘wah. He could deliver fluent, moving speeches, and his speeches and preaching brought an unprecedented awakening among misguided and dormant Muslims.

There was nothing wrong in the work Titumir had begun. Rather, as a Muslim, it was his responsibility and duty. But why would the high-caste Hindus tolerate it? Their deep conspiracy to annihilate the Muslim community had been foiled, and they became enraged against Titumir and his followers. A new conspiracy was begun to destroy them.

The restoration of Sarfarazpur’s ruined mosque, the arrangement for congregational prayer once again, and Titumir’s fiery speech before the assembled people after the prayer made Krishnadev Ray, the zamindar of Pura, alarmed and agitated. The zamindar entrusted Moti, his loyal and trusted Muslim paik, with collecting information about Titumir’s movements and preaching. The zamindar said to Moti—

Titu follows the Wahhabi religion. The Wahhabis are the greatest enemies of your Prophet Muhammad’s religion. But they are so clever that they cannot be identified as Wahhabis from their words. Therefore, I cannot allow my Muslim tenants to be led astray. From today, keep watch on Titu’s movements and report everything to me.

Thereafter, after consulting Debnath Ray, the zamindar of Gobra-Gobindpur, and Kali Prasanna Mukhopadhyay, the zamindar of Gobardanga, Krishnadev Ray forced some tenants to file a complaint against Titumir for disturbing the peace. Then, on the zamindar’s orders, Matiyullah appeared at the zamindar’s kachari with his uncle Gopal, his kinsmen Nepal and Gobardhan, and submitted the complaint. Its substance was as follows:

Titumir, a resident of Chandpur, has come to our village of Sarparajpur (its Muslim name is Sarfarazpur) to preach his Wahhabi religion and has established a camp there. He is using various forms of oppression and coercion to initiate us into the Wahhabi faith. Titumir is obstructing us from following the religion of our forefathers, as we have done from generation to generation. We complain at Your Honour’s court so that Titumir and his men may not oppress the people of Sarparajpur and initiate them into their religion, nor forcibly make us keep beards, trim moustaches, slaughter cows, or adopt Arabic names, nor cause fighting between Hindus and Muslims, and so that proper action may be taken against him. Your Honour is our master. Your Honour is our father and mother.

After receiving the said petition bearing the thumbmarks of Gopal, Nepal, and Gobardhan, the zamindar Krishnadev Ray issued an order.

1. Those who become Wahhabis by accepting Titumir as their disciple, keep a beard, and trim their moustache must pay a tax of two and a half rupees for each beard and five sikkas for each moustache.

2. If a mosque is built, the zamindar’s government must be paid five hundred rupees for each thatched mosque and one thousand rupees for each masonry mosque.

3. If the names given to children by their forefathers are changed and Arabic names are adopted according to Wahhabi practice, a kharijana fee of fifty rupees for each name must be deposited with the zamindar’s government.

4. Anyone who slaughters a cow shall have his right hand cut off, so that he can never slaughter a cow again.

5. Any Wahhabi who gives Titumir shelter in his home shall be evicted from his homestead.

(Shaheed Titumir—Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, pp. 48–49; History of the Struggle for Independence, Abu Jafar, p. 119; Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultation, 3 April 1832, Nos. 5 and 6).

The names of Ram Narayan, the zamindar of Taragunia; Gaur Prasad Chowdhury, the naib of the zamindar of Kurgachhi and a resident of Nagarpur; and Krishnadev Ray, the zamindar of Pura, are found in the record concerning fines and oppression of Muslim tenants of the foregoing kind—Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultancy, 3 April 1832, No. 5. (Dr. A. R. Mallick, British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 76).

A case was filed against the zamindar Ram Narayan in the court of the Joint Magistrate of Barasat. A witness stated that the zamindar had fined him twenty-five rupees for keeping a beard and ordered that his beard be plucked out. Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultancy, 3 April 1832, No. 5; (Dr. A. R. Mallick, British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 76).

Titumir informed Krishnadev Ray by letter that he had done nothing wrong; he was preaching Islam among Muslims. Interfering in this work could in no way be considered just. Performing prayer, fasting, keeping a beard, and trimming the moustache, among other things, were religious instructions for Muslims. Hindering these practices amounted to interference in another religion.

It is necessary for readers to know what Krishnadev Ray’s reaction was after one of Titumir’s messengers handed him the letter; I mention it here.

When asked who had delivered the letter, the messenger named Sahib Titumir of Chandpur. As soon as the zamindar heard Titumir’s name, he became furious. Growling with anger, he said, “Who is that Wahhabi Titu? And who are you, you rascal?”

A certain Muchiram Bhandari was present nearby. He said, “His name is Aman Mandal. His father’s name is Kaman Mandal. He is Your Honour’s tenant. He used to shave his beard, but now he has grown one, so Your Honour cannot recognize him.”

The messenger said, “Your Honour, my name is Aminullah, and my father’s name is Kamaluddin. People call us Aman-Kaman. Keeping a beard is an injunction of our religion, so I have observed it.”

Trembling with rage, Krishnadev said, “You rascal, have you paid the beard tax and the tax for changing your name? Very well, I will show you some fun. You dare argue with me? Such insolence!” Saying this, he ordered Muchiram to have him locked in the guardroom and properly punished. Needless to say, as a result of inhuman torture and beatings, Aminullah became the first martyr of Titumir’s Islamic movement. The news spread in every direction. The Muslims were heartbroken, but lacking witnesses and evidence, they could do nothing against the powerful zamindar and remained silent.

The Zamindars’ Conspiracy Meeting in Kolkata

For the purpose of suppressing Titumir and his followers, the following persons attended a meeting at the house of a certain Latu Babu in Kolkata: Latu Babu of Kolkata; Kali Prasanna Mukhopadhyay, zamindar of Gobardanga; Debnath Ray of Gobra-Gobindpur; the manager of the zamindar of Nurnagar; the chief naib of the zamindar of Taki; the manager of the zamindar of Ranaghat; Krishnadev Ray of Pura; Ramram Chakrabarti, daroga of the Basirhat police station; Durgacharan Chakrabarti of Jadur Ati; and others.

The meeting decided that, since the downfall of the Hindu community was inevitable unless Titumir could be suppressed, he had to be dealt with by any means, and all the zamindars would provide every possible assistance and cooperation. It was also decided to seek the help of the English indigo planters. They would be told that Titumir had begun a struggle against the English as well. It would be spread among the Hindu public that Titu had destroyed their caste by forcing beef into them. The daroga Chakrabarti of Basirhat was requested to provide every kind of assistance in this matter. Kali Prasanna Mukhopadhyay said to the daroga, “You are a Brahmin, and so are we. Besides, you are our relative. You must help us in every way in this danger.” The daroga replied, “I will help even at the cost of my life, and I will prove Titumir to be a traitor.”

After the conspiracy meeting in Kolkata, Krishnadev Ray sent men to collect the beard-and-moustache tax and the kharijana fee for adopting Arabic names from the people of Sarfarazpur. But when they refused to pay, the zamindar’s employee returned and informed him of the matter. Thereafter, twelve armed barkandazes were sent to capture Titumir, but they did not dare bring him in.

Thereafter, Krishnadev sent the following persons to different places for consultation:

1. Anukul Chandra Mukhopadhyay to Gobardanga,

2. Khareshwar Mukhopadhyay to Gobra-Gobindpur,

3. Lal Bihari Chattopadhyay to Mr. Benjamin of the Serpur indigo factory,

4. Banamali Mukhopadhyay to the Hooghly indigo factory,

5. Loknath Chakrabarti to the Basirhat police station.

It is noteworthy that Loknath Chakrabarti was the brother-in-law of Ramram Chakrabarti, the daroga of Basirhat.

Thereafter, more than a thousand brave warriors—armed with clubs, swords, shields, and swords—arrived from various places at Krishnadev’s house in Pura to assist him. The next day, Friday, orders were given to attack Titumir and his men in Sarfarazpur.

The next day, Friday, when Krishnadev Ray arrived first on horseback at Sarfarazpur, followed by his armed forces, the worshippers had finished the Friday sermon and were standing for prayer. Krishnadev’s soldiers surrounded the mosque amid various anti-Muslim slogans and set it on fire. When Titumir and the worshippers came outside, somewhat burned, they were attacked. Two were struck by swords and became martyrs, and many were wounded.

Thereafter, the Muslims filed a case at the Kalinga police outpost against Krishnadev Ray and his forces for murder, injury, assault, and other offenses. The officer in charge of the police outpost did accept the report, but ordered the bodies to be buried without even visiting the scene.

J. R. Colvin’s report states that when the zamindar’s employees went to Sarfarazpur to collect the beard-and-moustache and other taxes, they were beaten and one of them was detained. Krishnadev Ray then attacked them with an armed force and burned the mosque.

(Board’s Collection 54222, pp. 405–406, Colvin’s Report, para. 9; Dr. A. R. Mallick: British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 79).

Eighteen days after the incident, Krishnadev Ray filed a case against Titumir and his followers, alleging that they had beaten his men and had themselves set fire to the mosque in order to implicate him. (Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultations, 3 April 1832, No. 6).

Krishnadev Ray further alleged in his report: “A fierce-natured Wahhabi Muslim named Titumil, an enemy of indigo cultivation, the zamindars, and the East India Company, and his more than one thousand disciples have unlawfully detained and made away with two barkandazes and one gomasta of the honourable zamindar of Pura, Shri Krishnadev Ray. Despite extensive searches, we have been unable to find them. The said paiks and gomasta of ours had gone to the mahal of Sarfarazpur to collect rent from its tenants. When disputes arose with the tenants over the payment and receipt of rent, the men of Titumir’s party, on his orders, forcibly detained our gomasta and paiks somewhere, but it is not known where. Titumir is arrogantly proclaiming that he is the king of this country. Therefore, rent need no longer be paid to the zamindar.” (Shaheed Titumir—Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 60).

Ramram Chakrabarti knew very well, at least, how to fabricate a false case, because he was determined to prove Titumir a traitor. In any event, it goes without saying that the zamindar’s report, filed eighteen days after the incident, was not credible. It had been made merely to save himself. Nevertheless, investigations into both cases began.

The preliminary investigation was begun by the jamadar of the Kalinga outpost. His report stated that the allegations of both sides were extremely serious. He further said, “I have seen much evidence of the Muslims’ complaint. An investigation into the case filed by the zamindar Krishnadev Ray’s naib against Titumir and his party revealed that all the employees alleged to have been abducted were with the naib himself. The naib’s reply was that after he had gone to the districts, Titu’s men had released them. In my opinion, responsibility for investigating these two complicated cases and submitting the final report should be entrusted to Ramram Chakrabarti, the experienced daroga of Basirhat.”

Meanwhile, the Joint Magistrate of Barasat summoned Krishnadev Ray to court and granted him bail, and ordered Ramram Chakrabarti to investigate and submit the final report.

Ramram Chakrabarti came to Sarfarazpur in the name of conducting an investigation, abused and beat Titumir and the villagers in obscene language, spent several days being lavishly entertained at the house of the zamindar Krishnadev Ray, and submitted the following report:

1. The gomasta and paiks of the zamindar Krishnadev Ray had been unlawfully detained by Titu and his men. They later escaped by a ruse and went into hiding. They came forward after the police arrived. Therefore, this case is untenable and should be dismissed.

2. Titu and his clubmen brought false allegations of murder, injury, looting, arson, and other offenses against the zamindar Krishnadev Ray and his paiks and barkandazes.

3. Titu and his men themselves set fire to the prayer hall. Therefore, this case cannot proceed.

The daroga’s report was entirely fabricated and merely an expression of his hostile mind. However many faults Muslims may have, they would never have the courage to commit the sinful act of burning a mosque.

It is deeply regrettable that the matter of illegal rent collection, which was the main cause of the conflict, failed to attract the magistrate’s attention. As a result, the zamindar not only won the case, but his illegal rent collection was also legitimized. The Divisional Commissioner said that the Joint Magistrate’s judgment neither sought to stop the zamindars’ illegal and oppressive rent collection nor did anything to reduce the agitated attitude of the opposing party. (Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultations, 3 April 1832, No. 3; Commissioner to Deputy Secretary; 28 Nov. 1831, para. 3).

As a result of the magistrate’s unjust judgment, the zamindar became emboldened to take fraudulent and oppressive measures. Under Regulation No. 7 of 1799, he gained the power to seize and detain tenants on the pretext of arrears of rent. Even people who were not his tenants but had testified against him were falsely shown as owing thirty-eight rupees in arrears, seized, detained, and subjected to various forms of physical punishment. Thereafter, after collecting part of the arrears, he took written bonds from them promising to pay the remainder, so that they could not seek refuge in court. (Board’s Collection, 54222, Enclosure No. 4, Colvin’s Report; also in Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultations, 3 April 1832, No. 6).

On 25 September 1831, the Muslims went to Kolkata with a copy of the judgment to appeal to the Commissioner’s court. But because the Commissioner was absent, they were unable to submit their appeal and returned brokenhearted.

The mosque in Sarfarazpur village was destroyed, many people were killed or wounded, and the homes of Habibullah, Hafizullah, Gholam Nabi, Ramzan Ali, and Rahman Bakhsh were reduced to heaps of ruins. Much wealth was burned and looted, but the English government took no action whatsoever. Since the lives of the villagers of Sarfarazpur, especially Sayyid Nisar Ali, had become endangered, Sayyid Nisar Ali, alias Titumir, at everyone’s advice, relocated from Sarfarazpur to the village of Narikelbaria on 17 October, despite his strong reluctance, along with the five homeless men named above. On 29 October 1831, Krishnadev Ray attacked Narikelbaria village with more than a thousand clubmen and a gang armed with various weapons, beating and injuring many men and women. On 30 October, a report was filed at the police outpost, but nothing came of it. The police did not come even to conduct any investigation.

Repeated attacks by the zamindar’s forces left the Muslims bewildered. They were then compelled to prepare for self-defense. When Krishnadev Ray again fell upon the Muslims with his forces on 6 November, a fierce clash took place and many on both sides were killed or wounded. Thereafter, Krishnadev Ray spread throughout Hindu society that Muslims were needlessly persecuting Hindus. This propaganda caused intense agitation among the Hindus, and Kali Prasanna Mukhopadhyay, the indigo-planter zamindar of Gobardanga, incited Mr. Davis, manager of the Mollahat indigo factory, against the Muslims. Davis attacked Narikelbaria with nearly four hundred Habshi warriors and various weapons. Again, many on both sides were killed or wounded. Davis fled, and the Muslims destroyed his barge. Some days after this incident, Debnath Ray, the zamindar of Gobra-Gobindpur, attacked Narikelbaria with a large force. In the fierce battle, Debnath Ray was killed by a sword-staff blow.

The letter that Manohar Ray, the zamindar of Chatuna, wrote to Krishnadev Ray, the zamindar of Pura, after the foregoing incident is especially noteworthy. He wrote:

The obsession with indigo cultivation has taken hold of you. As a result, today we have lost a brave man like Debnath Ray. There is still time. Without going too far, let Titumir do his work and you do yours. Titumir is preaching his religion; why are you forming a coalition to obstruct him? In your obsession with indigo cultivation, you have united with the English indigo planters and the missionaries and are bringing ruin upon the people of the country and the peasant community. How can they forget this? If you continue to oppress the people of the country in this way, I shall be compelled to advance to Titumir’s aid. I say again: do not earn the people’s curse because of indigo cultivation.

—Shrimanohar Ray Bhushan (Shaheed Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 79).

Had Manohar Ray’s good advice been accepted, such a great and tragic farce would not have been enacted in history. But Krishnadev Ray’s boundless greed for wealth on the one hand and extreme hostility on the other had deprived them of all sense of right and wrong. Thus he could not desist from his fiendish activities.

The fictitious, distorted, and malicious reports that Ramram Chakrabarti, the daroga of Basirhat, submitted to the government against Titumir and his men, together with the letters by which the Hindu zamindars requested the Collector and Joint Magistrate to suppress Titumir, were sent to the Governor. The Governor, in turn, issued instructions to the Collector of Nadia and the Judge of Alipore along with the foregoing reports. As soon as he received the Governor’s order, the Collector of Nadia asked Krishnadev Ray to meet him as soon as possible. The Judge of Alipore was at that time also staying in Nadia. When Krishnadev Ray appeared at the appointed time, he set out toward Narikelbaria on the barge of the Collector and the Judge as their guide.

Meanwhile, interested parties spread the news that Mr. Benjamin, manager of the Sherpur indigo factory, had set out to attack Narikelbaria with many clubmen and sword-bearers. On hearing this, Gholam Masum advanced with Titumir’s men to stop them and hid in the jungle and thickets of Bargaria village. When the barge arrived and moored at the Bargharia landing, Titumir’s men saw two Englishmen aboard, accompanied by their sworn enemy Krishnadev. Assuming the two Englishmen were Davis and Benjamin, they prepared to attack. Krishnadev said, “Your Honour, look there. Gholam Masum, Titumir’s chief commander, has come this far to attack the barge.” The Sahib then ordered them to fire. The other side also began firing arrows and sword-staffs. After several people on both sides were killed or wounded, the Collector suspended the fighting and went into the middle of the river to protect himself.

The interested parties deceived Titumir’s group with false information. Believing them to be Davis and Benjamin, they attacked the barge. The interested parties had wanted in this way to enrage the East India Company government against Titumir’s group. Their purpose succeeded. Had they known the true facts, they would not have come to attack the barge in this manner. In particular, seeing Krishnadev Ray aboard, they regarded them as enemies.

The amusing thing is that, while hurriedly boarding the barge from the Bargharia landing to protect himself in midstream, Krishnadev failed to get aboard. Thus he met the fate that awaited him. However, the Muslims did not kill him. He drowned in the river and died an untimely death.

Titumir had no desire to engage in conflict with the East India Government. The course of events, several baseless rumors, and a particular self-interested group brought about a clash between Titumir and the Government. Continual inflammatory reports against Titumir were submitted to Mr. Alexander, the Joint Magistrate of Barasat, by certain priests, indigenous and foreign indigo planters, and Hindu zamindars. As a result, the impression formed in Mr. Alexander’s mind concerning Titumir and his group made him firmly determined to suppress Titumir. Possibly, after Ramram Chakravarti was killed in the clash, a new daroga was appointed at the Bashirhat police station. He was instructed to go to Narikelbaria with several sepoys and a jamadar and warn Titumir, and then report what happened. The daroga apparently did not go to Narikelbaria but, sitting at the police station, reported that he had barely escaped with his life from an attack by Titumir’s men. Consequently, Alexander had to submit a harsh report about Titumir to the authorities.

On 14 November 1831, Mr. Alexander arrived at Baduria, three krosh from Narikelbaria, with one havildar, one jamadar, and fifty sepoys armed with guns and swords. The daroga of Bashirhat joined Alexander at Baduria with sepoys and a jamadar. Their combined force numbered one hundred and twenty men. A fierce battle then took place, in which men on both sides were killed and wounded. Alexander was astonished by the bravery of the Muslims under the leadership of Ghulam Masum, and the daroga and one jamadar were captured by the Muslims. Finding the situation hopeless, Alexander fled to save his life.

Alexander’s Report and Its Repercussions

Returning to Barasat, Joint Magistrate Mr. Alexander submitted a report to the higher authorities requesting that Titumir be dealt with. The authorities—that is, the East India Company Government—appointed Colonel Stuart commander and ordered him to march toward Narikelbaria with one hundred mounted European soldiers, three hundred native infantrymen, and two cannons. On the night of 13 November, Company troops reached Narikelbaria and laid siege to the village.

To protect themselves from enemy attack, Titumir and his men surrounded the area on all sides with thick, sturdy bamboo posts, centered on Titumir’s hujra; history calls it “Titumir’s Bamboo Fort.”

Describing some events that occurred before the battle began, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi says that Colonel Stuart arrived before the main entrance of the hujra where Titumir lived and saw a man dressed in a white pirhan and white turban, enhancing his appearance, absorbed in remembrance of Allah with a rosary in his hand. Stuart, captivated and utterly astonished, asked the guide Ramchandra Bandyopadhyay, “Is this man Titumir? He does not look like a rebel.”

Ramchandra replied, “This is Titumir. He introduces himself as Titu Badshah. Today, on the occasion of your arrival, he has changed his manner and disguised himself as a holy man.”

Then Stuart said to Ramchandra, “Tell Titu that I have come as commander on behalf of the Governor-General, Lord Bentinck. Titumir should surrender. Or report to me his exact words.”

Ramchandra said to Titumir, “You have fought against the Company Government and now have taken up a rosary. Come, take up the sword and prove yourself worthy of the title of Badshah.”

Titumir said, “I have not fought against the Company Government. Like the Hindus, we too are subjects of the Company Government. I have merely made a modest effort to suppress the oppression of the zamindars and indigo planters and to make those who merely bear the name Muslim into true Muslims.”

After hearing Titumir’s reply, Ramchandra told Stuart as an interpreter, “The rebel Titumir says that he will not surrender but will fight. He says that he does not care about cannons and gunfire. He says that by his power he will swallow everyone one by one. He is the Badshah of this land—who is the Company, anyway?” (Shahid Titumir: Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, pp. 95–96).

It is not difficult for any reader to understand what fire Ramchandra set ablaze while acting as interpreter.

The outcome of the battle that followed can easily be guessed. How long could sticks, arrows, and spears withstand the fire of the well-trained English soldiers and their heavy cannons? Nevertheless, Sayyid Nisar Ali, known as Titumir, Ghulam Masum, and their men, without becoming terrified or bowing their heads in submission before the opposing side, calmly confronted the enemy until the last moment of their lives and drank the nectar of martyrdom. This will remain forever, on the one hand, as an imperishable achievement in history and, on the other, will keep alive among future generations of humanity the inspiration and consciousness for a life-and-death struggle against falsehood and unjust oppression.

Forty years after the above-mentioned incident, an anonymous article was published in the Calcutta Review. It criticized the contemporary Company Government for having been indifferent to Titumir’s seditious activities. According to the article’s writer, Titumir aspired to acquire political power. Therefore, the Government should have taken stringent measures against him in advance. He further stated that Titumir and his followers demanded an end to Company rule and claimed that the Muslims who had been deprived of power by the English were the heirs to sovereign authority. Hunter made similar comments. (Calcutta Review No. CI, p. 36).

Mr. Hunter blindly believed the baseless and malicious allegations of Hindu zamindars, indigo planters, and certain priests and incorporated them into his book. Hunter also made extremely vile and indecent remarks about Sayyid Ahmad Shahid. They will be discussed in the appropriate place.

J. R. Colvin was appointed to determine the causes and nature of the disturbance at Narikelbaria under Barasat. His report, based on information obtained from authoritative sources, deserves particular attention here. He stated with certainty that the disturbance was entirely local and that the inhabitants who were directly or indirectly involved in it were people of no notable standing. With the exception of one or two, they were all from the northern area of Barasat. They were all subjects (raiyats), weavers, and Muslims of the ordinary class. (Board’s Collection, 54222, p. 400; Colvin to Barwell, 8 March 1832, para. 4; A. R. Mallick: British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 87).

After Colvin’s report, the Government did not attach much importance to the matter. Citing the Board’s Collection and Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultations, Dr. A. R. Mallick states that Major Scott led the Company troops. About fifty people, including Titumir, were killed, and 250 were arrested. The bodies were burned. The homes of Titumir’s men were looted, and suspected persons were also arrested. (Dr. A. R. Mallick, British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 86).

A total of 197 people were tried. Among them, Ghulam Masum was sentenced to death, eleven to life imprisonment, and 128 to imprisonment for various terms.

Four people died during the trial. Fifty-three were acquitted.

Titumir’s eldest son, Sayyid Gawhar Ali, was released from imprisonment because his right arm had been blown away by a cannonball. His other son, Torab Ali, was young and was therefore sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment. Later, when the Government of the time realized its mistake, it arranged allowances for Titumir’s three sons. But these were subsequently discontinued through the efforts of the Hindus. (Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqi, p. 100).

The foregoing discussion clearly proves that, had the Government known the actual facts, the matter might not have gone so far. The zamindars’ hatred of Muslims, their false propaganda, their immense influence over the poor raiyats, and, in addition, the one-sided and prejudiced fabricated report of the daroga Ramram Chakravarti kept the authorities away from the real facts. On the other hand, the limitless inhuman injustice and oppression of the zamindars and indigo planters, and the frustration of having failed to obtain justice from the Government, compelled the opposing party to adopt extreme measures. They had no other alternative. Colvin’s report says the same. The zamindars possessed unlimited power to oppress and torment the raiyats by any means. Colvin describes this as the principal cause of the disturbance. He further says that under such circumstances, where the guilty person was the owner of enormous wealth, reaching a correct decision was impossible. (A. R. Mallick: British Policy & the Muslims in Bengal, p. 88; Board’s Collection, 54222, Colvin’s Report, para. 36).

Chapter Eleven

The Jihadi Movement of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvī’s jihadi movement has been described in history as the Wahhabi movement. This statement is wholly contrary to the truth. It may safely be called a highly distorted presentation of history. Strictly speaking, no movement called the Wahhabi movement existed anywhere in the world. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab of Najd began an Islamic reform movement in Arabia. His movement was purely an Islamic movement. This movement was called the Wahhabi movement. The name was given by Europeans hostile to Islam. It was called WAHABISM or WAHABI MOVEMENT. The final and greatest Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, gave complete form to Islam, the revealed way of Allah. Instead of calling the Islam preached by Muhammad (peace be upon him) “Islam,” they called it “Muhammedanism,” and a Muslim a “Mohammedan” (MEHOMEDAN). Until the 1930s of the present century, Muslims were officially called MEHOMEDAN. During Sher-e-Bangla’s premiership, an official declaration replaced the word MEHOMEDAN with MUSSALMAN or MUSLIM. Similarly, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Islamic movement was not merely called the Wahhabi movement; propaganda was also spread portraying it as extremely anti-Islamic in order to create hatred and hostility toward it among Muslims. The Wahhabi movement was described in history as anti-Islamic, and the word “Wahhabi” was treated as an insult. Some Muslims were also influenced and deceived by this propaganda. Thus, to demean and make someone hated in Muslim society, he is insulted by being called a “Wahhabi.” For nearly three centuries, some people have remained immersed in a grave error. Therefore, a detailed discussion and explanation of the matter is indispensable.

Muhammad ibn Wahhab

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, a great religious reformer or mujahid was born in Arabia. His name was Muhammad, and his father’s name was Abd al-Wahhab. According to the customary Arab practice of adding the father’s name to a person’s name, his full name was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Wahhab is one of Allah’s attributive names, meaning the Most Generous Bestower. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab wished to eradicate every form of idolatrous intrusion into Islam, firmly establish the glory of the pure doctrine of tawhid, end all political disorder in Arabia, and unite the entire Arabian land into one state through the principles of Islamic equality and brotherhood.

Early in his life, while performing the Hajj, he was deeply grieved to see un-Islamic rituals among Muslims in Mecca and Medina. At that time, a large part of Arabia was under the rule of the Turkish sultans. Having come into contact with European civilization, the Turks—especially the Turkish ruling class—had adopted many European customs and ceremonies. These had spread throughout the Arab lands, including Mecca and Medina. Great mausoleums had been built around graves, and Muslims would stand beside them and pray for worldly advancement and felicity in the Hereafter. Lighting lamps at graves, decorating them with garlands of flowers, offering votive gifts, making vows, and similar practices were common. These were imitations of idolatry. In his biographical work entitled Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab al-Najdi, Maulana Masud Alam Nadwi mentions that at that time there were certain trees in Arabia where Muslims performed a kind of worship and festival in imitation of idolaters. They even committed acts more reprehensible than the Hindus’ worship of the Shiva lingam. In short, after seeing an extremely distorted form of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab raised a vigorous voice against these practices. He began his reform movement in the city of Damascus. He was also outspoken against the anti-Islamic practices of the Turkish ruling class. As a result, he incurred the rulers’ wrath and was expelled from Damascus. Eventually, after traveling through various places, he came to a place called Diriyah or Deraiyah in his native province of Najd. (The chief or ruler of Diriyah supported his reform movement and married his daughter. Thereafter, with the assistance of the ruler of Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud, both the Islamic reform movement and the political movement continued through the formation of the Arab League.

There is no scope here for a detailed discussion of his political movement. It is nevertheless true that the full implementation of Islam is impossible without political power. Millions of Bedouins joined the powerful political movement that began with the help and cooperation of Muhammad ibn Saud. As a result, despite repeated reversals, eventually the whole of Arabia came under their control. The monarchy of the House of Saud was established throughout Arabia, and for this reason the country is known as Saudi Arabia. The direct result of the success of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Islamic reform movement was the acquisition of this political power.

It has been stated above that Muhammad ibn Saud, the ruler of Diriyah, married the daughter of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Within a short time, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s authority was established in the desert regions, especially Najd. He handed over all governing power to his son-in-law, Muhammad ibn Saud, and remained the supreme authority only in religious matters—that is, in the Islamic reform movement. Thereafter, repeated conflicts took place with the Turkish rulers. Both victory and defeat befell them in turn. After their governing power had been established throughout Najd, many hold that, for the first time since the era of the fourth Caliph, an effort was made to build a country’s religious, political, social, and economic system on the basis of the Qur’an. According to some, including Masud Alam Nadwi, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a successful mujaddid who lived to see the complete success of his tajdid, or reform work.

Let us now discuss some of the fundamental principles of his reform movement. It has already been stated that he did not preach any new doctrine contrary to Islam, for which his doctrine could be called Wahhabi doctrine. No madhhab or tariqah bearing the name Wahhabi exists in Arabia. This designation arose outside Arabia and the term Wahhabi was coined and circulated by the foreign enemies of its adherents, especially the Turks and Europeans. Some European writers, such as Niebuhr, called Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab a prophet. There is no basis for such bizarre ideas. In reality, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not establish any madhhab. He followed Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, one of the four Imams, and his effort was to return to the original, simple Islam as it had existed during the time of the Prophet of the world and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. He also taught that religion is not the exclusive preserve of any particular class. The interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith does not belong to any particular person or class, nor is it restricted to any particular age; every learned person has the right to interpret the Qur’an and Hadith. His teachings and doctrine were mainly influenced by the doctrines recorded in the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciples, although he did not agree with them on many matters. —(The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Mawdud, p. 116).

The fundamental principles of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s reform movement, which he included in his Kitab al-Tawhid, are roughly as follows:

1. There is no being or power besides Allah whose worship, servitude, obedience, and commands may be followed.

2. Most people are not adherents of tawhid. They go to saints, dervishes, and others and seek their blessings. These practices of theirs resemble those of the polytheists of Mecca described in the Qur’an.

3. Praying while invoking the names of prophets, saints, or angels during worship is as reprehensible as shirk, or the worship of many gods.

4. Seeking the intercession of anyone besides Allah is nothing but shirk.

5. Making a vow in the name of anyone besides Allah is also shirk.

6. Seeking recourse to any knowledge other than the clear and imperative indications of the Qur’an, Hadith, and reason is kufr.

7. Doubting belief in qadar, or divine decree, is atheism.

Moreover, he placed particular emphasis on eradicating those bid‘ahs (innovations in the religion of Islam that are not sanctioned by the Qur’an and Hadith or introduced by the Prophet himself) that encourage shirk and kufr. His basic teaching was absolute and unwavering reliance upon Allah, the One without partners, and the elimination of every intermediary—whether as an actual existence or as an idea—between the Creator and human beings. In the name of such intermediaries, pirism, or Muslim Brahminism, had been established and Muslims had been kept away from the teachings of true Islam. He sought to eliminate Muslims’ worship of pirs and saints and at their graves, and even the semi-divine conception of Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him). (This doctrine is also found among Muslims. For example,

Ahmad’s veil of the letter Mim

has kept you concealed.)

Building mausoleums over graves is merely the last surviving mark of idolatry, about which Allah’s Prophet issued stern warnings. Therefore, orders were given to demolish them so that Muslims could neither show them reverence nor go there to pray for their own welfare.

The natural result of his movement was that two classes of Muslims became extremely hostile to it. First were those who stood beside graves and prayed for worldly advancement and felicity in the Hereafter, and who earned their livelihood by collecting money from visitors in the name of guarding and serving the graves. Second were the Turkish rulers, because their authority over Mecca and Medina had been abolished. The Turkish sultan was then the self-proclaimed caliph of the Muslim world. Since the two greatest—indeed, virtually the only—holy places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, had slipped from their hands, the claim to the caliphate became meaningless. Since it was not easy to recapture Mecca and Medina by force, various baseless and false accusations were raised against Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers to inflame the Muslims of the world against them. However contrary to Islam the character of the Turkish rulers may have been, when a fatwa against Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was issued by the caliph of the Muslims, Muslims believed it without question. As a result of this malicious propaganda, from 1803 to 1806 the number of pilgrims coming to Mecca from foreign countries was extremely small.

Like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, eminent figures such as Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Haji Shariatullah, and Titumir in Bengal and India raised their voices against the various superstitions of Muslims. The British Government then, in its own interest, became fervent in its propaganda against these eminent figures, labeling them Wahhabis. What greater distortion of truth and cruel irony could there be?

Mohammad Waliullah says:

Fearing that if hatred of nonbelievers once arose among the Muslim masses, their empires in Asia and Africa would collapse like houses of cards, the imperialist British began shedding crocodile tears for Islam. Thus, whenever a patriotic Muslim in nineteenth-century India tried to stand against subjugation, the English labeled him a “Wahhabi” and incited the ignorant masses against him. By paying bribes amounting to hundreds of thousands of rupees, or alternatively threatening persecution, they obtained fatwas against him from their compliant ulama and secured certificates for themselves from employees obedient to the Turkish sultan’s paid Sharif. They even brought preachers from Arabia itself and had them repeat, for use against him, imaginary stories invented by the British. In addition, through district magistrates and senior officials, they established in every district, with the help of reactionary Muslims, organizations such as the Anjuman-i Islamia, Hizbullah Samiti, and Anjuman-i Ishaat-i Islam, and used them against patriotic Muslims. In return for this, it cannot be said whether Allah the Exalted bestowed on them the Garden of Paradise. But it is true that in this campaign to protect Islam they trapped hundreds of Muslims, hanged them, and sent them into exile in distant Andaman, thereby at least paving the way for their salvation in the Hereafter.

(Our Struggle for Liberation, Mohammad Waliullah, pp. 60–61).

Chronology of the Rise and Fall of the State Established by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and His Son-in-Law Muhammad ibn Saud

1703 CE—Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was born in the Banu Sinan lineage, a branch of the Tamim tribe, in the Uyaynah region of Arabia.

1747 CE—Conflict with the Sheikh of Riyadh.

1773 CE—Dahham, the ruler of Riyadh, was defeated.

1787 CE—The death of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

1791 CE—The attack on Mecca.

1797 CE—All Turkish possessions in Asia came into the hands of Saud, the grandson of Muhammad ibn Saud.

1803 CE — Mecca captured.

1804 CE — Medina captured.

1806 CE — Mecca recaptured.

1811 CE — From Aleppo in the north to the Indian Ocean, and eastward beyond the Persian Gulf and the borders of Iraq to the Red Sea, the region was in the hands of Saud.

1811 CE — From Aleppo in the north to the Indian Ocean, and eastward beyond the Persian Gulf and the borders of Iraq to the Red Sea, the region was in the hands of Saud.

1811 CE — The Egyptian army captured Medina.

1812 CE — The Egyptian army captured Medina.

1812 CE — The Egyptian army captured Mecca.

1814 CE — Saud died.

1818 CE — The capital of Diriyah was destroyed.

1904 CE — Restoration. Saud’s grandson, Abdul Aziz bin Abdur Rahman, established his power in Najd.

1924 CE — Mecca captured.

1925 CE — Medina and Jeddah were conquered.

Thus, almost the whole of the Arabian Peninsula, apart from a few small emirates, was transformed into the Arab national state called Saudi Arabia, which still exists today. (See The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Maudud, pp. 112–15.)

Hunter’s comment on Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in his book is also quoted here.

The principles they inscribed in letters of blood were noble. Above all, they emphasized that the Turks had polluted the holy city of Mecca through their sensuality. They were not satisfied even with polygamy. When coming for the Hajj, they brought women of the vilest character with them and engaged in acts that were wholly prohibited in the Qur’an. They openly drank wine and consumed opium on the thoroughfares of the holy city. Turkish pilgrims behaved with the most despicable licentiousness on the road to Mecca. Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was the first to raise a vehement protest against these vile activities. Gradually, his views took the form of a religious doctrine and spread under the name of the Wahhabi doctrine. [The terms “Wahhabi” and “Wahabi” were creations of the imagination of the outside world, especially Europeans.] Most Indian Muslims now follow this doctrine. According to it, the religion introduced by Muhammad had been transformed into pure monotheism, and it was founded upon seven principles. First: unwavering faith in one God. Second: denial of the existence of any intermediary between the Creator and human beings. Praying to saints and dervishes, and even the semi-divine conception of Muhammad, were to be rejected. Third: the right to interpret the Muslim scriptures personally and rejection of clerical interpretations of the holy texts. Fourth: rejection of the customs, conventions, and outward rituals that Muslims of the medieval and modern periods had imposed upon the pure belief in tawhid. Fifth: awaiting the imam under whose leadership the true believers would achieve victory in the struggle against the infidels. Sixth: always acknowledging, in theory and in practice, that Muslims must struggle against all infidels. Seventh: firm obedience to the spiritual guide.

According to Hunter, through the efforts of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the religion introduced by Muhammad—that is, Islam—had been transformed into pure monotheism. In other words, his work was to free Islam from the intrusion of irreligion, heresy, and idolatry and restore its true Islamic form and character. In this, he served true Islam. This is precisely the work of a true Muslim. The Prophet of Islam had foretold that, in every age, reformers would come to change Islam’s distorted form and restore it to its true form; in Islamic terminology, such a reformer is called a Mujaddid. But why were his activities considered opposed to Islam, and why was his doctrine labeled the “Wahhabi” doctrine as a doctrine separate from Islam? What answer do the Europeans and those Muslims submerged in a profound ocean of error have to this? European Christians may do this because of their perennial hostile attitude toward Islam and Muslims. It is characteristic of them—there is nothing surprising in it. But those who distorted Islam, imported various idolatrous and un-Islamic rituals and superstitions into it, turned it into a religion consisting only of outward ceremonies, and thereby kept and still keep their business thriving truly have no answer. The irreligious and licentious Turkish rulers began vicious propaganda against the Mujaddid Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Later, when Sayyid Ahmad Bareilvi began a similar reform movement in British India, the self-interested imperialist British labeled him “Wahhabi” and continued to fire an unending stream of bullets from the machine gun of fatwas through hired men styling themselves learned scholars. Yet during Sayyid Ahmad’s jihad movement, the bullets and shells of these machine guns ended in failure. Hence Hunter said, “Most Indian Muslims now follow this doctrine.”

Shah Waliullah

In 1703 CE, four years before the death of Emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir, Shah Waliullah was born in the city of Delhi into a highly distinguished family. His father, Shah Abdur Rahim, was a renowned scholar. Shah Waliullah’s ancestors were descendants of Umar al-Faruq (RA), the second caliph of Islam.

Shah Waliullah received his education from his father, Shah Abdur Rahim. Later, he taught for twelve years at the school founded by his father. He then went to Arabia and spent a long period in Mecca and Medina. During his stay there, Shah Sahib acquired the qualities and qualifications required for ijtihad. Shibli says that Shah Waliullah Dehlavi (RA) revived the Muslim world after the extreme decline that had occurred following Ibn Rushd and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah. The inspiration he gained from his prolonged journeys to Mecca and Medina encouraged him to begin a revolutionary movement.

The anarchy and disorder that arose after Aurangzeb’s death gradually destroyed the Mughal Empire and the sultanate in India, while the English came to this country in the guise of merchants and gradually advanced before Waliullah’s eyes. This sight deeply grieved and distressed Shah Sahib. He fully realized that the principal cause of the Muslims’ decline was their moral and religious degeneration.

As a result of his complete knowledge, reflection, and research concerning Islam, an outline of an Islamic state took shape in his mind. But he fully realized that no state could be established by force of arms alone until people possessing genuine qualifications and virtues were available. Producing people with true Islamic knowledge and character was a prerequisite for governing an Islamic state. There was not merely a shortage of people with such qualities and qualifications; rather, Muslims were bound in a web of various ignorant and un-Islamic superstitions. To free Muslim society from this barrier, he first devoted himself to an Islamic reform movement. The principal objective of his movement was to reform Islam, restore it to its original purity and vitality, destroy the country’s growing English power, and once again raise Islam’s victorious banner. For this reason, like the Arab Mujaddid and Mujahid Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Shah Waliullah attempted to eradicate the Muslims’ un-Islamic customs, superstitions, and corruption.

Shah Waliullah had observed that the indifference and contempt of Sufi mystics toward the Sharia of Islam were harmful to Islam and Muslim society; the intrusion of many of their practiced corruptions and propagated anti-Islamic doctrines had polluted and distorted Muslim religious life. The influence of mercenary Sufis and the practices of saint-worship and grave-worship were also continually increasing. Waliullah did not wish to abolish tasawwuf; he wanted its complete reform and purification. He wanted to reform Sufism and make it oriented toward welfare. His testament contains many incontrovertible arguments and instructions against professional pirs, faqirs, grave-worship, claims of miracles, and the like.

Recognizing the need to shape people’s character in a peaceful and undisturbed environment, Shah Waliullah began his reform movement, or constructive work. Through his sharp pen, he pointed out the faults and superstitions of Muslim society on the one hand and clearly set out the correct course of action on the other. He composed many valuable books, among which Fath al-Kabir and Hujjat Allah al-Baligha are especially noteworthy. He made every effort to bring a dead, sleeping, and fallen nation to life and awaken it, guiding it onto the right path through the blows of his pen. This gifted scholar departed this world in 1762 CE.

Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi (RA)

After Shah Waliullah’s death, his capable eldest son, Shah Abdul Aziz (1746–1823 CE), advanced along the path he had shown. Among the Indian religious scholars, he was the first person to issue a fatwa fearlessly declaring this country Dar al-Harb. The question of what the social and religious condition of Muslims would be in this country ruled by infidel Englishmen had agitated the minds of Muslims. The valiant Mujahid Shah Abdul Aziz declared in a resounding and fearless voice that it was contrary to faith for Muslims to live under an un-Islamic society and state. They must either wage jihad and transform this country into an Islamic state, or migrate elsewhere. This declaration sent waves of irresistible inspiration for jihad through the hearts and souls of Muslims.

In his ardent desire to free Muslim India from the influence of tyranny, Shah Abdul Aziz initiated a social reform movement called the Targib-i Muhammadiya. Its purpose was to eradicate the anti-Islamic customs, rituals, and superstitions that had entered Muslim society and inspire Muslims with true Islamic teachings and ideals. Through a carefully planned system, Shah Sahib conducted this movement throughout India and appointed to the task a group of selfless and tireless workers educated by him. In the course of time, within a very short period, this Targib-i Muhammadiya movement assumed the form of a jihad movement and began a freedom struggle against the oppressive Sikhs and the English. Sayyid Ahmad Shahid Bareilvi gave this movement practical shape, and his principal associates were Shah Sahib’s nephew, Shah Ismail Shahid, and his son-in-law, Maulana Abdul Hai.

Shah Waliullah’s Genealogy

                                                Shah Waliullah (1703–62 CE)

(1) Shah Abdul Aziz (2) Shah Rafiuddin (3) Shah Abdul Qadir (4) Shah Abdul Ghani

(5) Maulana Abdul Hai (son-in-law) (6) Shah Mahfuzullah (7) Shah Ismail

(5_1) Maulana Ishaq (5_2) Maulana Yaqub

Sayyid Ahmad Shahid

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, a great, well-organized freedom movement arose throughout India. This movement was conducted exclusively by Indian Muslims. The life force of this movement was Sayyid Ahmad Shahid Bareilvi (RA). In history, this movement has been called the “Wahhabi Movement,” although it was simultaneously an Islamic and a freedom movement. Its objective was to establish an undivided, independent Islamic state across the entire Indian subcontinent. But because of the extreme treachery of certain people, it was not possible to reach the desired goal. Nevertheless, the way this movement advanced from beginning to end through a secret and highly skilled program astonishes and stuns even the imagination.

Sayyid Ahmad was born on 6 Safar 1201 AH (1786 CE) at Rai Bareilly in Allahabad. His biographers mention a remarkable event concerning his birth. While he was still in his mother’s womb, his pious mother dreamed that a sheet of paper inscribed in blood was flying and fluttering about. After hearing the dream, one of her close relatives said, “There is no cause for concern. The person who will be born from your womb will be a very famous figure in history.” —(Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, p. 56).

This dream came true in every detail. The land of India, from Bengal to Balakot, was stained with the fresh blood of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid and his followers. The memory written in their blood inspired Muslims continuously toward jihad for the following century, culminating in the establishment of Pakistan in 1947, which freed Muslims from the stranglehold of foreign and infidel rule and exploitation.

When Sayyid Ahmad was four years, four months, and four days old, he was sent to a maktab according to the custom of respectable Muslims. But the child Sayyid Ahmad had no interest at all in education.

Ghulam Rasul Mehr says that it is difficult to say why he showed reluctance toward education in childhood. Later, however, it was found that he had mastered Persian well and could speak it fluently. He had learned enough Arabic to read Mishkat al-Masabih by himself. He could recite the poetry of Hafiz, Bedil, and other poets. Nevertheless, according to the family tradition, his early education was not satisfactory. His elder brothers, Sayyid Ibrahim and Sayyid Ishaq, urged him considerably to study. But his father would say despairingly, “Leave the matter to him.”

When he later went to Delhi, Shah Abdul Aziz arranged for him to stay at the Akbarabadi Mosque and appointed Shah Abdul Qadir to educate him. Sayyid Ahmad studied Arabic and Persian with him. It is true that he did not acquire the educational qualifications obtained through formal schooling by Shah Ismail or Maulana Abdul Hai, but he could speak Arabic and Persian and understand them easily.

Maulvi Sayyid Jafar Ali Naqvi says that Shah Ismail would explain Hadith every day after the Fajr prayer. Sayyid Sahib would also explain the significance of some Hadith, and the listeners benefited greatly from this. —(Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, pp. 56, 71, 73)

From childhood, Sayyid Ahmad practiced physical exercise and possessed extraordinary physical strength. From his early years, the inspiration for jihad was awakened within him, and he would often say before his peers, “I will wage jihad; I will wage jihad.” Everyone regarded this as a childish boast. But his mother believed the child’s statement to be true. Citing Tawarikh-i Ajmiri, Ghulam Rasul Mehr says that the boy Sayyid Ahmad would form a “Lashkar-i Islam” from among the boys of the neighborhood, attack an imaginary “Lashkar-i Kuffar” with loud jihad slogans, and make the air resound with cries that the “Islamic army” had won and the “infidel army” had been defeated. —(Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, p. 59).

Thus, imagining an “Islamic army” on one side and a “non-Muslim army” on the other, and carrying out attacks and counterattacks, Sayyid Ahmad grew up inclined toward jihad from childhood; this was later reflected in his real life.

At the age of eighteen, Sayyid Ahmad went to Lucknow with a group of eight men. The others’ purpose was to seek a livelihood. Sayyid Sahib’s purpose, however, was different. After staying in Lucknow for four months, he inspired his companions to abandon their desire for employment and go to Delhi to receive spiritual initiation from Imam al-Hind Shah Abdul Aziz. They then went on foot and reached Shah Sahib’s court within a few days, where they pledged allegiance to him and became his disciples.

As mentioned above, while staying at the Akbarabadi Mosque, Sayyid Ahmad continued both to acquire knowledge of the Qur’an, Hadith, fiqh, and related subjects and to receive spiritual initiation from Shah Abdul Aziz. After receiving this education for five years, Sayyid Ahmad returned to his birthplace, Rai Bareilly. He had just turned twenty-three. At that time, he married a girl of respectable lineage named Sayyida Zohra. The following year, he had a daughter. But the inspiration for jihad that he had cherished in his heart since childhood could not allow him to remain bound by the affection, attachment, and love of home. He left his household and joined the army of Nawab Amir Khan. His purpose was to inspire Amir Khan to jihad and, with his assistance, form a Mujahid force. After remaining in Amir Khan’s army for seven years, he left it in disappointment. His hopes and aspirations were shattered when Amir Khan entered into a treaty with the English, against whom he had planned to wage jihad. In a letter he sent to Shah Abdul Aziz, he wrote, “The plan to form an army here has failed. The Nawab Sahib has joined the English. There is no way to remain here.” —

(Sayyid Ahmad Shahid, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, p. 109).

After leaving Nawab Amir Khan’s army, Sayyid Sahib returned to the service of Shah Abdul Aziz. The purpose and goal of his life was to shape Muslims into true Muslims, revive the kind of jihadist inspiration that had been awakened among the Muslims of the early period, and establish the foundations of a genuine Islamic state in India.

Sayyid Sahib had attained such a high spiritual station that distinguished members of the family of Shah Waliullah, such as Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, Shah Ismail, and Maulana Abdul Hai, pledged allegiance to him. From then on, people began becoming his disciples in large groups. The purpose of the jihadist doctrine with which he initiated his followers was to struggle in the path of truth and follow the straight and correct path shown by Allah. He guided his followers along this path throughout their lives.

In a letter written to Shah Ismail, describing jihad, he said—

“The purpose of jihad is not to acquire wealth and property. Its purpose is not to conquer various regions, satisfy one’s own interests, or establish a kingdom for oneself. The true purpose of jihad is to please Allah and destroy the superstitions prevalent in Muslim society.” —(History of the Freedom Struggle, Abu Jafar, p. 83)

Regarding a man whose purpose was so noble and sacred, whose character was pure and unsullied, who stood far above personal interests, and whose sole aim in life was to attain divine pleasure, Hunter says: “The origin of this extraordinary influence did not lie solely upon an evil foundation. Sayyid Ahmad began his life as a religious leader as an advocate of two great principles. These two principles were the unity of God and the equality of human beings. All true religious preachers follow these two principles. For a long time, the religious feeling that had lain dormant in the hearts of the people, and the superstitions created through centuries of association with Hinduism, which had grown excessively and so overwhelmed the minds of Muslims and nearly strangled the religion of Islam, had remained in that condition. Inspired by a spontaneous impulse, Sayyid Ahmad stirred the door of that religiously devoted heart of the Muslims. Although it is true that he and his close disciples had turned into a band of imposters, I cannot help believing that there was an interval in Sayyid Ahmad’s life when, with all his heart and an anguished soul, he desired the liberation of his countrymen and his heart was devoted solely to Allah.”

W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans — translated by Anisuzzaman, with some modifications, p. 36

Anyone with a conscience can understand what contradictory statements Hunter Sahib made in his book. The man whose “heart was devoted to Allah” and who “with all his heart and an anguished soul desired the liberation of his countrymen” was called by Hunter a robber, criminal, and impostor.

Hunter Sahib further says, “He would become so absorbed in religious meditation that, according to Western science, it could be called epilepsy.” W. W. Hunter, The Indian Mussalmans — translated by Anisuzzaman, with some modifications, p. 36

In the terminology of tasawwuf, absorption in meditation upon Allah is called muraqabah-mushahadah. Western scientists who disbelieve in God, such as Hunter, call it epilepsy. It can easily be understood how deeply the disease of hostility toward Islam must infect the mind for such indecent statements to be made. If Sayyid Ahmad had merely remained “absorbed in religious meditation,” Western writers would probably not have criticized him adversely. But since he “desired the liberation of his countrymen” from infidel and foreign rule, they regarded him as an “epileptic” criminal and impostor. This was indicative of their hate-filled and distorted mentality.

The result of the renowned scholar Shah Ismail, nephew of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, and his son-in-law Maulana Abdul Hai becoming disciples of Sayyid Sahib was that Sayyid Sahib’s fame spread through central India with lightning speed. People from all directions continued inviting him, and with the permission of his murshid, Shah Abdul Aziz, he undertook extensive journeys through Ghaziabad, Meerut, Muzaffarpur, Saharanpur, Deoband, and other places in the Doab region. Nearly forty thousand people received initiation from him, and many non-Muslims also accepted Islam through him. During these journeys, he first heard accounts of the persecution of Muslims at the hands of the Sikhs, and his heart melted with sympathy. In 1819, he returned to Delhi for the last time and shortly afterward returned to Rae Bareli.

He spent some time in Rae Bareli. There, the way of life of these God-fearing devotees was exemplary and worthy of instruction for visitors. In the famine-stricken region, around seventy or eighty people lived in huts they had built with their own hands in the courtyard of the old mosque belonging to the Sayyid lineage, on the bank of the Sai River. That year (1819), heavy rain fell in the summer and the rivers flooded violently. Food became expensive and scarce. Yet Sayyid Sahib, with an untroubled mind, remained busy day and night with worship, service to the people, and preaching, accompanied by his eighty God-loving and God-fearing companions. His activity at that time reflected the literal observance of the famous teachings of Hazrat Jesus (peace be upon him) in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’: Do not worry about what you will eat or drink in your life—not even worry about your body and what you will wear. Rather, establish the kingdom of God’s love, and all these things will be provided for you.

—(The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Maudud, pp. 154–55)

Among the aforementioned group were many luminaries of Islamic scholarship, including Hujjat al-Islam Maulana Shah Muhammad Ismail, Shaykh al-Islam Maulana Abdul Hai, Qutb-i-Waqt Maulana Muhammad Yusuf, and others. With his boundless knowledge and erudition, Shah Ismail remained like a shadow beside his pir and murshid until the final moment of his life, and with him he drank the nectar of martyrdom. Preaching in the morning, delivering sermons and exhortations, explaining the Qur’an and Hadith, performing hard physical labor during the day, and spending the entire night in tahajjud and worship—this was the daily routine of these lovers of God.

The principal feature of Sayyid Sahib’s teachings was the removal of hypocrisy and ostentation from religion and the following of the World Prophet’s simple and straightforward way of life at every level of existence. In matters of faith, he was entirely devoted to tawhid, unwavering in his belief in Allah’s sovereignty, and an ardent adherent of the Sunnah in religious observances. He urged people to keep away from every form of shirk, such as seeking worldly and otherworldly welfare from pirs and saints, asking for unseen assistance, worshipping graves of various kinds, and observing the rites and ceremonies of idolaters and other non-Muslims. Rather than reducing Islam to mere formalities, he placed greater emphasis on living a genuinely saintly life—for through that, a person becomes dependent upon a great mercy. It is as clear as daylight that he had wholly surrendered his own wishes and hopes to Allah’s will and pleasure, and therefore remained ready at every moment of his life to act according to Allah’s will.

Before proceeding along the path he had chosen, Sayyid Sahib expressed his intention to perform the Hajj to the House of Allah. Men and women began gathering around him in groups to join him in the sacred Hajj. On 30 Shawwal 1236 AH, in July 1821, a great caravan of approximately four hundred men and women grew to seven hundred. People continued receiving initiation from him in groups. He called upon the people to live as true Muslims and also explained the necessity of the Hajj.

The Hajj caravan traveled by boat from Allahabad, passing through Benares, Mirzapur, Chunargarh, Ghazipur, Danapur, Phulwari Sharif, and other places, and reached Azimabad.

While he was in Azimabad, a group from Tibet came to meet him. He entrusted them with the work of Islamic da‘wah in Tibet and told them that they must continue this work with boundless patience. In this way, the call to Sayyid Sahib’s faith also began to spread in Tibet.

When the Hajj caravan reached Hooghly from Azimabad, a certain Munshi Aminuddin, a resident of Calcutta, brought the entire caravan to Calcutta as his guests. There, thousands of men and women from every direction, intoxicated with love of God, became his disciples. Many people presented numerous gifts and offerings for the Hajj. Sayyid Sahib, in turn, quenched their spiritual thirst with his melodious and honeyed sermons. Ghulam Rasul Mehr recorded a detailed account of the Hajj journey from beginning to end in his book. However, he did not record the date on which they departed from Calcutta by ship for Mecca.

Sayyid Sahib’s caravan consisted of a total of 753 Hajj pilgrims. They were divided among ten ships. Sayyid Sahib traveled with 150 pilgrims on an old ship called Daria Baka. He assigned the better ships to the others.

Ten months after departing from Rae Bareli, Sayyid Sahib entered the holy city of Mecca with the caravan on 28 Sha‘ban 1237 AH, corresponding to May 21, 1822.

After the Hajj, Sayyid Sahib stayed in Mecca for several months. He spent the entire month of Ramadan in the Haram Sharif. Then, at the beginning of Dhu al-Qa‘dah, he left Jeddah for home and reached Bombay on 20 Dhu al-Hijjah. From Bombay he went to Calcutta, and thereafter, on April 29, 1824, reached Rae Bareli, his birthplace.

Wherever he went after returning from the Hajj, countless people crowded around him to see him even once and to pledge allegiance at his sacred hand. Thousands received initiation from him and joined his community.

After reaching Rae Bareli, Sayyid Sahib began preparing for an all-out struggle, or jihad. Shah Ismail began the work of reform and correction to free Muslims from un-Islamic superstitions and make them firm adherents of pure tawhid. His Takwiyat al-Iman is an authoritative and valuable work on this subject. Naturally, opposition also came from those who had built up thriving businesses on the basis of pir-worship and grave-worship.

When Sayyid Sahib’s eyes of understanding had opened, he clearly saw that the great Mughal Empire of this land had been shattered and destroyed. The few Muslim states that had raised their heads upon its ruins had also come to an end. Although the English had established their supremacy over the whole of India, a Sikh state had been established across a vast region. Muslims had not merely lost their kingdom; they had also strayed far from their own faith and the ‘straight path.’ Their beliefs, ideas, and customs had been influenced by un-Islamic philosophies and religious practices. The Muslim amirs and nobles who remained were absorbed in luxury, and their lives had no other aim than to preserve, by whatever means possible, the means and resources of their own pleasure and enjoyment. Whatever the national consequences might be, they had no opportunity—or inclination—to think about them. Most of the people seemed as though lightning had struck them and left them senseless, or as though a powerful earthquake had begun and left them bewildered. Those who possessed some intelligence could find no solution. They sat silently with their hands and feet folded, believing that the dark future was written by fate and that whatever was to happen would happen. But when a boat falls into a whirlpool in midstream, its sails are torn to pieces, its anchor proves useless, and no helmsman can be found, can any hope of saving the passengers’ lives remain? Muslims were then drowning in just such a sea of despair.

It was in such a hopeless condition of the Muslims’ national life that Sayyid Sahib opened his eyes of understanding. He saw that only three paths lay open before him.

First—to abandon the Truth and establish relations and connections with falsehood.

Second—not to abandon the Truth, but to endure silently whatever dangers, hardships, and poverty might come from remaining attached to it.

Third—to make every effort, with manly courage and valor, to confront falsehood and create such a situation that an environment might emerge in which victory and success for the Truth could begin.

The first was the path of death, not the path of life. The likely result of the second was that, gradually wasting away through suffering and pain, the nation’s lamp of life would be extinguished. The third path was the path of national self-respect, heroism, and noble courage—the path of attaining new life and regaining a place of honor. Sayyid Sahib adopted this third path. All the qualifications and virtues required to follow it existed in him to the fullest extent.

For several years after returning from Mecca Sharif to Rae Bareli, he continued preparing for and preaching jihad. He sent letters to the religious leaders of the country so that they would understand the importance and necessity of jihad as a fard obligation. He himself clearly understood that establishing power and a state was essential for reforming and organizing society. He appealed to several distinguished Muslims to participate fully in jihad and to provide assistance. In one letter he wrote to Nawab Sulaiman Jah:

Through the turn of our fortune, Hindustan has for some time come under the rule of Christians and Hindus, and they have begun to oppress the Muslims extensively. The land has been covered by unbelief and innovation, and Islamic ways of life have nearly disappeared. Seeing and hearing these things has filled my heart with pain. I have resolved either to perform hijrah or to wage jihad.

—(The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Maudud, p. 157)

Sayyid Sahib adopted jihad in the path of Allah as the sole aim of his life and the sole path to salvation in the Hereafter. Not only for himself, but also to inspire others to jihad, he wrote many fiery letters to numerous Muslim rulers and amirs and nobles at home and abroad. In his book, Ghulam Rasul Mehr mentions several of the many letters he wrote.

Sayyid Sahib sent letters to the following rulers:

1. Amir Dost Muhammad Khan Barakzai—Kabul.

2. Yar Muhammad Khan—Peshawar.

3. Sultan Muhammad—Kohat and Bannu.

4. Sayyid Muhammad Khan—Hashtnagar.

5. Shah Mahmud Durrani—Herat.

6. Zaman Shah Durrani.

7. Nasrullah—Bukhari.

8. Sulaiman Shah—Chitral.

9. Ahmad Ali—Rampur.

10. Muhammad Bahawal Khan Abbasi Nasrat Jang—Bahawalpur.

Moreover, he sent letters to thirty-five or so highly influential amirs and nobles throughout India, calling upon them to join the jihad and to provide every possible assistance and cooperation. Among them, he also sent a letter to Hindu Rao, a Hindu raja of Gwalior. The substance of the letter was as follows:

“Foreign merchants have become the rulers of this country. They are leading us toward destruction in every respect. Those who hold the reins of the state are now playing the role of silent spectators. In such circumstances, compelled by sheer duty, a few destitute and poor men have placed their trust in Allah and left their homes to serve His faith. They do not seek worldly wealth or rank. Their aim is that, if victory is achieved, the governance of this country will be handed over to the people of this country themselves.”

To make extensive preparations for the movement, Sayyid Sahib established an organization and appointed his trusted khalifahs or representatives in the principal cities of India. The following were among the notable ones—

1. Maulana Sayyid Muhammad Ali Rampuri was sent to Hyderabad (the Deccan) with three associates.

2. When Sayyid Muhammad Ali subsequently went to Madras, Maulana Belayat Ali Azimabadi was sent there.

3. Maulana Enayat Ali Azimabadi was sent to Bengal.

4. Maulana Sayyid Awlad Hasan Kanaujī and Sayyid Hafizuddin were assigned responsibility for the United Provinces.

5. The responsibility was entrusted to Miya Din Muhammad, Miya Pir Muhammad, and many others to travel through various parts of India, spread the call to jihad, and collect funds.

Patna was selected as the principal center for conducting the jihad. In 1822, when Sayyid Ahmad went to Patna, Belayat Ali and Muhammad Husain gave him a grand reception. Establishing Patna as the movement’s principal center, Sayyid Sahib appointed four representatives: Maulana Belayat Ali, Muhammad Husain, Enayat Ali, and Farhad Husain.

After completing the preaching and preparations for jihad throughout India, Sayyid Ahmad left his birthplace, Rae Bareli, in 1826. He never again had the opportunity to return there. He spent the remaining years of his life continually engaged in jihad in the path of Allah and blessed his life by drinking the nectar of martyrdom.

In any case, before the departure, money, weapons and military equipment, horses, provisions, and other supplies began arriving from various parts of India. Thousands of mujahids gathered beneath his banner to sacrifice their lives in the path of Allah. Thus, at the time of departure, the number of his mujahid forces reached twelve thousand. The Nawab of Tonk, a devoted follower of Sayyid Sahib, invited the mujahid forces and, supplying all the necessities of jihad under his own supervision, sent them on their way.

Thereafter, the mujahid forces passed from Tonk through Sindh, Hyderabad, Shikarpur, and other places, entered through the Bolan Pass, and reached Kandahar in Afghanistan.

Earlier, Mir Rustam Ali of Khairpur in Sindh had become a disciple of Sayyid Sahib and, like the Nawab of Tonk, had given him substantial financial assistance. After reaching Afghanistan, Sayyid Sahib sought the assistance of the Afghan amir. The amir refused to promise him any kind of assistance. In any event, from there the mujahid forces reached Nowshera on the frontier. Along this long route, the mujahid forces suffered extreme hardship and distress. Nevertheless, throughout their journey, sardars, rulers, local officials, and ordinary people from all sides pledged allegiance to Sayyid Sahib. Some offered various gifts, some pledged allegiance at his hand, and others joined his army. People from different provinces of India joined his forces—including many mujahids from distant Bengal. Among them was the notable Sufi Nur Muhammad NizamPuri of Chittagong, who returned to his homeland as a ghazi after the disaster of Balakot. His disciple and khalifah was Sufi Fateh Ali Sahib, who lies in eternal sleep at Maniktala in Calcutta. Many Bengalis attained martyrdom, and many others settled permanently in Balakot, Swat, and other places. Their descendants still exist. In 1963, the author had the good fortune to meet one of their descendants in Balakot.

When Sayyid Sahib traveled from Rae Bareli to Delhi and was receiving instruction from Shah Abdul Aziz, he learned of the severe persecution of Muslims under the Sikh rule in Punjab. His heart wept in sympathy for the oppressed Muslims, and he immediately resolved to remedy their condition. He wished to establish an Islamic state in the Muslim-populated frontier and from there launch campaigns against Muslim enemy forces elsewhere. For this reason, he chose the frontier as the initial center of his struggle. But it is a matter of profound regret that the treachery of the frontier Muslims, whose help and cooperation Sayyid Sahib had relied upon in drawing up the plan of his jihad, ultimately reduced his struggle to failure. From their arrival at Nowshera until the Battle of Balakot, the Sikhs were openly called upon, on eleven or more occasions according to different procedures, either to accept Islam, submit, or meet them in armed combat. In the end, battle took place, and in a night battle only nine hundred mujahids defeated a large Sikh army. In consequence of their victory, the people of the frontier resounded with their praise and joined the mujahid forces in groups. Many local sardars, especially the Yusufzais, joined Sayyid Sahib’s side.

Some time later, the Sikhs were also defeated at Manpuri Panjtar. As a result of this success of the mujahids, ten thousand warriors of Garhi Imami acknowledged Sayyid Sahib as imam. The people of Peshawar requested Sayyid Sahib to establish a base at Nowshera and begin a general campaign against the Sikhs. At this time, nearly one hundred thousand people joined the mujahid forces.

But the sardars of the frontier were extremely selfish and greedy for money. The Sikh commander Budh Singh won over the sardar of Peshawar with the lure of money. They sank so low that, for money, they secretly poisoned Sayyid Sahib. But by Allah’s infinite power, he miraculously survived. In the battle that took place against the Sikhs at this time, the sardars sided with the Sikhs, and the mujahid forces were defeated.

Because of the reversals and treachery of the Pashtun sardars of the frontier, the mujahid forces had to endure great hardship. A letter written by Sayyid Sahib to the Nawab of Tonk reveals that nearly three hundred thousand people pledged allegiance and joined his group. But almost all of them were local people. It is probable that they joined Sayyid Sahib’s group solely intending to plunder the spoils of war. They possessed no Islamic character. Sayyid Sahib was deceived by them because of his excessive simplicity. His only reliable companions were those who had come from outside. They remained beside Sayyid Sahib like shadows in times of danger and hardship and willingly gave their lives when necessary. Their number was about a thousand. Those among them who attained martyrdom in battle were replaced by newcomers. Caravans came from distant regions carrying people wishing to join the jihad, money, provisions, and letters. Supplies were provided to them through the covert efficiency of the nationwide Targhib-i-Muhammadi organization. Money came from Bihar and Bengal while eluding the eyes of the British government’s intelligence department. Along with it came groups of mujahids devoted to sacrifice in the path of God.

Whatever military provisions, foodstuffs, money, and other items arrived were deposited in the bayt al-mal, whose custodian was Maulana Muhammad Yusuf, the qutb of the mujahid forces and nephew of Shah Waliullah. Provisions and money were distributed among the mujahid forces with the utmost justice, impartiality, and discipline. Sayyid Sahib himself received no more than an ordinary mujahid.

The irony of fate was that these beloved servants of Allah, devoted to sacrifice in His path, had to confront three forces: the Sikhs, the treacherous Pashtun sardars, and Khada Khan, the fort-holder of Hund. These three powers were the enemies of the mujahid forces. They had to confront all three at once.

Warfare with the Sikhs continued almost constantly. The mujahids from Bengal, Bihar, and the Central Provinces fought bravely. The Sikhs and treacherous Pashtuns were beaten by them. The Durrani sardars of Peshawar also openly joined the Sikhs, while Khada Khan continually incited the local Pashtuns against the mujahids.

This time, Sayyid Sahib sent Shah Ismail with only 150 mujahids to capture the fort of Hund and subdue Khada Khan. In the darkness of night, they suddenly attacked Hund, captured it, and Khada Khan was killed. Khada Khan’s brother, Yar Muhammad, joined forces with a large army and advanced to recapture the fort of Hund. A fierce clash followed, and Yar Muhammad was killed. Many cannons belonging to the enemy were captured, along with abundant military equipment and goods. But the local inhabitants looted most of them. After the deaths of Khada Khan, Yar Muhammad Khan, and Amir Khan, the principal treacherous enemies of the mujahid forces, only Malik and Sultan Muhammad Khan of Peshawar remained as opponents. After the Battle of Hund, when Sayyid Sahib decided to establish a base in Peshawar, Amber’s Payinda Khan obstructed him. Here too, the mujahid forces had to confront the combined strength of the Malik and the Pashtuns. Here too they were defeated, and the mujahid forces’ control from Amber to Mardan was recognized. There was now no further obstacle to their advance as far as Peshawar.

Seeing that circumstances had turned against him, the cunning Sultan Muhammad pledged allegiance at Sayyid Sahib’s hand and sought forgiveness. When he promised to govern according to Islamic Shariah, Sayyid Sahib forgave him and entrusted him with the responsibility of governing. Maulana Jafar Thaneshwari comments in his book Sirat-i Sayyid Ahmad Shahid that, because of his simplicity, Sayyid Sahib had mistakenly and selflessly handed responsibility to Sultan Muhammad. Many people had questions in their minds, but no one had the courage to oppose Sayyid Sahib’s action. Maulana Shah Mazhar Ali was appointed qadi to administer justice according to the law of Shariah.

Sayyid Sahib and the mujahids he had trained had no desire to attain rank or office. Establishing Allah’s faith and enforcing God’s law in social life were the aims of their lives. Sayyid Sahib also had a political purpose in entrusting responsibility to Sultan Muhammad; for this reason, despite the presence of capable men among the mujahids from outside, he entrusted the responsibility to a local man. His aim was to enforce the injunctions of Shariah, not to enjoy power himself.

In any event, it appeared that Islamic rule had been established over a vast region. Sayyid Sahib began making special efforts to introduce an Islamic society and Islamic laws. Preaching groups were appointed throughout Peshawar and the entire frontier region. They engaged in village-to-village preaching of the Islamic way of life and the laws and regulations of Shariah.

But sadly, the local inhabitants were poor, ignorant, greedy, and bound by the shackles of age-old pagan superstitions. When the preachers began calling upon them to abandon these superstitions and live an Islamic life, their familial, social, tribal, and economic interests were dealt a severe blow. Consequently, they began to offer non-cooperation. The faction of ignorant, power-hungry and money-grubbing mullahs, bred by ignorance and superstition, also mounted fierce opposition. As a result, the local inhabitants erupted in blind rage against Sayyid Sahib. The treacherous Sultan Muhammad wanted precisely this and took full advantage of it. A deep web of conspiracy was spread throughout the entire region in the utmost secrecy, and on the same day and at the same hour, during the Fajr prayer, the Mujahid missionary group engaged in prayer was brutally wiped out. One man miraculously saved himself and, fleeing, reported the incident to Sayyid Sahib.

Sayyid Sahib was deeply grieved. In that single blow, several hundred of his workers devoted to the path of Allah lost their lives. His hope of establishing an ideal Islamic society also vanished. He resolved to leave the land of the treacherous and ungrateful and depart for elsewhere.

Jafar Thanesarī says that Sayyid Sahib then gathered his workers and said, “I have been shattered. The Pathans have committed the utmost treachery. There is no longer any hope of establishing an Islamic society here. Now I have no alternative but to undertake hijrah. I shall leave for another country by way of Balakot and Gilgit. If Allah grants me the opportunity, I shall take up this work again. The path I wish to follow is extremely difficult, with danger threatening at every step. I shall not call upon you to follow this path. If you wish, each of you may return to your own home.”

Then all of them said with one voice, ‘To step forward into jihad and then turn back is contrary to faith. We wish to remain, under all circumstances, the inseparable companions of our Master.’

Thereafter, Sayyid Sahib set out toward Balakot with his remaining Mujahids. At that time, Sher Singh’s army stood facing the Mujahids.

The substance of the letter that Sayyid Sahib wrote from Balakot to Nawab Wazir-ud-Daulah is as follows:

“The people of Peshawar were so unfortunate that they did not join our Mujahid force in jihad. Moreover, they succumbed to temptation and killed many of the noble men who were engaged in various activities throughout the country. …The real purpose of our stay there was to obtain the assistance and sympathy of large numbers of local Muslims in jihad against the infidels. Now that there is no further hope, we have decided to move from there to the mountainous region of Pakhli. The enemy will not even find us. Continue to supplicate before Allah day and night for the advancement of Islam and the success of the Mujahid force.”

—Abdul Mawdūd, The Wahhabi Movement, pp. 164

Sayyid Sahib and his Mujahid force had chosen the beautiful valley of Balakot as a place to rest. To the east, the Kunhar, or Kaghan, mountain river flowed ceaselessly with its murmuring sound. From the northwest, the narrow mountain stream Barna played hide-and-seek among huge stone slabs; to the north of the stream lay the tranquil Nuri plain. Entering this playground of nature, one felt as though someone were beckoning from the far bank of the river of life. Though the battle-weary Mujahids pitched camp here to rest, perhaps the beckoning from the other shore had not escaped their notice. Thus, rest was not to be their lot.

Meanwhile, the Sikhs were searching for the Mujahid force. They thought that only a few hundred of Sayyid Sahib’s hundreds of thousands of Mujahids remained and that they had become demoralized. They had to strike at precisely that opportunity.

At that time there were only two routes to Balakot. One passed through such dense mountain forests that traveling by it was extremely dangerous for anyone except the local people. The other passed through a narrow mountain pass and over a bridge. Guards had of course been posted along both routes. But several traitors, tempted by a large sum of money, showed the Sikhs the forest-covered route. As a result, they suddenly surrounded the Mujahid force. Although completely unprepared, the Mujahid force fought with heroic valor. Sayyid Ahmad, Shah Ismail, and the other principal associates of Sayyid Sahib attained martyrdom while fighting jihad.

Abdul Mawdūd says, “The great movement he led did not come to a standstill. Even after this massacre, many of those who survived established centers of the movement at Tonk or at Chhatana in Bihar Sharif under the leadership of Sayyid Sahib’s trusted attendants. Later, when the imperialist English in Punjab began committing atrocities like the Sikhs, all the Mujahids’ anger was directed against them. But what fell to their lot was imprisonment, persecution, and the cruel punishment of death on the gallows; still more vile was the groundless slander and false preaching against these pioneering fighters by low-class mullahs and so-called scholars.”

He further says, “The time has now come to acknowledge and honor the glorious and unparalleled acts of courage of these heroic Mujahids, for in reality they had waged jihad against every form of injustice in this subcontinent long ago by laying the foundations of Pakistan. Although Pakistan was not achieved through Sayyid Sahib’s organization, it is nevertheless undeniable that the seed of it lay there; and every informed person will understand that Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed of Rae Bareli made an immeasurable contribution to awakening this consciousness.”

—Abdul Mawdūd, The Wahhabi Movement, pp. 165–166

It has been stated above that several thousand Mujahids and a vast amount of money were sent from Bangladesh to Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed’s jihad movement. When many people from Bangladesh set out from Rae Bareli for jihad, they joined Sayyid Sahib as companions; and during the jihad, just as abundant money and resources from Bangladesh reached the frontier, so too did thousands of Mujahids.

Ghulam Rasul Mehr says—Mujahids joined Sayyid Sahib in groups by various routes. One such group included Mawlavi Fateh Ali Azimabadi. Of the list of his group that he submitted, among those whose names he remembered, six were from Bangladesh. Their names were:

1. Mawlavi Imamuddin

2. Zahurullah

3. Lutfullah

4. Talebullah

5. Fayezuddin

6. Qazi Madani

(Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, appendix, p. 412) The Mujahids had approximately eleven or twelve fierce clashes with the Sikhs and Pathans. Many Mujahids were certainly martyred in these battles. Their names, as well as the names and identities of the several hundred who were martyred one day during the Fajr prayer, are unknown. Ghulam Rasul Mehr, however, has presented a list of the names of those who were martyred at Balakot. According to his list, a total of one hundred and thirty-five Mujahids were martyred at Balakot. Five of them were from Bangladesh. Their names were Alimuddin, Fayezuddin, Lutfullah, Sharfuddin, and Sayyid Muzaffar Hossain. The names Kader Bakhsh, Abdul Qader, Ghaziuddin, and Bakhshullah also appear on the list. But their places of origin are not given. Only after Bakhshullah’s name is it stated: ‘brother of Mehr Ali.’ —(Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed, Ghulam Rasul Mehr, pp. 432–434)

While Mujahids from all over India were engaged in jihad on the frontier, Sayyid Nisar Ali, also known as Titumir, was at that very time engaged in jihad against Hindu zamindars, indigo planters, and the English. Titumir was a murid of Sayyid Sahib. But he had become so deeply involved in his homeland that he did not have the good fortune to attain martyrdom in Sayyid Sahib’s company. Nevertheless, the martyr Titumir followed the very path by which his murshid met his Lord. On Friday, May 6, 1831, around midday, the foremost Mujahid of the subcontinent, Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (may Allah have mercy on him), attained martyrdom. On November 19, 1931, Sayyid Titumir attained martyrdom under cannon fire from English troops.

Causes of the Balakot Disaster

It is certainly our duty to investigate the causes of the formidable movement that Shah Muhammad Ismail, Mawlana Abdul Hai, and other eminent thinkers had built under the leadership of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi to establish Islamic freedom—that is, Islamic government or rule—in India, and that advanced to the threshold of success only to encounter failure. For a precise examination and careful study of the history of the past can enable us to determine the correct course of action for the future. Let us briefly discuss the causes that thoughtful scholars have described for the failure of the aforementioned movement. Although the movement temporarily failed, its repercussions were far-reaching. The impetus toward the blood-stained path that Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed gave the Muslims of India was followed continuously for nearly a century by Indian Muslims—Bengali, Bihari, Punjabi, Sindhi, and Pathan alike. Imprisonment, persecution, hanging, transportation, confiscation of immovable and movable property, and inhuman and brutal physical torture could not divert them from this path even for a moment. Nevertheless, we must also identify why the leader of this movement himself did not live to see its success. Many have expressed the view that the principal causes were as follows.

1. Every member of the cadre required to conduct an Islamic movement, that is, jihad in the path of Allah, must have a character formed according to pure Islamic ideals. They must be devoted to the path of Allah. Undoubtedly, the Mujahid force that Sayyid Sahib brought with him from outside possessed this character. The same was true of those who, during the jihad, left their relatives, homes, fields, and farms in Bengal, Bihar, the Central Provinces, and other regions, and joined Sayyid Sahib’s Mujahid force solely to attain the pleasure of Allah. But their number always remained limited to between one and two thousand. Hearing Sayyid Sahib’s fiery speeches for jihad and witnessing the unexpected victories over the Sikhs in the early days, the Pathans joined Sayyid Sahib’s ranks in groups. But they possessed no genuine Islamic character. They had abundant Islamic fervor and zeal. Yet most of them were poor, ignorant, greedy, and bound by long-accumulated superstitions. Those who were chiefs or tribal rulers were also extremely selfish and opportunistic. At times the Mujahid force reached as many as three hundred thousand. Almost all of them belonged to various Pathan tribes. Driven by greed for money, they committed treachery, joined the opposing Sikh soldiers at critical moments, or, while fighting alongside the Mujahid force, became absorbed solely in plundering the spoils and disrupted discipline and order within the force. Their Islamic fervor and zeal, fragile as soap bubbles, were swept away and annihilated by the powerful flood of blind personal interest and greed for money.

2. Although Sayyid Sahib and Shah Ismail themselves were formidable warriors and military strategists, the entire Mujahid force was not trained in the military science of the time.

3. It was also wrong to place complete trust in the treacherous and unprincipled Pathans. It was wrong to entrust the administration of Peshawar to Sultan Muhammad Khan, even though he and his brothers were bitterly opposed to Sayyid Sahib. Sultan Muhammad ultimately dealt a devastating blow to the movement and, through a carefully planned conspiracy on the same night, killed several hundred select Mujahids of Sayyid Sahib. As a result, Sayyid Sahib had to retreat from Peshawar.

4. The local Pathans’ aim was to preserve their lives and gain worldly benefits rather than give their lives in the path of Allah. Thus, during battle, they forced the genuine Mujahids to remain at the forefront while they themselves remained as inactive as possible and looked for opportunities to plunder.

5. After gaining control of the country, the implementation of the Sharia law was also undertaken in a manner contrary to wisdom. Various long-standing superstitions had become so deeply entrenched among the people that implementing Sharia law dealt a severe blow to those superstitions. The groups of uneducated mullahs who earned their livelihoods by keeping these superstitions alive became enraged. The opportunistic chiefs also took advantage of this. Thus, the people, the mullahs, and the chiefs began to oppose the Mujahids in concert. The first step should have been to begin reforming and correcting the people’s character, and to implement the law gradually once their minds and hearts had become ready to abide by Sharia law. The people were certainly firm believers in Islam and fearless fighters in the struggle for freedom, but their social and political life was in no way more advanced than that of the pre-Islamic “Age of Ignorance.”

Among the local people and inhabitants, various evil customs prevailed that were wholly contrary to Islamic Sharia. For example, forcibly marrying whomever one pleased, selling daughters at a high price for marriage, distributing widows among the heirs of the deceased, taking more than four wives, refusing to allow widow remarriage, and giving mullahs a fixed amount of money for the salvation of the dead, among others. Among the Sharia laws promulgated by Sayyid Ahmad was that every kind of practice, custom, ritual, and tradition contrary to the Sharia was to be entirely abolished. The Sharia laws also provided that Sharia courts would be established to settle civil and criminal cases; after the collection of the ‘ushr,’ or one-tenth of the harvested crops, and zakat, the proceeds would be deposited in the bayt al-mal; the bayt al-mal funds would be distributed equally among the Mujahids and others; if any dispute arose among the indigenous and tribal peoples, the sole authority for its final settlement would rest with the caliph; a police department would be established to regulate the people’s religious and moral life; and every Muslim would be compelled to observe fasting (sawm) and prayer (salat). Many other constructive and welfare-oriented laws were also promulgated. Undoubtedly, this was an ideal system adopted in imitation of the methods of the Prophet Mustafa and the Rightly Guided Caliphs. But the indigenous people, tribal Pathans, common people, and mullahs had not developed the mindset to accept these measures. Therefore, because Sharia law was imposed on them suddenly rather than introduced gradually, they refused to accept it.

Another principal reason for the opposition of the tribal Pathans was that, for the sake of peace and order, everyone had been placed under a central authority. But the innate disposition of the tribal Pathans was to submit to no one’s command. To them, freedom meant unrestrained license. Yet when a civilized government sought to control their license for the sake of law and order, they adopted a rebellious attitude toward Islamic rule.

Abdul Mawdūd says, “In such circumstances, it is worth considering how far the sudden introduction of Sharia law was appropriate. Judged by the lessons of history and the standard of foresight, it seems that this change could not be brought about in that way. The course of national life must be gradually changed and reformed by trying to shape it in accordance with the public mind. If one attempts to change it overnight while ignoring the public mind, doubt and mental conflict cause the people to turn away from it; they cannot accept it wholeheartedly. Attempts to change the way of life rapidly while disregarding the public mind and the environment have, in many cases, failed painfully and proved fruitless.”

—Abdul Mawdūd, The Wahhabi Movement, p. 177

“Standing up against an oppressive ruler is the finest jihad”—this was the bold proclamation of the Prophet of the world. When Muslim society in Bengal was heading toward extinction under the oppressive rule of the Company and the persecution and oppression of Hindu zamindars, moneylenders, indigo planters, and their local agents, Haji Shariatullah raised his voice against them, followed by Sayyid Nisar Ali, also known as Titumir, the worthy khalifa of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi. Similarly, Sayyid Ahmad openly declared a broad program of jihad against the foreign and infidel English rule. This was the demand of a true Muslim’s faith. By accepting any one of the three—hijrah, jihad, or martyrdom—a Muslim bears witness to his faith. Thus Mawlana Muhammad Ali Jauhar said: the life story of a Muslim consists of only three chapters—hijrah, jihad, and martyrdom. The lives of Sayyid Ahmad and Shah Ismail are the embodiment of these three chapters.

After the Balakot Disaster

Although the Mujahids suffered a devastating defeat on the field of Balakot, and although the leaders of the Mujahid force, Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi and Shah Ismail, attained martyrdom along with others, the activities of those who had been fortunate enough to become ghazis did not diminish at all. Many of them kept the jihad movement alive among the Muslims of India, culminating in the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, that is, the all-India freedom movement. The movement did not fall silent in 1857; rather, it continued to embarrass and endanger the British government until 1868. At the forefront of this movement were the khalifas of Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed, including Mawlana Wilayat Ali, Mawlana Mahmudullah, and Sufi Nur Muhammad Nizam-Puri. Without a brief discussion of them, the complete picture of the jihad movement will not emerge.

Mawlana Wilayat Ali

Mawlana Wilayat Ali was the son of Mawlavi Fateh Ali of Patna and a descendant of the renowned Amir Rafiuddin Hussain Khan of that place. Wilayat Ali was raised in the lap of great wealth. He spent his adolescence and youth in Lucknow, the splendid city of amirs and nobles. When Sayyid Ahmad came to Lucknow during this period to present the call to jihad, Wilayat Ali abandoned his luxurious life, responded to the call of jihad, and went to Rae Bareli. There he began studying the science of hadith under Mawlana Shah Muhammad Ismail and, instead of a life of luxury, began living the life of a faqir. He worked as a mason alongside Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed and gathered wood from the forests, cooking with his own hands. Sayyid Sahib greatly loved such a soul devoted to the path of Allah. When he departed for Makkah to perform Hajj, he appointed him as his deputy and entrusted him with the responsibility of preaching Islam. On Sayyid Sahib’s instructions, he conducted missionary work in Afghanistan for two months. Along with a certain Mawlana Muhammad Ali, he continued missionary work in Swat, Hyderabad, and the Deccan. While he was in the Deccan, Sayyid Sahib attained martyrdom at Balakot.

After the Balakot disaster, Mawlana Wilayat Ali entered British India and took up Sayyid Sahib’s unfinished work. He sent various individuals to conduct missionary work in different places. He sent his own brother, Mawlana Inayat Ali, to Bengal. He appointed Mawlana Zainul Abedin and Mawlana Abbas Ali as missionaries in Orissa and the United Provinces, respectively.

Having established the central office in Patna, Mawlana Wilayat Ali began missionary work. After two years, he went to Makkah to perform Hajj. After the Hajj, he traveled to Yemen, Najd, Muscat, Hadhramaut, and other places. During this period, he received a certificate in hadith from the renowned muhaddith Qazi Muhammad ibn Ali al-Shawkani.

After returning from Arabia, he sent a Mujahid force under the leadership of his brother Inayat Ali to the frontier to wage jihad against Gulab Singh. Seeing that the situation was becoming desperate, Gulab Singh entered into a treaty with the British. As a result, internal conflict began among the Muslims of the frontier, and Inayat Ali’s Mujahid force was scattered.

After the failure of the frontier campaign, Mawlana Wilayat Ali returned to Lahore. The police commissioner of Lahore forced the two Mawlana brothers to sign a bond for two years, undertaking to refrain from all activities. Thereafter, they returned to Patna and began the work of preaching Islam.

After the two-year term of the bond expired, Mawlana Wilayat Ali traveled from Patna to Delhi with several colleagues for the purpose of hijrah. During this period, he continued presenting the call of Islam at the Delhi Jama Masjid and Fatehpur Mosque. This occurred only a few years before the freedom movement of 1857. At this time, at Bahadur Shah’s invitation, he met him once at the Red Fort.

After staying in Delhi for some time, Mawlana Wilayat Ali traveled via Ludhiana to Sittana on the Punjab frontier. Sittana was a major center of the Mujahid force. A khanqah and madrasa had been established there. By khanqah, the Mujahids understood their campaign center. Patna was called the Small Khanqah and Sittana the Great Khanqah. Money, supplies, and Mujahids were sent from the Small Khanqah to the Great Khanqah.

Upon reaching Sittana, Mawlana Wilayat Ali found that the activity there had greatly declined. He was a fiery speaker. He infused the Mujahid force with renewed vitality.

At this time, an anti-British government conspiracy case was brought against Mawlana Wilayat Ali. During the trial, several hundred thousand rupees’ worth of his immovable and movable property in Patna’s Sadiqpur, including two residences and a garden house, was reduced to ruins. The residents of the homes, especially the children and women, were left destitute and without shelter. In 1853, he fell ill and died.

Regarding the brothers Mawlana Wilayat Ali and Mawlana Inayat Ali, Hunter says in his report The Indian Musalmans that the two khalifas (Mawlana Wilayat Ali and Mawlana Inayat Ali) were widely known in Punjab as Mujahidin, and for that reason they were arrested and sent under police custody to Patna. The magistrate took bonds from them and from two wealthy men of their faith, conditional upon future good conduct. But in 1850 I saw them conducting seditious missionary work in the Rajshahi district of the flatlands of Bengal. They were expelled from Rajshahi twice on separate occasions for such missionary work. However much these two khalifas might be confined to their own homes in Patna by bail bonds, they were seen again in 1851 spewing fire against English rule on the Punjab frontier.”

Revolutionary Ahmadullah

Just as Muslims throughout India, Bengali and non-Bengali alike, actively participated in Sayyid Ahmad’s jihad movement, so too did Muslims from all over India participate. Farmers, laborers, tailors, butchers, mullahs, maulavis, maulanas, and senior government employees—all took every risk to their lives and participated in the jihad movement solely to attain God’s pleasure. Deputy Magistrate Ahmadullah was one of them.

Ahmadullah’s father was named Elahi Bakhsh. Ahmadullah was born in the first decade of the nineteenth century into a highly respectable family in the historically renowned Sadikpur of Patna. He received higher education in Arabic, Persian, and Urdu. He was also highly proficient in English. His father became a disciple of Sayyid Shahid and made his three sons—Yahya Ali, Foyez Ali, and Ahmadullah—disciples of Sayyid Sahib as well. Early in life, Ahmadullah joined the education department of the British government. The name given to Ahmadullah by his father was Ahmad Bakhan. Sayyid Sahib changed it and gave him the new name Ahmadullah. His former name disappeared, and he became known only as Ahmadullah.

During the war against the Sikhs on the frontier, Sayyid Sahib’s army numbered more than two hundred thousand. Men and funds for this vast army were collected from almost every province of India at that time, especially Bengal, Bihar, Orissa, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, Sindh, and the Frontier Province. This work was conducted through a well-organized secret institution, of which the British government had not the slightest knowledge for twenty-five years, until before 1852. How deeply the senior government employee Ahmadullah was involved with this secret institution and all its activities is revealed by a report submitted to the Government of Bengal by Mr. Raven Shaw on 9 May 1865. The report stated:

In 1852, the authorities in Punjab obtained a letter concerning a conspiracy. It provided evidence that the Hindustani religious zealots (the Mujahids) had attempted from the mountain heights to create trouble with the Fourth Regiment of Native Infantry. It was found that many maulavis from the Sadikpur family and numerous armed caravans had then set out toward the frontier. An unsigned letter from Peshawar revealed that Maulavi Wilayat Ali, Enayat Ali, Foyez Ali, and Yahya Ali (Ahmadullah’s two brothers), along with a tailor named Maulavi Karam Ali from Dinajpur, had pitched their tents at Sittana in Surat and were preparing to fight the Government with the assistance of Badshah Sayyid Akbar. I have already stated that Sayyid Akbar was a government-appointed ruler of Swat. The letter contained the following account: Maulavi Farhat Ali, the brother of Maulavi Wilayat Ali, was in Azimabad; Ahmadullah, the brother of Maulavi Foyez Ali, and Maulavi Yahya Ali were collecting funds in their own neighborhoods and sending arms and supplies. Other letters revealed that troops and supplies were sent from Patna through Meerut and Rawalpindi. Separate agents were appointed at these two places, and they arranged all supplies for the jihad on the frontier.

“At the request of the Punjab Government, Patna’s Magistrate, Hossain Ali Khan, searched the house. It was Ahmadullah’s residence, and correspondence was conducted in his name. In fact, however, the news of the magistrate’s impending search had become known two days earlier through a native doctor who had returned from Punjab, and all the letters in their house had been destroyed. In any event, in his report dated 10 August 1852, the magistrate informed the Government that the Wahhabis had by then greatly increased in number, and that every kind of secret counsel for the jihad was held at the houses of Maulavi Wilayat Ali, Ahmadullah, and his father Elahi Bakhsh, from which propaganda activities were conducted. He further reported that the Wahhabis had connections with the local police. Consequently, no reliable evidence of their activities reached him. However, six or seven hundred armed men were prepared at Maulavi Ahmadullah’s house to resist the magistrate’s search and raise the standard of revolt.”

“At the Council meeting of 7 September 1852, a minute was recorded concerning these letters, based on the writings of the Punjab Government, and it acknowledged the necessity of declaring war against the inhabitants of the frontier. Munshi Muhammad Wali of the Fourth Native Regiment was handed over to the criminal court, and he was tried and sentenced at Rawalpindi on 12 May 1853. At that time, the names of Maulavi Ahmadullah and other inhabitants of Patna again arose in the evidence, and the matter of their sending supplies to the frontier was also discussed.”

“It is a matter of profound regret that the Government took no active measures and did not destroy the Patna conspiracy. The advance of sedition would certainly have been halted, no troops would have been lost in the Ambala campaign, and government employees would have been spared much labor and needless humiliation, because the armed rebel Ahmadullah of 1852 was none other than a ‘mere bookman’ and the ‘Wahhabi gentleman’ of 1857.”

(The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Mawdud, pp. 198–200)

When the freedom movement of 1857 burst into flames throughout India, the commissioner of that time, Mr. Taylor, arrested and imprisoned many Muslims of Patna, including Ahmadullah. Taylor suspected that these Muslims had been involved in the movement of ’57. Without trial, Taylor began hanging a number of the imprisoned Muslims every day from the gallows in the field before his bungalow, in an extremely cruel and barbaric manner, thereby gratifying himself. But as soon as news of this cruel and unjust abuse reached the authorities, orders were issued for the release of the remaining prisoners and Taylor was called upon to explain himself. Thus Ahmadullah escaped Taylor’s slaughter. Taylor was removed from the post of commissioner for this barbaric massacre.

After the freedom movement of ’57 had been suppressed and pacified, the British adopted a policy of winning the Muslims’ goodwill. Meanwhile, Sir Sayyid Ahmad also made every effort to reestablish relations between the Muslims and the British. The Government’s sympathy was extended to Ahmadullah as well. Consequently, by a proclamation dated 21 September 1860, he was appointed deputy magistrate. Yet the regular supply of Mujahids and provisions from Patna’s great khanqah, or principal center, to Mulka and Sittana continued. Despite being a senior government employee, Ahmadullah fully cooperated with the Mujahid force solely for God’s pleasure. Under his supervision, the collection of Mujahids and supplies from Bengal and Bihar proceeded with full vigor. His own house was the principal base for this work. Every Friday after sunset, a milad was held at his house; the Mujahids gathered there in the name of the milad and set their daily program. For their activities they used a code that no one except themselves could understand. Each person was known among them by a different name.

Ahmadullah had trustworthy, industrious agents in Bengal and Bihar who were devoted to the path of God. His agent in Bengal was Haji Badruddin, a renowned leather merchant of Dhaka. He collected all the money from the eastern region and sent it by hundi in the name of a merchant in Patna named Farulal. In the Murigunge neighborhood of Calcutta, there were agents named Abdul Jabbar and another high court mukhtar named Mukshed Ali. Mukshed Ali also had a house in Patna. There were agents as well in the districts of Twenty-Four Parganas, Jessore, Faridpur, Murshidabad, Maldah, Rangpur, and others. Agents were appointed in the major cities of Bihar, Orissa, the United Provinces, and the Central Provinces too. Ahmadullah Sahib exchanged letters with them in code. From 1860 to 1865, Maulavi Ahmadullah was the principal leader of the jihad movement. It was entirely natural that, making full use of his senior government position, he should conduct this movement without restriction. For the success of any revolution, the assistance and cooperation of the established government’s police, military, and administrative departments are indispensable.

The Mujahid force inspired the revolutionary movement that spread throughout India in 1857. The Mujahid force actively participated in it. Although the movement did not succeed because of adverse circumstances, the Mujahids were neither subdued nor disheartened. Their drive for action did not diminish at all. Although final victory was not possible, they continued advancing this movement for a decade after the disaster of ’57, almost to the threshold of success.

Thousands of Muslims from all over Bengal, longing to become ghazis or martyrs, would gather at Ahmadullah Sahib’s house in Sadikpur, Patna, and from there depart in small groups for Sittana. Four Bengali Muslims from one such group were caught by a Punjabi sergeant named Guzar Khan while on their way to Ambala. They were brought before the magistrate. When they declared themselves innocent and harmless travelers, the magistrate released them. Guzar Khan was greatly distressed and reported that a certain Zafar Ali of Thanesar was engaged in sending Mujahids and supplies to Sittana. As soon as the authorities received the news, they searched Zafar Ali Thaneshwari’s house and seized many suspicious documents. Zafar Ali fled, but was caught at Aligarh along with many Mujahids. Their depositions revealed that they were spies of Elahi Bakhsh of Sadikpur. Even after searching Elahi Bakhsh’s house, many objectionable documents were found there.

From these documents the authorities discovered a terrible conspiracy, and Patna’s magistrate, Raven Shaw, was entrusted with the investigation. During the investigation Ahmadullah Sahib was arrested and dismissed from his employment. After four months of investigation, eight charges, including sedition, were framed against Ahmadullah, and he was committed to prison. At trial, the sessions judge sentenced him to death. An appeal against this sentence was filed in Calcutta. Justices Trevor and O. Lock (J.J.) delivered their judgment on 13 April 1865. They stated: “Instead of approving the sentence of death, we order that he be transported for life and that all his property be confiscated by the Government.”

He was sent to the Andamans that June, and after living as a prisoner for nearly sixteen years, this brave Mujahid embraced death with a smile in 1881.

His younger brother Yahya Ali was also sentenced to transportation for life, and had already died in the Andamans. Ahmadullah’s dying wish was to be buried beside his brother. But the British government did not fulfill even this innocent and harmless wish of his.

The Sadikpur family residence was one of Patna’s most distinguished and famous houses. The residence was razed to the ground, and Patna’s municipal market was built there. The cost of this construction was paid from the proceeds of selling the family’s other properties.

The manner in which this distinguished and renowned family of Sadikpur was utterly destroyed while following the path of God, and the incomparable sacrifice and devotion it left behind, have few parallels in history. Every member of the family, women and children alike, was slowly consumed in the government’s wrath. Most heartbreaking of all, on the sacred and joyous Eid of the Muslims, the British government took extreme satisfaction in expelling Ahmadullah’s family from their residence with only the clothes they wore and empty hands. Such humiliation cannot be found in the history of any civilized nation. The silent cries and lamentations of the innocent children and women rent the sky that day. Perhaps remembering this day, Ahmadullah composed the following elegy:

On the night of Eid, they made it dawn for us

They drove us from our home

They turned the joy of living into mourning

They turned Eid into Muharram.

When the light of dawn appeared at the end of the Eid night, we were all driven from our own home. All the exuberance of joy assumed the form of mourning—our Eid became the Karbala of Muharram.

The barbarity did not end there. The Sadikpur family’s large ancestral cemetery was plowed up and destroyed, and the land was settled among Hindus.

Maulana Yahya Ali

Maulana Yahya Ali was the elder brother of the revolutionary Ahmadullah. The way in which he maintained the anti-British movement by maintaining contact with the Mujahids from one end of India to the other, in order to complete the unfinished work of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid Barelvi, is truly astonishing. For this work he sacrificed his life and wealth in the path of God. In fact, after Sayyid Sahib’s martyrdom, Maulana Yahya Ali was the spiritual leader, or imam, of the Mujahids. After directing the jihad movement until 1864, he became an accused, along with others, in the British conspiracy case.

Hunter states in his book: “The principal imam, Yahya Ali, had numerous responsibilities entrusted to him. As the spiritual director of the Wahhabi community in India, he had to correspond regularly with the preachers under him. He had to prepare letters in a kind of secret language, which he himself had invented. He also had to manage the arrangements for regularly sending large sums of money to the rebel camps on the frontier. Leading prayers in the mosque, inspecting the rifles of the religious zealots and handing them over to them, delivering religious lectures to the students, and mastering more deeply through private study the theoretical knowledge taught by Arab religious scholars—all this formed part of his program.”

He was, so to speak, at once the director of the Mujahid force, its military trainer, the imam of the mosque, the spiritual guide of ilm al-tasawwuf, and the inventor of the code used to conduct warfare. Citing the judgment delivered by Sir Herbert Edwardes, the sessions judge of Ambala, in July 1864, Hunter says: “In order to establish the rule of the crescent (Islam) in India, he (Yahya Ali) was engaged in religious propaganda at the Patna mosque. He appointed numerous subordinate agents to collect money and conduct jihad among the Muslims.”

He further says: “The trial of the case revealed three most astonishing facts: the organizers’ prudence in building an organization across a vast area; the workers’ skill in maintaining secrecy while conducting their activities; and their complete loyalty to one another. The system of adopting pseudonyms and introducing a kind of secret language for exchanging information was largely at the root of their success.”

There were eleven accused in this case. The leaders of the movement were sentenced to death. But they accepted the death sentences with such composure that the British government was astonished. The reason was that these Mujahids’ view of life and death differed from that of the rulers. They firmly believed that attaining martyrdom in the path of God was life’s greatest success. Therefore, the province’s highest court remitted their death sentences and changed them to life imprisonment. Acknowledging this truth, Hunter Sahib said: “The British government showed wisdom by denying even those who were the foremost leaders of the conspiracy the opportunity to become martyrs.”

The accused in this case were:

Maulana Yahya Ali; Abdul Ghaffar, treasurer of the Patna preaching center; Jafar Thaneshwari; Muhammad Shafi, a contractor supplying meat to the British cantonment; Abdur Rahim; Elahi Bakhsh; Muhammad Husain; Qazi Mianjan; Abdul Karim; Husaini of Thanesar; and Abdul Ghaffar (2).

Bengali Mujahids would gather and stay at the house of the fifth accused, Abdur Rahim. The caretaker kept their money, provided them with food, entertained them, and returned their money when they departed. Yahya Ali inspired them with the spirit of jihad.

Elahi Bakhsh sent the collected funds to Jafar Thaneshwari, who sent them to the rebel camps in Mulka and Sittana.

Muhammad Husain of Patna was Elahi Bakhsh’s caretaker. He sewed gold coins into his sleeves, traveled from Patna to Delhi, and handed them over to Jafar Thaneshwari as instructed.

Qazi Mianjan collected Mujahids; he also collected and sent funds and handled the exchange of letters.

Abdul Karim was a spy for Muhammad Shafi, the meat supplier. He too carried money from Patna. Muhammad Jafar Thaneshwari stated in his book Tawarikh-i-Ajib that Mianjan was a resident of Kumarkhali in Kushtia district. He died in prison.

Husaini of Thanesar maintained contact with Muhammad Jafar Thaneshwari and Muhammad Shafi. One day, while carrying 290 gold coins from Muhammad Jafar Thaneshwari to Muhammad Shafi, he was caught red-handed.

While serving his life sentence in the Andamans, Maulana Yahya Ali breathed his last there. Thus, one of the foremost leaders of the movement to establish Islamic rule in India ended his life amid the oppression of the British rulers.

Of the three men sentenced to death—Maulana Yahya Ali, Haji Muhammad Shafi, and Muhammad Jafar Thaneshwari—Jafar Thaneshwari was one. He was a highly influential man of Thanesar. His death sentence was remitted and changed to life imprisonment. After serving eighteen years in the Andamans, he returned home. He wrote a book entitled Tawarikh-i-Ajib. In it he included many valuable accounts of his long experience in the Andamans, the inhuman treatment of prisoners, the freedom movement of 1857, and the jihad movement. He also included many valuable details of his movement in this book. He gave a striking account of the Battle of Ambala in 1863. He said:

“In 1863, a terrible war took place on the western frontier of India as a result of the sheer coercion of the British government. General Chamberlain was the commander on the English side. His forces suffered considerable hardship at the Ambala base. This amounted to an invasion of another country and a violation of its borders. Therefore, the famous Pir Sahib of Swat also marched against the English troops with a large number of disciples, intending to assist the Muslim Mujahid force. The Afghans threw themselves into the war to defend the honor of their country and nation.

The fierce battle continued. General Chamberlain himself was seriously wounded. Nearly seven thousand English soldiers were killed or wounded. The British government sent this expedition, even into another country’s territory, with the aim of utterly destroying the Mujahid force. The Mujahids’ resolve was: either victory or martyrdom. They set about displaying the utmost bravery. As a result, the battle assumed tremendous proportions.

Meanwhile, India’s Viceroy, Lord Elgin, suddenly died on the summit of the Kumban mountains, consumed by the consequences of his unjust actions and wrongful invasion. India was left without a viceroy. The simultaneous war and the viceroy’s death undoubtedly created a crisis. At such a time, on 11 December 1866, Guzan Khan, a mounted Pathan policeman in charge of the Panipat outpost in Karnal district, learned through some source of my connection with the Mujahid force. Naturally, he regarded this as a golden opportunity for promotion. He then informed the deputy commissioner of Karnal in a lengthy statement. He reported that Muhammad Jafar, the numberdar of Thanesar town, was assisting the Mujahid force in its terrible struggle on the frontier with money and men. As soon as the deputy commissioner received the news, he sent it by telegram to the authorities of Ambala district, under which Thanesar town lay. As soon as the informant emerged, one of my police friends went to the deputy commissioner’s bungalow. After learning the secret information from him, he sent a police officer to inform me. Since I had fallen asleep, he left, intending to tell me the next day. Unfortunately, before my police friend could return, Police Superintendent Captain Parsons surrounded my house.”

(Tawarikh-i-Ajib, Bengali translation, The Autobiography of an Andaman Prisoner, pp. 1–2).

Maulana Imamuddin

Maulana Imamuddin was born in the village of Hajipur (Sadullapur), under Sadar police station in Noakhali district of Bangladesh. In his childhood he went to Calcutta for education, and from there he went to Delhi to study under Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi. While in Delhi, he met Sayyid Ahmad Shahid. But he did not take initiation from him at that time. Later he met Sayyid Ahmad again in the city of Lucknow. This time he took bay‘ah at his hand and joined the Mujahid force; some time later, Sayyid Sahib accepted him as his khalifa.

When Sayyid Sahib went to the Hijaz for the purpose of performing Hajj, Maulana Imamuddin took leave of his spiritual guide in Calcutta and went to Noakhali to visit his aged father. Thereafter, accompanied by his younger brother Alimuddin and thirty or forty other men, he went to the Hijaz and joined Sayyid Sahib’s caravan.

After Hajj, he joined the jihad campaign and became Sayyid Sahib’s companion on the field of Balakot. His brother Alimuddin was martyred in the battle, and he returned as a ghazi. After the disaster at Balakot, he went to the kingdom of Tonk at the invitation of Nawab Waziruddaula of Tonk. The Nawab received instruction from him in many matters.

Sufi Nur Muhammad Nizampuri

Sufi Nur Muhammad was a resident of Chittagong. Although the details of his life are not known, he was one of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid’s principal khalifas. As was customary, he joined the Mujahid force, performed the hajj as a member of Sayyid Sahib’s caravan, and ultimately took part with Sayyid Sahib in the jihad campaign. After the Battle of Balakot, he too had the good fortune to become a ghazi.

The renowned pir of West Bengal, Shah Sufi Fateh Ali Sahib, received instruction in the knowledge of tasawwuf from Sufi Nur Muhammad and succeeded him. Sufi Fateh Sahib’s shrine is located in Maniktala, Kolkata. His khalifa and successor was Maulana Shah Sufi Abu Bakr Siddiqi, a resident of Furfura in Hooghly district.

Chapter Twelve

The First Struggle for Freedom in British India

In 1857, a powerful anti-British struggle began throughout India. The ruling class called it the “Sepoy Mutiny.” The struggle begun in 1857 by sepoys, the masses, and mujahideen shook the foundations of British rule in this country. From the rulers’ perspective, it may be called a “mutiny.” In reality, however, it was a genuine struggle for freedom against foreign rule and exploitation.

Among the events of the past two centuries in India, three historical events are especially memorable. These three events took place in 1757, 1857, and 1947. The Battle of Plassey took place in 1757. Through conspiracy, deception, and treachery, the clever Clive won without fighting a battle and brought an end to an established Muslim rule in eastern India. The Plassey campaign was the result of a joint conspiracy by the English East India Company and the middle-class Hindus. Mir Jafar Ali was, of course, put forward as a scapegoat for it. In 1857, the Battle of Plassey took place. Through conspiracy, deception, and treachery, the clever Clive won without fighting a battle and brought an end to an established Muslim rule in eastern India. The Plassey campaign was the result of a joint conspiracy by the English East India Company and the middle-class Hindus. Mir Jafar Ali was, of course, put forward as a scapegoat for it. The struggle of 1857 was the struggle of the sepoy masses—to free the land of India from the chains of slavery imposed by arbitrary British rulers. Ninety years later, in 1947, the struggle of the Muslims of India was to establish their own independent homeland by driving out the British rather than living under the rule of the Hindu majority. The Muslims were victorious in the latter struggle.

It is not the purpose here to distort the long history of the struggle for freedom of 1857. The aim of this article is merely to mention briefly its background, the major events of the struggle, and the principal causes of its defeat.

Background

To determine the background and causes of this struggle, we must turn our attention to history another hundred years earlier. After the Battle of Plassey, the Muslims lost not only their political power. Along with it, their national identity, economic condition, education, and tahdhib and tamaddun also fell into danger. During the period of Muslim rule, English merchants came to India in the name of trade and commerce. To obtain business opportunities and advantages, they would solicit the Muslim emperors and count the days in hope of receiving their favor. The Muslim emperors, in a spirit of generosity, granted them every opportunity and advantage for trade in this country. But they repeatedly misused these opportunities. As a result, it was sometimes necessary to take stern measures against them. Thus, a fire of vengeance against the Muslim emperors and Muslim rule was kindled in their hearts. They planned to end Muslim rule in this country and seize the scepter of government. The middle-class Hindu society of Bengal fueled this plan.

The irony of fate is that when those same English merchants occupied the thrones of Bengal and Delhi, they began to regard with hatred and suspicion the former masters of India, through whose favor they had been able to spread their commercial network in this country. Considering the Muslims an obstacle to the expansion of their dominion, they adopted a policy of extreme repression toward them. Conversely, their favor and blessings began to rain in a hundred streams upon the Hindu community.

The English rulers adopted a policy of economically crushing and eliminating the entire Muslim community. Under Muslim rule, Muslims held the lion’s share of all kinds of government employment. After the English became the masters of this country, Muslims gradually began to be expelled from employment in every department. Finally, the government’s declared policy came to be that whenever a post fell vacant in any department, advertisements would specifically state that no one except a Muslim could be a candidate. Secondly, by passing the Confiscation Act, the English government seized from Muslims all kinds of landed properties granted by the Muslim emperors—jagirs, ayma, lakhiraj, altamgha, maddad-i ma‘ash, and others—turning them into beggars on the streets. In Bengal alone, at least fifty thousand properties, and in the Deccan twenty thousand lakhiraj properties through the Inam Commission, were confiscated. The government unjustly kept the waqf properties of Haji Muhammad Muhsin, yielding an income of many lakhs of rupees, under its own control and deprived the rightful beneficiaries. As a result of these repressive measures, many ancient Muslim families were ruined, and numerous Muslim educational and charitable institutions, such as khanqahs, madrasas, and mosques, disappeared.

Thirdly, through Bengal’s Permanent Settlement and the Sunset Law, all zamindaris, talukdaris, leases, and the like were taken away from the Muslims and distributed among Hindus. As a result, respectable Muslim families were uprooted. Seventy-five percent of Bengal’s peasants were Muslims. As a result of the Permanent Settlement, the zamindar class became Hindu and the sole owners of the land. The peasantry became entirely dependent on their favor and pleasure. They retained only permission to cultivate the land; they had no right or title over it. Hindu zamindars began sucking the blood of the tenants in various ways. Through ever-increasing land revenue, abwabs, selami, nazrana, and various kinds of taxes, the peasants’ backs were nearly broken. Hindu zamindars began forcibly collecting from Muslims taxes on beards, mosques, Muslim names, religious festivals, and the like. These were the abuses against which such eminent figures as Haji Shariatullah and Titumir struggled. These matters have been discussed in their proper place.

Fourthly, Muslims were also cast far away from the fields of trade, commerce, and education. Trade and industrial commerce disappeared.

Abdul Maudud says, “By ruthlessly crushing the indigenous artisan class, the production of indigenous industrial goods was also stopped. As a result, the laboring people had no means of livelihood left except tilling the soil. In commerce, a new class of intermediary merchants also arose under the shelter of the merchant rulers’ trading posts, bearing the titles baniyan, mutsuddi, munshi, and diwan. The intermediary class created by taking control of every aspect of foreign and domestic trade also became hostile to indigenous industry and craftsmanship out of greed for enjoying its own interests. As a result of this new economic arrangement, the new landowning and intermediary communities that were created contained not a single Muslim—Muslims had no access to that society—and this community itself was the principal enemy of widespread popular unrest or national awakening. Lord Bentinck too acknowledged this fact—

“It is true that the Permanent Settlement has many important defects, but through it a large class of wealthy landowners with complete authority over the people was created. One great advantage of this is that if the orderly functioning of the government is disrupted by widespread popular unrest or revolution, this community will always be ready, in its own interests, to maintain British rule.”

—Abdul Maudud, “Background of the Sepoy Revolution” (Shatabdi Parikrama), p. 62.

Regarding this, Abdul Maudud says—

“There is no shortage of indigenous people who support this view. Only the other day, while lecturing on the people of Bengal at Visva-Bharati, Kazi Abdul Wadud Sahib said: On that day, at least in Bengal—in Calcutta, the heart of Bengal—no effect of the Sepoy Mutiny was felt. Harish Mukherjee, editor of the Hindu Patriot, commented on this mutiny: The Sepoy Mutiny was merely the act of superstitious sepoys; it had no connection whatsoever with the people of the country. The people were devoted and grateful to the English government, and their loyalty to the Crown remained unshaken.”

Kazi Sahib further says that the general view in Bengal at that time was as the editor of the Hindu Patriot stated, and good proof of this is that even independent-minded Bengalis such as Vidyasagar and Debendranath showed no curiosity whatsoever about the Sepoy Mutiny at that time. …The Sepoy Mutiny did not stir the educated Bengali of that day, nor did it move the uneducated Hindu Bengali.” (The Background of the Sepoy Revolution, Abdul Maudud, p. 58).

Kazi Sahib’s comment is correct, and the comment of the editor of the Hindu Patriot is also correct. By Kazi Sahib’s “Bengalis” and Harish Mukherjee’s “people,” the Hindu community was meant. It is true, of course, that, with a few exceptions, the entire Hindu community of Bengal and India did not participate in the Sepoy Mutiny, that is, India’s freedom movement. The Hindus outside Bengal who participated in this struggle had their interests severely attacked by the English government. In particular, why would the Hindu community of Bengal have risen in revolt against the British? It was the British government that had established them firmly in society; the doors to every kind of opportunity in the country had been opened for them. In every sphere of life they had been firmly established in place of the Muslims. They alone were the English masters’ only trusted friends and well-wishers. The Muslims, on the other hand, were suspect and enemies. Therefore, it was entirely natural that Vidyasagar, Debendranath, and the Hindu people should remain devoted and grateful to the English government and steadfast in their loyalty to the Crown. For this reason, after the defeat in the struggle, only the Muslims of India were consumed by the British fire of wrath; they were massacred wholesale, expelled from all movable and immovable property, and made to suffer imprisonment, execution, and life sentences.

In his pamphlet entitled Risala Asbab-e Baghawat-e Hind, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan identified some causes of the “Sepoy Revolution.” Sayyid Sahib was a government official loyal to the British. The revolution began while he was serving in Bijnor. The revolutionaries broke open the prison gates and looted food supplies. At that time, Sir Sayyid saved the lives of many endangered Englishmen.

Before describing the causes of the revolution in his pamphlet, Sir Sayyid Ahmad says that the revolutionaries did not join the struggle with the aim of jihad. In his view, those who raised the call of jihad were neither religious men nor scholars of scripture. They were depraved and filthy bacchanals. No Muslim, past or present, agreed or agrees with Sayyid Ahmad. Of course, seeing the looting and murders that took place before his eyes, he may have made such a comment. However, the revolutionary activities of 1857 were beyond the control of those who had instilled the inspiration of jihad among Muslims for several decades. This revolution was not conducted under any central leadership. The masses erupted in fierce wrath against the British, and it was they, without restraint, who committed looting and savage murders. But no example of such conduct can be found on the part of those who had struggled for decades with a genuine jihadi spirit and inspiration.

In any case, let us return to the main point. The causes of the Sepoy Revolution described by Sayyid Ahmad are as follows—

1. The cause of the people’s intense agitation against Company rule was the proselytizing activity of the Christian missionaries. Everyone generally believed that the English government would gradually and surely initiate the people of this country into Christianity. Their plan was advancing secretly, and because of the people’s poverty and ignorance, they would eventually be converted to Christianity. This accusation was widely publicized when, during the famine of 1837, a great number of orphaned children were handed over to missionaries to be raised as Christians. In 1856, an employee named Edmond sent a letter from the Governor-General’s residence in Kolkata to employees at every level of the Company, pressuring them to reflect on the truth of Christianity. Moreover, pressure was placed on them to give Indian unity its final form on the basis of Christianity’s spiritual bond with the help of modern transport. This was explained as a general invitation to apostates, and the suspicion was confirmed when it was seen that missionaries were appointed by the government and paid from government funds. Senior officials generously donated to missionary funds and entered into religious debates with subordinate Indian employees. They forced low-paid employees to go to their homes and listen to Christian preaching. Missionaries openly distributed among the public pamphlets containing indecent remarks about other religions. Under the government policy of 1854, missionary schools began springing up everywhere like mushrooms, since all missionary schools were to receive government assistance. Government officials often visited these schools and encouraged students to read the Bible, saying that they would be rewarded if they could answer questions according to Christian beliefs. In village schools, only Urdu was taught, while Arabic and Persian were excluded from the curriculum.

2. Prisoners of all communities were fed food cooked in the same kitchen. This was contrary to their traditional caste system. In 1850, a law declared that abandoning one’s religion and thereby being deprived of inheritance would be punishable by law. No one could then fail to understand that this law encouraged conversion to Christianity. A law of 1856 encouraged widow remarriage. This struck at Hinduism.

3. The moneylender class’s insatiable appetite for exploiting money and its excessive exactions from the tenants drove many respectable families to ruin, and they developed an adverse attitude toward loyalty to the British. The introduction of the stamp system for seeking justice was regarded as selling justice or denying justice. In some provinces, judges were granted arbitrary powers.

4. Under Company rule, numerous families were ruined through the confiscation of lakhiraj properties. Indigenous industry and commerce were destroyed, and the country’s economy was bankrupted.

5. As the final cause, Sir Sayyid says that Muslims had been removed from high government offices. The ostensible aim was to appoint qualified people to government posts through competitive examinations. But important posts were filled by people who were of “low form,” vulgar and uncouth, and ill-bred. They could not earn the respect of the people.

(Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, pp. 2–4 and 6).

At the conclusion of his pamphlet, Sayyid Ahmad presented a solution to this revolution and rebellion. He says:

“The solution to these difficulties lay in bringing the ruler and the ruled closer together by the admission of Indian members of the Legislature to ensure that the laws passed by this body satisfied the needs of the country and were not merely academic. I do not wish to enter into the question as to how the ignorant and uneducated people of Hindustan could be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Legislative Council, or as to how they should be selected to form an assembly like the British Parliament. These are knotty points” (Ibid., p. 4).

—“These conflicts can be resolved only by bringing Indian members into the Legislative Council and thereby making the relationship between ruler and ruled closer. To ensure that the laws are not unrealistic and ineffective, it must be guaranteed that all laws passed in the Legislative Council can meet the needs of the country. I do not, however, wish to enter into the debate of how the illiterate and inexperienced people of India should be given the opportunity to participate in the deliberations of the Legislative Council, or how they should be selected for a legislature like the British Parliament.”

Altaf Husain Hali mentions an example in his work Hayat-e Javid showing that the relationship between ruler and ruled was not good at all; rather, the ruling class looked upon the people of India with contempt. In 1867, an exhibition was held in Agra, followed by a durbar hosted by the governor. The district magistrate of Agra ordered that Europeans and Indians take their seats separately at the durbar. Seeing an empty seat, a distinguished Indian guest sat in a seat marked for a British official. He was immediately ordered to leave that seat and take a place among his own people. Sir Sayyid felt deeply insulted by this and became extremely angry at such a shameless expression of racial prejudice. He even had a heated exchange with a British official over it. A certain Thornhill was apparently incensed and angrily growled, “You did your worst in the mutiny. How do you expect to be seated on terms of equality with us and our womenfolk?” Sir Sayyid Ahmad left the gathering in anger and humiliation. His superiors expressed great displeasure over the matter, and he had to give an account of himself.

(Muslim Separatism in India, A. Hamid, p. 6).

These accounts prove that the reasons why all India erupted in fierce wrath against the British in 1857 were numerous and varied. The accumulated anger of centuries erupted like a volcano in 1857. The jihadi inspiration instilled by Shah Waliullah and the Shah Mujahids acted like a match applied to a heap of gunpowder. The fire of revolution blazed up in every direction. People joined the struggle voluntarily wherever they could. Along with the sepoys, most of whom did not possess a truly Islamic character, ordinary people joined them—peasants, laborers, and many government and private employees. The struggle was not conducted under the control of any central leadership guided by an ideal. Moreover, many opportunists also joined the movement. For that reason, Islamic principles were violated in some places, and looting and unnecessary killings occurred. During the lifetime of the Prophet Mustafa (peace be upon him), many wars were fought; in the golden age of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, country after country was conquered; Salahuddin Ayyubi and Nuruddin Zangi fought battle after battle. Yet Islamic principles were violated nowhere, human rights were not infringed, and no unjust or unwarranted bloodshed occurred. Nor did Sayyid Ahmad Shahid observe any conduct contrary to principle among his initiated followers.

Certain repressive actions of the English government hastened the revolution. In 1843, the English government seized Sindh from the amirs. In 1849, Lord Dalhousie incorporated the entire Punjab province into the British Empire. Earlier, the Company government had enacted a law abolishing the succession rights of an adopted son taken by a king without a natural son. Under this Doctrine of Lapse, Lord Dalhousie seized the states of Satara, Jhansi, Nagpur, Sambalpur, and others. He also stopped the stipends of the adopted sons of the rulers of states such as Ajmer and Karnataka. After the war of 1818, the dispossessed Peshwa Baji Rao II lived at Bithur near Kanpur on an annual stipend of eight hundred thousand rupees. After his death, the stipend of his adopted son was stopped. When Dalhousie enacted a law in 1850 granting newly converted Christians inheritance rights to property, a petition signed by seventy thousand citizens of Kolkata alone was submitted to the Governor-General in protest, but it produced no result. Consequently, a firm belief arose among the people that the English government wished to convert the inhabitants of this country to Christianity. In 1856, Dalhousie unjustly incorporated Awadh, the last independent kingdom of the Muslims, into the British Empire. All the movable and immovable wealth of the unfortunate Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah, including handwritten books from his personal library valued at two hundred thousand rupees, was sold at public auction to fill the Company treasury. Even more heinous and barbarous treatment was inflicted on the begums living in the women’s quarters. They were forcibly removed from the inner quarters, and their valuable belongings were destroyed and looted. In exchange for an annual stipend of twelve hundred thousand rupees, the innocent nawab was brought to Kolkata and confined. Sir Charles Outram himself went to Awadh to carry out this barbarous act. He admitted that witnessing this cruel and barbaric deed aroused deep anger and sorrow in the sepoys of his own escort. These cruelties, acts against humanity, and the relentless desire for imperial expansion transformed oppression and persecution into heartrending cries and lamentations that agitated the air of India and appeared in 1857 as a great revolution.

Detailed accounts of the Sepoy Revolution can be found in Annals of the Indian Rebellion, History of the Sepoy War by Sir J. W. Kaye, and History of the Indian Mutiny by Col. J. B. Malleson. A clear indication of the revolution appeared in January 1857 at Barrackpore in what was then Bengal. On January 22, Captain Wright of the Musketry School reported from Dum Dum that the sepoys were deeply angry and agitated about the substances used to grease the cartridges of the new Enfield rifle. On January 28, Major General Hearsey reported from the Barrackpore cantonment to the Adjutant General of the British Army that, as a result of the campaign by opponents of widow remarriage in Kolkata, the belief had arisen that the sepoys would be forced to accept Christianity and that the new Enfield rifle cartridges had been issued for this very purpose. These cartridges were mixed with cow and pig fat and had to be bitten open for use. This would cause Hindus and Muslims to lose their religion. Hearsey further reported that three bungalows, including those of a surgeon in Raneeganj and the telegraph officer at Barrackpore, had been burned to ashes.

On February 11, Hearsey again reported to the Secretary to the Government of India:

We are living on a mine ready to explode at Barrackpore.

On February 26, the 18th Regiment at Berhampore refused to use cartridges during the parade. Lieutenant Colonel Mitchell then told the sepoys in harsh language that if they did not use the cartridges, they would be sent to China and Rangoon. The sepoys became even more enraged and considered it preferable to die in their own country rather than abroad. Because of this disobedience, they were taken from Berhampore to Barrackpore, where the regiment was disbanded. Of the one thousand sepoys of this 19th Regiment, 409 were Brahmins, 250 Rajputs, 150 Muslims, and the remainder were lower-caste Hindus.

They were disarmed after being made to stand before fully armed cannons, and, under the guard of the 85th European Regiment, were taken across the Faltaghat. This disarmament was carried out on March 31.

It can be understood from this that the principal and immediate cause of the Bengal sepoys’ rebellion was forcing them to use cartridges mixed with grease. Most of these sepoys were upper-caste Hindus and Brahmins.

Meanwhile, toward the end of March, a rumor spread that shiploads of European troops were coming to Barrackpore to suppress the rebels. A man named Mangal Pandey of the 5th Company of the 34th Regiment heard this and thought that the time of their destruction was near. He then came outside, almost deranged, with a weapon in his hand and fired at Sergeant General Hewson and Hearsey. But he missed. Pandey was sentenced to death by hanging. On May 6, the 34th Regiment was dismissed en masse.

The news from Berhampore quickly reached Ambala. The cantonments there were reduced to ashes by fire. On May 1, rebellion began at Bijnor under the leadership of Nawab Ahmadullah Khan of Nagina. On May 30, the sepoys of the 48th Regiment in the cantonment burned the bungalows of the Europeans. Sir Henry Lawrence’s troops suffered a disastrous defeat in open battle. The English troops were compelled to take refuge in the Residency, where they spent three months under siege.

There is sufficient reason to believe that many scenes of the struggle for independence in 1857 remain hidden behind the curtain. Sikandar Dara Shikoh says:

At a critical stage of the rebellion, through the efforts of Dilawar Jang and Maulvi Ahmadullah, Birjis Qadr was placed on the throne of Awadh, and Begum Hazrat Mahal, as regent, undertook supervision of the administration of the country.

Ahmadullah Shah and Hazrat fought with all their might against the British forces. …Shah Sahib established an “Islamic government” at Muhammadipur. Prince Firoz Shah and Rana Rao were appointed ministers of that government. General Bakht Khan was appointed commander-in-chief.

…But Firoz Shah himself was dreaming of becoming emperor. Consequently, Ahmadullah could not remain here long either. At the invitation of Raja Baldev Singh, he set out toward Goddi. One day, at the instigation of traitors, he mounted an elephant, and while in that position he was martyred by enemy gunfire. His head was severed and hung at the kotwali, while his body was cut to pieces and burned. A few days later, his sacred head was buried in the Ahmadpur neighborhood. The Raja (Balbed Singh) rewarded Ahmadullah Shah’s murderer with fifty thousand rupees. —(Shatabdi Parikrama, pp. 147–48)

One reason why India’s struggle in 1857, having reached the threshold of independence, ended in failure was the extreme treachery of certain self-interested people.

The principal factory for manufacturing cartridges for the Enfield rifle was at Meerut. When 85 sepoys of the 3rd Cavalry refused to touch the new cartridges, they were tried by court-martial and sent to prison in chains on May 9. The following evening, the sound of firing by the sepoy crowd filled the surroundings. They freed the 85 chained sepoys from prison and burned the bungalows of the Europeans. In this matter, the inhabitants of the city and the main bazaar showed greater activity than the sepoys. Saiyid Hasan Ali Barelvī was the leader of the rebels. The assembled civilians and sepoys made a grave mistake here. Without paying attention to the two European regiments, the cantonment, or the arsenal, they set out for Delhi at night.

In any case, after covering forty miles, they somehow managed to enter the city of Delhi. At that time Delhi had three infantry forces—the 38th, 54th, and 74th—and a total of 35,000 native troops in two companies, along with 50 English officers. At seven in the morning, a group of rebel cavalry requested an audience with Bahadur Shah. Captain Douglas, Resident Fraser, and Magistrate Hutchinson died while attempting to stop them. At three in the afternoon, when the rebels entered two sections of the arsenal, the situation having become desperate, Scully, on the order of Lieutenant Willoughby, the head of the magazine, set fire to the piles of gunpowder. The Day of Judgment began in the city of Delhi. The powder magazine exploded with a tremendous sound. About five hundred people in the vicinity were killed, and many were burned. The rebels, now enraged, began setting fires and looting. They looted the treasury, seized 2,184,000 rupees, and placed the money in the emperor’s custody. At night, twenty-one cannons roared in succession, thus giving a royal salute to Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar.

On May 12, the emperor himself mounted an elephant, inspected the city, and arranged for the shops in the markets to be opened. The princes were sent to various gates of the city to maintain peace.

On May 16, several rebel sepoys informed the emperor in a sealed secret letter that the emperor’s physician, Hakim Ahsanullah, and his adviser, Nawab Mahbub Ali Khan, were conspiring with the British. The accused denied the allegation, saying that the letter was forged. The emperor was thereby deceived. The princes became commanders of the infantry, and his grandson, Mirza Abu Bakr, became commander of the cavalry. Prince Mirza Jawan Bakht was appointed chief minister. Hakim Ahsanullah arranged for Mirza Abu Bakr to be removed from Delhi and appointed commander at Meerut. On May 31, his troops were defeated by the English on the banks of the Hindon River because of a shortage of necessary ammunition.

The fire of rebellion was blazing all around. Native sepoys had rebelled at Firozpur, Bareilly, Kanpur, Jaunpur, Sitapur, and other places. All the European troops in Kanpur had taken refuge in two military hospitals. On June 6, General Sir Hugh Wheeler learned that the rebels would attack the refuge. Nana Sahib’s “Safeda Kuthi” had become the rebels’ headquarters. The advisers were Azimullah Khan, and the commanders Tika Singh, Tantia Tope, Jwala Prasad, and Balrao. Baba Bhatt and Minabai took charge of directing the national forces. The European women and children were transferred from “Safeda Kuthi” to Bibighar, while Colonel Havelock set out toward Kanpur with the 64th European Regiment. They clashed with Jwala Prasad at Fatehpur. In a clash with Balrao’s troops on the battlefield, General Renaud was killed. Intoxicated by the joy of victory, the native troops brutally killed the women and children confined in Bibighar. Deeply distressed by this cruel and immoral massacre, Azimullah Khan left Kanpur and went to Lucknow, where he joined Maulvi Ahmadullah’s mujahid force. He died in Nepal.

This proves that those who were initiated into the doctrine of jihad in the path of Allah in order to free their country from foreign rule kept away from unjust killings and immoral activities. They possessed forbearance and fear of God, and their sole aim was to attain the pleasure of God. “Fight in the path of Allah against those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors”—

They tried to conduct themselves while honoring this commandment of God.

In any case, the English were by no means sitting idle. They began gathering troops from various places. Europeans were brought from China, Ceylon, and other places, and Gurkhas from the mountainous provinces. Three forces were brought from Persia to Bengal. English troops assembled on a hill near Delhi and established their base. Both sides began preparing for the final battle. On May 29, some Sikh troops of Raja Narendra Singh’s faction joined the rebels. The English then began a vile propaganda campaign, rummaging through the refuse of past history in order to win the Sikhs back. The traitor Rajab Ali assisted the English in this matter. He supplied the English with secret information from the emperor’s court concerning the imperial side, and also formed an alliance with Hakim Ahsanullah.

Unfortunately, heavy rain fell in Delhi. The city suffered a shortage of necessities, and commodities became expensive. Meanwhile, the English laid siege to Delhi from all sides and stopped the supply of food and other necessities. On June 23, the English captured Sabzi Mandi. In the first week of July, General Muhammad Bakht Khan, commander of the Bareilly forces, arrived in Delhi with four infantry forces, 700 cavalrymen, 14 elephants, and abundant money and weapons. The total number of troops in Delhi then reached 90,000. But after the Wazirabad arsenal was looted by bandits, a shortage of ammunition arose in the fort. In August, the powder factory suddenly exploded and was destroyed. Everyone suspected that Hakim Ahsanullah had engineered it. But he had already fled and could not be found. His house, however, was looted. On September 7, cannons were placed facing all the gates of Delhi on the order of the English commander Wilson. On September 11, those cannons began an intense bombardment. After repeated artillery strikes, the Kashmir Gate finally collapsed. On September 18, the gate of the Diwan-i-Khas was closed. General Bakht Khan continued to destroy the enemy with limitless bravery. But wherever Mirza Mughal led troops, disaster followed. The city walls were breached in two places by English artillery. Extreme disorder broke out among the national forces. On September 20, General Bakht Khan said to the emperor, “There are traitors’ conspiracies everywhere. All our plans are becoming known to the enemy. Thousands of Rohillas are still ready to give their lives. Come outside; we shall regroup and win the war again.”

But since Mirza Elahi Baksh and Begum Zeenat Mahal did not agree, the emperor rejected General Bakht Khan’s appeal. Bakht Khan was consequently forced to go to Awadh, where he joined Ahmadullah’s forces and took part in the battles of Lucknow and Shahjahanpur. But when the dark shadow of disaster descended all around, he went to the valley of Nepal with a broken heart and breathed his last.

As a result of the espionage of the traitors Hakim Ahsanullah Khan, Sheikh Rajab Ali, and Mirza Elahi Baksh, Emperor Bahadur Shah, Begum Zeenat Mahal, and Prince Jawan Bakht were captured by Captain Hodson. Three princes took refuge at Humayun’s Tomb. While bringing them back as prisoners, the fiend Hodson personally shot and killed them on the way. To spread terror, their bodies were hung publicly in front of the kotwali. Thereafter, the English turned the city of Delhi into a dreadful cremation ground. The city’s main roads were filled with the bodies of innocent citizens.

To suppress the rebellion everywhere, they began a demonic massacre throughout the land. In the centers of rebellion such as Aligarh, Allahabad, Lucknow, Bareilly, Kanpur, Fatehpur, Jhansi, Gwalior, Danapur, and Chota Nagpur, they began inhuman oppression and slaughter.

As soon as the sepoys of Chittagong began the rebellion, the English fled through the forests and saved their lives. The sepoys unopposed looted the treasury, freed the prisoners, burned the cantonment, blew up the powder magazine, and departed by the waterways toward Sylhet and the hills.

A brutal incident took place in Dhaka city on the morning of November 22: the English launched a surprise attack on the Lalbagh Fort. A fierce clash took place there with the rebels. Finally, the rebels escaped by swimming across the river, while those who were captured were brought to Andarghar Field (now Bahadur Shah Park), Sadarghat, Lalbagh, and Chawk Bazar and hanged.

A military commission formed on the orders of Sir John Lawrence tried Emperor Bahadur Shah. The charge against him was that he had proclaimed himself Emperor of India and fought against the British government. It is a cruel irony of history that the master of the house became the robber, and the robber became the master of the house. The historical truth is that, through a treaty signed by the East India Company in 1765, it recognized the Emperor of India as the repository of supreme authority. Thereafter, no further treaty was concluded between the Company and the emperor. Therefore, in reality, Emperor Bahadur Shah was the true legal ruler of India at that time, while the East India Company had committed treachery and rebellion against royal authority. Thus, what had been a struggle to defend independence and sovereignty was labeled rebellion by the vested-interest group. With the military commission’s judgment, the last trace of several centuries of Muslim rule in India disappeared forever.

The principal reasons why this movement for India’s independence failed were—

One—the rebels’ weapons were old and unsuitable in comparison with the Englishmen’s advanced modern arms.

Two—there was a lack of unity and discipline among the native troops.

Three—although rebellion began spontaneously throughout the vast region extending from Chittagong, Dhaka, Barrackpore, and Berhampore to Delhi, the rebels had no central leadership. Nor was there any mutual connection among them.

Four—the activities of certain traitors brought disaster upon the rebels. All kinds of secret information about the rebels were supplied to the enemy, and when the critical moment came, the native troops faced a shortage of ammunition because traitors caused the powder magazines to explode twice.

Five—many of the native troops lacked exemplary character. Many undesirable people joined the rebels with the aim of looting and unjust killing. Added to this was mutual distrust between Hindus and Muslims.

Six—the powers of Hyderabad, Gwalior, Nepal, and the Sikhs, so to speak, were inactive or sided with the English.

Seven—the native troops had no great ideal other than driving out the English. The rebellion began before those who, since the time of Saiyid Ahmad Shahid, had kept the inspiration of jihad alive among the Muslims of this country could adopt any well-planned decision, and this revolutionary movement was beyond their control.

Although this movement for independence temporarily failed, its consequences were extremely far-reaching. It is true that some demonic acts were committed in various places by frenzied native sepoys during the war. But the barbarity with which the English took revenge added a vast chapter of disgrace to the history of human civilization. The Muslim mujahideen nevertheless continued their struggle against the English for another decade.

The quiet and peaceful condition that prevailed in India after the 1860s of the nineteenth century may be called the silence of a graveyard. The Muslims of India at that time were held solely responsible for the movement for independence. As a result, Muslim society was battered by British fury, oppression, and repression. From distant Bengal to the frontier, mass arrests, imprisonment and executions, transportation, and confiscation of movable and immovable property cast over Muslim society the silent, motionless black shadow of a graveyard. Nevertheless, this silence was military. The brilliant ideal of love of freedom that the Muslims had raised through their prolonged struggle remained inscribed in the pages of history. This great ideal later inspired the people of India. As a result, ninety years after 1857, the people of India were able to break forever the chains of English slavery.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that after the struggle of Saiyid Ahmad Shahid, the Faraizi movement, Titumir’s struggle, the struggle for independence in 1857, and the subsequent anti-British struggle on the frontier ended in failure, the Muslim nation of India faced extreme hardship and adversity. In that difficult period, Sir Saiyid Ahmad Khan’s role made a significant contribution to relieving the sufferings of the Muslims.

Chapter Thirteen

Sir Saiyid Ahmad Khan

It has been stated earlier that Sir Saiyid Ahmad Khan held a high-ranking position under the British government. He came to believe that an orderly British administration had been firmly established in India upon the ruins of the Mughal Empire. In modern knowledge, science, and the art of modern warfare as well, they were many times more advanced than the Muslims. It was not easy to drive them out of this country suddenly. Under such circumstances, engaging in conflict with them would amount to suicide for the Muslims. He supported the British in the War of Independence. But he was deeply distressed by the inhuman repression carried out on a mass scale after placing all the blame for the struggle for independence (or “rebellion,” in their terminology) solely on the Muslims. Through his famous pamphlets Asbab-i-Baghawat-i-Hind and The Indian Muslims, he tried to appease the British wrath against the Muslims. He identified the Muslims’ backwardness in Western knowledge and science as the cause of their decline. His maxim was: “First cure the root of the disease. Then the tree will flourish.” In 1865, he established a translation society at Ghazipur. Through this society, many foreign books were translated and published.

His greatest contribution to the advancement of Muslim society was that, modeled on the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, he established the Aligarh Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in 1875. Religious education was provided at this college along with Western knowledge and science. At that time, government English schools did not provide religious instruction, so Muslims felt reluctant to send their children there. Through Aligarh College, that obstacle to obtaining modern education was removed.

Through the establishment of this college, the movement for Muslim social reform and the spread of education that Sir Saiyid Ahmad developed became known as the “Aligarh Movement.” Eminent figures such as the poet Hali, Muhsin-ul-Mulk, Nazir Ahmad, and Chiragh Ali joined this Muslim renaissance movement and advanced it.

As a safeguard for Muslim interests, Sir Saiyid Ahmad demanded a separate system of government nomination for Muslims in autonomous institutions. He said that if a general joint electoral system were introduced in these institutions, Muslim interests would be trampled underfoot. On January 12, 1883, before the Governor-General’s Council, in support of a separate nomination system for Muslims, he said: “A general joint electoral system represents only the opinions and interests of the majority. This system is acceptable in a country inhabited by only one nation and one religion. But India is inhabited by different nations: some are a majority and some a minority, and distinctions of caste and religion exist among them. Under such circumstances, introducing a joint electoral system must produce harmful consequences. If this system is introduced, the interests of minorities will be trampled by the majority communities. As a result, racial and religious hatred will assume a serious form. The government itself will have to bear responsibility for this.”

His reasoned proposal opened a new avenue of thought for Muslim society, and it bore fruit twenty-six years later. On October 1, 1906, a delegation of 36 prominent Indian Muslims, led by the Aga Khan, submitted a memorandum to Lord Minto, the Governor-General of India, demanding a separate electoral system. This demand was recognized in the Morley–Minto Reforms of 1909. As a result, India’s Hindu majority became enraged, because the declared policy of the Indian National Congress was one-nation nationalism. For many years, this led to arguments and bitterness between Hindus and Muslims. Finally, in 1916, the annual sessions of the Congress and the Muslim League were held in Lucknow. After discussions, the duly authorized representatives of both organizations signed an agreement based on their decisions. This came to be known as the historic Lucknow Pact. The pact was formally approved by the Congress and the Muslim League. The Lucknow Pact recognized Muslims’ separate electoral rights in the election of members to the legislative councils. Thus the Hindu Congress accepted the two-nation principle in India instead of one-nation nationalism, which was the main foundation for the establishment of Pakistan in 1947.

One may not agree with every one of Sir Saiyid Ahmad’s policies and statements, but through his keen political foresight he warned Indian Muslims against joining the Congress, saying that the Congress would represent only Hindu interests in India and that Muslim interests would be ignored. Although Muslim intellectuals such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did not initially perceive this truth, the truth of Sir Saiyid’s warning later became as clear to them as daylight. As a result, the inspiration for a separate nationality arose among the Muslims, and the Muslim mind advanced along this path. Therefore, it must be said that Sir Saiyid Ahmad had planted long ago the seed of the principle by which Indian Muslims would live as a distinct nation.

The Partition of Bengal

Before discussing the Partition of Bengal and its consequences, we should know what the positions of Hindus and Muslims were in the political arena of Bengal and India as a whole in the last quarter of the twentieth century. After 1857, the entire body of Muslim society had been grievously wounded; that wound had not yet healed, and it was still bleeding. India’s Hindu society fully embraced Western education and ideas and extracted every possible advantage from the British government. Acquiring knowledge of English, they established themselves firmly in offices and courts through government employment. They had enjoyed a deep friendship with the British government since the period of Company rule. Both sides felt the need to deepen that friendship in order to suppress the revolutionary Muslim nation effectively. The British held Muslims responsible for the Faraizi and Titumir movements in Bengal, the movement of Saiyid Ahmad Shahid, and the first movement for India’s independence through the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857, among other causes. Thereafter, they continued persecuting the Muslims, planning either to uproot them completely or to cripple them forever. The second Patna case, described as anti-British, ended at the close of 1871 or in 1872.

Relying solely on an inconsistent report by Mr. J. H. Rallie, head of the Intelligence Department, the government arrested and charged seven persons. …Five of the accused were sentenced to transportation for life and all their property and possessions were confiscated.

—(Mohammad Waliullah: Our Struggle for Freedom, p. 153)

At such a critical juncture for the Muslims of India, Syed Ahmad Khan came forward. He realized that a confrontation with the British would bring the Muslims no benefit, but rather harm. The Hindu community had advanced far in education, government service, trade and commerce, and other fields. Muslims had to enter the struggle for life only after acquiring education, particularly in the English language and modern science and knowledge. In his view, the immediate duty of the Muslim community was to establish itself in society by demonstrating loyalty to the government. Accordingly, Syed Ahmad placed special emphasis on Muslims’ acquisition of modern knowledge and science through English, and through his devoted efforts the English Public School, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (M.A.O. College), was established in 1877. In 1886, Syed Ahmad founded the Muhammadan Educational Conference, thereby providing the Muslims of the subcontinent with the first opportunity to express their views.

Arya Samaj

On the other hand, in 1857 Dayanand founded the Arya Samaj in the city of Bombay. Later, its headquarters were moved to Lahore. Dayanand began a campaign for cow protection in India and formed an association for this purpose.

On behalf of the Arya Samaj, a huge petition was sent to the government demanding a ban on cow slaughter in the country. He called upon Hindu society to return to the ancient Vedic faith and conducted vigorous propaganda for the eradication of foreign religions such as Islam and Christianity. His call to struggle, “India for the Indians,” brought about enormous political consequences.

—(A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 27; Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements in India, p. 205)

As for the Muslims, there was no question of it; although a close friendship existed between the Hindus and the British government for political reasons, the attitudes of the rulers and the ruled were entirely different. Sir Bampfylde Fuller says in his book based on personal experience: “Some Englishmen who came to India had even forgotten the elementary rules of polite behavior. Indians were barred from English drawing rooms, restaurants, and clubs. A garden was created in Kanpur in memory of the Englishmen killed in the Sepoy Mutiny, and no Indian was allowed to enter it. It was dangerous for Indians to go to places where Englishmen frequented. Their hatred and hostility toward Indians had reached such an extreme that Indians were often subjected to barbarities and even killed. The offenders received no punishment, or, if they did, it was limited to a very small fine. Indian lives had no value in their eyes. There are even instances of accused persons being shot or sentenced to death without trial. The excesses of officers in this regard were also overlooked. Sir Bampfylde recorded in his diary that when he was traveling along the streets of Kanpur, the district authority was flogging pedestrians to make them leave the road.”

—(Sir Fuller Bampfylde: Some Personal Experiences, p. 56, Muorag, London, 1930; A. Hamid: Muslim Separatism in India, p. 28)

Indian National Congress

Many such minor and major isolated incidents occurred, as a result of which a suppressed discontent against the British was murmuring. At this time, in 1885, the Indian National Congress was formed. The amusing fact is that its founder was a retired English civil servant named Allan Hume. He was not only capable but also the owner of considerable wealth. Just as he made devoted efforts to establish the Congress, it also had the blessing of the then Viceroy of India, Dufferin. After retiring from the Bengal Civil Service, Mr. Hume remained in India and recognized the need for an all-India organization to achieve political advancement through social reform in India. For this purpose, through an open letter, he appealed to the graduates of Calcutta University to unite and organize. He emphasized that the government remained distant from the people and had therefore failed to solve the country’s economic problems. The work of reconstruction had to be undertaken by the people of the country; it could not be done by foreigners. At the Congress’s second annual session, the Governor of Madras entertained the delegates at an afternoon tea gathering. Thus, at the initial stage, a cordial relationship existed between the Congress and the government. The policies and ideals of the Congress’s two undisputed leaders, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Surendranath Banerjee, reveal its principal objective.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak

After receiving higher education at Bombay University, Bal Gangadhar Tilak entered journalism and politics in the 1880s of the previous century. He was seen at the forefront of politics during the anti-Partition of Bengal movement. He was a skilled politician. Instead of opposition through parliamentary methods, he believed in the policy of direct action. Reviving the religious and political traditions of the warlike Maratha people, he introduced them into the Congress.

—(C. Y. Chintamani, India Politics Since the Mutiny, p. 81, Andhra University, Walter, 1937; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 29)

Surendranath Banerjee joined the Civil Service in the 1860s of the previous century. A few years later, after being dismissed from his post, he entered journalism. He had realized long before that Hindu nationalism could never gain strength unless it abandoned its secular form. Accordingly, several years earlier he had expanded the activities of the Anti-Cow-Killing Society and arranged for the composition, publication, and distribution of special songs for the celebration of the Ganapati festival. These songs were filled with themes concerning the historic “bloody Hindu-Muslim war” and the “dawn of the day of reckoning” that would follow it. He awakened an extreme Hindu class consciousness. Although Tilak’s Anti-Cow-Killing Society was founded mainly in the Deccan, its activities spread throughout the country. Bands of propagandists began distributing leaflets in cities and villages across the country entitled “The Cry of the Cow.” At public meetings, Hindus continued adopting resolutions protesting cow slaughter, and through newspapers they continued creating agitation among the people. Naturally, Hindu-Muslim clashes began occurring in various places as a result.

—(A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 45, 48)

While this kind of tense situation prevailed throughout the country, Lord Curzon assumed office as Viceroy of India in 1899. It should be noted that at that time the capital of British India was Calcutta. During the first few years, Curzon was popular with Bengali Hindus. But when he placed excessive emphasis on administrative efficiency and focused on improving the standard of administration by eliminating incompetence, corruption, neglect of duty, and the like, interested groups began criticizing and condemning him instead of praising him and singing his glory. Curzon introduced many changes and expansions in administration. Although not all of them were pleasing, they were accepted without protest. But his Partition of Bengal infuriated the reactionaries to an extreme degree.

The Partition of Bengal was the most beneficial measure of Curzon’s administration. Nevertheless, it brought about an ominous consequence, altered the future course of Indian politics, and created hatred, hostility, and distrust between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Political consciousness was reawakened among the Muslims, who had withdrawn from the political arena for some time. There is therefore no doubt that the Partition of Bengal occupies a very important place in Indian politics.

We must now discuss, from an impartial standpoint, what the real reasons for the Partition of Bengal were and why it was annulled half a decade later.

The Partition of Bengal was carried out for sound and beneficial administrative reasons. Bengal was then the foremost province of British India. Bihar and Orissa were included in this province. Its area was 179,000 square miles and its population was 79,000,000. Such a vast province was under the administration of a single Lieutenant-Governor or Governor. Properly governing so large a province, maintaining law and order, and attending to the development of all regions were utterly impossible. Since eastern Bengal was crisscrossed by rivers and lacked adequate transportation facilities, it was impossible for the Lieutenant-Governor to supervise the region. As he had no opportunity to visit it even once during his five-year term, this area was extremely neglected and underdeveloped. (A. R. Mallick, Partition of Bengal, p. 2; M. A. Rahim, History of the Muslims of Bengal, p. 201).

In describing the causes of the famine in Orissa in the 1860s of the previous century, the appointed inquiry committee remarked that the administrative mismanagement of the vast province of Bengal was the cause of the famine. Bengal’s Governor William Grey in 1867 and Sir John Campbell in 1872 complained that it was extremely difficult for one person to administer such a large province. As a result, Sylhet, Cachar, and Goalpara were placed under a Chief Commissioner. Even so, the area of Bengal Province remained enormous, creating difficulties in administration. Again, in 1892 and 1896, official circles proposed that a new province be formed from Assam, the Chittagong Division of eastern Bengal, and the two districts of Dacca and Mymensingh. When Lord Curzon assumed the office of Viceroy at the end of the century, this proposal was submitted to him.

Before considering that proposal, another serious matter attracted Lord Curzon’s attention. Sir Andrew Fraser, Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, proposed that since the Oriya language was used in the courts of Sambalpur under the Central Provinces, although it was not spoken throughout the province, Hindi should be used instead of Oriya, or Sambalpur should be joined to Orissa. It should be noted that Orissa was joined to Bengal. It was also proposed that otherwise the whole of Orissa should be separated from Bengal and incorporated into the United Provinces.

The proposal by Bengal’s Governors to reduce the area of Bengal, on the one hand, and Sir Andrew Fraser’s proposal, on the other, embarrassed Lord Curzon. He himself was engaged in trying to associate Berar with British India. In May 1902, he recorded the following comment in the Secretariat file: the question of Berar could be considered together with the Bengal problem.

After discussion, a proposal was submitted to link the port of Chittagong with Assam. It was argued that this would reduce the administrative burden of the Bengal government, remove the defects and shortcomings observed in the administration of the districts of eastern Bengal, and meet Assam’s pressing need for a seaport through the incorporation of Chittagong. In 1903, Lord Curzon approved the proposal and informed the Secretary of State for India. He then observed public opinion and reaction on the matter. He clearly realized that the people would never accept the incorporation of eastern Bengal into Assam.

Lord Curzon then went to England and returned to Bengal early in 1905. In his absence, the plan to form a Greater Assam was adopted. After Curzon’s return, the plan was submitted to the Secretary of State for India, Brodrick. Brodrick named the proposed new province Eastern Bengal and Assam.

—(A. Hamid: Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 51–52)

Although the Partition of Bengal was extremely beneficial to the Muslim society, battered and devastated by many blows and counterblows, it had not been brought about through any effort of theirs. The great benefits that were about to come to them after the Partition were entirely unexpected. The plan for the Partition was made by the rulers in order to make administration easier, faster, sounder, and more efficient, and to ensure that its benefits could also be enjoyed by the neglected and underdeveloped eastern region of Bengal—not by the Muslims. Its reasons were entirely justifiable and were as follows:

First, this region was underdeveloped in every respect. Hindu zamindars exploited the peasant tenants of the region and, sitting in Calcutta, squandered the proceeds of that exploitation in luxury. They showed extreme neglect and indifference toward the tenants’ education, comfort, well-being, and economic opportunities. The city of Calcutta and western Bengal were steadily rising to the heights of development. The administrative system was also defective. As a result, the eastern region was being pushed toward destruction. Since the area was crisscrossed by rivers, pirates freely plundered the wealth of boat passengers, and no measures could be taken to prevent it. The police force was inadequate and weak, so anarchy and disorder prevailed throughout society. The provincial rulers had abandoned responsibility for administering this region, and all their time and effort were spent on Calcutta. They became frightened at the very mention of the eastern region and regarded being transferred there as a sentence of exile.

The Partition of Bengal was carried out to resolve the problems described above. The new province was formed from Assam, North Bengal, and East Bengal, and had an area of 106,500 square miles, two-thirds of whose population was Muslim. In other words, the province became Muslim-majority. The formation of the new province was announced on July 20, 1905, and it began functioning on October 16. The first Governor of the new province, Sir Bampfylde Fuller, arrived in Dacca on the first day and found himself embarrassed. The Muslims warmly welcomed the new Governor, while the Hindus demonstrated their opposition. They refused to congratulate the new Governor according to customary practice. An angry crowd attacked three English women as they were walking along the road.

(Fuller, Some Personal Experiences, p. 126; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 53)

Hindu Bengal became militant as a result of the Partition of Bengal. Hindu circles first called it an assault on “national unity.” They then interpreted it in various ways, describing it as “punishment for their leading the political movement,” “the government’s favoritism toward the Muslims,” and finally “the establishment of Muslim rule.” The Hindus launched a movement against the Partition overnight. Through inflammatory statements such as “the nation has been divided in two,” “sacred Bengal has been split apart,” and “an evil alliance between the British government and the treacherous Muslims,” Hindu society in Bengal began poisoning the atmosphere of the province.

Hindu lawyers raised the question of its legal validity, while Bengali literary figures began proclaiming that a grievous assault had been committed against the Bengali language and literature. All Hindu Bengal began making such hysterical statements.

What was the reason for this irrational and unrealistic propaganda? Why did this sudden attack and indecorous language against the Muslims begin? The real fact is that entrenched interests had been endangered and thrown into disarray by the Partition. The numerical majority that had enabled Bengali Hindus to establish a monopoly over jobs and livelihoods in both Bengals was destroyed by the Partition. In the new Bengal, the Muslims became the majority. The Muslims of eastern Bengal were freed from the subjugation and defeat imposed by the Hindu majority, and hope arose in their minds that they would now have the right to speak on local problems. The contemporary writer Sardar Ali Khan says: “All the commotion and the sudden patriotic movement that began overnight have no connection with the welfare of the motherland or India. In a province where the Hindus are clearly a minority, this movement has no noble purpose other than preserving their class dominance.” (Sardar Ali Khan, India of Today, p. 62, Bombay, Times Press, 1908)

Surendranath Banerjee, one of the leaders of the anti-Partition movement, said—

The announcement of the Partition was like a sudden thunderbolt. On October 16, the day the new Bengal—Eastern Bengal and Assam—came into being, the Hindus of Calcutta observed a national day of mourning. That day they wore black badges, smeared ashes on their heads, abstained from food and drink, marched amid various protest slogans, and bathed in the Ganges. In the afternoon they assembled at a public meeting and took an oath to annul the Partition of Bengal.

Mohammad Waliullah says in his book Our Struggle for Freedom: “At the time under discussion, Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa were under the administration of the same Lieutenant-Governor. For administrative convenience, the British government had for a long time been considering the formation of a new province by joining eastern Bengal with Assam. The Viceroy, Lord Curzon, finally reached a decision in favor of the partition of Bengal after consulting the Secretary of State for India. As soon as this decision became known, the educated Hindu society of Bengal rose in protest against it. Resolutions opposing the Partition of Bengal continued to be adopted at meetings and associations even in remote mofussils.” (Our Struggle for Freedom, p. 177).

Referring to how the anti-Partition movement spread and gained strength, Waliullah says—

“The movement continued to spread from the towns to the villages and from one village to another. Keeping somewhat at a distance, the leading revolutionaries began recruiting members from the impressionable student community and strengthening their organization. In the meantime, Sri Aurobindo Ghose resigned from his position in the Baroda State service and returned to Bengal. The revolutionaries received new inspiration from him. Sri Bipin Chandra Pal, through speeches in his characteristically powerful language, continued sowing the seeds of revolution throughout the country.”—(Our Struggle for Freedom, p. 179).

Some Muslims, confused by Hindu propaganda and the so-called patriotic movement, joined the anti-Partition movement. But when they saw Hindu leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak presenting Shivaji as the symbol of the movement and awakening the Hindu community’s latent hatred and hostility toward Muslims, they understood the far-reaching benefits of the Partition and the real secret behind its opposition, and abandoned the movement. In this connection, Abdul Maudud says in his book The Development of the Middle Class: Transformation of Culture: “But the tremendous movement launched by the educated upper-caste Hindu community around this partition filled the newspapers of Britain and the paid journalists with its reverberations. The contradictory reports conveyed in letters and dispatches from their own correspondents by The Times and the Manchester Guardian confused British public opinion, which became unable to understand the true situation. The Times published fine editorials supporting the Partition and fully approving Curzon’s actions; the Manchester Guardian published heated articles condemning the partition, along with hair-raising accounts by its own correspondent about the movement and statements supporting the agitation. Cotton, Nevins, and Hardy issued statements supporting the agitation. Nevins was the Manchester Guardian’s Calcutta correspondent and a close associate of the Congress. In Britain he published an amusing report: ‘The observance of the anniversary of the national injustice has turned India into a “day of ashes.” On that day thousands upon thousands of Indians wear marks of ashes on their foreheads. At dawn they silently bathe in the Ganges and fast as a religious observance. At home, in the city, and in the market, all shops remain closed; women do not cook and give up adornment. The men tie yellow threads around one another’s wrists in order to commemorate this shameful day, and spend the entire day in penance, mourning, and fasting.’ (The New Spirit of India, pp. 167–70)

A certain barrister, Abdur Rasul, and several Muslims joined this movement out of personal interest. It was loudly proclaimed that both Hindus and Muslims had participated in the anti-Partition movement. In this regard, the information published by Abdul Maudud is particularly noteworthy. He says:

“Contemporary police reports show that Mr. Rasul, at 125 rupees; Liaquat Hossain of Noakhali, at 60 rupees; and a certain Dilwar Ahmad of Madaripur, at 40 rupees a month, were employed by the Congress to promote the movement among Muslims. The report explicitly stated: ‘Mr. Rasul is a Muslim Leader of the Hindus.’”

—(Abdul Maudud, The Development of the Middle Class: Transformation of Culture, p. 282)

The amusing fact is that Mr. Hardy came to this country toward the end of 1907 to observe the movement. When he arrived in Bengal, the Amrita Bazar Patrika reported: “People have become delirious with joy at seeing him. God has sent him to expose a vast conspiracy against the Hindus.”

Thus, having received the Hindus’ boundless respect and lavish welcomes as their “God-given deity,” Hardy returned home and said that both communities, Hindus and Muslims, were bitterly opposed to the Partition of Bengal. He claimed that in Sirajganj he had heard Muslims singing “Bande Mataram,” and that in Barisal both Hindus and Muslims had sung the song to him, and so forth. But when the editor of the Englishman asked him to name one or two Muslims, he said that this was highly confidential. It must be said that, unfortunately for him, he may not even have known Abdur Rasul’s name. The Times severely rebuked him, while other newspapers labeled him a “fool,” “laughingstock,” “buffoon,” and “madman.”

—(Abdul Maudud, same work, pp. 282–83)

The speeches and statements of Khwaja Salimullah of Dhaka and of A. K. Fazlul Huq, then an emerging leader of Muslim Bengal and later known as Sher-e-Bangla, provide striking proof that the Muslims did not support the anti-partition movement. Having failed despite his many efforts to prevent the annulment of the Partition of Bengal, Khwaja Salimullah was deeply grieved. In the presidential address he delivered at the Muslim League session held in Calcutta in March 1912, the dissatisfaction and protest of the Muslims of Bengal were echoed. He said that the annulment of the Partition had brought sorrow. He further said that, as a result of the Partition’s annulment, the Muslims of backward East Bengal had suffered a severe blow, and sorrow had entered every Muslim home. He also said that the people of neglected East Bengal and Assam had gained opportunities through the Partition, particularly opportunities for the advancement of the Muslims; unable to tolerate this, the opponents of the Partition resorted to seditious conspiracies to sabotage it. He said that, by yielding to this movement, the British Government had diminished its own prestige. Nawab Salimullah sharply criticized the British Government, saying, “Until now, throughout the East, it was believed that, whatever might happen, the British Government never broke its promises. If this belief is weakened for any reason, British prestige in India and throughout the East will be impaired.”

—(Dr. M. A. Rahim, History of the Muslims of Bengal, pp. 209–10; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 94–95)

Nawab Salimullah further said at that session:

“We did not gain very much from the Partition of Bengal. Yet, because our fellow countrymen of another community could not tolerate it, they created a tremendous upheaval to take it away from us. They began taking revenge through murder, violence, and robbery. They boycotted British goods. All this was meaningless to the Government. The Muslims, without participating in these criminal activities, demonstrated loyalty to the Government. …The Muslim peasant community had benefited from this Partition. Their Hindu landlords tried to draw them into the struggle against it. They paid no heed to them.…

This led to Hindu-Muslim conflict. …The Government adopted a policy of repression. That too produced no benefit. On one side was the wealthy, agitated community; on the other were the poor Muslims, who took the Government’s side. This continued year after year. Suddenly, for administrative reasons, the Government annulled the Partition of Bengal. …Before that, no consultation had been held with us. We endured everything silently.” Thereafter, he expressed regret over the C.I.E. title conferred on him by the Government at the Delhi Durbar, regarding the title as a bribe and as a chain of humiliation around his neck. (A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 92; Ahmad, Ruh-e-Rawshan Mustaqbil, pp. 58–59)

Later, Maulana Muhammad Ali said:

The Muslims of East Bengal had been made to go to war by their rulers…

…and when it was no longer convenient to continue the war, they concluded peace at a convenient moment.

No more despicable example can be found in history than that newly acquired rights were taken away as a reward for loyalty, while the expression of satisfaction was treated as a grave offense and punished.

(Iqbal Select Writings and Speeches, p. 262)

As a result of the Partition of Bengal, the unfortunate Muslims of East Bengal began to see a light of hope for opportunities and advantages. The intense movement launched by Hindu Bengal to nullify this by annulling the Partition alarmed farsighted Muslim politicians. All thoughtful Muslims and political leaders of India began striving to expose the Hindu conspiracy and uphold Muslim interests in Bengal and India. In 1906, Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka convened a conference in Dhaka under the name All-India Muslim Educational Conference. Everyone recognized the need for such a conference at this critical moment for the Muslims, and eight thousand delegates from various parts of India attended it. Among the notable participants were Mohsin-ul-Mulk, Viqar-ul-Mulk, the Aga Khan, Hakim Ajmal Khan, and Maulana Muhammad Ali. By unanimous decision, a separate organization for Indian Muslims was formed at the meeting. The reason was that the work of the Indian National Congress during the anti-partition movement had clearly demonstrated that its aim was solely to preserve Hindu interests and crush Muslim interests. Various devious methods had been adopted to sabotage the Partition. After frequent meetings of the upper-caste Hindus in Calcutta, it was declared: ‘British imperialism has divided Mother Bengal in order to annihilate the Bengali nation—a sinister conspiracy to employ Bengali peasants as coolie laborers in the tea gardens of Assam. Therefore, O Bengali nation, accept the annulment of the Partition of Bengal as the Bengali nation’s charter of freedom and plunge into the struggle. Those who do not believe in the charter of freedom are not Bengalis; they are traitors and agents of the English.’ At the Muslim League session, Nawab Salimullah was entrusted with keeping the Muslims of Bengal away from the ‘charter of freedom’ movement conceived by the fertile brains of the Hindus. Consequently, the entire fury of the upper-caste Hindus fell upon Khwaja Salimullah. Fascist and terrorist activities began. When Khwaja Sahib visited Barisal, black flags were shown to him, and he was abused as an English agent and ‘the enemy of Bengal.’ He was attacked at a public meeting in Kushillah. While students and teachers of Hossainia Madrasa and Muslim people were taking him in a procession, a Hindu named Jogiram Pal repeatedly displayed a broom from a second-floor balcony to insult him. When he was passing along the road at Rajganj, shots were fired at him. Although he escaped with his life, a young man named Said was killed. Although Bengal’s terrorist movement was outwardly directed against the English, its purpose was to kill two birds with one stone: to portray the Muslims as agents of the English and eliminate them, while driving the English out of the country.

On 30 May 1908, the Calcutta newspaper Jugantar issued a passionate appeal to the Hindus, inciting the people against the supporters of those who had dismembered Mother Bengal. It said: “Mother, thirsty, is asking her own children what single thing can quench her thirst. Nothing but human blood and severed heads can satisfy her. Therefore, the children of the mother should worship her and satisfy her with the object she desires. Even if one must sacrifice one’s own life to achieve these things, one should not retreat. On the day when the mother is worshipped in this manner in every village, the people of India will be consecrated with divine power and blessing.”

—(Ibn Raihan, History of the Partition of Bengal, pp. 6–7).

After the passionate appeal to please Mother Bengal, violent activities and a bloodbath began.

In his book Our Struggle for Liberation, Mohammad Waliullah says: “The revolutionary movement was built chiefly around Calcutta and Dhaka. The revolutionaries of Calcutta formed theirs under the name ‘Jugantar,’ and those of Dhaka under the name ‘Anushilan.’ Generally, it was the members of these two associations who arranged for the manufacture of bombs and the importation of firearms. Subsequently, secret societies were formed in various places in the districts under other names as well.”

—(Mohammad Waliullah, Our Struggle for Liberation, p. 180)

Sir Surendranath Banerjee sharply condemned the Partition of Bengal, saying that the division of Bengal had insulted and humiliated the Hindus. In protest against the Partition, the Indian National Congress began the Swadeshi movement on 7 August 1906. British goods were boycotted and burned. Students of schools, colleges, and universities left their educational institutions. Bal Gangadhar Tilak sought to establish the Maratha leader Shivaji as the national hero of all the Hindus of India in order to awaken and consolidate Hindu nationalism against the Partition. Shivaji’s birth anniversary was formally observed throughout the country. At meeting after meeting, Congress leaders continued praising Shivaji’s struggle against Muslim emperors. They called Shivaji the national hero of the Hindus and his struggle a national struggle. At this time, terrorist organizations arose among the Hindus of Bengal. Their purpose was to annul the Partition by assassinating high-ranking English officials. —(M. A. Rahim, History of the Muslims of Bengal, pp. 205–6; Surendranath Banerjee, A Nation in Making, p. 18; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 57, 69–70).

After the Partition of Bengal, Hindu Bengal became so hostile toward the Muslims that various insulting and derisive analyses of Muslims began appearing in newspapers and at public meetings. Imaginary histories were written, including accounts of the alleged barbarism of Muslims in the past. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was branded a traitor, and Muslims were portrayed as agents of the English. …Newspapers reported daily that the Government was inciting Muslims to attack Hindus and neglecting their security. Hindus were urged to arm themselves for self-defense. One newspaper went so far as to say that even burning Muslim thugs and the government officials who helped them alive would not be sufficient revenge for Hindu society. —(Khan, India of Today, p. 87; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 61)

Mr. N. C. Chowdhury says that the Partition of Bengal permanently destroyed Hindu-Muslim relations and generated hatred for Muslims in our minds in place of friendship. This hatred became evident everywhere—in the streets, schools, and markets. At school, Hindu boys expressed disgust at sitting near Muslims, saying that an odor of onions came from their mouths. Mr. Chowdhury says that he witnessed this conduct himself when he went to school. As a result, separate seats were arranged for Hindus and Muslims in the classroom. He further says: “Before we had even learned to read and write, we were told that once, while ruling this country, the Muslims had oppressed us. With the Quran in one hand and the sword in the other, they had imposed Islam in this land. Muslim rulers had abducted our women, destroyed temples, and defiled our religious places. Therefore, the Partition of Bengal did not create Hindu hatred and hostility toward Muslims. These had existed long before. The Partition merely intensified them.”

—(N. C. Chowdhury, The Auto-biography of an Unknown Indian, pp. 227, 230; Zuberi, Tazkira Wadar, pp. 169–70; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 61–62)

An attempt has been made to mislead later generations by presenting distorted, imaginary, and absurd histories claiming that Hindus and Muslims of both Bengals jointly conducted the movement to annul the Partition of Bengal. It is also said that, apart from Khwaja Salimullah, no Bengali Muslim accepted the Partition. This is nothing but a denial of the truth. The discussion above has made it clear that, because the Partition created the possibility that the hopes and aspirations of the neglected Muslim community would be reflected, Hindu Bengal, driven by sheer jealousy, launched the anti-partition movement. Their speeches and statements, their conduct, and their efforts to awaken Hindu nationalism by bringing the Maratha leader Shivaji onto the scene nullified Hindu-Muslim unity and reconciliation; riots and disturbances began everywhere, and persecution of Muslims commenced. After all this, to say that Hindus and Muslims jointly annulled the Partition of Bengal is undoubtedly either evidence of a deranged mind or a deliberate malicious design.

It may be mentioned that the All-India Muslim Educational Conference was convened in Dhaka in 1906 to protect Muslims from the terrorism created in Bengal by the Hindus as a result of the Partition—terrorism that had no Muslim support and, rather, endangered Muslim lives and property—and to determine the duties of Muslims at that critical juncture. The contribution of Abul Kasem Fazlul Huq, then the emerging leader of Bengal’s Muslims, was greatest in making the conference successful. A. K. Fazlul Huq and Viqar-ul-Mulk were joint secretaries of the preparatory committee formed for the conference. To make the conference successful, the thirty-three-year-old A. K. Fazlul Huq traveled throughout India with great enthusiasm and energy, as a result of which 8,000 delegates attended. It was at this conference that the Muslim League was established to safeguard the interests of Muslims in Bengal and throughout India and to guide the nation along the right path. In a sense, it was the fire of Hindu hatred, anger, and vengeance against Muslims kindled by the Partition that gave birth to the Muslim League. Fazlul Huq could not thereafter play a political role, because he was appointed deputy magistrate in 1906 and remained in government service until 1911. After resigning from government service in 1911, he began practicing law at the Calcutta High Court on the advice of Khwaja Salimullah. In 1913, he was elected a member of the Bengal Legislative Council. He won from the Dhaka Division constituency by defeating his opponent, Rai Bahadur Kumar Mahendra Mitra, by a large majority. Thereafter, in his first speech at the first budget session of the Legislative Council, he sharply criticized the annulment of the Partition.

It is undeniable that nothing concerning the Muslims of Bengal can be considered without A. K. Fazlul Huq. Therefore, when he supported the Partition of Bengal and protested against its annulment in the Bengal Legislative Council, it is incredible, absurd, and beyond comprehension to claim that Hindus and Muslims jointly conducted the movement to annul the Partition. A. K. Fazlul Huq Sahib’s speech in the Bengal Legislative Council makes it even clearer that the annulment of the Partition was contrary to Muslim interests and caused them irreparable harm. On 4 April 1913, at the 1913–14 budget session of the Bengal Legislative Council, the popular leader of Bengal’s Muslims, Mr. A. K. Fazlul Huq, said in his first speech:

“I would like only remind the officials that they are in honour bound to render adequate compensation to the Muslim Community for all the grievous wrong inflicted on them by the unceremonious annulment of the partition Our share we claim as our indivisible right, and the excess we claim by way of compensation for wrong done to us by the annulment of the partition. This is the view of the general Muslim public, and if the officials will not meet the demands in full, there is certain to be discontent in the community.”

—(Budget Speech of Mr. A. K. Fazlul Huq, Bengal Legislative Council, dated 4^th April, 1913, Bangladesh Historical Studies—Journal of the Bangladesh Itihash Samiti, vol. 1, 1976, p. 148)

_I wish to remind the government officials that they are bound in principle to provide adequate compensation for the grievous wrong they inflicted upon the Muslim community by annulling the Partition without ceremony. ..We claim our share as an indivisible right, and we make an additional claim as compensation because the annulment of the Partition wronged us. This is the demand of the Muslim public, and if this demand is not fulfilled, the Muslim community is certain to become agitated.”

The budget speech quoted above by Mr. Fazlul Huq, the leader of the Bengali Muslims, expressed the sentiments of the Muslim people of Bengal. The speech was an expression of the agitation that arose from the extreme injustice done to the Muslims by annulling the Partition and from the grief and indignation this caused them. How, then, can it be said that the Partition was unwanted by the Muslims? And that, in order to annul it, they joined hands with a class whose anti-Muslim hostility and policies and program of crushing Muslims had become as clear as daylight in Bengal and throughout India?

After the Partition of Bengal disrupted the exclusive interests and advantages of the Hindus, the way the whole of Hindu Bengal, the Indian National Congress, and, indeed, the entire Hindu nation of India created an upheaval in heaven and earth to sabotage it and launched terrorism simultaneously against the Muslim and English rulers left the English extremely disturbed and embarrassed. As a result, they had no means of learning the true condition of India and Bengal. Various newspapers in London published contradictory accounts of events in Bengal and India. Moreover, since the Indian National Congress had been founded by an Englishman and many retired Indian Civil Service officers were members of Congress, their support and cooperation naturally favored Congress and the Hindu nation.

In the election to the British Parliament held in 1905, a considerable number of men were elected to the House of Commons who had been retired officers of the Indian Civil Service. They maintained close contact with the anti-partition movement and embarrassed the Government by raising question after question in Parliament. One of them, Sir William Wedderburn, was elected chairman of the Indian Parliamentary Committee. Another member of this group, Sir Henry Cotton, took pride in representing the hopes and aspirations of Indians. These members repeatedly said that the only way to establish peace in India was to reunite the two Bengals. In a letter written from London to an Indian friend, one member of Parliament went so far as to say, “Morley will give in; keep agitating.” The letter was published in Bengali newspapers, and as a result the movement gradually grew stronger. —(S. M. Mitra, Indian Problems, p. 72, Murray, London, 1908; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 66)

Two leaders of the Labour Party, Ramsay MacDonald and Keir Hardie, came to India in the name of a peace mission. The Indian Congress prepared their itinerary and gave them royal receptions everywhere. After traveling for six weeks, MacDonald remarked that the Partition of Bengal had been a grave mistake. He assured a Hindu that if the British Government did not accept their demands, the members of the Labour Party would not support the Cabinet. Hardie remained in India for two months. His itinerary and speeches were widely publicized by the Hindu newspapers of Calcutta. He said that the condition of East Bengal was more tragic than that of Russia and that Hindus were suffering extreme persecution there. He repeatedly accused the Muslims of molesting Hindu widows. This caused Hindu-Muslim relations to deteriorate severely. He said that God had sent Hardie to thwart every conspiracy.” After returning to England, Hardie proposed that the next session of the Indian Congress should be held in London to draw the attention of the entire world to India’s grievances and complaints.

—(A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 67. The Times Edition, London, October 1907; January–April 1908; December 1910)

Lord MacDonald, who was known as an extreme anti-Muslim, called the Partition of Bengal the gravest mistake of the British Government in India in the administrative sphere since Clive’s victory at Plassey. (Times Weekly Edition, London, January 1908, p. 4)

Toward the end of 1910, Lord Minto succeeded Lord Curzon as Viceroy. The following year, the Prince George—later King George V—was scheduled to visit India. Lord Minto became extremely concerned that if the agitated Hindus displayed any undesirable behavior during his visit because of the Partition, it would insult the Prince and bring disrepute upon the Government of India. He therefore met with Surendranath Banerjee and Gokhale. He tried to convince them that he was in no way responsible for the Partition. His discussions calmed them to some extent. Consequently, Minto could not devote as much attention to fully implementing the Partition. At this time, however, certain events occurred that caused the anti-partition movement to raise its head again around Fuller, although the Governor of East Bengal was not at all responsible for them. The incident was that a lower court sentenced a man named Uday Pandey to death for murder. When the matter was raised in the House of Commons in England, the Secretary of State gave an answer that placed the blame on Fuller. No one came forward to support Fuller. This fueled the anti-partition movement. A group of excited students from a school attacked an English bank employee and assaulted a bullock cart carrying British cloth. In accordance with government rules, Fuller requested the Senate of the University of Calcutta to remove the school from the list of recognized schools. The Government of India considered this imprudent and asked Fuller to withdraw his request. Fuller refused to follow the Government of India’s instruction, saying that doing so would expose the provincial governor’s weakness. Otherwise, he threatened to resign from his post. The Viceroy stood by his position, and Fuller had to resign. The Viceroy accepted his resignation immediately. Fuller’s removal in this planned manner brought no improvement in the situation. The movement increased a hundredfold. Fuller’s removal acted like setting fire to a powder magazine. The anti-partition activists seemed to gain new enthusiasm, energy, and inspiration. In effect, the white-skinned patrons of the activists were beating the war drum from London itself. There was the circle of friends of the Indian Hindu Congress, as well as a considerable number of members of the British Parliament elected in 1905; and, though not directly, the Secretary of State for India, Morley, joined them indirectly. They began to make the Hindus of India dance to their tune for the annulment of the Partition of Bengal.

It should be noted that the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 by an Englishman, did not utter a word against the English rulers before 1905. The idea of ‘Swaraj’ never even found a place in their minds. Although organizations such as Dayanand Saraswati’s ‘Arya Samaj’ and Raja Rammohan Roy’s ‘Brahmo Samaj’ raised their voices against Muslims, they never opened their mouths against their English masters. Rather, it was said on behalf of Hindu society in Bengal: “We always pray to the Almighty that we may remain under English rule from generation to generation. How meritorious the land of India must have been to receive an English master.” —Sangbad Bhaskar, 20 June 1857, Calcutta, reproduced courtesy of Society for Pakistan Studies, Sipahi Revolt and Bengali Hindu Society.

Until 1905, society continued to hold this attitude toward the English. From the Battle of Plassey through the end of the nineteenth century, the Muslims of Bengal and India were being persecuted and oppressed by the English and the Hindus. But when Hindu society saw some signs of improvement in the fortunes of the Muslims of East Bengal as a result of the Partition of Bengal, it burst with jealousy. Hindu Bengal became absorbed in an intense movement to annul the Partition. The book Glimpses of Old Dhaka states: “This Sinister movement was sponsored and conducted by babus Surendra Nath Banarjee (afterwards knighted) and Bepin Chandra Pal, leader and demagogue of Hindu youths. The started boycotting and burning British made goods on account of which the mills of Lancashire were affected. The terrorists and their secret organizations began to harass the English people by the use of bomb and revolver. This education gangster committing dcoities in order to create a sense of insecurity in the country (Glimpses of old Dhaka, p/XXVII).

“The initiators and directors of this evil movement were the leaders of the Hindu youth community, Babu Surendranath Banerjee (later awarded a knighthood) and Babu Bipin Chandra Pal. They also began boycotting and burning foreign goods, as a result of which the factories of Lancashire were suffering damage. The terrorists and their secret organizations began harassing the English with bomb and revolver attacks. Their educated gangs also began robbery in order to disrupt security in the country.”

One of the foremost terrorists, Barindra Kumar Ghose, came from London to Calcutta in 1904, when the plan for the partition of Bengal had become firmly established. The following year his brother Aurobindo arrived. The partition of Bengal was given a religious character as the dismemberment of ‘Mother Bengal.’ The whole of Hindu Bengal became engrossed in the terrorist movement.

The Hindus’ hatred of Muslims throughout India increased a hundredfold for two further reasons. Until then, there had been no institution to speak for the political interests of Muslims. The anti-partition movement gave birth in 1906 to a political institution for Muslims called the All-India Muslim League. In the same year, on 1 October, a delegation of thirty-six leading Muslims, under the leadership of the Aga Khan, met the Viceroy and demanded separate electorates for Muslims. The Viceroy agreed, and after further pressure, together with the earnest efforts of Syed Ameer Ali, the system of separate electorates was approved by the British Parliament in 1909. The Muslims’ separate political institution, the ‘Muslim League,’ and the system of separate elections for Muslims—these two things set the whole of Hindu India ablaze. Consequently, terrorism and the ‘Swaraj’ movement together created upheaval throughout India. Their first objective was to frustrate the partition of Bengal. To revive and satisfy the divided ‘Mother Bengal,’ people were trained in the use of deadly weapons. Bomb explosions to destroy government offices and courts, disruption of meetings and associations, murder, assault, looting, and similar acts continued with full vigor. Khudiram of Midnapore and Prafulla Chaki of Bogra devoted themselves to these destructive activities and murders. Anyone who supported the anti-partition movement had no safety. Even those who criticized hooliganism and murder were beheaded. For these reasons, a Hindu government lawyer was shot dead in 1909. In 1910, DSP Shamsul Alam was also murdered. The Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal was attacked no fewer than four times. A hand bomb was thrown at Allen, the District Magistrate of Dacca.

These terrorists were implacably hostile toward Muslims who supported the partition of Bengal. The Hindus again adopted another method to draw some innocent and simple-minded Muslims into the anti-partition movement. In The Story of the Partition of Bengal, Ibn Raihan says:

Hindu girls went from house to house among Muslims and tied rakhi bracelets on their hands, symbols of the union of the two souls—Hindu and Muslim—and thus of the two Bengals; melodious, sweet songs came floating from every side to win their hearts and minds—

The soil of Bengal, the water of Bengal,

The air of Bengal, the fruits of Bengal.

May it come true, may it come true, may it come true

O Bhagavan.

The life of the Bengali, the mind of the Bengali

All the brothers and sisters in Bengali homes

May they be one, may they be one, may they be one

O Bhagavan.

—(The Story of the Partition of Bengal, Ibn Raihan, pp. 10–11)

Some Muslims were misled by this enchanting, impassioned appeal in women’s voices. Among them was the barrister Abdul Rasul, a resident of Brahmanbaria. His account has been given earlier. But these self-deceived Muslims were disillusioned when they saw the terrorists’ literature and propaganda pamphlets, which were filled with passionate appeals for the revival of Hinduism. They were wholly centered on Hindu Brahmins, and murders were consecrated. This was done by touching the water of the Ganges and reciting special mantras. Sanction for brutal murders was obtained from Hindu scriptures in this way: the Bhagavad Gita says that, for the preservation of Hindutva, killing human beings is not blameworthy; rather, it is a meritorious act. The oath of the ‘Swadeshi’ movement was taken in the precincts of Kali temples. Thus the anti-partition movement was infused with the rites and practices of Hindu religion. After observing these things, it was utterly impossible for any Muslim to remain associated with this movement. (A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 60)

Hindu scriptures declare not merely that murder is permissible, but that it is obligatory. In Bankim’s Kapalkundala we see how the Hindu Tantric Kapalik practiced his religion by worshipping Bhairavi with human flesh. To remind readers, I quote here a few sentences:

“The Kapalik led Naba Kumar along beside the house toward that shore. Just then the woman previously seen passed rapidly along the bank beside him; as she went, she whispered in his ear, ‘Flee even now. A Tantric’s worship cannot be performed without human flesh; do you not know that?’

—Seeing Naba Kumar’s strength, the Kapalik said, ‘Fool! Why do you display your strength? Your birth has today become fruitful. Your flesh will be offered in Bhairavi’s worship; what greater good fortune can a person like you have?’”

—(Taken from Bankim’s Kapal Kundala, Chapter Six, ‘With the Kapalik’)

Therefore, Muslims could have no connection or association with the terrorism and murders that had been given a religious—Hindu religious—character. And precisely because they could not, Muslims too became victims of this terrorism and these murders.

Terrorism and the insecurity of citizens, especially the lives of the English, had embarrassed the British Government; but perhaps the boycott of foreign cloth embarrassed it even more. The factories of Manchester had suffered enormous losses. Continuous pressure was being exerted on the Manchester Chamber of Commerce by the Hindu Merchants’ Association. They were told in unequivocal terms, ‘If you wish to sell your cloth in this country, then annul the partition of Bengal.’

The Indian National Congress also declared that the only way to annul the partition of Bengal was to boycott foreign goods. The Congress did, however, say that this boycott policy would remain limited to Bengal.

It is particularly noteworthy here that the course of the anti-partition movement was gradually flowing into another channel: the complete extermination of the Muslim nation from the soil of India. When Emperor George V came to India in 1911, petitions submitted to him by many Hindu organizations stated that various reforms were granting special favors to Muslims. The Hindu newspapers said that Muslims were traitors and betrayers of the country, that their loyalty to the Government was merely a pretense, that they had no affection for Britain, and that they were in league with the Egyptian rebels (A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 83). Sir Valentine, correspondent of The Times, London, said that one often heard Tilak, the schools founded in Poona according to his ideology, and nationalist Hindus of Punjab and Bengal saying that, just as Muslims had been exterminated from Spain several centuries earlier, they would likewise be exterminated from India. Sir Walter Lawrence, associated with Lord Curzon’s personal staff, commenting on the Maharaja Sir Pratap Singh of Idar, said:

“Once Sir Pratap Singh was invited to a farewell dinner given by Lord Curzon of Shiloh to my wife and me. After dinner I conversed with him until two o’clock at night. He expressed to me many of the hopes and aspirations of his life. One of them was the extermination of Muslims from India. I protested against his words and mentioned several Muslim friends common to us both. He said, ‘Yes, I like them, but I like their death even more.’”

Sir Lawrence says, ‘I often think about this kind of conversation with Sir Pratap. One may be acquainted with Indians for many years. But a time will suddenly come when they will open the doors of their hearts and reveal the secret within. Sir Pratap Singh is a good Hindu Rajput. He has traveled through many countries. He has mixed with many people. He knows English well. He is acquainted with people of many nations. In a word, he is a bearer and representative of cosmopolitan civilization. Yet in the deepest recesses of his heart there is an ineradicable hatred of Muslims.’

(Sir Walter Lawrence: The India We Served, p. 209, Cassell, London, 1928; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 83–84)

Sir Lawrence has exposed a very decisive truth. The extermination of Muslims from the soil of India was not merely the innermost thought of one or two Hindu gentlemen like Sir Pratap Singh; rather, it was the innermost thought of the entire Hindu nation. Later, during the Pakistan movement in India, leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha, including Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, repeatedly expressed the same attitude in public speeches and statements.

Chapter Fourteen

The Annulment of the Partition of Bengal and Its Repercussions

The Government took stringent measures against terrorism in Bengal. As a result, the movement gradually subsided. By the end of 1910, the situation was returning to normal. The soldiers of the movement had become, in a sense, weary from battle. That same year, a Bengali Hindu unsuccessfully attempted to raise the matter anew in the Legislative Council. Later he agreed to withdraw his motion. Sir Surendranath Banerjee had been an initiator of the movement. At last, through his newspaper Bengali, he too said, ‘We certainly acknowledge that this partition was made to endure, and we do not wish to frustrate it.’

—(Fraser, India Under Curzon and After, p. 391; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 86)

But it was not known whose hands, in distant London, were continuing to manufacture deadly weapons against the partition of Bengal.

King George V came to India in 1911 with the intention of announcing in person his accession to the throne of the British Empire. To travel thousands of miles to a distant colony solely to announce his coronation was an unprecedented and unparalleled event in the history of British rule in India. The fear of the terrorists’ evil conspiracy had not yet been erased from people’s minds. Famine prevailed in India. Muslims were agitated because of the Italo-Turkish War. For these reasons, George V’s ministers considered his visit to India ill-advised and tried to dissuade him. The King ignored all advice and continued preparing for the journey. He left for India in November and landed in Bombay in the first half of December. He entertained the people of India by granting them various rewards and concessions. At last the decisive moment arrived. In a highly magnificent assembly and solemn atmosphere, King George V began showering, one by one, his boundless favors upon his beloved subjects. A general amnesty was declared for all political prisoners; a substantial sum was allocated for the advancement of education; Indian soldiers’ ineligibility to receive the Victoria Cross was removed; low-paid government employees were given an additional half-month’s salary; and the capital of India was transferred from Calcutta to Delhi. Finally it was announced that the partition of Bengal had been annulled. The Hindus burst into joy and celebration. The immediate advantage of announcing the annulment of the partition was that it ensured the safe journey of the royal couple through the crime-ridden regions of the Indian Empire.

Some time later, when the King came to Calcutta, Hindu Bengal became ecstatic with joy and held enormous processions displaying its unshakable loyalty to the British Empire. Hindu newspapers went so far as to propose installing statues of the white King and Queen in Hindu temples. The Indian National Congress adopted a resolution expressing gratitude to the King and became effusive in its praise of Lord Hardinge.

On the other hand, annulling the partition was the gravest betrayal of the Muslims. Curzon carried out the partition, and Hardinge annulled it. But the great difference between their methods was that Curzon openly proposed the partition of Bengal and presented justifications in its support. The matter was discussed for many days, and much paper and ink were expended. The proposal was duly finalized and implemented at the proper time. Hardinge’s plan, by contrast, proceeded in the strictest secrecy and was revealed to the public quite suddenly and in a form that caused profound astonishment. Although this decision of the British Government ruined one side and ushered in a season of prosperity for the other, its impudence, reversals, and unjust and inequitable attitude—restoring the rightful rights of a community in an underdeveloped region only to take them away again—will remain indelible on the pages of history.

The little indication available concerning the reason for this ridiculous performance by the British Government is that the game of annulling the partition had taken root in the mind of the then Secretary of State for India, ‘Crew.’ Crew’s intention was to pacify those who had been agitated by denouncing the partition as a grave mistake. Hardinge said, ‘I was later informed that, if peace was to be established in both Bengals, it had become absolutely essential to do something to remove what all Bengalis regarded as an injustice. At that time, it was also hoped abroad that something would be done to remove this “injustice.” I realized that if nothing were done, we would face greater dangers in the future than in the past.’

—(Hardinge of Penhurst, My India Years, p. 36, Murray, London, 1948; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 88)

From the statement of Sir Surendranath Banerjee quoted above, it can be understood that the anti-partition activists had become somewhat despondent and dispirited, and had even begun to accept the partition. But the white-skinned friends in London who had been fanning the flames had not given up. They continued their work, through which the Secretary of State for India, Crew, was certainly influenced.

Abdul Hamid says that one of the arguments advanced in favor of annulling the partition was this: ‘The Hindus of both Bengals owned almost all the landed property. They also held a monopoly over trade, commerce, and employment. Consequently, they exercised excessive influence over the people. The wealth and culture that had given them influence and prestige would, as a result of the partition of Bengal, deprive them of that influence and prestige. This is indeed an argument in favor of preserving vested interests and class dominance.’

There was no noble purpose behind annulling the partition; rather, it was, so to speak, an extreme malicious design. From the foregoing words it is clear that the Government had deceived them. In exchange for their loyalty, they were deprived of their rightful rights. On this subject, Mushtaq Hossain says in an article of his:

“Muslims will view this measure (the reunification of the two Bengals) with contempt. The British Cabinet refused to reconsider Curzon’s decision. Thereafter, the reunification of the two Bengals proves that the authorities have become crippled. In future no one will be able to place confidence in the promises of the British Government. …We shall not launch any movement to reverse this final decision. But our demand is that the opportunities and advantages which the Muslims of Eastern Bengal gained as a result of the partition must in some way be secured for them. …British policy regarding Tripoli and Persia has brought Muslims to the limits of their patience. …This harsh measure has created bitterness in the hearts of our people. They have begun to think that there was no special benefit in remaining outside the Congress. Some may perhaps leave the Muslim League and join the Congress. That is precisely what the Congress had long been hoping for. But we do not agree with this line of thought. We cannot abandon our own institution and merge completely into a powerful majority. This is the road to suicide. A stream loses its identity after joining the sea. Because of our loyalty to the Government, we are not hostile to the Congress. Loyalty is not our real objective; it is only a means to achieve our objective. Loyalty is always conditional. Loyalty cannot endure impossible pressure.”

…It is as clear as daylight that Muslims can no longer place their trust in the Government. We must rely upon God and upon our own efforts and conduct. …If we can become organized in this respect, the Government will be compelled to respect our feelings. We must learn from everything that has happened.

……The Government considers it unnecessary to consult us about our future. The announcement from the King passed over the dead body of the Muslims as mercilessly as an artillery force.”

—(Zuberi, Tazkira Waqar, pp. 228–40; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 91)

In the presidential address at the Muslim League session held in Calcutta in March 1912, Khwaja Salimullah, the wounded soldier of the struggle for the partition of Bengal, said:

After the movement against the partition of Bengal had ceased, no responsible person of conscience could discover any just reason for raising the matter again. The partition was carried out in 1905 and remained in force until 1911. Our enemies became distressed at the prospect of the Muslims’ hopes and aspirations. In reality, we had gained very little from the partition. Whatever little we had gained, our neighboring community took away from us by creating turmoil throughout heaven and earth. They took revenge through murder and robbery and boycotted foreign goods. The Government took no notice of this. Muslims did not participate in these murders and remained loyal to the Government. …The Muslim peasantry benefited from the partition. Hindu zamindars tried to draw them into the movement, but they paid no heed. As a result, Hindu-Muslim conflict began. The Government adopted a policy of repression, but it produced no result. On one side was a wealthy, agitated community, and on the other were the poor Muslims, who stood with the Government. Thus several years passed. Suddenly the Government annulled the partition. We were not consulted or discussed with on this matter. (Ahmed, Ruh-i-Raushan Mustaqbil, pp. 58–59; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 92)

At the special session of the Indian National Congress held at Cocanada in 1923, Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his presidential address, strongly protested the annulment of the partition of Bengal and said: ‘As a reward for their loyalty, they were deprived of their newly acquired rights, and (for) expressing satisfaction with the Government they were punished as though it were a grave offense. This is such a despicable example that it would be difficult to find its equal in history.’

—(Iqbal, Select Writings & Speeches, p. 162)

Many of them came to feel that the British Government had betrayed the Muslims, performed a complete reversal, committed the gravest injustice against Muslims, and bowed its once-proud head before a class of terrorist and violent activities. They also felt that, by changing after seven years through an announcement from King George V the long-considered decision approved by the British Parliament, the Government had diminished its dignity before the world. Therefore, many tried to preserve King George V’s reputation by distorting the history of the causes of the partition of Bengal. Finally, to console the Muslims of Eastern Bengal and compensate them for the enormous loss caused by the annulment of the partition, the Government decided to establish a university in Dacca, so that higher education could be provided to the underdeveloped people of the region. The Hindus of Bengal were indeed ecstatic at the reunification of the two Bengals, but they were utterly unwilling to tolerate any progress or prosperity for Muslims. Thus the Government’s decision to establish a university in Dacca struck them like another thunderbolt. Several Congress leaders, enraged, strongly protested this decision. Since Calcutta University was the principal source of Hindu education, culture, and influence, they began proclaiming that the establishment of another competing center of education would diminish the prestige of the former. A delegation led by Surendranath Banerjee immediately met Viceroy Lord Hardinge. They said that establishing another university in the province would destroy peace and harmony in national life. The discord prevailing among the inhabitants within the jurisdictions of the two universities would steadily increase. They also warned the Viceroy that the new university would begin in a very insignificant and ludicrous manner. In their view, there would be a shortage of sufficiently capable students, and they doubted that an institution of higher education intended mainly for Muslim cultivators would have any value.

—(Government of India, Speeches by Lord Hardinge of Penhurst, Vol. 1, pp. 203–20, Calcutta, 1916)

In this connection, the speech delivered by the late A. K. Fazlul Huq, the Muslim leader of Bengal, at the 1913–14 budget session of the Bengal Legislative Council is particularly noteworthy; I quote a brief portion of it. In his speech he said:

“In the Government of India’s report of 25 August, it was promised that the changes resulting from the annulment of the Partition of Bengal would not harm Muslim interests. Eighteen months have since passed, and the time has come to see how far they have fulfilled their promise. Shortly after the announcement of the Delhi Durbar, when His Excellency the Viceroy arrived in Dhaka, everyone expected him to make some announcement to satisfy the Muslims. Of course, we heard the announcement of the establishment of the University of Dhaka. But I must say that, in comparison with what we had hoped for, this is very insignificant. I do not wish to belittle the importance of the University of Dhaka, because it will remove the obstacle that had arisen to the advancement of education in East Bengal. Nor do I deny the immense advantages of a residential university in a Muslim centre. But I protest against the claim that this university is being established solely for the benefit of Muslims, or that it is a special measure to please them. The Viceroy has clearly said, ‘This university is for both Hindus and Muslims, and it ought to be so.’ Its scope has been curtailed out of fear that a reaction to the annulment of the Partition of Bengal might be aroused among the Hindus. Nor can the planned Muslim college and Faculty of Islamic Studies associated with this university be regarded as an intention to grant a favour to Muslims. For more than half a century, the Government has been running in Calcutta an exclusively Hindu college, complete with fully staffed personnel and all necessary equipment; therefore, a Muslim college in Dhaka would be a long-delayed recognition of the Muslims’ long-neglected demand. As for the Department of Islamic Studies, in a region where Muslims have long cherished a desire to study Arabic and Persian, this department is merely the natural outcome of the curriculum of the university there. It may not be known to everyone that a large number of students from the districts of East Bengal study in the madrasas of Bengal, and without arrangements to meet the needs of this class of inhabitants and provide them with educational qualifications, a university would in no way be justifiable. I hope government officials will understand that although the Muslims have voted in favour of the University of Dhaka, they do not regard it—not even a Muslim college or a Faculty of Islamic Studies—as any favour shown to them.”

-(Bangladesh Historical Studies, Speech on the Budget for 1913–14, pp. 149–50)

The discussion above has made clear what the attitude and conduct of Hindu India and the British were regarding the Partition of Bengal, the establishment of a university in Dhaka, and the provision of any opportunities or facilities for Muslims.

We need to examine and assess what the Muslims gained and what they lost as a result of the Partition of Bengal and its annulment.

For many years, British officials in India had been considering the redistribution and reorganization of certain provincial areas for the sake of efficient and well-coordinated administration, and file after file had been prepared in the Secretariat on the subject. On this basis, Lord Curzon divided Bengal, the largest province, and created a new province called ‘Eastern Bengal and Assam.’ The Muslims of Bengal had no conception of this matter. Naturally, however, the division raised hopes of the overall welfare and advancement of the Muslims of Muslim-majority eastern Bengal. The Hindu leaders of Bengal, driven by sheer jealousy of the future opportunities and advantages of the Muslims, launched a fierce movement against the division. The movement later took the form of terrorism and violent activities. In this matter, the Hindu attitude toward Muslims became clear. Muslims in India came to regard their existence, civilisation, culture, and heritage as endangered. For self-defence, an all-India political organization for Indian Muslims was established under the name ‘Muslim League.’ Muslims also recognized the conspiracy to erase their distinctiveness and merge them into Hindu nationality under the pretence of a united nationality of Hindus and Muslims in India. A delegation of thirty-six prominent Muslim leaders, led by Aga Khan, explained their hopes and aspirations to the Viceroy and introduced the system of separate electorates. The Muslims were recognized as a separate nation; as a consequence, India was partitioned and two independent states, India and Pakistan, came into existence.

Chapter Fifteen

From 1906 to 1936

The history of these thirty years, from 1906 to 1936, is an important chapter in the Muslims’ struggle for freedom. Yet it must be said that during these three decades they were tormented by the conflict between hope and despair, and at times we find their political spirit sinking into despondency.

The two boundaries of these three decades were marked by two distinctive, brilliant, and vigorous features. In 1906, the emergence of the Muslims’ distinct nationality was illuminated by the bright light of hope; and in 1936 they were actively participating in elections on the basis of separate electorates as a distinct nation under the Government of India Act of 1935. The intervening period was spent in conflict and disputes with the neighbouring Hindu community, in the struggle and competition for self-establishment, in explaining the Muslims’ self-confidence to the British Government, and alongside all this, the freedom movement also continued.

In 1905, Lord Curzon proposed the Partition of Bengal for administrative convenience. But when the partition took place and the gates of education and material advancement were opened to the neglected people of the Muslim-majority eastern region, the entire Hindu community began fiercely opposing the division. Their blind opposition revealed the truth that Hindus and Muslims were two distinct nations, with completely separate aspirations, religious practices, outlooks on life, social cultures, politics, and economic trajectories. Inspired by this awareness, a powerful Muslim delegation presented the demand for separate electorates to the Government in 1906. Since political distinctiveness was essential to national distinctiveness, the establishment in Dhaka in 1906 of a Muslim political organization called the ‘Muslim League’ was the inevitable result of the new political and national consciousness.

The Indian National Congress’s grandiloquent slogan was one nationalism. But the united movement of the entire Hindu nation for the annulment of the Partition of Bengal exposed the mask of its one-nationality doctrine. The distinctiveness of Hindus and Muslims became evident, mutual bitterness continued to grow, and ultimately assumed the form of communal conflict. From the tragic drama of Plassey until the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, while the British were suppressing Muslims, Hindus were their utterly submissive favourites. Muslims, on the other hand, were regarded by them as untrustworthy and hostile. But when the Partition of Bengal, separate electorates, and similar measures created the impression that the British attitude toward Muslims had changed and that they had become sympathetic to them, the Hindus’ anger also fell upon their British masters. Then British-opposing terrorism began.

King George V and Queen Mary came to India in 1911. A grand and splendid durbar was held in Delhi to mark their arrival. At the end of the durbar, the King astonished everyone by announcing that India’s capital would be transferred from Calcutta to Delhi. The next announcement was even more astonishing and unexpected. He announced that the Partition of Bengal had been annulled. This was extreme treachery toward the Muslims, and opposition to the British intensified among them.

The Hindus, on the other hand, burst into jubilation at the annulment of the Partition of Bengal. As a result, the ideological and political difference and distance between Hindus and Muslims continued to increase, and so did Muslim opposition to the British. The first of the Muslim League’s three objectives specifically mentioned creating loyalty toward the British. But King George V’s second announcement redirected their thinking. At the Muslim League session held in 1912, a proposal was adopted to expand the organization’s objectives in keeping with the Muslims’ growing agitation. This was a highly important proposal. The revised proposal established before the League the firm goal of attaining complete freedom. Consequently, the Muslim middle class also turned its attention in this direction.

It is worth noting that Muhammad Ali Jinnah attended that session of the League. At that time, however, no enthusiasm or excitement regarding the League’s organization could yet be seen in him. The reason for his indifference to the League was that he still believed its policy to be community-centred. He was an ardent member of the Congress and believed in Hindu-Muslim unity. He received his political initiation from Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Gokhale remarked, “Jinnah possesses the qualifications to become an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”

He joined the League because he did not regard formally becoming a League member as incompatible with remaining a Congress member. His earnest desire was to try to unite Hindus and Muslims as a member of both the League and the Congress. He made every possible effort. But through his tireless efforts at reconciliation, he observed that, far from Hindus and Muslims uniting, their distinctiveness was becoming clearer through communal conflict. Their political goals and objectives were different, and their activities flowed along separate channels.

When the First World War began in 1914, both the Congress and the Muslim League assisted the British. During this period, efforts to bring Hindus and Muslims together became very vigorous. In 1916, the Lucknow Pact was concluded by a joint committee of the Congress and the League. This pact had two consequences. First, it marked the precursor of Congress-League unity during the later Khilafat Movement. Second, through this pact, the Indian National Congress, which championed one nationalism, acknowledged the League’s political existence and importance. The Congress agreed to grant Muslims representation in the legislative councils: 40 percent in Bengal, 50 percent in Punjab, 25 percent in Bihar, and 30 percent in the United Provinces. By accepting the system of separate electorates, the Congress acknowledged Muslim distinctiveness.

But strong opposition to the Lucknow Pact began on the Hindu side, and communal disturbances also began in various parts of India.

It has been observed several times that whenever an attempt was made to bring Hindus and Muslims together on any basis, the majority group would initiate communal disturbances and thwart the effort at unity.

Three events of this period have become famous in history: the Khilafat Movement, the Moplah Rebellion, and the Hijrat Movement. I feel it necessary to describe their background as well.

During the First World War, the Congress and the Muslim League fully cooperated with the British. In return for their support, they hoped that the British Government would accept their minimum demands. In 1917, the then Secretary of State read out a declaration in the House of Commons promising the gradual establishment of responsible government in the Indian subcontinent. But the Montagu-Chelmsford reform scheme announced in 1919 was grossly inadequate against the background of the demands formulated in the Lucknow Pact. Another statutory measure enacted that year, known as the Rowlatt Act, astonished and enraged Indians. It gave the Government the power to take stringent action against opponents of the state without the advice of a jury. It became clear to everyone that this law had been passed to suppress any movement in India. This was the reward given to the people of India for their unreserved wartime support. The Act was passed on 18 March, and Gandhi called for a nationwide hartal on 30 March in protest. A violent clash took place in Punjab during the hartal. As a result, a brutal massacre was carried out at Jallianwala Bagh. General Dyer ruthlessly fired 1,650 rounds, killing 379 people and wounding 1,137, thereby adding one of the darkest chapters to British rule in this country.

The Khilafat Movement

The Khilafat Movement was connected with these events. Some further remarks about it are necessary. Having lost political power in India, Indian Muslims were passing their days in sorrow and wounded pride. They sought some consolation for this grief by looking to the Sultan of Turkey. Turkey was not merely a Muslim state; rather, the Sultan of Turkey was regarded as the Caliph of the Muslim world and a symbol of Muslim unity. Of course, as long as the Mughal Empire in India remained powerful, the Sultan of Turkey was not accorded this status. In any case, later the pan-Islamic consciousness among Muslims accepted Turkey as a symbol of Muslim unity. Turkey joined the opposing side in the First World War against the British. Indian Muslims hoped that, because of their unreserved support for the British, Turkey would be spared any kind of punishment. Lloyd George had also given such assurances. But the British aim was to destroy the symbol of unity of the Muslim world. For this reason, Lawrence was sent as a propagator of the poisonous doctrine of Arab nationalism among the Arabs. Influenced by Lawrence’s propaganda, Sharif Hussein Hashimi, the Sharif of Mecca, began a war against the Muslims themselves in the name of ‘the national independence of the Arabs,’ disregarding the unity of the Muslim world, and thus stabbed Turkey in the back. The British aim was to destroy the Sultanate of Turkey, and thus the symbol of unity of the Muslim world, through the poisonous fumes of narrow, region-based nationalism; and this aim succeeded. The Allied Powers won the First World War, and as soon as they had secured victory, they divided the vast Turkish Empire through a secret treaty, parceling it out like a monkey dividing a cake. In May 1919, only a nominal Sultan remained in the Ottoman capital. All the regions from Algeria to Bahrain were broken up and distributed among France, Greece, and Britain.

The partitioning of the Ottoman state in this way caused intense discontent among Indian Muslims. Muslim leaders expressed their resentment to the Viceroy of India. A delegation of leaders including Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi went to London and conveyed their views to the British authorities. The response was that, apart from Turkish territory itself, the other regions could not be returned to Turkey. Thus, a powerful Khilafat Movement began in India for the restoration of the Caliphate to Turkey.

A powerful Khilafat Committee was formed in India. The accumulated pain and grief of Muslims over a century and a half made the Khilafat crisis unleash the blazing flames of intense protest. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar was the pioneer of efforts to awaken the Muslim mind. He was the visionary who dreamed of establishing ‘free Islam in a free India.’ Through an English newspaper called Comrade, he worked to bring about a renaissance among Muslims. He declared that responding to the Khilafat Movement was the obligatory duty of every Muslim.

The Congress and the Congress-supported Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind expressed their unreserved support for the Khilafat Movement. On 10 August 1919, a call was issued to observe Khilafat Day throughout the country. An unprecedented and unstoppable surge of activity began across the country through hartals, demonstrations, and meetings. Within a month, twenty thousand Muslims presented themselves for imprisonment. In markets and fields, cities and ports, villages and rural areas, people spoke only of the Khilafat Movement and of their readiness to make any sacrifice and offering for it.

In November, a session of the Khilafat Committee began in Delhi. Mr Gandhi attended it. In his speech, he advised adopting a policy of ‘non-cooperation’ with the British Government.

At the Khilafat Committee conference held in May 1920, the decision was taken to launch the ‘Non-Cooperation Movement.’ Through the Non-Cooperation Movement, agitation against the British continued to intensify.

I first began my education in 1922 at a school in a remote village of Bangladesh. As far as I remember, in my childhood I saw students and teachers, peasants and labourers, and people of every class firm and unwavering in their resolve to restore the Caliphate. They were always ready to make any sacrifice and to give their lives with a smile.

But despite everything, this vigorous Khilafat Movement faced an untimely death. Kemal Atatürk of Turkey recaptured many regions from the English with immense courage and heroism. He united the Turkish nation and restored Turkey to a position of glory. But immediately after gaining power, in November 1922 he deposed Sultan Muhammad Hashim, and in March 1924 he exiled Turkey’s last and puppet-like Caliph-Sultan, Abdul Majid, from the country and abolished the Caliphate. The Khilafat Movement in India ended in failure. Despair descended upon the Muslims. Dr Moinul Huq says, “Kemal Atatürk’s action dealt a devastating blow to the hearts of the Muslims associated with the Khilafat Movement in the Indian subcontinent. Maulana Muhammad Ali suffered the greatest blow, because he was the source and centre of this movement. Sharif Hussein, who had been a British dependent and had become unpopular with the Muslim world through his actions, now declared himself a claimant to the Caliphate. The British gave him no assistance in this matter. On the other hand, he lacked the power to obstruct the campaign of the Wahhabi leader Ibn Saud. Before the year ended, Ibn Saud launched campaigns against Mecca and Taif, captured them, and thus extended his authority over most of the Hijaz.”

-(Dr Moinul Huq, History of Freedom Movement, Vol. 3, Part 1; Abul Afak, A Life, a Philosophy, a Movement (Urdu work), p. 69)

The Hijrat Movement

During the Khilafat Movement, the Hijrat Movement began in India. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad began the Hijrat Movement after being released from Ranchi Jail. The ulema issued a fatwa that India was Dar al-Harb and that one had to migrate from there to a Dar al-Islam. The Amir Amanullah Khan, King of Afghanistan, announced at a public meeting, “Indian Muslims may certainly migrate and come to our country.” At Maulana Azad’s proposal, Muslims became determined to migrate with their eyes closed to everything else. A Hijrat Committee was established in Delhi, and an office was duly opened. As a result of this movement, whose inspiration came from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad himself, thousands of Muslims sold all their possessions and set out for Afghanistan. In August 1920 alone, eighteen thousand people migrated. Between five hundred thousand and two million Muslims became homeless as a result of this movement, and indescribable misery befell them.

But the foundation of this movement was merely an impulsive tendency. It was launched without any well-considered plan and without assessing or analysing the consequences of migration.

Ali Sufian Afaki says, “Maulana Maududi and his brother decided to migrate. Mr Tajammul Husain, the secretary of the Hijrat Committee, was their relative. He encouraged the two brothers to migrate. But discussion revealed that the Hijrat Committee had no sound plan in this regard. Although people had gone to Afghanistan in groups, nothing had been discussed with the Afghan Government on the matter. Mufti Kifayatullah and Maulana Ahmad Saeed were the pioneers in this matter. Maududi Sahib met these two men and pointed out the defects and shortcomings of a planless movement. After acknowledging the defects, they asked Maududi Sahib to formulate a plan. Maududi Sahib said that first it was necessary to ask the Afghan Government whether it was prepared to resettle the migrants from Hindustan and, if so, what the method of resettlement would be. The Afghan ambassador was consulted. He said, ‘His government is currently in great difficulty. Although the Government naturally hesitates to send back those who have gone to Afghanistan, it is nevertheless beyond its capacity to bear their burden.’ Thus the question of Hijrat ended there.”

-(Abul Afak, ‘A Life, a Philosophy, a Movement,’ pp. 77–78).

Thus, the powerful momentum of the Khilafat and Hijrat Movements in India suddenly came to a halt, and both movements failed. The Indian Muslims were not responsible for this failure at all. Their failure was due to Turkey. Kemal Pasha not only abolished the Caliphate; he also exiled the Caliph two years later. The blazing flame that had arisen in India under the pretext of the Khilafat Movement and had terrified the Government of India was extinguished, as if through a cloud of smoke, shattering the Muslims’ hopes and enthusiasm.

The effort at unity between Hindus and Muslims that had been pursued through this movement also failed along with the movement. Bloody conflict began again between Hindus and Muslims. Whether or not Gandhi’s cooperation with the Khilafat Movement was sincere, many Hindu members of the Congress could not wholeheartedly support it. Many of them wondered what benefit they would gain from restoring the Caliphate for the Muslims. Thus, although the Khilafat Movement suppressed their tendency toward communal conflict for a while, after its failure that tendency raised its head again. They used the pretext of forcibly playing music in front of mosques to initiate riots and disturbances, and these riots assumed the form of bloody conflict and began spreading everywhere. The communal difference between them became increasingly clear. Whenever Muslims, neglected and backward for a century and a half, sought any opportunity or facility in life, conflict with the majority and more powerful community became inevitable. At this time, the Hindu zamindars of Bengal and the businessmen of Punjab began perpetrating extreme oppression against their Muslim tenants and debtors. The Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movements had inspired people to express their discontent; after the two movements were brought to a halt, that discontent found expression through communal conflict.

The Moplah Rebellion

The Moplah Rebellion of that time was connected with the Khilafat Movement. In suppressing this Moplah Rebellion, the violent nature of the English rulers became evident on the one hand, while on the other, the Hindus’ violent attitude toward Muslims was also exposed.

At the beginning of the book, some account was given of the Moplahs. They were Muslim inhabitants of the Malabar region of southern India and claimed descent from Arab merchants. They were extremely brave and devout. Because they were exploited and oppressed by the English, they declared rebellions against the British in 1873, 1885, 1894, and 1896. As a result, they were repeatedly persecuted by the British. Cultivation and fishing were their principal occupations. They were backward in education, while Hindu zamindars, moneylenders, and tahsildars subjected them to extreme oppression and persecution. Even after submitting petitions to the British rulers, they obtained no result. Thus, their history of persecution was a long one. Crushed by British and Hindu zamindars and moneylenders, they had languished and died for generations. Then, toward the end of the second decade of the twentieth century, the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements began in India. The wave of these movements reached Malabar as well. As stated earlier, the Moplahs were independent-minded, brave, and devout. Believing that the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, together with the attainment of independence in India, would end their long-standing oppression and persecution, they too joined the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements with intense enthusiasm and fervor. It was then that their conflict with the rulers began. The neighboring Hindu population gave the ruling class every possible assistance in suppressing them. Consequently, the Moplahs had to struggle simultaneously against both the ruling group and the Hindu community.

No language can be found to describe the horrifying and heartrending story of the barbarity and brutality displayed by the British government in suppressing the Moplahs. While atrocities and persecution were being inflicted upon them, the government declared public meetings throughout Malabar, the entry of news and newspapers from outside, and the transmission of news, telegrams, and letters from Malabar to the outside world without censorship prohibited. Malabar was placed behind an iron curtain. Nevertheless, if their story of persecution somehow became known outside and people in the wider world, especially Muslims, began to sympathize with them, vested interests launched an intense campaign against the Moplahs themselves. Those campaigns were baseless, fabricated, and imaginary. In 1922, two propaganda pamphlets were published by Hindus, one from Saharanpur and the other from Amritsar.

In the pamphlet entitled ‘The Tale of Oppression,’ published from Amritsar, an attempt was made to incite the Hindu community against Muslims by describing, allegedly on behalf of the Moplahs, an unspeakable tale of atrocities committed against Hindus. The Moplahs were accused of murder, looting, arson, abducting Hindu women, and forcibly converting people to Islam, among other things. The account stated that if the victim of oppression was a Hindu man, he was first bathed, his hair was cut in the Muslim manner, and then he was taken to a mosque and forced to recite the kalimah, circumcised, and dressed in Muslim clothing. If the victim was a woman, she was merely dressed in a type of brightly colored Moplah clothing and made to wear a kind of earring.

The pamphlet entitled ‘Malabar’s Bloody Tale,’ published from Saharanpur, stated that the Moplahs invited neighboring Hindus to join the Khilafat movement. If they joined, all was well; otherwise, those who refused were confined in the Moplahs’ houses and forced to eat beef. Their relatives were then killed before their eyes. If they still did not agree, they were killed, their dismembered bodies were thrown into a well, and their houses were burned to ashes.

While efforts were being made on the one hand to unite Hindus and Muslims, and a climate of independence was being created in India through the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements by their joint efforts, on the other hand the Hindu community was being incited against Muslims—not merely to make them withdraw from the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, but also to call for the wholesale slaughter of Muslims throughout the country. To some people, the extermination of Muslims was dearer than the attainment of independence. Thus, by spreading imaginary tales, they poisoned the communal atmosphere, as a result of which riots and disturbances began anew throughout India.

These serious campaigns did not escape the attention of the Muslims participating in the Khilafat movement. The Central Khilafat Committee sent a committee to collect accurate information about the Moplahs, and in the report it submitted, it held the local government officials chiefly and primarily responsible for the Moplah rebellion. They said that the situation had been entirely normal and peaceful, and that no sign of rebellion had been observed. Like Muslims in other regions of India, the Moplah Muslims also joined the Khilafat movement, and the local government set about suppressing it with a heavy hand. Police brutality compelled them to rebel. The clash began when the police arrested the secretary of the local Khilafat Committee and tied him to a tree. His wife was then brought before him and stripped naked, while he was forced to look on helplessly. A police constable slapped him. Another Khilafat worker was then charged with the fabricated accusation of manufacturing weapons. Finally, the police raided the Moplahs’ homes, looted all their belongings, and in some places inflicted bestial torture upon the inhabitants. Not stopping even then, they opened indiscriminate fire on the Moplahs. The Moplahs were by nature independent-minded, courageous, and heroic fighters. When such ruthless oppression was inflicted upon them, they stood against the police, determined to stake their lives, and ultimately resolved to fight. In the struggle that followed, the combined forces of the police and magistrates were defeated and driven from their posts. They fled, abandoning many weapons. The situation then came entirely under Moplah control. Until then, their relations with the Hindus had been good. In the tense situation, the Moplahs protected the lives and property of Hindus. In August 1921, the Moplahs formally declared independence. Within a week of the beginning of the rebellion, the Moplahs seized from the British government two large taluks called Ernad and Walluvanad and established an independent Khilafat state there.

Two weeks later, the British government sent hundreds of troops, tanks of various sizes, artillery, bombs, several gunboats, and warships to Malabar, creating a situation as though a great war had begun against some mighty power. During the first fighting, as with the police, several oppressive zamindars and moneylenders lost their lives to the people’s furious anger. The British government gave the matter a communal character and incited the Hindus against the Moplahs. The Hindu population, zamindars, and moneylenders then advanced with the assistance of the troops and police. Most Hindus began spying on the Moplahs and unjustly reporting them to the authorities. Consequently, the Moplahs had to take up the struggle against both the British and the Hindus. But how long could the unfortunate Moplahs fight against the vast and well-organized British forces? Hundreds of volunteers from the Arya Samaj came to Malabar from India in the name of distributing relief and continued to assist the police and troops in various ways.

The Moplahs continued their struggle against the British and Hindus with boundless courage for a month. The government bombed the Moplah areas from the air and indiscriminately shelled them from warships and artillery, killing nearly ten thousand men, women, and children and reducing their homes, shops, and fields to ruins. Then, with the assistance of the Hindu population, mass arrests and demonic oppression and persecution began. An example of the government’s brutality and savagery can be seen in one incident. Nearly one hundred prominent Moplah leaders were arrested, loaded into a goods train, and sent to Calicut with the doors locked. When the doors were opened at the destination, sixty were found dead and the rest were in a dying condition. No respect was shown even to their corpses. Such demonic and brutal treatment of human beings by human beings cannot be found in the history even of primitive times, let alone in the Golden Age.

After the atrocities and persecution by the British government’s police and troops, the survivors were put on trial. Nearly twenty thousand Moplah men and women were arrested. They were subjected to inhuman torture even in jail custody. The government established special courts for their trials. Since no lawyer from outside was allowed to enter Malabar, the unfortunate Moplahs were given no opportunity to defend themselves. During the trials, cries for food and clothing arose in the homes of the accused awaiting trial. Many men, women, and children died from lack of food. At that time, Malabar’s air and sky reverberated with the heartrending cries and wails of the oppressed. Nearly one thousand people were sentenced to death. More than two thousand Moplahs received life imprisonment, long-term rigorous imprisonment, or transportation. Only a very small number of Moplahs were acquitted. Nearly eight thousand Moplahs received rigorous imprisonment for terms of five to ten years. Among the rest, no one received a sentence of less than six months. Almost all the imams of the mosques in the affected areas were charged with sedition. Thus, the mosques too were pushed toward destruction. After the convicted Moplahs had suffered indescribable hardship for several years in transportation, the government permitted their families to go to the Andamans and live with them. In this way, the British government gained satisfaction by almost completely expelling the Moplahs from Malabar.

In the history of India’s Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, the story of the British government’s atrocities and persecution against the Moplahs is the most heartrending and poignant. Gandhi and the Congress maintained complete silence on the matter.

At that time, amid the mighty flood of the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, the Muslims were in a state between life and death, and the faint sound of their voices did not reach the ears of the British government. With great difficulty, the Khilafat Committee alone was able to provide some assistance to the helpless Moplahs. Otherwise, many more Moplah men, women, and children would have prematurely fallen into the arms of death. Many Muslim members of the Congress felt distressed by the Congress’s conduct toward the Moplahs, but because the Congress had supported it, the Congress maintained silence.

When the history of India over the past several centuries is considered with the British government and the Hindus placed side by side, it becomes clear that in this subcontinent the British and the Hindu community left nothing undone in playing their roles as the Muslims’ arch-enemies. Their sole aim was to eradicate the Muslim nation from this subcontinent. This truth will become still clearer in the discussion of the subsequent history.

(See Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, and Our Struggle for Liberation, Muhammad Waliullah.)

The suppression of the Moplah rebellion with extreme brutality, the failure of the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, and the complete indifference of the Congress and Gandhi toward the Moplahs created a new breach in Hindu-Muslim relations. In 1924, Dr. Mahmud, sent by Mr. Gandhi, collected information from the Hindu community of Malabar and submitted a report to Gandhi stating that the Moplah allegations were true. The allegation that Hindus had been forcibly converted to Islam was entirely baseless and unfounded. In reply, Gandhi said, “No one knows the actual truth.”

(The Indian Quarterly Register, 1942, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 645; Muslim Separatism in India, A. Hamid, p. 160)

Gandhi’s statement quoted above proves that he believed nothing said by Muslims, while he was prepared to accept whatever a Hindu said as incontrovertible truth.

What happened after these tragic events was even more tragic. In September 1922, Hindus attacked Muslims in Multan over the observance of Muharram. The following year, the situation deteriorated drastically in Saharanpur, from where, the previous year, the communal fire among Hindus had been fanned by distributing the pamphlet entitled ‘Malabar’s Bloody Tale.’ Three hundred people were killed in this communal conflict in Saharanpur, most of them Muslims. In 1924, eighteen riots took place in various places. These communal conflicts rapidly spread as far as Bihar and Bengal and assumed large proportions up to 1926.

A Deliberate Attack on Islam and Muslims

The Indian Muslim League was steadily losing its popularity. It had already fallen behind in popularity during the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements. During the communal riots between Hindus and Muslims throughout the country, it was unable to stand against the police-backed Hindus. Consequently, it was beyond its capacity to provide significant assistance to Muslims during the disturbances. Meanwhile, as many Congress members who professed nonviolence and believed in communal unity continued to incite riots, the Congress also became an object of hatred among Muslims. In their hope of communal unity, Muslims displayed excessive generosity and violated Islam’s established principles. They permitted Swami Shraddhanand, a leader of the Arya Samaj, to deliver a speech from the sacred pulpit of Delhi’s Jama Masjid. The unprecedented generosity that Muslims showed him, and thus the Hindu community, by compromising the sanctity of the mosque was repaid by Swami Shraddhanand in such a way that it remains an unparalleled example in the history of treachery.

It should be noted that this Arya Samaj leader was also a prominent member of the Congress and was imprisoned after joining the Non-Cooperation movement. While he was in Lahore Jail, he held secret consultations with a high-ranking English official in Punjab and was released before his term had expired. Immediately after his release from jail, his purpose was to convert Muslims to Hinduism and turn them into a new untouchable lower caste. Thus, he became engaged in an effort to push the Muslim nation down to the level of an impure caste. In places such as Gurgaon, Alwar, and Bharatpur, large numbers of uneducated Muslims were converted by means of various inducements and threats. Before conversion, Muslims were forced to drink cow-dung water and bathe from head to toe in cow-dung water. In this way, the forcible conversion of innocent and illiterate Muslims to Hinduism continued with full vigor.

The British government had never held any respectful attitude toward Muslims or their religion. Otherwise, had it wished, it could easily have stopped this religious persecution. But it remained completely silent. This evil activity of the Arya Samajists—possibly at the instigation of certain powerful English government officials—so agitated and enraged the Muslims that a certain Abdul Rashid killed Shraddhanand in broad daylight, bringing this evil activity to an end. When this man of unknown ancestry, Abdul Rashid, was sentenced to death, he mounted the gallows smiling.

After this incident, Gandhi himself began publicly speaking disparagingly of Islam. At public meetings he continued to say, “Islam initiates followers of other religions into the doctrine of killing them, and Muslims consider this a means of attaining salvation in the hereafter.”

Gandhi’s statement quoted above deeply grieved and agitated Muslim India. On one occasion, in a speech at Delhi’s Jama Masjid, Maulana Muhammad Ali expressed his sorrow and said, “Gandhiji’s statement must be given a crushing reply, because it misinterprets Islam’s sacred and magnificent jihad.”

Thereafter, Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi composed a highly reasoned and authoritative book entitled “Al-Jihad fi al-Islam.” In this book, he presented a detailed and scholarly discussion of Islam’s fundamental principles, its aims and objectives, Islamic war and peace, international principles and relations, and other matters, and refuted the mistaken notion that Gandhiji attempted to create through his statement concerning Islam and Islamic jihad.

I think it would not be irrelevant to bring a few remarks about this book to the readers’ attention.

The first five chapters of this great book provide a detailed exposition of Islamic law concerning the status of jihad, defensive war, reformative war, the propagation of Islam and the sword, and war and peace.

The sixth chapter discusses the war policies of the Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Christian religions.

The seventh chapter discusses war and peace conducted under modern civilization. It may be said without hesitation that, in no language of the world has anyone yet written a work on this subject so rich in information, reasoned, and authoritative.

Allah Almighty granted this distinction to Maulana Sayyid Abul A‘la Maududi alone.

Allah Iqbal praised the book highly. The book has been translated into Bengali and contains 592 pages.

The Sangathan Movement

Lala Hardayal, leader of the ‘Sangathan Movement,’ openly declared that Muslims must either convert to Hinduism or pack up and leave India.

In 1925, a Hindu leader named Satyadev declared, “Since we are powerful as the majority, we shall place the following conditions before the Muslims:

“The Quran may not be accepted as a revealed book, nor may Muhammad be acknowledged as a prophet. Muslim festivals must be abandoned and Hindu festivals observed. Muslim names must be discarded and names such as Ramdid and Krishnakhan adopted. Worship must be conducted in Hindi instead of Arabic.”

(A History of the Freedom Movement: Bengali Muslim Public Opinion Reflected in the Bengali Press, 1901–30, Mustafa Nurul Islam.)

During the period contemporary with the Arya Samaj’s Shuddhi movement, Dr. Moonje and Bhai Parmanand incited Hindus against Muslims through the ‘Sangathan’ movement. As a result, bloody communal conflicts broke out in various places. When the situation deteriorated to an extreme degree, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew entered the field along with the movement. Through their tireless efforts, the dangerous momentum of the ‘Shuddhi’ and ‘Sangathan’ movements was somewhat restrained.

But the communal flame in the hearts of the Hindus was not extinguished at all. An Arya Samajist named Rajpal in Lahore rekindled the fire of hatred for Muslims. He published a book entitled ‘Rangila Rasul,’ in which vile and repulsive slanders were cast upon the character of the Prophet Muhammad Mustafa. This dealt a severe blow to the religious sentiments of Muslims. A Muslim named Ilm-ud-Din then killed Rajpal and went smiling to the gallows.

The Demand for Autonomy of Muslim-Populated Regions

Instead of subsiding, the communal riots and disturbances continued to increase and assumed a terrifying form. In 1927, Maulana Hasrat Mohani of Kanpur put forward, through a statement in the newspapers, a proposal demanding autonomy for the Muslim-populated regions of India. This may be called the first signpost on the road to the Pakistan movement.

The All-Parties Conference

Meanwhile, Maulana Muhammad Ali, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, Raja Gopalachari, Dr. Ansari, and other leaders were making every effort to restore communal harmony, but they could find no way to prevent the riots. Finally, on the eve of the Congress session scheduled to be held in Calcutta in 1928, an All-Parties Conference was convened. Leading Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs of India attended the conference. Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, the outgoing president of the Congress, presided over it. But owing to the obstinacy of extremist Hindus, the conference ended in failure.

In order to establish communal harmony, the Muslims became willing to relinquish to non-Muslims some of the seats due to them in the legislative councils of their majority provinces, where they held an absolute majority, and in return demanded three percent additional seats in the Central Legislative Assembly beyond their rightful share. This was a demand to gain a small advantage at the center by surrendering a larger number of seats. But most of the Hindu and Sikh leaders at the conference strongly opposed this proposal and expressed their disagreement in the firmest terms. Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s repeated appeals for a little generosity in return for the greater generosity of the Muslims failed. Consequently, the All-Parties Conference ended in complete failure without reaching any decision.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Historic Fourteen Points

Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was initially a highly enthusiastic and devoted member of the Congress, and he was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. But his long efforts for unity failed. He was deeply pained by the conduct of the Hindu members of the Congress and their hostile policy toward Muslims. Thereafter, at the Congress session in Nagpur in December 1921, he severed his long-standing relationship with the Congress. However, until the All-Parties Conference held in 1928, he refrained from openly opposing the Congress. Observing the hostile attitude of the Hindus and Sikhs at that conference, he was deeply distressed. Soon afterward, at the Muslim Conference held in Delhi, he presented his proposal of fourteen points. Particularly notable among these fourteen points were the separation of Sindh from Bombay and the creation of Sindh Province, the introduction of constitutional reforms in Baluchistan and the Frontier Province, the distribution of seats in the legislative councils of Muslim-majority provinces according to population, and the introduction of separate electorates for Muslims in elections to representative bodies in the country’s autonomous institutions. From then on, Mr. Jinnah—later Quaid-i-Azam—became vocal in opposing the Congress. Subsequently, most of the fourteen points received recognition in the Communal Award of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Apart from these fourteen points, the Hindu-majority provinces of Orissa and Assam also attained the status of two separate provinces.

The Simon Commission

­­With the aim of determining future policy regarding the governance of India, or of suppressing India’s independence movement, the British government sent a Royal Commission to India in 1928. Sir John Simon was the chairman of this commission. Since no Indian member had been included, the Congress, the Muslim League, and other political parties decided to boycott it. When the commission members landed in Bombay, they were shown black flags. However, the Simon Commission submitted a recommendation for a Round Table Conference in London.

Round Table Conference

In accordance with the Simon Commission’s recommendation, a Round Table Conference was convened in London in 1930. The Congress refrained from attending the conference. Maulana Muhammad Ali, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Mr. A. K. Fazlul Huq, Sir Muhammad Ismail, the Aga Khan, Sir Abdul Qayum, Sir Abdul Halim Ghaznavi, Sir Hyderi, Sir Muhammad Shafi, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, and other leaders accepted the invitation. After arriving in London, the Muslim members elected His Highness the Aga Khan as their leader.

The conference lasted for nearly two months. Maulana Muhammad Ali attended despite his failing health and, remaining seated because of his illness, delivered his longest speech, lasting ninety minutes. The fiery speech of this man of fire was, on the one hand, a work of high literature, and on the other, one of the greatest contributions in the history of India’s independence movement. At the conference held under the chairmanship of Emperor George V, his severe criticism of the British government was, to him alone, the dearest thing in life. At one point in his speech, he said in a deeply emotional voice, “I wish to return to my homeland carrying the essence of India’s independence. If you do not grant independence, then I would consider dying in a free country preferable to returning home.”

This sincere statement was a prophecy that took hardly any time to come true, letter for letter. He never again had to return to his beloved homeland. India did not become independent; rather, his life came to an end in London a few days later.

Maulana Muhammad Ali had become completely broken in health after being imprisoned repeatedly and spending long periods in prison. His sudden death plunged the millions of men and women of India into a sea of grief. He died on January 4, 1930, and the terrible news spread throughout the Muslim world with lightning speed. The learned and respected people of the world, deeply moved, continued sending telegrams expressing their final respects to this lion of India.

Maulana Muhammad Ali had become completely broken in health after being imprisoned repeatedly and spending long periods in prison. His sudden death plunged the millions of men and women of India into a sea of grief. He died on January 4, 1930, and the terrible news spread throughout the Muslim world with lightning speed. The learned and respected people of the world, deeply moved, continued sending telegrams expressing their final respects to this lion of India.

In accordance with Maulana Muhammad Ali’s last wish, his body was not brought to the land of subjugated India; instead, he was buried in the courtyard of the Mosque of Caliph Umar in Bayt al-Maqdis.

The death of the patriot, poet and literary figure, journalist, and orator Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar created a void in Indian politics that was never filled. Yet, when he was carried onto a ship at the Bombay port on a stretcher while leaving for London, many said in choked voices, “Who will take your place in India?” He replied, “Among you, Muhammad Ali Jinnah remains.” This final wish of his was also fulfilled. Subsequently, the hopes and aspirations of the Muslims were realized through the tireless efforts of Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Second Round Table Conference

The Indian National Congress had boycotted the First Round Table Conference. Moreover, Mr. Gandhi had embarrassed the British government in India by launching the civil disobedience movement against the salt law. The government also tried to suppress the demonstrators with a heavy hand. In these circumstances, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, the Nawab of Bhopal Hamidullah Khan, Srinivasa Shastri, Sri Jayakar, and other leaders met with Mr. Gandhi to reach a compromise settlement with the government. A basis for compromise emerged from the discussions. After direct talks between Gandhi and the Viceroy, the Congress agreed to attend the Second Round Table Conference.

Mr. Gandhi traveled to London as the Congress’s sole representative at the Round Table Conference scheduled for August 1931. Upon reaching London, he learned that the government was determined to recognize the Depressed Classes, like the Muslims, as a separate community. Gandhi was unwilling to accept this and returned to India in protest. Gandhi was thrown into prison along with the anti-British movement’s activists.

After Gandhi’s departure from the Round Table Conference, the conference continued for two months, and many subcommittees were formed. A third session of the Round Table Conference was convened in August of the following year to consider the reports of these committees.

Third Round Table Conference

On the number of Muslim seats and the electoral system in the various legislatures, the Hindu members played their customary hostile role. They attempted to bring the Round Table Conference to a similar failure, just as the Hindus had expressed an uncompromising attitude at the conference held in Calcutta in 1928 and caused it to fail. But under the capable leadership of the Aga Khan, the Muslim leaders, especially Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, presented their legitimate demands with such ability and force of argument that the British government agreed to accept most of them. Besides the Aga Khan and Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the roles of Sir Muhammad Shafi, Sir Abdul Halim Ghaznavi, Sir Akbar Hydari, and other leaders were also particularly noteworthy. Having been defeated in argument, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Dr. Moonje, Sri Jayakar, and other leaders, after consulting with the other Hindu members, entrusted the settlement of the aforesaid question—the distribution of Muslim seats in the legislatures and the electoral system—to the then British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald.

Since MacDonald had previously demonstrated his sympathy for the Hindus and was a firm supporter of the Congress, the Hindus had great confidence in him. But in the Communal Award he announced, the number of seats for Muslims and other communities in the various legislatures was specified. Separate electorates were also recognized. An attempt was made to make the arrangement acceptable to both sides by making only some changes in the number of seats.

The Hindus were astonished and bewildered by MacDonald’s announcement, for they had never expected anything of the kind. They were particularly distressed by the proposal of separate electorates even for Hindus belonging to the Depressed Classes. Mr. Gandhi was then serving his prison term in Yerwada Jail. In protest against separate electorates, he announced that he would undertake a hunger strike unto death.

The Poona Pact

On the one hand, Hindu leaders went to Poona and repeatedly appealed to Gandhi to withdraw from his fast; on the other hand, the caste Hindus continued to pressure the Depressed Classes to alter the relevant provisions of the award. A conference was held under the chairmanship of the poet Rabindranath. Dr. Ambedkar, the leader of the Depressed Classes, yielded to the caste Hindus, and it was decided that seats would indeed remain reserved for the Depressed Classes in the various legislatures, but they would have to be elected through a joint electoral system. This agreement became known in history as the Poona Pact.

It should be noted that the aim of the Indian National Congress, and of the Indian caste Hindus, was to crush all the people of India in the mill of one nationality and create a nationality whose authority and leadership would remain in the hands of the Hindu majority. Thus, the Muslim nation would be merged into an artificial nationality and its distinctiveness abolished. But through the government’s recognition of separate electorates for Muslims, their national distinctiveness was also acknowledged. This shattered the caste Hindus’ long-cherished dream, and all their anger fell upon the British government, once their closest friend, benefactor, and guardian. Terrorism arose as a result. Destructive activities, the looting of arsenals, political assassinations, and other new incidents continued to occur. Notable events during these years included the looting of the Chittagong Armoury under the leadership of the Hindu terrorist Surya Sen; the assassination of Khan Bahadur Ahsanullah, one of the intelligence department’s officers; the attack on a European club and the murder of several men and women; the assassination of the district magistrate of Midnapore; and the dynamite conspiracy. These terror-producing incidents took place within two or three years while the Round Table Conference was being held in London.

The Government of India Act

The next notable event was the Government of India Act of 1935. The establishment of somewhat responsible government in the provinces and a federal government at the center was the subject, or objective, of this Act. Under the Government of India Act, greater power remained in the hands of the Viceroy and the provincial governors than the amount of power the British government had granted to the Indians under the Montagu–Chelmsford reforms. It was also announced that this new Government of India Act would come into force in April 1937.

The Congress authorities could not at all be satisfied with this restricted or controlled power (Controlled Power). Nevertheless, after various evasions, they participated in the elections held under the new Act. But they refused to accept ministerial office. How the Congress later formed ministries in seven provinces of India and how, during their two-and-a-half years of rule, they inflicted injustice and oppression upon the Muslims—thereby opening the way for the Muslim movement for Pakistan—will be discussed in detail later.

When the Government of India Act of 1935 was announced, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah issued an impassioned appeal for everyone to unite under the banner of the Muslim League. In the general election of 1937, a number of members were also elected on the Muslim League ticket. Even then, the Muslim League’s movement had not yet become a mass movement. After the election, Mr. Jinnah extended a hand of cooperation to the Congress. But the Congress rejected it. A spirited and renowned lawyer like Jinnah could not submit to the Congress’s arrogance described above. After much resentment and wounded pride, when the Congress agreed to form ministries following assurances from the Viceroy, Linlithgow, Mr. Jinnah instructed the League members to oppose it.

India’s independence movement continued amid conflict and quarrels between the League and the Congress. The Hindus’ stepmotherly treatment of the Muslims, their disregard for Muslim tahdhib and tamaddun, the attempt to establish Hindu Ram Rajya in the Congress-ruled provinces, and the injustices inflicted upon Muslims by the Hindu Congress compelled the Muslims to struggle for a separate homeland. That struggle ended with the birth of two independent states, India and Pakistan, in 1947.

Part Two

Chapter One

The first part of The History of the Muslims of Bengal discussed in detail the history of Muslim rule in Bengal, that is, in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent, lasting more than five and a half centuries (1302–1757 CE), beginning with the Muslims’ first arrival in Bengal. It then covered the history from the beginning of English rule in this land up to the period before the Government of India Act of 1935 (Government of India Act. 1935) came into effect.

Now, in the second part of this history, I wish to discuss the history of the period from the implementation of the aforesaid Act of 1935 up to the partition of India in 1947.

Although the partition of India may seem unfortunate to some people, it was an inevitable and natural reality. After Muslim rule was established over the majority non-Muslim inhabitants of that country, it continued for twelve hundred years; during this long period, Muslims and non-Muslims lived together peacefully and amicably. Why, then, could they no longer live together when they reached the middle of the twentieth century? The present and future generations must certainly know the accurate and objective history of this. If the continuous history of Hindu and British conduct toward the Muslims after the establishment of English rule, especially the Congress’s two-and-a-half years of misrule in British India, is discussed from an impartial perspective, it will be possible to arrive at the truth that the partition of India was an inevitable and natural reality.

As a result of the Government of India Act of 1935 coming into force, limited provincial autonomy was established. The Congress succeeded in forming governments in seven Hindu-majority provinces without the cooperation of any other party, and, intoxicated by power, began treating the Muslims so inhumanely that the Muslims came to feel that their very existence in the subcontinent was endangered. Hindu-Muslim relations deteriorated drastically; horrifying communal clashes broke out throughout the country, and the lives, property, honor, and dignity of Muslims continued to be plundered. The situation eventually turned in a direction from which there was no way to return. India became divided into two separate independent states. Behind this division lay the Indian Muslims’ indomitable religious faith and ideals, their concept of a distinct nationality, their own history, heritage, and civilization and culture, and their intense fear that their national existence, together with all these, would be erased. One side wanted to keep the other enslaved, or otherwise eliminate it from the soil of India. The other side wanted to live with self-respect and all its rights. I hope this truth will be established through an impartial discussion of history.

Government of India Act, 1935 (Govt. of India Act, 1935)

This Act was brought into force on April 1, 1937. The second part of the Act concerning the Indian Federation did not come into effect. This was because the required number of Indian princely states could not agree to join the federation.

A special feature of this Act was that, for the first time, it granted the provinces a separate legal existence. Sind was separated from Bombay and elevated to the status of a separate province. The North-West Frontier Province was granted full provincial status for the first time. The property qualification for voters was reduced, thereby increasing the number of voters.

Under the Act, each province would have a council of ministers, and the governor would follow its recommendations. However, in certain matters he could, if he wished, make decisions according to his own judgment. Dyarchy was abolished. Each province would have a cabinet modeled on the British system, and the governor would perform his duties in accordance with its advice.

Provincial Council Elections

The elections to the provincial councils were held in February and March 1937. Toward the end of 1936, the Muslim League and the Congress announced their election manifestos. The social policies of both manifestos were similar. On political issues, neither stood very far from the other. But there were major differences between them on two matters. First, the Muslim League was committed to preserving and promoting the Urdu language and script. The Congress, on the other hand, was determined to make Hindi the national language of India. Second, the Muslim League remained firm in its support of separate electorates, whereas the Congress was totally opposed to them. In 1916, the Congress had accepted separate electorates and signed an agreement with the Muslim League, which became known as the Lucknow Pact. Many Congress leaders enthusiastically praised the Lucknow Pact and considered it a bridge between Hindu-Muslim unity. Later, however, the Congress violated this agreement and began opposing separate electorates. Despite the Congress’s strong opposition, separate electorates remained in force until the partition of India.

There was nothing in the Muslim League’s manifesto that created an obstacle to Hindu-Muslim unity. On the contrary, it contained a clear call for cooperation. The Congress arrogantly rejected this call for cooperation from the Muslim League. The Congress claimed that all Indians constituted one nation and that the Congress was the political institution representing the people of India. But the election of 1937 proved this claim false.

The published election results showed that, out of a total of 1,771 seats, the Congress won only 706, fewer than half. Most of the Muslim seats were won by Sir Fazl-e-Hussain’s Punjab Unionist Party. Since the Muslim League was still unorganized, it won 102 of the 482 seats. But how many Muslim seats did the Congress win as a party representing both Hindus and Muslims? It contested 58 seats and won only 26. In Punjab it won 18 of a total of 175 seats, and in Bengal 60 of 250.

(The Struggle for Pakistan, I. H. Qureshi. Return showing the result in the election in India, Nov. 1937)

Of the total of thirty-five million votes, the Congress received approximately fifteen million. Thus, its claim to be India’s sole political institution was proved false.

In the United Provinces, only one Muslim was elected on a Congress ticket. He was elected through a joint election from a special university constituency. The Congress’s provincial president—a Muslim—was defeated in the election. (The Struggle for Pakistan, I. H. Qureshi)

The Congress succeeded in winning a majority of seats in six of the country’s eleven provinces. These six were Bombay, Madras, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa. But even after considerable effort, it could not secure a sufficient number of Muslim candidates in the Muslim-majority provinces. In three of the six provinces mentioned above—Bombay, the Central Provinces, and Orissa—not a single Muslim candidate nominated by the Congress was elected.

Under the newly enacted law, the provincial governors summoned the leaders of the majority parties in the provincial legislatures. Ministries were formed in five provinces—the Frontier Province and Assam among them—and began functioning as autonomous units from April 1. In the remaining six provinces, the Congress refused to form ministries unless the governors guaranteed that they would refrain from exercising their special powers under the constitution. The governors declined to give such a guarantee. They then took steps to form interim ministries with representatives of those parties or groups willing to form ministries. Interim ministries were formed under Muslim leadership in Bombay, Bihar, and the United Provinces, and several Muslim League members were also included in the ministries. However, these were not called “Muslim League ministries.”

Deadlock over the Safeguard Question

The instruments of instructions issued to the provincial governors under the Government of India Act of 1935 assigned them a special responsibility. It was the governors’ special duty to ensure the safeguards guaranteed by the Act for the protection of the interests of minorities.

It stated:

The instruments of instructions issued to the Governors under the Government of India Act, 1935, placed certain special responsibilities upon the provincial heads. These included the safeguarding of all the legitimate interests of minorities, requiring them generally to ensure that those racial or religious communities whose members were given special representation in the legislature, and those classes of people entrusted to their charge who, whether because of their small numbers, their lack of educational or material advantages, or any other cause, could not yet fully rely on joint political action in the legislature for their welfare, would not suffer or have reasonable cause to fear neglect or oppression.

The aforesaid Act guaranteed the protection of all the legitimate interests of every kind of minority community. The provincial governors were given special responsibility for ensuring that their interests were protected.

There are certain racial and religious communities whose members have been provided special representation in the legislatures, and who, because of the supervision of the governors, their lack of material advantages, or some other reason, cannot yet fully rely on the joint political measures adopted in the legislatures for their welfare. These communities and classes would not suffer any hardship, nor would there be any reason for them to fear neglect or oppression. Thus, the responsibility for protecting their interests was entrusted to the governors.

The minorities of India primarily means the Muslims, and they have long been struggling to preserve and safeguard all their interests.

This subcontinent was home to several nations, among whom there were majorities and minorities. Congress did not acknowledge this reality. Congress claimed that there was only one representative organization for all the people of India, namely Congress. Mr. Gandhi told a representative of News Chronicle that there was only one party here capable of doing good, and that was Congress. We will accept no party other than Congress.

He further said, “Call it by whatever name you like; there can be only one party in India, and that is Congress” (Muslim Separatism in India, A. Hamid, p. 217).

Jawaharlal Nehru’s attitude was similar. He said that even with the aid of a microscope, it would not be possible to discover the existence of any minority community in India. There are only two parties in the country—Congress and the government. Those who remain must accept our methods of work and stay with us. Those who are not with us are our opponents.

The foregoing was an expression of Pandit Nehru’s fascist mentality. —Muslim Separatism in India, A. Hamid.

The Act of 1935 provided safeguards for protecting the interests of minorities, and provincial governors were given special responsibilities to ensure that the interests of minorities were not harmed. But according to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, when no such thing as a minority existed in this country, there was, in Congress’s view, no need for the governors to exercise special powers in fulfilling their special responsibilities. The clear meaning of this was that Congress was wholly unwilling to protect the interests of Muslims. This was why Congress refused to form ministries and created a deadlock.

At last, a compromise settlement was reached between Congress and Viceroy Lord Linlithgow, on the basis of which, on 7 July, the Congress Working Committee adopted a proposal permitting Congress to form ministries.

After secretly receiving full assurances from the Viceroy, Congress abandoned all its resentment and formed ministries in seven provinces in July 1937. In 1938, after Sir Muhammad Saadullah resigned as Prime Minister of Assam, a Congress coalition ministry was formed in Assam by Gopinath Bordoloi. In all these provinces, Muslim interests began to be trampled underfoot. This will be discussed later.

Election Results

Before examining the intense reaction that arose in Muslim India after the formation of Congress ministries, let us first discuss what conditions prevailed in the provinces where governments had been formed from the beginning of 1937.

Bengal

After the election, the party position in the Bengal Legislative Assembly was as follows:

Congress 54

Non-Congress Hindus 42

Independent Muslims 43

Muslim League 40

Other Muslims 38

European and Anglo-Indian 31

Independent Muslims 2

Total >>> 250

Among the Muslims who were not members of the Muslim League, 35 belonged to the Krishak Praja Party. The leader of this party was Maulvi A. K. Fazlul Huq (Sher-e-Bangla). Here there was no way to form a ministry other than through a coalition. Accordingly, in April 1937, a coalition ministry was formed comprising the Muslim League, the Krishak Praja Party, the Scheduled Castes, and independent or non-Congress caste Hindus; its leader was Sher-e-Bangla A. K. Fazlul Huq. He formed a ten-member ministry, five of whom were Muslims and five Hindus.

It may be noted that after the election, at a public meeting held in Munshiganj on 3 February, Mr. Fazlul Huq announced his party’s program. On 15 February, the executive committee of the Krishak Praja Party approved the agreement concluded with the leaders of that party for implementing the Muslim League’s new constitution. On 6 March, Mr. Fazlul Huq agreed to form a ministry. At the request of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Mr. Huq joined the Muslim League. Thereafter, he took the oath of office as Prime Minister of Bengal.

Fazlul Huq’s coalition ministry could not work without difficulty, because Congress opposed the ministry at every step. But the benefit was that, in proportion to the opposition it faced, Muslim unity became consolidated and strengthened both inside and outside the legislature.

After the coalition ministry was formed, relations between the Krishak Praja Party and the Muslim League improved. He attended the All-India Muslim League session held in Lucknow in September 1937 and announced that the members of his party would join the Muslim League. Khwaja Nazimuddin and Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy held places in his ministry.

Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq’s four-and-a-half-year premiership brought a new surge to his life and to the Muslim political power of undivided Bengal. His ministry succeeded in inspiring immense hope among the people and creating self-confidence among the Muslims. Their long-standing inferiority complex disappeared, and they came to regard Hindus as their equals. The speeches of Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy in the legislature, their crushing replies to their opponents, and their quick wit were of a higher standard than those of the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha leaders. Through their vitality and wisdom, sharp intelligence, fluent eloquence and organizational ability, hard work, and intellectual power, they proved their superiority over the Hindu members in the legislature.

The new life that arose among the Muslims of Bengal was not confined within the four walls of the legislative building. It became visible in every sphere of human activity—political organization, literature, the arts, journalism, sports, and so forth. The Muslim League was becoming a powerful, living organization and was bringing new life and confidence to the Muslims.

The dominance that Hindu poets and writers had exercised over Bengali literature for nearly a century came to an end with the rise of Kazi Nazrul Islam in the literary firmament. He was not alone; the immortal contributions of poets such as Jasimuddin, Golam Mustafa, and Benazir Ahmad to the world of poetry are also undeniable. The Islamic, murshedi, and bhatiyali music sung in the captivating melodies of the emperor of music, Abbasuddin, inspired Islamic feeling in the hearts of Muslims.

The rise of a new Muslim press made a major contribution to this Muslim renaissance. Although some monthly and weekly publications were issued from Calcutta in the world of journalism, there was no regular daily newspaper. In 1936, Maulana Akram Khan published the daily Azad, rendering a great service to the Muslim nation, and actively supporting Fazlul Huq’s coalition ministry. At this time, the daily Star of India, published by Abdul Karim Ghaznavi, and the daily Morning News, published by Khwaja Nuruddin, represented the hopes and aspirations of the Muslims.

Sher-e-Bangla A. K. Fazlul Huq’s first ministry (1937–1941) may be called a golden age in the history of Bengal’s parliamentary government. During this period, he toured the provinces of Bihar, Orissa, and Assam, organized the Muslim League, and transformed it into a powerful organization. He delivered speeches at the Muslim League conferences held in Lucknow in 1937, Karachi in 1938, and Cuttack in 1939. In 1940, the Muslim League conference was held in Lahore on 22, 23, and 24 March under the presidency of Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. At its session on 23 March, he moved the historic Pakistan Resolution.

Fazlul Huq realized that education was the key to the advancement and progress of the Muslim nation. For this reason, he himself took charge of the Education Department in his coalition ministry. He established many educational institutions for the advancement of Muslims in education, namely: Lady Brabourne College (women’s college), Calcutta; Eden Girls’ College, Dhaka; Agricultural College, Tejgaon, Dhaka; Fazlul Huq Muslim Hall, Dhaka; and Fazlul Huq College, Chakhhar, Barisal.

He wanted to diminish somewhat the pride and arrogance of Calcutta University. It was, in reality, a protected temple of learning for the Hindus—a powerful instrument of the Hindu renaissance and of establishing Hindu intellectual dominance in Bengal. It was a vast, formidable institution that also controlled the entrance and secondary examinations. Consequently, its influence over higher education was much greater than that of the Education Minister and his department. To protect candidates from this influence, he tried to introduce a bill in the Legislative Council for the establishment of a Secondary Education Board. As a result, the entire Hindu community became violently angry and, forgetting all their mutual differences, united against the proposed bill. No such intense agitation had been seen since the partition of Bengal in 1905. In 1940, a protest conference was held in Calcutta under the chairmanship of a scholar such as Sir Prafulla Chandra Ray. Nearly ten thousand delegates from the entire province attended the conference. The poet Rabindranath Tagore was then suffering from an illness caused by old age. Nevertheless, he allowed his name and prestige to be used at the conference. At the end of the message he sent to the conference, he said:

My age and health are preventing me from attending the conference. But the danger that has threatened the cultural existence of our province has deeply disturbed me. For this reason, I could not help sending a message to the conference from my sickbed.

Because of the Hindus’ vehement opposition, the plan that Bengal’s Prime Minister had made to establish a Secondary Education Board was not implemented.

However, the most important measure adopted by Sher-e-Bangla Fazlul Huq as Prime Minister was that all government posts in the province would be divided equally, with fifty percent going to Hindus and fifty percent to Muslims. Because the Hindus’ long-established monopoly in government employment had caused extreme injustice to Muslims, this measure filled educated Muslim youths with immense hope and joy in their lives. It was a great service to the Muslim nation.

Punjab

Punjab, Sindh, and Assam were among the provinces in which Congress ministries could not be formed. As a result of the election, the party position in Punjab was as follows:

Congress 18

Non-Congress Hindus and Sikhs 36

Muslim League 2

Other Muslims 4

Unionists 88

Independents 27

Total >>> 175

Later, when eight members joined the Unionist Party, its total membership rose to 96. The Khalsa Nationalist Sikh Party also expressed its support for Sir Sikandar Hayat, and taking advantage of this, he formed a ministry. After his death in 1942, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan became Prime Minister, and this ministry remained in office until all the provincial councils were dissolved in 1945.

Sindh

The party position in Sindh Province was as follows:

Congress 8

Non-Congress Hindus 14

Independent Muslims 9

Other Muslims 7

Sindh United Muslim Party 18

Independents 4

Total >>> 60

Since no one had secured a majority here, a makeshift ministry had to be formed. As a result, none of them could be stable. The ministries here continued amid repeated formations and collapses. First, Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah formed a ministry. Later, the premiership alternated between Allah Bakhsh and Mir Bande Ali Khan.

Assam

The party position here was as follows:

Congress 32

Non-Congress Hindus 9

Independent Muslims 30

Independents 33

Grand total >>> 108

Here too, no stable government could be formed. Sir Muhammad Saadullah formed a ministry and resigned in September 1938. Thereafter, at the Governor’s invitation, Congress leader Gopinath Bordoloi formed a ministry. After the outbreak of the Second World War, the Gopinath ministry also resigned along with all the other ministries. Thereafter, Sir Muhammad Saadullah again had the opportunity to form a ministry. But his ministry fell in the latter part of 1941, and the Governor assumed direct control of the province under Section 93 of the Government of India Act of 1935.

Chapter Two

Congress Ministries in the Provinces

Let us now examine the actual conditions in the provinces governed for a short period and see what kind of treatment they meted out to the Muslims.

We learned earlier that Congress would not agree to form a government unless it received an assurance that the special powers granted to the governors by law for protecting the interests of minorities would not be exercised. In other words, their clear position was that they were wholly unwilling to protect the interests of minorities, that is, Muslims. The essence of British policy in ruling India was that Congress, and thus the Indian Hindu nation, had to be kept satisfied at any cost. There have been many examples in the past of appeasing the Hindus by trampling on Muslim interests. This time too, in order to persuade Congress to agree to form a government, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow secretly assured it that the governors would not exercise the special powers granted to them under the Act of 1935. Only after this assurance did Congress agree to form ministries.

Congress formed ministries in seven provinces, and all provincial party policies remained completely under Congress’s control.

In Madras, Congress won 74 seats and Raja Gopalachari formed a ministry. In Bombay, Congress managed to win only 48 seats. B. J. Kher formed a ministry with several other small like-minded parties. In Bombay, Congress managed to win only 48 seats. B. J. Kher formed a ministry with several other small like-minded parties.

In the United Provinces, Congress won 59 percent of the seats and G. B. Pant became Prime Minister. In Bihar, after winning 62 percent of the seats, Shri Krishna Sinha formed the government. In the Central Provinces, after winning 63 percent of the seats, Dr. Khare and subsequently Shukla became Prime Ministers.

Although Congress won only 38 percent of the seats in the North-West Frontier Province, Dr. Khan formed the government.

Orissa was somewhat exceptional. Before the Congress ministry, the Maharaja of Parlakimedi formed a short-lived government for four months (April–July). Biswanath Das led the Congress ministry until July 1937. After the resignation of the Congress ministry, the Governor assumed control. In the latter part of 1941, several members of the legislature, led by Godavari Mishra, rebelled against the Congress High Command and assisted the Maharaja of Parlakimedi in forming a ministry. The Maharaja formed a ministry of three members—himself, Mishra, and a Muslim. Despite the vehement opposition of the Congress High Command, the ministry continued to function.

Congress Rule in the Provinces

Congress’s nearly two-and-a-half-year rule in seven of India’s eleven provinces, including the Frontier Province, from July 1937 to October 1939, is a deeply painful chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations. In these provinces, Congress held the keys to all power. Let us now examine how Congress used this power and what evil consequences it brought about for political and constitutional progress.

Refusal to Form Coalition Governments

Immediately after the 1937 election, Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, president of the Muslim League, said in a statement:

The constitution and Muslim League policy do not prevent us from cooperating in the interests of other parties. We can cooperate with any party, both inside and outside the legislature.

Everyone, including some Congress supporters, hoped that Congress–Muslim League coalition governments would be formed in the Hindu-majority provinces. But Congress’s refusal to cooperate in any way with the Muslim League prevented this hope from being realized. The situation in the United Provinces may be described here as an example. Of the 228 seats in the Legislative Assembly, 64 were reserved for Muslims. Of these, Congress won one, the Muslim League 26, independent Muslims 28, and the National Agricultural Party 9. The Muslim League and Congress held lengthy discussions here regarding the formation of a Congress–Muslim League coalition. Finally, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, one of the members of the Congress High Command, informed the Muslim League leader Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman of the conditions under which the Muslim League could join the provincial governments. The conditions were as follows:

1. The Muslim League will not function as a separate party in the U.P. Legislative Council.

2. The existing Muslim League group in the U.P. Legislative Council will be considered part of Congress; as members of the Congress Party, they will enjoy all the facilities and benefits enjoyed by the other members of the party. They will also have the right to participate in party discussions. They will also have the right to participate in party discussions. Decisions on all matters will be taken by majority vote. Each member will have the right to cast only one vote.

3. The Congress members and these members will abide by the policies determined and the instructions issued by the Congress Working Committee for members of the Legislative Council.

4. The U.P. and Muslim League Parliamentary Boards must be dissolved. In future, that Board will not be able to nominate any candidate in a by-election. If a seat becomes vacant, they must support whoever Congress nominates as its candidate for election.

5. If Congress decides to resign from membership of the ministries and the legislative assemblies, members coming from the Muslim League will be bound to abide by that decision.

The above conditions imposed on the Muslim League by the Congress High Command were ridiculous, dishonestly motivated, and indicative of a fascist mentality. No person or party possessing even the slightest sense of self-respect could have accepted any one of those conditions, for that would have been suicidal.

It is not at all difficult to determine the reason for Congress’s thoughtless arrogance. Mr. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were unwilling to acknowledge the existence in India of any party other than Congress. Nor were they prepared to admit that there was any Hindu-Muslim problem in this country. On 12 May 1937, Jawaharlal Nehru told Chaudhuri Khaliquzzaman that he believed the Hindu-Muslim problem in India was confined solely to a small number of intellectuals, zamindars, and capitalists who were creating a problem that the people did not acknowledge. He hurled ridicule at the idea that Muslims would have a separate party within the legislature.

In accordance with the policy announced by Congress, leading Muslims were called upon to dissolve their own parties and join Congress in order to qualify for membership in the ministries. In the United Provinces, Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim, and in Bombay, M. Y. Noori, signed the Congress pledge and joined the Congress ministry. No Muslim was taken into the ministry in Orissa. Although a certain Sharif was included in the Central Provinces, he was subsequently removed and replaced by a Hindu.

There was no question of coalition governments in the Congress-dominated provinces. But in the non-Congress-dominated provinces, Congress was permitted to join coalitions. This opened the way for creating divisions within the Muslim community. In a speech delivered at the Calcutta Muslim League Conference in 1938, Bengal’s Premier Fazlul Huq said that Congress repeatedly exerted pressure, claiming that a coalition government formed with Congress, excluding the Muslim League, would be more stable. In Sindh, as a result of the strategic advantages the Hindus had gained through the Communal Award, they created enormous obstacles to the formation of a Muslim League party in the Sindh Legislative Assembly. The non-Congress ministry of the North-West Frontier Province was removed after falling into Congress’s clutches. Congress wanted to dissolve all other parties and emerge as the country’s only party. Congress believed in the principle of “one country, one party, one leader.” That leadership was in Mr. Gandhi’s hands. Every Congress government sought Gandhi’s guidance in determining each policy and accepted his instructions as gospel. Whether a constitutional crisis arose, a dispute or quarrel occurred with the governor, or an ordinary policy had to be adopted, the premiers of the Congress-governed provinces sought his (Gandhiji’s) guidance and advice. Mr. Gandhi conducted discussions with the Viceroy on behalf of Congress, but presented himself as a neutral political observer. Although his dictatorial authority and control over Congress were evident, his name did not appear on the Congress membership list. One of his admirers, Seth Govind Das, said that Gandhi’s status among Congressmen was like Mussolini’s among the Fascists, Hitler’s among the Nazis, and Stalin’s among the Communists. (Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, p. 218)

Congress’s claim that a parliamentary spirit would remain intact within it was proved baseless. For Congress ministers were accountable neither to the electorate nor to the legislature. They were like submissive subjects of the Congress Working Committee. The High Command’s treatment of Dr. Khare, Premier of the Central Provinces, and Subhas Chandra Bose of Calcutta proved its dictatorship.

Subhas Chandra Bose was elected president of the Indian National Congress in 1938. He contested the election again the following year and was duly elected. Some Congress leaders opposed his candidacy and created extreme obstacles in the election. Many believed this to be regarded as Mr. Gandhi’s defeat. The members of the Congress Working Committee resigned en masse. Finally, in order to keep Gandhi pleased, the elected president of Congress was removed.

Congress Rule and the Muslims

In the Hindu-majority provinces, ministerial rule was a terrible nightmare for Muslims. Congress’s refusal to form coalition governments with the Muslim League in these provinces was a warning to Muslims. But when Congress actually implemented its planned provincial autonomy in these provinces, Muslims faced conditions far more unbearable than they had feared. Their religious beliefs and civilization and culture faced the gravest threat of extinction, and a systematic campaign began to remove them from the social, administrative, and economic spheres. Even their lives, property, honor, and modesty began to be completely plundered under Congress rule.

The actions of the Congress governments and the Hindu populace that seriously wounded Muslim religious sentiments included the Vande Mataram song, obstructing the call to prayer, attacking worshippers while they were praying, conducting musical processions in front of mosques, banning beef, and so forth.

Despite Muslim objections, the song “Vande Mataram” was invariably sung before the daily proceedings of the legislature began. In his novel Anand Math, published in 1882, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee composed the song “Vande Mataram” as the Hindus’ battle cry against Muslims. After 1905, Vande Mataram was sung as the national song during the Hindus’ movement to annul the Partition of Bengal. The purpose of this song was to create Hindu hatred and hostility toward Muslims.

The few Muslims who held government jobs were not only deprived of their dignity, respect, influence, and prestige; the tenure of their employment was also placed under threat. One example among many may be mentioned here. In an interview, the Premier of the Central Provinces stated that his ministry had vehemently opposed confirmation of the province’s only Muslim civilian district officer. The sole reason was that he was a Muslim.

The Muslim public became victims of the extreme arbitrariness of their Hindu neighbors and the administrative machinery. In some settlements in the Central Provinces, Muslims’ homes were set on fire and Muslim women’s honor and modesty were violated. One hundred and fifty Muslim men from a village were confined at a police station for several days without food or drink on charges of murdering someone, and were humiliated and tortured in various ways. The court later acquitted them. During the trials of Muslims accused in court cases in the Central Provinces (in sub judice cases), ministers expressed their opinions, causing the judges considerable embarrassment. In the judgment of one case, the Chief Justice of the Nagpur High Court stated fearlessly that the police, Congress leaders, magistrates, hakims, and ministers together pushed innocent people toward the gallows. These unfortunate people had committed no offense other than being Muslims. (Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, p. 122)

To remedy the various forms of persecution and oppression suffered by Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces, the Council session of the All-India Muslim League held on 20 March 1938 decided to form an investigative committee. An eight-member committee was formed with Raja Saiyid Muhammad Mahdi of Pirpur as its chairman. This committee submitted its complete report on 15 November of that year. The report was submitted only after personal, on-the-spot investigations.

In March of the following year, another report, known as the Sharif Report, was published. It described the story of Hindu persecution of Muslims in Bihar Province. Another report containing written complaints against the Congress governments was published in December 1939. Its author was Bengal’s Premier, A. K. Fazlul Huq.

These three informative and valuable documents, together with the files of incidents published in contemporary Muslim newspapers, provide the fundamental materials and evidence for the Muslims’ complaints against the undemocratic and anti-Muslim role of the provincial Congress ministries. Since the intrinsic character of Congress rule subsequently popularized the idea and doctrine of Pakistan and pushed Muslims away from the ideology of a united India, it is necessary to present and examine in detail the facts revealed in the investigative reports.

The Pirpur Report

The Pirpur Report emphasized the following matters:

1. The Congress government failed to grant the minorities (Muslims) religious and cultural freedom.

2. Congress was proved to be a Hindu communal organization.

3. Congress’s closed-door policy, adopted in its intoxication with power, and its refusal to form coalition governments brought about the extreme deterioration of Hindu-Muslim relations.

4. According to Congress’s conception of nationalism, nothing could be more oppressive than the rule, injustice, and persecution of the majority.

5. Extremely humiliating proposals were submitted to the Muslim League: dissolve the Muslim League Parliamentary Party, dissolve the League party in the legislature, sign the Congress pledge without hesitation, and so on.

6. The Mass Contact Movement was launched to create divisions among Muslims, and certain Muslims were bought in various ways and employed in propaganda against the Muslim League; and

7. Widespread communal clashes and extensive loss of Muslim life and property occurred in the provinces under Congress rule.

Statement by Mr. Fazlul Huq

Immediately after the resignation of the Congress ministries, the statement issued by Bengal’s Premier, Mr. A. K. Fazlul Huq, was republished in the form of a pamphlet. In his statement he said:

With the aim of breaking the dam of patience, Congress brought militant Hindus into the field to display extreme arrogance. It began this action to impose its will and determination upon the Muslim minority. What does Congress want? It wants the sacred cow to be protected and Muslims to be forbidden to eat beef. The religion of Muslims must be degraded and kept suppressed. Is this not a country of the Hindus?

Then restrictions were imposed on the call to prayer. Worshippers were attacked in mosques. During prayer, processions were conducted in front of mosques with drums beating and musical instruments playing. What is surprising if one distressing incident brings another distressing incident in its wake?

The statement then mentioned seventy-two incidents that occurred in Bihar, thirty-three in the United Provinces, and several in the Central Provinces. Whenever a Muslim slaughtered a cow somewhere for sacrifice, Muslims were killed, their homes were burned, and Muslim women and children were persecuted. None of this was remedied. As a result, the Muslim minority had to live an extremely unbearable life.

The Hindu newspapers refrained from publishing the statement issued by Mr. Fazlul Huq describing the extreme misery of Muslims under Congress rule. Instead, they continued to publish fabricated allegations against Muslims prominently. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan; A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India)

Extreme injustice and discrimination against Muslims had also begun in the field of education, causing Muslim intellectuals great anxiety and distress. During British rule, Muslims were very backward in education, which forced them to face many difficulties. Under Congress rule, its educational policy greatly alarmed and distressed them. At the All-India Muslim Educational Conference held in Calcutta toward the end of 1938, it was decided at the 52nd session to form a committee under the chairmanship of Nawab Kamal Yar Jang Bahadur.

The aim was to examine India’s educational system thoroughly and devise a scheme for Muslim education that would preserve the distinctive features of their culture and social system. A subcommittee was formed under the leadership of Sir Azizul Huq, Speaker of the Bengal Legislative Council and Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University. The subcommittee toured various parts of India to collect accurate information and submitted its final report in 1942. The report strongly criticized the Wardha Scheme of Education introduced in educational institutions. It took a particularly vile form in the Central Provinces. Despite the vehement opposition of Muslims, a bill hostile to Islam and Muslims was introduced in the legislature. All the Muslim members, along with some Hindu members including Dr. Khare, opposed it. The bill was passed despite all opposition.

Under this system, school managing committees would be elected through joint electorates. No special provision was made for Muslim schools. Students had to stand with folded hands before a portrait of Mr. Gandhi in the manner of Hindu worship and sing his praises. This basic plan—the Wardha Scheme—was a creation of the Gandhian mentality: to imprint Hindu religious ideas on children’s minds and create an attitude of devotion and reverence toward Hindu mythological figures. The aim of this educational system was thus to keep Muslims away from their religion, culture, and inherited traditions. In addition to the basic principles of the Congress educational system, some of its details also caused deep concern among Muslims. For example, in the Bombay Province, school curricula were compiled from many new elementary textbooks. Muslims strongly objected that these books praised Hindu traditions and religious ceremonies and used only Hindu vocabulary.

The Bombay Provincial Muslim League expressed deep indignation over this, stating that by preparing such elementary textbooks Congress sought to destroy Muslim civilization and culture in India by leaving future generations of Muslims completely ignorant of their civilization and culture and inspiring their young minds with the ideas of Hindu civilization and culture.

When the Muslim members of the Bombay Municipal Corporation submitted a motion to withdraw the elementary textbooks, it was rejected. In protest, the Muslim League members walked out of the session. After the resignation of the Congress ministries, the Urdu Textbook Committee reexamined those textbooks and reported that they were unsuitable for study; consequently, they were removed from the approved list.

(Times of India, dated 11 and 26 July and 14 December 1939)

The two-and-a-half years of Congress rule in seven of the subcontinent’s eleven provinces proved that, under Congress rule, efforts would continue to erase the very existence of the Muslim minority, along with its civilization, culture, and traditions. In October 1938, Mr. Jinnah said that Congress was trying to establish Hindu Raj throughout the subcontinent. In an interview with the Manchester Guardian, he said that anyone observing India’s political scene from 1937 to 1939 would see that Congress’s aim and objective was to eliminate all other organizations from the country and establish an extremely inferior type of fascist organization. In such circumstances, it was impossible to operate a parliamentary government in India. Here democracy meant Hindu Raj. Muslims could never accept this situation. [Jamiluddin Ammed (ed.), Some Recent Speeches & Writings of Mr. Jinnah (Lahore, 1952)]

Even impartial observers openly acknowledged, regarding the anti-Muslim role of the Congress ministries, that Muslims’ fear under majority rule here was not unfounded. According to an Indian Christian, Congress was the Indian version of Germany’s Nazi Party. (Rev. Pitt Banarjee, Letter to the Manchester Guardian, 18 August 1942; I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan)

Views of Various Newspapers

Regarding the way Hindu nationalism became militant and communal bitterness increased as a result of Congress forming governments in seven provinces, Calcutta’s Statesman newspaper wrote: Every Indian patriot will be disturbed to see how terribly communal tension has increased as a result of the establishment of provincial autonomy. The Economist commented that the provinces could be directly divided into two parts—Muslim India and Congress India. A former editor of the Times of India said that the Hindu-Muslim conflict was not merely religious; there was a terrible difference between the two communities in their ways of life. The Congress provincial governments continued to rule under the direction of the All-India Congress Committee. Consequently, Congress supporters in Britain became uncomfortable at the manifestation of such comprehensive Congress dominance. Congress’s policy of Hinduization, the Vande Mataram song, and the introduction of worship of Gandhi’s portrait in educational institutions readily prove that the new system of government had completely established Hindu Raj. (The British Achievement in India: A Survey, Rawlinson, p. 214; The Development of the Middle-Class Society: Transformation of Culture, Abdul Mawdud, p. 287)

Hindu Brahmanism is unwilling to tolerate any other community, and especially Muslims, under any circumstances. That is why Hindu-Muslim unity has not been possible in India. Muslims are not at all responsible for this. Hindu India labels Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah a communalist. But can anyone deny that he was a pioneer of Hindu-Muslim unity? For many years he made every effort toward this unity, and, disappointed, left India, pledging never to return. But later he had to return to India and assume the leadership of the Muslim League in pursuit of the struggle to secure the Muslims’ just demands and rights.

Far from Hindu-Muslim unity, because of the Hindus’ extreme hatred of Muslims, the entire country was afflicted by communal riots for eight years beginning in 1920. There were 11 major riots in 1923, 18 in 1924, 16 in 1925, 35 in 1926, and 31 up to November 1927. In the Fortnightly Review, an English writer stated that the union of Hindus and Muslims was an impossibility, like many other impossible things in the world. In the Asiatic Review, a certain Patrick Fagan wrote that Muslims in subjugated India had two paths open to them: either merge into the Hindu nation or, by physical force, establish independent states in some regions of India. (The Development of the Middle-Class Society: Transformation of Culture, Abdul Mawdud, p. 286)

Communal riots and disturbances never ceased in India in any year. These riots occurred in Hindu-majority areas. It is also true that the Hindu majority community initiated these riots and was principally responsible for them. But Mr. Gandhi closed his eyes and blamed Muslims in every instance. As a result, the actual guilty parties were encouraged.

Something has been discussed above about the model of Hindu Ram Rajya established during the two-and-a-half years of Congress rule and the extreme misery that befell Muslims. During this period, in 1938, Subhas Chandra Bose was elected president of Congress. He was considered somewhat more liberal-minded than the others. He exchanged extensive correspondence with Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Quaid-i-Azam repeatedly told Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose that Congress and the Muslim League should come together to resolve all disputes and differences of opinion. Quaid-i-Azam made the final effort for reconciliation between Congress and the Muslim League, and thus between Hindus and Muslims. But in reply to Quaid-i-Azam’s letter, Subhas Bose said:

The Working Committee has nothing more to do regarding discussions with the League. (Muslim Political Thought through the Ages 1562–1947, G. Allana Moqbul, Lahore, p. 242)

In his presidential address at the Muslim League session held in Patna in 1938, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said:

The Congress leaders want Muslims to accept Hindu Raj in India unconditionally. …You certainly know that Congress has blocked every avenue to Hindu-Muslim understanding with the aim of exercising fascist domination and authority. He said that four forces were active in India: (1) the British, (2) the rulers of the Indian states, (3) the Hindus, and (4) the Muslims. No matter how prominently Congress newspapers publish it, issuing editions at noon, in the afternoon, and at night, and no matter how loudly Congress leaders proclaim that Congress is a national organization, I say that this is not true at all. It is nothing but a Hindu organization. This is the truth, and the Congress leaders know it well. The mere involvement of a few—only a few misguided and renegade Muslims—with evil motives does not make it, and cannot make it, a national organization. Congress is primarily a Hindu organization, and I challenge anyone to deny it. I ask: does Congress represent the Muslims?

The audience replied in unison: “No, no, no.”

I ask: does Congress represent the Christian community? Does it represent the Scheduled communities? Does it represent the non-Brahmins? In response to each question, the people answered in unison: “No, no, no.”

He further said that Congress did not even represent all Hindus. Nor did it represent the Hindu Mahasabha or the Liberal Federation. It was undoubtedly a single majority party. Nothing more.

He said that, unfortunately for the country, the Congress High Command was utterly determined to establish Hindu Raj by eliminating other communities and cultures.

Quaid-i-Azam then referred to the Congress’s role point by point and proved that Congress was not a national organization. He said, “What does Congress do after coming to power? Although it pretends to be nationalistic, it begins its work with ‘Vande Mataram.’ It is universally acknowledged that ‘Vande Mataram’ is not a national anthem.”

Nevertheless, it is sung as the national anthem and imposed upon others as well. It is not sung only at their party gatherings; rather, everyone is compelled to sing it in government and municipal schools too. Whether or not their religious beliefs permit them to sing it, Muslims must accept ‘Vande Mataram’ as the national anthem. This is a hymn glorifying idolatry and provoking hatred against Muslims.

He said, “Then let us consider the Congress flag. It is not India’s universally recognized national flag. Nevertheless, everyone must show it respect, and it must be hoisted over all public and private buildings. No matter how much Muslims object to it, that makes no difference. The Congress flag must be hoisted as India’s national flag and forcibly imposed upon Muslims.” He then spoke about the Hindi-Hindustani scheme, saying that its purpose was to suppress Urdu and strangle it to death.

The Wardha Education Scheme

The terrible consequences of Mr. Gandhi’s self-conceived Wardha Scheme of Education (Warda Scheme of Education) have been presented in the foregoing discussion.

Quaid-i-Azam said in his speech: “Nowadays, the Hindu mentality and outlook are being carefully cultivated, and Muslims are being compelled to adopt Hindu ideals and beliefs in their daily lives. Are Muslims doing anything of this kind anywhere? Are they imposing Muslim culture upon Hindus anywhere? On the contrary, whenever they raise even the slightest protest against the imposition of Hindu culture upon Muslims, they are branded as communalists. They are called disturbers of the peace, and the authoritarian government machinery immediately becomes active against them. Consider the incidents that occurred in Bihar: under the Congress government, whose culture was attacked? The Muslims’. Against whom was a policy of repression adopted, prohibitions imposed, and arrests made? All these things were done against the Muslims. But can anyone cite even one example in which the Muslim League or any Muslim tried to impose Muslim culture upon Hindus? (Creation of Pakistan, Justice Syed Shameem Hossain Kadir, pp. 139–143)”

Chapter Three

Muslim League–Congress Discussions

From 1935 until the beginning of the Second World War, the Muslim League made many attempts to reach an understanding with Congress. For this purpose, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah held several meetings with Babu Rajendra Prasad, the Congress president. But these meetings produced no results. Finally, a joint statement was issued by the two leaders, stating that they regretted that the effort to find a solution to the communal problem acceptable to all the parties concerned had ultimately ended in failure.

At the beginning of 1938, Jinnah and Gandhi exchanged letters. This exchange made clear the fundamental differences of opinion between the two parties. In the letter that Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah wrote to Mr. Gandhi on 3 March 1938, he stated the central subject of their discussion in two sentences. He said, “Accept the Muslim League as the sole reliable and representative organization of the Muslims of India, and on the other hand let you represent Congress and the whole country. Only on this basis can we move forward and devise a process of progress.” In reply, Mr. Gandhi said on 8 March, “In the sense in which you have stated it, I represent neither Congress nor the Hindus. However, in order to reach an honorable settlement, I shall exert my moral influence upon the Hindus.” (The full Text of Jinnah-Gandhi letters in Durlab Singh, pp. 16–32. The Struggle for Pakistan— I.H. Quershi, p. 109)

There was no truth or sincerity in the foregoing reply by Mr. Gandhi. Whatever an organization’s declared policy may be, its true character is revealed by its actual activities and conduct. To deny that Congress was a completely Hindu organization would be a denial of the truth. Congress’s conduct always expressed Hindu consciousness and interests. Congress’s cooperation with the Khilafat Movement in India may have created a mistaken impression in some minds. But that cooperation contained no sincerity; it concealed ulterior motives, as Gandhi’s own statement proves. He said, “I believe that the Khilafat is a central issue for both of us—for Muhammad Ali it is his religion, while for me it is that, by sacrificing my life for the Khilafat, I am making cow protection secure.” That is, Jinnah & Gandh, p. 61; The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, Abdul Mawdud, p. 168.

Mr. Gandhi told a representative of the News Chronicle, “There is only one party here that can bring progress and welfare. That is Congress. I am not willing to accept any party other than Congress.”

He further said, “Call it by whatever bad name you like; there is only one party in India, and that is Congress.” (Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, p. 217)

Quaid-i-Azam also exchanged letters with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. It may be noted that after the provincial legislative elections, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had declared, “There are only two parties in the country—Congress and the government. All those who remain must follow Congress’s methods of operation. Those who are not with us are against us.” (Muslim Separatism in India, Abdul Hamid, p. 217)

Despite knowing Jawaharlal Nehru’s fascist mentality, Quaid-i-Azam continued making sincere efforts to reach a compromise between the two parties. In a lengthy letter written on 6 April 1938, Pandit Nehru denied all of Quaid-i-Azam’s allegations. He said, “Congress is not willing to abandon the ‘Vande Mataram’ song, because it would not be proper for a national organization to do such a thing. I do not see that anyone objects to the use of the Congress flag either. Since the Muslim League is an important communal organization, we treat it as such. Other Muslim organizations cannot be ignored either. Therefore, the question of recognizing the Muslim League as the sole organization of the Muslims of India does not arise.”

In the letter he further said, “I do not know of any attempt by Congress to diminish Urdu or to establish Ram Rajya. Who is doing these things?” He further said, “I do not know what is meant by a coalition ministry.”

The simple meaning of his words was that Congress was utterly unwilling to share power in the provinces with the Muslim League or any other party, and that it was firm on this point. At the end of the letter, Nehru said, “I personally do not like any treaty or understanding, or anything of that kind.”

Subhas Chandra Bose was elected president of Congress in 1938. After his correspondence with Gandhi and Nehru failed, Quaid-i-Azam exchanged letters with Subhas Bose. In May, Quaid-i-Azam placed Mr. Bose’s written letter before the Muslim League Working Committee for discussion. The resolution adopted on it stated that the Muslim League was unwilling to discuss with Congress matters relating to the settlement of Hindu-Muslim differences until the Muslim League was recognized as the trusted and representative organization of the Muslims of India. Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Bose dated 2 August, Quaid-i-Azam said,

The Congress–Muslim League Pact signed at Lucknow in 1916 recognized the Muslim League as the trusted and representative organization of the Muslims of India. From that time until the Jinnah–Rajendra Prasad discussions in 1935, no question had been raised about this. The Muslims who are in Congress cannot represent the Muslims of India. The Muslim League is not aware of any Muslim political party that has claimed to represent the Muslims of India. Congress gave a remarkable reply to this: it was unwilling to accept any of the Muslim League’s claims. (The Struggle for Pakistan, I. H. Qureshi, pp. 107–112)

Several highly significant matters became clear as a result of the discussions and exchange of letters between Congress and the Muslim League. First, Congress denied the allegations of oppression and injustice against the Congress ministries. Second, Congress did not consider the Hindu-Muslim problem a problem at all. In its view, it was merely a temporary emotion and outburst that would sink into the depths of oblivion with the passage of time. Third, Congress claimed to be the organization representing the all-India nationalist movement. Congress was the only genuine national organization, representing everyone regardless of race or religion. Many Muslim political parties supported Congress; only the Muslim League remained apart. How long would they remain that way? Perhaps they would soon join Congress. Therefore, why was there any need to attach importance to the Muslim League’s claims?

Congress’s foregoing attitude naturally produced a reaction within the Muslim League and made it united, cohesive, and strong. This lengthy discussion made it clear that Congress was a party representing Hindu India. Its aim was not only to suppress Muslims politically but also to eliminate them. The movements of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Swami Shraddhanand’s Shuddhi Movement, and the political philosophies of Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha all had the same objective: to keep Muslims oppressed and subjugated, or to eliminate them and establish a Hindu Ram Rajya.

It may be noted that in 1906, during the movement to annul the Partition of Bengal, the ‘Shivaji Festival’ was observed throughout India with the aim of reviving Hinduism. All Hindu social leaders, politicians, poets, writers, and educationists gladly joined this festival. On this occasion, the poet Rabindranath Tagore directly joined the effort to revive Hinduism by writing ‘Shivaji Festival,’ and, reciting ‘Victory to Shivaji with the auspicious sound of the conch,’ he was initiated into this meditation mantra:

I shall take up the flag and wave the ascetic’s ochre garment—

the strength of the poor.

“There shall be a religious kingdom ‘in this India’”—this great pronouncement

I shall make my support.

Politics and the revival of Hinduism became inseparably interwoven. An attempt was made to transform politics into a mass movement amid an overheated atmosphere of religious sentiment.

(B. B. Misra, The Indian Class: Their Growth). Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture)

Before the First World War, a Muslim friend told Sir Valentine Chirol, correspondent of The Times, that Tilak, his followers, and the Hindu nationalists of Punjab and Bengal could be openly heard saying that Muslims would be expelled from India just as they had previously been expelled from Spain. Sir Walter Lawrence also spoke in similar terms. He was a member of Viceroy Curzon’s staff. He heard the Maharaja of Indore, Sir Pratap Singh, express a similar attitude. He said, “I had not previously realized the depth of his hatred. Lord Curzon came to Shimla in my and my wife’s honor. Sir Pratap also came to Shimla to attend the dinner he gave. After dinner, Sir Pratap discussed his hopes and ambitions with him until two in the morning. One of his ambitions was to eradicate the Muslims from the soil of India.”

…He knew English well, had mingled with many nations, and believed in cosmopolitan civilization. But beneath his great heart lay an ineradicable hatred for Muslims.

(Sir Walter Lawrence: The India We Served, p. 209; Abdul Hamid: Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 83–84)

Anyone who has been able to analyze Hindu-Muslim relations in the subcontinent with an impartial mind has discerned precisely this Hindu attitude toward Muslims. Thus, in a written article in the Asiatic Review, Patrick Fagan said that Muslims in subjugated India had only two paths open to them: either to merge into the Hindu race, or, by physical force, to establish independent states in some regions of India. Ultimately, no alternative remained to the ten crore Muslims of India except a desperate struggle to establish a separate and independent homeland.

Chapter Four

The Pakistan Movement

The movement to establish an independent sovereign homeland for Muslims in the subcontinent, named Pakistan, was entirely natural and eminently just on every basis of reason and argument. For the existence of the Muslims of the subcontinent depended entirely upon the establishment of Pakistan. On the one hand, the British government refused to accept the demand of the Pakistan Movement; on the other, the Hindu Congress not only refused to accept it but opposed it with all its strength. Nevertheless, as a result of the united struggle of the ten crore Muslims of the subcontinent for seven consecutive years, and at the cost of the blood of hundreds of thousands of Muslim men and women, an independent country named Pakistan found a place on the map of the world. The ideological and Islamic consciousness that was active and operative behind the Pakistan Movement is an eternally memorable legacy of the Muslim nation, and it is essential that future Muslim generations know and remember its objective history.

This book has discussed in detail Lord Curzon’s 1905 Partition of Bengal, carried out solely for administrative reasons; the Hindus’ movement to annul the partition and its repeal in 1911; the communal conflicts repeatedly provoked by Hindus against Muslims throughout the subcontinent, causing immense damage to Muslim lives and property; and the Congress’s misrule for two and a half years in seven provinces. This discussion has made clear that, because the Hindu nation was overwhelmingly numerous and powerful in the subcontinent, it wanted either to keep the Muslim nation as its most abject slaves or to eliminate it. To achieve this aim, Congress claimed that the Indian National Congress was the sole political institution of the inhabitants of the subcontinent and that the British government must transfer power only to it. Alongside this, Congress made another strange and absurd claim: that all those living in the subcontinent together formed one nation—the Indian nation. But the actual fact is that the subcontinent is not the homeland of one nation; rather, it is home to many nations. The principal and most significant among them are the Hindu and Muslim nations. The revival of Hindu civilization, culture, and Hinduism, and the establishment of a Hindu Ram Rajya, were Congress’s sole aims. The various actions of Congress and its officials at different times made this belief firmly rooted in the hearts of Muslims, and for this reason Muslims were compelled to launch the Pakistan Movement.

Let us now see what Hindu historians say about Congress’s Indian nationality and its establishment of Ram Rajya.

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar says: “The Hindu national consciousness that arose in the second half of the nineteenth century was in reality a revival of Hinduism whose sole aim was to establish ‘Ram Rajya.’ The establishment of the Hindu Mela in Bengal, the Sarvajanik Sabha in Poona, and the Mahajan Sabha in Madras at that time primarily represented efforts to revive ancient Hinduism. Dayananda’s establishment of the Gaurakshini Samiti in 1882 and Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s organization of the Shivaji Festival in 1896 arose from the same inspiration. Bankimchandra’s literary work was also motivated by the same purpose. His book Anandamath and the mantra ‘Vande Mataram’ loudly proclaimed that Hinduism, the nation, and national consciousness were one indivisible subject—the expression of one and the same ideology. For this reason, he was by no means sparing in showering curses, abuses, and hatred upon Muslim heads. …In those days, biographies of heroes had to be imported. The patriotism of Raja Pratap and the heroic deeds of Shivaji were then celebrated in every household. No other literature contains poems of such heroic flavor as those written by Rabindranath about Shivaji and about the Sikh Gurus Banda and Guru Gobind. In fact, the intense movement of national hostility that arose and intensified through contemporary Bengali literature and newspapers has no parallel in the literature of any country in the world. (Dr. R.C. Majumdar, History of Freedom Movement, pp. 202–205; Abdul Mawdud: The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, p. 267)”

That Congress’s nationality meant the revival of Hinduism and the establishment of a Hindu Ram Rajya has become clear from the words of the historian Dr. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar. What place could Muslims have within such a nationality? Even so, could Congress’s claim to Indian nationality be anything other than the height of deception? Dr. Majumdar has also shed light on this claim. He says: “Did Indian nationality exist in 1833? The answer is no….. At that time, Bengali leaders, including Rammohun Roy, prayed to God for a British victory in the war against the other Indian powers. ….In 1833 there were two nations of people in Bengal—Hindus and Muslims. Although they lived in the same country, they differed in every respect except language. In religion, education, and social and cultural life, they had lived for six hundred years as though in two different worlds. Rammohun Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, Prasanna Kumar Tagore, and other prominent citizens of Calcutta regarded Muslims as the source of all the misfortunes and calamities that Hindus had been forced to endure for nine hundred years. They considered British rule a blessing from Providence, through which Hindus had been delivered from the infamous Muslim rule. Throughout Bengali literature and newspapers, Muslims were referred to as ‘Yavanas.’ At that time there was no desire to drive out the British and establish Hindu or Indian rule. Even Raja Rammohun Roy had no such desire. Indeed, prominent citizens such as Prasanna Kumar Tagore openly said that if God asked them to choose between ‘Swaraj’ and British rule, they would choose the latter without hesitation. (Dr. R.C. Majumdar: History of Freedom Movement, p. 193)”

Dr. Majumdar has proved that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations. The Hindu intellectuals mentioned above regarded Muslims as enemies of the Hindu nation. How could one Indian nation be formed from these two separate and opposing nations? When did it originate, and who initiated this one nationality?

The late Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, without any reasonable cause, remained associated with the Hindu Congress until the last moment of his life. He too himself regarded Hindus and Muslims as two separate nations. In the Daily Al-Hilal, published from Calcutta under his editorship at one time, he said in unequivocal language:

“What kind of nation-building is it to unite Hindus and Muslims with one another? Are they not, one oil and the other water?”

“How absurd it is to form one nation by bringing Hindus and Muslims together! Is one of them not oil and the other water?”

Dr. Majumdar too has highlighted the completely distinct characteristics of Hindus and Muslims. The idea of one Indian nationality must therefore be called imaginary and deceptive. The first movement for the subcontinent’s independence, begun in 1857 through the efforts of Muslim sepoys, was also opposed by the Hindu nation. Raja Rammohun even prayed to ‘God’ for a British victory in this war of independence. Regarding this, the historian Binoy Ghosh says: “During the Sepoy Revolt (the sepoys’ movement for independence), our national press showed no sympathy for the rebels………. At that time, the entire press praised the benefits of British rule and abused the rebels as people of the lower orders of society. Almost all newspapers and periodicals played the same role. For the Hindu middle class of that time was not prepared to tolerate any kind of rebellion against British rule.” (Benoy Ghosh, History of Bengal 1757–1905, C.U. Contribution, pp. 227–28)

How absurd the idea of forming one Indian nationality by uniting the Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent is has been demonstrated by Mr. Nirod Chandra Chaudhuri’s statement. He says: “The Partition of Bengal created an eternal separation between Hindus and Muslims, aroused hatred for them in our minds, and permanently severed the bonds of friendship. This found expression on the streets, in the marketplaces, in educational institutions, and took its place in people’s hearts.”

He further says that at the school he attended, they hated sitting together with Muslim classmates because an odor of onions came from their mouths. Accordingly, at the Hindus’ demand, separate seating arrangements were made for Hindu and Muslim students.

Mr. Chaudhuri says, “Before we had even begun our studies, we were told that once, during Muslim rule in this country, they had oppressed and persecuted us and propagated their religion in India, holding the Qur’an in one hand and the sword in the other. Moreover, the Muslim rulers had abducted our women, destroyed our temples, and desecrated our sacred religious places.” (N. C. Chaudhury: The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian; Abdul Hamid: Muslim Separatism in India)

Given this uninterrupted, age-old, hateful propaganda against Muslims and the Hindu poets’ and writers’ designation of Muslims as ‘Yavanas’ and ‘Mlecchas,’ the meaning of forming one nation with them was to keep Muslims, according to Hindu religious custom, as an extremely low class and the most abject slaves of the Hindus—or to eliminate them entirely by force. Muslims were acutely conscious of this matter and could never accept the idea of one nationality.

Let us examine the history of the birth of the Congress, which claims to be the only representative organization of the subcontinent and claims to represent an Indian nation, to determine whether it truly wished well for and represented the Muslims.

The Founding of the Congress

Two years before the birth of the Congress, in 1883, John Bright formed the India Committee and made fifty British MPs its members. In 1885, the influential retired British civilian of the Indian Civil Service, Allan Octavian Hume (A. O. Hume), formed the Indian National Congress. He remained in India even after retiring from government service. He entertained the idea of establishing an all-India organization for India’s social regeneration that could assist its political progress. Accordingly, he sent an open letter to the graduates of the University of Calcutta. In the letter, emphasizing the need to establish a society and organization, he firmly stated that the government had failed to solve economic problems because it had no connection or contact with the people. The work of reconstruction would have to be undertaken by the people themselves; it could not be expected of foreigners, however much they might love this country.

In any case, the Indian National Congress was formed as a result of Allan Hume’s foregoing ideas and efforts. Although Viceroy Lord Dufferin gave it considerable blessing, he did not wish to become directly involved with it. He nevertheless hoped that the organization would become strong and well-ordered and be able to play the role of a responsible opposition party. Hume proposed that a provincial governor be allowed to preside over it. Lord Dufferin disagreed. After the Congress’s second annual session, the Governor of Madras entertained the delegates at a dinner. Consequently, a group of Englishmen gave the Congress their full support when it was formed. Among them were Sir William Wedderburn (WEDDERBURN), George Yule (YULE), and Charles Bradlaugh (BRADLAUGH). Charles Bradlaugh (BRADLAUGH) was appointed a salaried employee of the Congress in 1888. William Digby was its special propagandist in London. Through the newspaper India, the Congress’s program and Indian affairs were given particular prominence before the English public. William Hunter was a major supporter of the Congress, and his biographer says that Hunter’s efforts alone were effective in influencing British public opinion. Professor Seeley taught the students of Oxford. He said that India could not be compared with England or France: like Europe, India was inhabited by many nations. According to Sir Henry James, Hindu religious practices were responsible for communal conflict in India. Sir Theodore Morison said that although Muslims were not a nation according to the European definition, they regarded themselves as distinct from other Indians and were developing as a nation. (Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 29; Justice Syed Shameem Hussain Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, p. 12; Abdul Mawdud, The Development of the Middle Class; Cultural Transformation, pp. 279–80.)

What the character and distinguishing features of the Congress would be as a political organization could be readily inferred from the policies, political philosophies, and principles of two of its famous and highly influential leaders. They were Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Surendranath Banerjee.

After graduating, Tilak took up journalism and entered politics in the early 1880s of the previous century. He was, however, at the forefront of the movement to annul the partition of Bengal. He was an able politician and believed in direct action. He revived the religious and political traditions of the martial-minded Maratha people and inspired the Congress with that spirit. He formed the Anti-Cow-Slaughter Society and led agitation against Muslims and against the prohibition of musical instruments in front of mosques, as a result of which communal riots began in India. Thus, the Hindu revivalist activity initiated under Tilak’s leadership in every sphere was unmistakably anti-Muslim, and there was no difference between his ‘Indian nationalism’ and ‘Hindu nationalism.’ (Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 30.)

Surendranath Banerjee joined the Indian Civil Service (ICS) in the 1860s of the nineteenth century. But after being dismissed from his post a few years later, he entered politics. He was one of the Congress’s most influential central figures. Yet he devoted all his abilities and competence to activities opposed to Muslim interests.

He was the first to sound the trumpet of the anti-partition movement in Bengal. He said that when he heard the announcement of the partition of Bengal, it seemed as though lightning had struck us from the sky. We had been insulted, disgraced, and deceived. Subsequently, at his initiative, a national day of mourning was observed in Calcutta on 16 October 1905. All the Hindus wore black badges and smeared ash on their heads. They observed a fast and bathed in the Ganges. Surendranath Banerjee led this movement.

As a result of the Hindus’ fierce terrorist agitation for six years, the partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911. To console the aggrieved Muslims, the government announced the establishment of a university in Dhaka. Several Congress leaders expressed their intense resentment at this government decision. They said that if another university were established in Bengal, the prestige of the University of Calcutta would be damaged. Accordingly, a delegation led by Surendranath Banerjee met Viceroy Lord Hardinge. Surendranath Banerjee, acting as spokesman, said that having another university in the province would greatly increase the existing disagreement between the inhabitants of the two regions. (A. Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, pp. 30, 93.)

These examples prove that the Congress was a Hindu institution. Its objective was the revival of Hinduism and the establishment of Ram Rajya.

Among the Muslims of the subcontinent, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the first person who could not view the Congress favorably. After analyzing the Congress’s history of origin, central structure, leaders, policies, purposes, and objectives, the prudent and farsighted Syed Ahmad realized that

the Congress would strike at Muslim interests at every step. He therefore called upon the Muslims of the subcontinent to refrain from joining the Congress. He said that even if the Viceroy, the Secretary of State, and even the entire House of Commons openly supported the Congress, he would nevertheless firmly take his stand against it. He further said, ‘I firmly believe that if the Congress’s proposals were implemented, it would become impossible for the British government to maintain peace or to stop violence and the inevitable civil war.’ (Justice Syed Shameem Hussain Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, p. 12; I. H. Qureshi, Struggle for Pakistan, p. 29; The Times, 12 November 1888.)

Syed Ahmad’s fears and predictions were later seen to be borne out. Contemporary Muslim newspapers also expressed their views against the Congress. Among them were the Muhammadan Observer, The Victoria Paper, The Muslim Herald, Rafique-i-Hind, and others. The following Muslim organizations and institutions likewise appealed to the Congress in unison:

Central National Muhammadan Association, the Muhammadan Literary Society of Bengal, the Anjuman-i-Islam of Madras, the Dindigul Anjuman, and the Muhammadan Central Association of the Punjab. (Justice Syed Shameem Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, pp. 13–14.)

The Congress tried to deceive the Muslims and the outside world through false and hypocritical propaganda. Some English supporters of the Congress conducted similar propaganda. Digby, the Congress’s propagandist in the United Kingdom, said that the Congress was the spokesman of all nations and classes, including the Muslims. Allan Hume, the founder of the Congress, could not tolerate criticism of it. The India Committee formed in England also spoke in harmony with the Congress. Yet despite all this, the Muslims of the subcontinent established their identity as a distinct nation, and this was the foundation of Pakistan.

The Ideological Foundation of Pakistan

On the basis of religious belief, ideals, their own civilization and culture, history, traditions, a distinct outlook on life and code of living, and accountability before the Creator and the Messenger of the worlds in the Hereafter, Muslims constitute a nation that rejects all other definitions of nationality. In the subcontinent, the foundation of this nationality—that is, Islamic nationality—was laid in Rajab of 93 AH, or 712 CE, when a seventeen-year-old commander named Imad al-Din Muhammad bin Qasim landed at the port of Debal (present-day Karachi) and freed Muslim women and children from Raja Dahir’s prison. After defeating Raja Dahir, he built the first mosque there.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, ‘The Pakistan Movement began when the first Muslim set foot in the land of Sindh.’ (Justice Shameem Hussain Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, p. 1.) After Debal, that is, Karachi, the victorious banner of Islam was raised at Nirun (present-day Hyderabad), and then at Sehwan. Subsequently, on 10 Ramadan al-Mubarak 93 AH, the fortress of Rawar was captured, and Raja Dahir of Debal was defeated and killed in battle. Within a short time, Brahmanabad (present-day Sanghar) and Alor (a city east of present-day Rohri) fell into Muslim hands, as a result of which Multan surrendered. In 96 AH, northern India too was preparing to submit voluntarily to Muhammad bin Qasim, when the Caliph summoned him to Damascus.

The capable Muslim commander Muhammad bin Qasim established an exemplary Islamic system of government in the territories he conquered. It won the hearts of the Hindu and Buddhist subjects to such an extent that large numbers of non-Muslim subjects voluntarily accepted Islam. The influence of Islamic teachings on those who accepted Islam was so great that they reformed their lives according to the instructions of the Qur’an and Sunnah. The Arabic alphabet was also adopted for the Sindhi language.

The Establishment, Rise, and Fall of the Islamic State in the Subcontinent

Muhammad bin Qasim was not merely the founder of an Islamic state in this subcontinent; he was also a pioneer in establishing Islamic civilization and culture. Islamic rule and Islamic civilization and culture created the primary inspiration for the establishment of Pakistan. The seeds of civilization and culture that were sown sprouted, developed, and grew with the passage of time, and later, as many Muslim rulers came to the subcontinent in the guise of conquerors, the Islamic banner was raised throughout it. From the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim until the middle of the eleventh century, Muslim rule in the subcontinent came to an end as a result of intense internal conflict, moral degeneration, and attacks by foreign powers.

The Inherent and Natural Characteristics of Islam

Islam means voluntarily surrendering oneself to the absolute servitude and obedience of Allah Almighty. Its natural characteristic is that the followers of Islam cannot accept either a godless system or the domination of non-Muslims. Islam presents humanity with a complete code of life, and its fundamental principles apply equally to all the spiritual and material aspects of life. In Islam, state and religion are not separate from one another; rather, the material and worldly aspects of life are integrated with its spiritual aspects. A Muslim, whether performing his duties as a head of state or as an ordinary citizen, carries out all his activities with the firm belief that Allah Almighty is watching all his actions and that he will ultimately have to account to Him for all his deeds. Muslim rule was established in the subcontinent on the basis of these fundamental principles, ideals, and ethics of Islam and remained in force for several centuries. Although the law of the land was Islamic, every other community had the right, in matters of personal and family law, to follow its own religious regulations.

Among the Muslim rulers of the subcontinent, all except Akbar were bearers and protectors of Islamic civilization and culture. Although some of them failed to observe Islamic injunctions fully in their personal lives, the country’s system everywhere was Islamic. The rulers did not directly undertake the work of propagating and spreading Islam. This work was carried out devotedly by many immigrant scholars, pirs, and dervishes. The Muslim rulers did, however, establish countless mosques, madrasas, and khanqahs to spread Islamic education. They donated many hundreds of thousands of acres of rent-free land to meet the expenses of these institutions. These institutions undoubtedly played an effective role in expanding Islamic education and Islamic da‘wah in the subcontinent. As a result, the non-Muslims of the subcontinent, captivated by the beauty of Islam, sought refuge in its cool shade in large numbers. In course of time, the northwestern and southeastern regions of the subcontinent became Muslim-majority areas, which later developed into the state of Pakistan.

After British rule was established in the subcontinent, Islamic rule was gradually abolished, and the Indian Civil and Criminal Codes of Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, which conflicted with Islam’s fundamental beliefs and principles, were introduced and enforced. The Muslims were reduced to complete economic ruin.

Through the collusion and conspiracy of the British and the Hindu nation, the Muslims were deprived of everything and crushed under the oppression of hunger and poverty. Nevertheless, the fundamental beliefs of Islam and Islamic thought and consciousness could not be eradicated from their minds. As a natural reaction, protests were held and rebellions were declared against the British government in the previous century. The Mujahidin Movement and armed jihad of Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi, the Faraizi Movement in Bengal, the Islamic movement of Titumir, and others expressed an irresistible Islamic consciousness. The establishment of Islamic civilization and culture in the subcontinent, its preservation and cultivation for several centuries, and the struggle to keep it intact laid the foundation of the Pakistan Movement.

Muslims Constitute a Nation

The foregoing discussion has made it clear that Muslims constitute a nation. In terms of iman and aqidah (religious belief), religious observances, determining good and evil, right and wrong, and halal and haram on the basis of religion, the feeling of accountability before Allah Almighty in the Hereafter for every public and private act of life, civilization and culture, taste and intellectual disposition, thought and consciousness—in all these respects Muslims are a distinct nation. This sense of distinctness flows from religious belief. Those who truly believe in tawhid, risalah, and the Hereafter, and who fully discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them by God in every sphere of life, constitute a distinct nation among all humanity; Allah Almighty has recognized this nation as the ‘Ummah of Muslims.’ The community possessing the foregoing qualities is the Muslim nation, while the community possessing opposite qualities is the non-Muslim nation, including Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and others. Muslims cannot become one nation by merging with any one of them. In the subcontinent, Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations: their religious beliefs, religious observances, and standards of right and wrong and halal and haram are entirely separate and opposed, making them two distinct nations. Pakistan was created on the basis of this Two-Nation Theory.

The doctrine that Muslims constitute a distinct nation is not an invention of the modern age. The first human being in the world was a Muslim, a prophet and caliph of Allah. Allah bestowed upon him an inexhaustible treasury of knowledge. Islam and Islamic nationality began with him. To preserve the existence of Muslims in the subcontinent, a separate and independent homeland was demanded on the basis of this doctrine. This nationality is Islam’s eternal theory or doctrine. The Hindu Congress created the delusion of one nationality in order to establish Hindu domination over the minority Muslims of the subcontinent. A renowned scholar, the Shaykh al-Hadith of Deoband, Maulana Sayyid Husain Ahmad Madani, declared, in harmony with the Congress, that all people living within the same geographical boundaries, Muslims without exception, together constituted one nation. Later, the Muslim League demanded Pakistan precisely on the basis of the Two-Nation Theory. Maulana Madani’s declaration left not only the Muslim League but also the scholarly community and ordinary Muslims astonished and stunned. Even though the demand for Pakistan had not yet been raised, everyone already knew the truth that Muslims constituted a distinct nation, and this had been proclaimed repeatedly on various occasions.

Maulana Madani’s declaration was conveyed to the philosophical poet Allama Iqbal, the visionary of Pakistan. He was lying ill in bed. Slowly, with his trembling body, he sat up on the bed and, despite the pain of illness, the instinctive poet sharply criticized Maulana Madani’s statement in a few lines of verse:

The people of Iran have not yet understood the essence of religion,

So what strange thing has Husain Ahmad of Deoband said?

From the pulpit he proclaims that the nation is made from the homeland,

Unaware of the rank of Muhammad the Arab.

By Mustafa, for whom the whole world is religion,

If one does not reach him, everything becomes Abu Lahab.

(Allama Iqbal, Armaghan-e-Hijaz, p. 278)

Meaning: The people of Iran have not understood the essence of religion at all.

So what strange thing has Husain Ahmad of Deoband said?

He declares from the pulpit, ‘The nation is made from the homeland.’

He is unaware of the rank of Muhammad the Arab. If he cannot attain it, all will become Abu Lahab.

Although Dr. Iqbal’s few lines of poetry refuted Maulana Madani’s doctrine, they were not sufficient to prove the falsehood of the doctrine of one nationality. At this time, Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi made a detailed review of the political, religious, and cultural conditions of the subcontinent and wrote a lengthy series of articles on Islamic nationality in his monthly journal Tarjuman al-Qur’an, under the title ‘Muslim and the Present Political Turmoil.’ A separate book of more than a hundred pages was published on this subject. In this book, while describing the basis of Islamic nationality, he said:

“Allah and His Messenger shattered the confined, inert, sensory, and superstitious foundations upon which the palaces of the world’s various nationalities had been built. Because of distinctions of race, tribe, homeland, economics, and political ignorance, humanity had been divided into various tiny fragments; Islam granted equal status and equal rights to all its classes.

“Islamic nationality does distinguish among people, but not on any material, worldly, or external basis. The distinction is made on spiritual, moral, and human grounds. A natural and true code, called Islam, is presented before humanity. All humankind is invited to the servitude and obedience of Allah, purity and cleansing of the heart and mind, purity of action, honesty, and adherence to religion. It is then said that those who accept this invitation will be regarded as one nation, while those who reject it will belong to an entirely different nation. In other words, one nation of humanity is the nation of iman and Islam, and all its individual members together form one ummah. The other is the nation of kufr and deviation. Despite their mutual disagreements and differences, its followers are counted as one group and one community.”

“There is no difference between these two nations in terms of lineage or tribe. The difference lies in belief and action. Thus, even two children of the same father may, because of the stated difference between Islam and kufr, be counted among two distinct nations, while two unrelated and unknown persons may, by entering Islam, become members of one nation.

“Difference of homeland cannot be a cause of distinction between these two nations either. Here the distinction is based on truth and falsehood. Truth and falsehood have no ‘homeland’ or birthplace. The nationality of two persons from the same city, the same neighborhood, and the same house may differ because of the distinction between Islam and kufr. Through Islam, a Negro may become the brother of a Moroccan.

“Difference of color is not a cause of national distinction here either. The color of external appearance is insignificant in Islam. Here, only the color of Allah has importance; that is the finest color.

“Difference of language is not a cause of distinction between Islam and kufr either. In Islam, the language of the mouth has no value whatsoever. What matters is the wordless language of the mind and heart.

“The central point of the circle of Islamic nationality is the kalimah: La ilaha illallahu Muhammadur Rasulullah. Friendship and enmity are based on this kalimah. Its affirmation unites people, while its rejection creates final separation among them. Whoever is separated by this kalimah cannot be united with it by any bond or relationship of blood, soil, language, color, food, or system of government. Likewise, those whom this kalimah unites cannot be separated by anything.

The Maulana further says:”

“It should be noted that the relationship between the Muslim nation and non-Muslim nations has two aspects. The first is that, as human beings, Muslims and non-Muslims are all equal. The second is that, because of the difference between Islam and kufr, we should treat them with sympathy, kindness, generosity, and courtesy. For, from the standpoint of humanity, such treatment is what they deserve. Indeed, if they are not enemies of Islam, friendship, peace, and cooperation toward a common cause may also be established with them. But no kind of material or worldly relationship can unite them and us and turn us into ‘one nation.’”

Maulana Maududi’s aforementioned book on Islamic nationalism created a stir in the thoughtful Muslim society of the time, and completely dispelled the confusion caused by Maulana Madani’s speeches and pamphlets. The leaders and workers of the Pakistan Movement used it as a sharpened weapon. In fact, this book itself laid the scientific foundation of the two-nation theory and became the principal cause of the creation of Pakistan. The book refuted the Congress’s dangerous plan to establish Ram Rajya and the arguments for Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani’s regional nationalism, proving them unscientific, illogical, un-Islamic, and hollow.

For the fundamental reasons described above, two distinct national identities—Muslim and non-Muslim—emerged from the very beginning of human creation; this remains so and will remain so forever. For the same reason, Muslims and other communities in the subcontinent are entirely distinct. For hundreds of years Hindus and Muslims have lived together here—in the same cities, villages, and neighborhoods, on opposite sides of the same courtyard. They speak the same language, are born on the same soil, and are nurtured and raised in the same light and air. Yet they have not merged into one another or become a single nation. Many learned people of the subcontinent also acknowledge this truth. Let us take the words of the poet Rabindranath himself. He says:

“There is no need to speak falsely anymore. This time we must admit that there is a conflict between Hindus and Muslims. We are not merely distinct; we are also opposed to one another.

For many hundreds of years we have lived side by side, enjoying the produce of the same fields, the water of the same river, and the light of the same sun. We speak one language; we are people who share the same joys and sorrows. Yet the humane, religiously enjoined relationship that should exist between neighbors has not developed between us. For a very long time

we have nurtured such a sin that, even by coming together, we have been unable to prevent separation.”

“We know that in many places in Bangladesh Hindus and Muslims do not sit on the same mat; when a Muslim enters a home, part of the mat is rolled up and the hookah water is thrown away.” (Rabindra Rachanavali, vol. 12, p. 909; Abdul Maudud, The Development of the Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, p. 420)

Babu Nirad Chaudhuri says:

“To tell the truth, the two-nation theory was created long before Mr. Jinnah or the Muslim League. And this is not merely a theory; it is a historical fact. Everyone knew of its existence at the beginning of the present century. We even knew it in our childhood, before the Swadeshi Movement.” (Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, pp. 229–31)

This truth did not escape the notice of Europeans either. An English historian states it clearly:

“Although Hindus and Muslims lived in the same village, city, or district, they always maintained their existence as two distinct nations. Particularly in religious matters, they remained more separate than two European nations. For example, the French and German nations are regarded by Europeans as two bitterly hostile nations. Nevertheless, a young Frenchman going to Germany for business or education can easily live in any German family, eat together with them, and enter the same place of worship. But no Muslim has such access to a Hindu family.” (S. T. Morison, Political India, p. 103)

The extreme narrowness, bigotry, superstition, and utter lack of tolerance toward other religions in Hinduism itself, or in the religious rules and regulations imagined by the Brahmins, were responsible for the inhumane treatment of Muslims. The distinctive feature of Hinduism is its caste system. Under this system, some people described as belonging to Hinduism are designated as lower castes. Hinduism grants them no human rights. They are despised, impure, and untouchable; although they are declared to be included within Hinduism, they have been taught that they were created solely to serve the upper-caste Hindus, and that this is their religion and their greatest virtue. A lower-caste Hindu cannot study in the same school as an upper-caste Hindu. Though Hindu, a lower-caste Hindu cannot read the religious scriptures or enter temples. If Hindu society treats a group said to belong to Hinduism in this manner, it is natural that its treatment of Muslims would be even more barbarous. Thus, everything associated with Muslims became impure and unacceptable to Hindus. Yet greater severity in dealing with Muslims was adopted after Muslim rule ended and British rule was established, when the very existence of Muslims in the subcontinent became intolerable to them.

Driven by hatred and hostility toward Muslims, Hindus would look for pretexts for conflict with them. For example, in ancient times Hindus were not prohibited from eating beef. Beef is a highly nutritious food, and everyone in the world, including Muslims, eats it. Islam instructs Muslims to sacrifice animals for the pleasure of Allah. Cattle are among the animals that may be sacrificed. In the subcontinent, cows were placed on the status of Hindu gods as a pretext for provoking conflict with Muslims. Subsequently, organizations such as the Cow-Slaughter Prevention Society and the Cow-Protection Society were established, initiating communal conflicts with Muslims. The same object was food for one nation and a deity worshipped by another. Once the cow was acknowledged as a deity, eliminating every beef-eater in the world became a principal religious duty of Hinduism. How, then, could the cow-worshipping nation accept the formation of two nations—beef-eaters and cow-worshippers—as one nation? The attempt to unite these two nations into one was not merely ridiculous but malicious.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah also proved, with irrefutable arguments, that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations. At the 27th annual session of the Muslim League, held at Minto Park in Lahore on March 22, 1940, he said in his presidential address:

“It is very difficult to understand why our Hindu brethren cannot understand the true nature of Islam and Hinduism. In reality, these are not merely two religions but, in essence, two distinct and clearly defined social orders, and the idea of combining Hindus and Muslims into one nationality is nothing more than a fantasy. The mistaken notion of one Indian nationalism has crossed all bounds and become the cause of our political instability. If we fail to change our outlook in time, India will be pushed toward destruction. Hindus and Muslims have separate religious philosophies, social customs, and literatures. They also possess two distinct civilizations and cultures, built on opposing concepts and beliefs. Their histories draw inspiration from different sources. They have separate epics, sacred books, national heroes, and relevant traditions and chronicles.

In most cases, one community’s national hero is the other’s enemy. If two such opposing nations, one a majority and the other a minority, are joined in a single state, unrest will continue to increase, and whatever structure is created to govern such a state will ultimately collapse.

By any definition of a nation, Muslims are a nation, and they must have a homeland, a territory or region, and a state. Our desire is that our nation, according to its abilities, should progress in its spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life on the basis of its own ideals.”

Finally, Quaid-e-Azam said:

“Come forward as devoted servants of Islam. Organize the people in the economic, social, political, and educational fields. I am certain that you will become such a force that no power in the world will be able to defeat you.”

The next day, March 23, a resolution to establish an independent state comprising the Muslim-majority northwestern region and the Muslim-majority eastern region of the subcontinent was adopted unanimously. The resolution was moved by the Prime Minister of Bengal, Sher-e-Bangla Maulvi A. K. Fazlul Huq. The wording of the original resolution was as follows:

Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles: namely, that geographically contiguous units be demarcated into territorial readjustments as may be necessary, and that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the northwestern and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute ‘independent States’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.

That adequate, effective, and mandatory safeguards should be specially provided in the Constitution for minorities in these units and in the regions for minorities in these units, for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative, and other rights and interests, in consultation with them; and that in other parts of India where the Muslims are in a minority, adequate, effective, and mandatory safeguards shall be specially provided in the Constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative, and other rights and interests, in consultation with them.

Justice Syed Shameem Husain Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, p. 192.

Along with the Lahore Resolution, it was also clearly declared that the religious, cultural, economic, political, and administrative rights and interests of the minority communities living there would be safeguarded in consultation with them. Similarly, in those regions of India where Muslims were a minority, their religious, cultural, economic, political, and administrative rights and interests would have to be safeguarded on the basis of consultation with them.

Hindu Opposition

Without giving any consideration whatsoever to the positive aspects of the Lahore Resolution, Hindus began publishing indecent statements expressing their vehement opposition to it. Every effort to mislead Muslims and create divisions among them was initiated. Wardha also continued to speak in the same vein. Mr. Gandhi hoped that the leaders and various Hindu-influenced newspapers would remain steadfast in their opposition to the Lahore Resolution. He said, “I still hope that conscientious Hindus will consider our proposal deeply, because it contains the possibility of achieving independence in a short time. We will be able to preserve this independence peacefully within and outside the country.” On May 26, 1940, the Bombay Provincial Muslim League Conference was held. Referring to the Congress’s false propaganda, Quaid-e-Azam said:

“It is extremely surprising that people like Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Rajagopalachari describe the Lahore Resolution as the ‘vivisection of India’ and as ‘cutting a child into two.’ India is, of course, divided by nature itself. Muslim India and Hindu India occupy their places on the geographical map of India. Then why this commotion? What is being divided and cut into two? Where is the central government whose authority and rule are being violated? Because India has been under British rule, the idea of an undivided India and a single central government has been created. There was no such thing as an Indian nation or a central government. This is merely the whim of the Congress High Command.… Our ideals and struggle are not intended to harm anyone’s interests; rather, they are for our own self-defense.”

(Justice Syed Shameem Husain Kadir, Creation of Pakistan, pp. 193–94)

It should be noted that although the word ‘Pakistan’ did not appear in the Lahore Resolution, Hindu India itself called it the Pakistan Resolution. And this was appropriate. The name given long before by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali had finally found fulfillment.

Thoughts on Pakistan

The idea or plan of Pakistan was not any novel political philosophy. The true meaning of the term is an Islamic state system. Thus Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said that Pakistan began when Muhammad bin Qasim set foot in Sindh as a conqueror. Thereafter, an Islamic state system remained in force in the subcontinent for several hundred years. Toward the end of British rule, thoughts and efforts for the distinctiveness of the Muslim nation and the establishment of a state in British India began anew. The Muslim majorities in the northwestern and southeastern regions of the subcontinent did not escape the attention of politically minded thinkers. Thus Sayyid Jamaluddin, a pioneer of worldwide Islamic unity, was the first to consider the possibility of forming a Muslim republic comprising Afghanistan and the northwestern region of the subcontinent; many called this Pan-Islamism.

In a speech at the ‘Bazm-e-Shibli’ gathering in 1915, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali claimed that, since North India was predominantly Muslim, it should be regarded as a Muslim country. He went further, saying, “We shall transform it into a Muslim state. This will be possible only when we and our northern region cease to be Indian. This is a prerequisite. Therefore, the sooner we abandon Indianism, the more beneficial it will be for us and for Islam.” (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 115–116)

Then, in 1917, Dr. Abdul Jabbar Khairi and Professor Abdus Sattar Khairi, known as the Khairi brothers, put forward a plan for the partition of India at a conference held in Stockholm. (Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Evolution of Pakistan, Lahore, 1963, pp. 68–90)

In the Badaun journal Zulqarnain, an open letter addressed to Mr. Gandhi by one Abdul Qadir Bilgrami was published in March–April 1920. In those letters he presented arguments for partitioning the subcontinent. He also provided a list of Muslim-majority districts for this partition, which was almost consistent with the geographical boundaries of the two parts of the Pakistan that was established. Since the matters mentioned in those letters attracted the attention of many people, they were published twice in pamphlet form. The second edition appeared in 1925. (Muhammad Abdul Qadir Bilgrami, Hindu Muslim Ittehad par Khula Khat Mahatma Gandhi Ke Nam, Aligarh, 1925)

At the beginning of the First World War, Lovett Fraser, editor of The Times of India, published a map in London’s Daily Express on which an arrow was drawn from Constantinople toward Saharanpur in India. It showed a Muslim corridor toward the Muslim-majority regions. (I. H. Qureshi, The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent, pp. 295–96)

Savarkar, president of the Hindu Mahasabha, often stated that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations. Lala Lajpat Rai, another leader of the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha, proposed the partition of India in 1924. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p. 116; Richard Symonds, The Making of Pakistan, 1950, p. 59)

In 1923, Sardar Muhammad Gul Khan of Dera Ismail Khan District presented arguments before the Frontier Inquiry Committee in favor of partitioning India in the interests of Hindus and Muslims. He demanded that the region from Peshawar to Agra be allocated to Muslims. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 116–17)

In 1928, at the All-Parties Convention held in Calcutta, Aga Khan raised the demand for the independence of every province. (The aforementioned work)

In 1930, after discussing the various problems of India at the annual session of the Muslim League held in Allahabad, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal put forward a proposal for establishing an independent state for Muslims, either within or outside the British Empire.

Dr. Iqbal did not give any name to the Muslim state he proposed. That was done by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali. In January 1933, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali and three of his colleagues at Cambridge published a pamphlet entitled Now or Never.

Chaudhry Rahmat Ali sent his pamphlet to the Muslim leaders of India, to the Muslim delegates attending the Third Round Table Conference in London, and to leading political figures in England. A pamphlet accompanied by a letter was sent, stating: “I hereby submit before you, on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of Pakistan, an appeal from those who live in the five provinces of northern India, namely Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan.” {It should be noted that Chaudhry Rahmat Ali demanded the formation of a Muslim state comprising the above five provinces, which he named Pakistan.}

This appeal was made at a life-and-death juncture for the Muslims. It stated that India was not a country of one nation but of many nations. … Our religion and culture, history and heritage, social customs and economic system, and laws of inheritance and marriage are fundamentally different from those of the other nations living in India. Our national customs and traditions, and our calendars of years, months, and days, are different. Even our food and clothing are entirely distinct. If we, the Muslims of Pakistan, are incorporated into the proposed Indian Federation after being stripped of the clear characteristics of our nationality, we will be reduced to a minority. This proposal is tantamount to the death knell of our nation. (G. Allana, Muslim Political Thought Through the Ages, 1562–1947, pp. 295–300)

It can be said without doubt that the name ‘Pakistan’ was coined by Chaudhry Rahmat Ali; through the Lahore Resolution it gained recognition in India’s political arena and, approximately seven years later, became a reality.

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada says in his work Evolution of Pakistan: “All these proposals and suggestions presented by Sir Abdullah Harun, Maulana Maududi, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, and others were, in one sense, signposts on the road to the creation of Pakistan.”

Finally, in 1940, the Lahore Resolution, or Pakistan Resolution, was adopted unanimously by the Muslim League in unequivocal language.

Chapter Six

Opposition to the Pakistan Movement

The Hindus could not accept the proposal for Pakistan, or for the partition of India, because they regarded it as contrary to their interests; therefore, they began vehemently opposing it. On May 6, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said in Poona that the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League had no positive program. He described the Pakistan proposal as foolishness and said that it would not last more than twenty-four hours. On May 19, the Hindu Mahasabha called the Pakistan proposal anti-Hindu and anti-national.

Despite the fierce opposition and obstruction of the Congress and the Hindu community, the Pakistan Movement continued, while Hindu opposition and propaganda continued to strengthen Muslim unity.

To conduct extensive propaganda aimed at popularizing and strengthening the Pakistan Movement, an all-out effort was made in the history of Muslim India: a writers’ committee was formed with Jamiluddin Ahmad of Aligarh Muslim University as its convener. Eminent essayists wrote various pamphlets, which were published in Lahore by Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf under the name Pakistan Literature Series. Jamiluddin Ahmad said that independent Pakistan and independent Hindustan would continue to exist in a friendly and fraternal atmosphere. Indian unity was an illusory fantasy and contrary to historical truth. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p. 136)

On July 1, 1940, while Quaid-e-Azam was in Simla, he presented several proposals to the Viceroy and designated them as “tentative.” The proposals were as follows:

No statement may be issued by the government that conflicts with the basic principles of the Lahore Resolution adopted for the partition of India and the establishment of Muslim states in the northwestern and eastern regions.

The Government must give the Muslims of India a clear assurance that no interim or final constitutional scheme will be framed without the consent of Muslim India. In view of the rapid changes taking place in Europe and the danger confronting India, we fully realize that the war effort should be intensified so that internal security, peace, and order can be ensured, provided that the British Government is prepared to accept Muslim leadership as an equal partner in administering the country through the central and provincial governments.

Temporarily and for the duration of the war, the following steps must be taken so that a formula for cooperation with the government, based on equal partnership within the government’s authority and jurisdiction, may be followed:

(a) Within the existing constitutional law, the Viceroy’s Executive Council must be expanded. The additional number will be determined after discussion. However, Muslim representation must be equal in number to Hindu representation if the Congress joins. Otherwise, the majority of the additional members must be Muslims, because the principal responsibility must be borne by the Muslims.

(b) In all provinces where Section 93 of the Act is in force, non-official advisers must be appointed. Their number will be determined after discussion. However, Muslim representatives must constitute the majority of the advisers. In provinces where coalition governments exist, the parties concerned will be responsible for reaching a decision through discussion.

(c) There shall be a War Council of fifteen members, including the President. The Viceroy shall preside. Here too, the number of Muslims shall equal that of Hindus if the Congress joins.

Finally, the Muslim League would select those who would serve as Muslim representatives on the War Council, the Viceroy’s Executive Council, and among the Governor’s non-official advisers.

On 1 July, Subhas Chandra Bose was arrested, and on 3 July Mr. Gandhi appealed to every citizen of Britain to adopt non-violence and renounce arms. At once, the Congress Working Committee meeting held in Delhi renewed the demand for a declaration of India’s complete independence. At the same time, it demanded the formation of a national government at the centre.

Regarding the tentative proposal that Mr. Jinnah submitted to the Viceroy, the Viceroy conveyed his views to Mr. Jinnah in a letter written on 6 July. He agreed to expand his Council but objected to Muslim participation in it. Nor was he willing to accept the demand that the Muslim League would nominate the Muslim members of the Council. He said that this was the Secretary of State’s prerogative and that Council members would not be nominated by political parties. He also could not accept the appointment of non-official advisers to the provincial Governors. The formation of a War Council was an important matter. Its detailed particulars would be determined later.

The terms of Mr. Jinnah’s tentative proposal were rejected. But Mr. Jinnah was an experienced politician and not one to be discouraged. He continued his discussions.

The British Government’s August Offer

The British Government was not discouraged by the differences between the Congress and the Muslim League, or by the disagreements between the Congress-League and the Viceroy. The declaration issued by the British Government on 8 August 1940 came to be known as the August Offer. This declaration introduced some new ideas. First, for the first time in Indo-British history, a Constituent Assembly composed of Indians was promised. Until then, the will of the British Parliament had been final, and the Government of India Act of 1935 had been given precedence. Now the idea of an Indian Constituent Assembly was not merely supported; its formation was also promised. Second, the Congress’s concept of the Constituent Assembly was rejected. It was also made clear that the Constituent Assembly would not take any step that impaired the rights of minorities. Third, Dominion Status was regarded as India’s objective. These arrangements would be implemented after the end of the war. The August Offer also had some negative aspects, which were pointed out in the proposals of the League and the Congress.

Mr. Jinnah exchanged views on the foregoing proposal on 12 and 14 August. However, the final decision was taken at the Muslim League Working Committee meeting held in Bombay on 1 and 2 September. The Muslim League expressed satisfaction that its demand—that the country’s future constitution would not be framed without the League’s approval—had been accepted. At the same time, the Working Committee deemed it appropriate to declare that it remained firm on the fundamental principles of the Lahore Resolution and its terms: namely, that the Muslims of India were a nation and that they alone had the right to determine their future destiny. The Government’s proposal for an interim arrangement was unsatisfactory. The Muslim League’s demands of 16 June had not been accepted by the Working Committee. The Muslim League declared that it did not accept the Government’s August Offer for the following reasons:

1. No discussions had been held with the League President or the Working Committee concerning the proposed number of members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.

2. The Working Committee had not been informed how the Council would be constituted.

3. The Working Committee had not been informed with which other parties the League would be asked to work.

4. The League had no idea which portfolios would be assigned to the Council’s new members.

5. The proposal concerning the War Advisory Council was vague and unintelligible.

The Muslim League Working Committee authorized its President to demand from the Viceroy an explanation concerning the proposed constitution, the method of constituting the War Advisory Council and its duties and responsibilities, and the enlargement of the Viceroy’s Executive Council.

Mr. Jinnah met the Viceroy on 20 September, and the next day the Viceroy answered the questions raised by the League. The League Working Committee session held in New Delhi on 28 September discussed the Viceroy’s reply. The Committee expressed the view that the Viceroy’s explanation was unsatisfactory. The Congress’s reaction to the Government’s August Offer was extremely vehement. Congress President Maulana Abul Kalam Azad refused to meet the Viceroy on 10 August. The Congress rejected the proposal. It was said that the Government was unwilling to relinquish power and that the proposal was directly encouraging conflict and struggle. The question of the minorities was an insurmountable obstacle to India’s progress. Congress was intimidated with the assertion that it would have to engage in direct action.

The Government’s August Offer was not accepted by the political parties. But Muslims gained something from it. The Government promised that, in any future constitutional arrangement, whether interim or final, the Muslims’ satisfactory approval would be obtained. Such an unequivocal declaration by the Government within a year of the outbreak of war and five months after the Lahore Resolution was no small credit to the Muslim League. This credit was earned as a result of the Congress’s conduct toward the Muslims. The Government did not consider it appropriate to leave the Muslims’ destiny in the hands of the Congress.

 The Congress Non-Cooperation Movement and the Muslims

Mr. Gandhi met the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, on 27 and 30 September but could not accept this view of his. He said that if a conscientious opponent could not fight a war, he could present his views to the public. But he could not be permitted to incite others to obstruct the war. On 11 October, the Congress Working Committee decided to begin Satyagraha.

At Gandhi’s direction, Vinoba Bhave was the first to offer himself for arrest. Raja Gopalachari and Abul Kalam Azad also went to prison. The mass imprisonment of Congress supporters created no emotion among the general public. This Satyagraha failed to attract people, particularly in the Muslim provinces. The weakest response in all India came from the North-West Frontier Province. At first, Dr. Khan showed reluctance to join the movement. But his arrest on 14 December produced only a slight ripple in the calm public atmosphere.

In April 1941, Mr. Gandhi opened Satyagraha to all Congressmen. As a result, about 20,000 people voluntarily went to prison. For the Congress, this number was very small. The movement gradually subsided.

The Muslims could not accept the Congress’s Satyagraha movement because they understood the Congress’s sinister intentions. In a speech delivered in Delhi in November 1940, Mr. Jinnah mocked the Congress’s demands, saying that the Congress was conducting a movement for independence. To him and to the British Government, it was clear that the Congress wanted to intimidate the Government into acknowledging that the Congress was the sole representative organization of the people of India. The Congress’s attitude was: ‘Reject the demands of the Muslims and other minorities and accept our demands. The Congress wants to gain power and wants to exert pressure on the British Government to transfer to it the power to use force against the other communities.’

Resolutions adopted in support of Mr. Jinnah’s speech at the Muslim League Council session held in February 1941 and at the annual session of the Madras Muslim League held in April stated that if the Government broke its promises made at various times and accepted the Congress’s demands, the Muslim League would be prepared to take any step necessary to face the resulting situation.

(The Struggle for Pakistan, Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, pp. 163–64)

The Liberal Party Resolution—1941

After discussing the policies of the two principal parties, the Congress and the Muslim League, let us see what attitude the National Liberal Federation held. It had a small group in the legislature. Among them, however, were experienced and capable men such as Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, and Sir Sri Nivas Shastri. It is also necessary to know their views and attitude. At their annual session held in Calcutta in December 1940, the Liberals declared the fundamental principles of their political programme and believed that these would be accepted as the basis of a solution. Their proposal on the matter was as follows:

1. To give full support to the war effort.

2. The British Government should declare within two years of the end of the war that

India would become a Dominion.

3. The Central Government must be reorganized so that the Viceroy could become the constitutional head of a fully national government.

4. The partition of India must be rejected, and the communal system of elections must gradually be abolished.

5. The Congress’s Non-Cooperation Movement is regrettable. In March 1941, the Liberals met in Bombay at a non-party conference. Although the conference was called non-party, it was influenced by the Hindu Mahasabha. Three or four Muslims took part, but they could not speak on behalf of Muslim interests. Three leading figures of the Hindu Mahasabha—Savarkar, Dr. Moonje, and Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee—attended the conference. Tej Bahadur Sapru presided, and Sir Nripendra Nath Sarkar presented several resolutions, which were adopted. The resolutions were rejected by the Government. The so-called Liberals expressed indignation at this, and on 29 June the National Liberal Federation’s Council session was held in Poona. The Government was severely criticized for rejecting the proposals they had put forward to resolve the crisis. Resentment was expressed at the Secretary of State for India’s refusal to take any step without the consent of the Muslim League. Opposition was voiced to the proposal to partition India, and all Indians were called upon to resist the proposed partition.

Reacting to the Sapru proposal or recommendation, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said that the Congress demand for the formation of a national government at the centre amounted to nullifying the Sapru proposal. Speaking on the matter in the House of Commons on 22 April 1941, the Secretary of State for India, L. S. Amery, said that the constitutional deadlock prevailing in India was not because Britain was unwilling to grant India independence, but because India had been unable to agree on its demands. The proposed new type of Executive with greater powers would not lessen Hindu-Muslim disunity but would increase it. I would appeal to men like Sapru to try to establish unity between the Congress and the Muslim League.

Gandhi’s Reaction

Mr. Gandhi strongly protested against the Secretary of State’s statement. He said that by stating that India’s independence was being delayed because of disunity, Amery had insulted Indian intelligence. British politicians themselves were responsible for India’s class divisions. So long as the British kept India subjugated by force of arms, this division and disagreement would continue. I admit that, unfortunately, there is an insurmountable gulf between the Congress and the Muslim League. Do British politicians not admit that this is a domestic quarrel? Let them leave India, and then I promise that the Congress, the League, and the other parties, acting in their own interests, will meet together and find a solution for forming the Government of India. …If we agree not to invite any outside intervention, then perhaps this crisis will last a fortnight. In other words, once British power departed, the Hindus would be strong enough to bring the minorities, especially the Muslims, to their senses. No one could have failed to understand what Gandhi meant by this. He continued repeating these words until July 1947. His inability to tolerate the existence of the Muslim nation and the indecorous statement quoted above hastened the establishment of Pakistan.

Formation of the Defence Council

On 20 July 1941, Bombay Governor Sir Roger Lumley conveyed to Mr. Jinnah a message from the Viceroy stating that, with the approval of the British Government, the Viceroy had decided to enlarge his Executive Council by adding five portfolios. Those who agreed to accept the new positions were Sir Homi Mody, Sir Akbar Hydari, Rao, M. S. Aney, and Sir Firoz Khan Noon. At the same time, it was announced that a thirty-member Defence Council would be formed. Ten members would also be taken from the Native States. Since representation of the Muslim community was essential, the Prime Ministers of Bengal, Assam, Punjab, and Sindh were also invited to accept membership.

The next day, in his reply to Sir Roger Lumley’s letter, Mr. Jinnah expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Viceroy’s action, saying that it was contrary to principle to invite these persons by bypassing the President and Working Committee of the Muslim League. The Muslim League Working Committee met in Bombay on 24, 25, and 26 August. In the resolution adopted on the 25th, the Prime Ministers of Punjab, Bengal, and Assam—Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, Fazlul Huq, and Sir Saadullah—were instructed to resign from the National Defence Council.

Eight Muslims accepted invitations to join the Defence Council. Five of them—Sikandar Hayat, Fazlul Huq, Saadullah, Begum Shah Nawaz, and the Nawab of Chhatari—resigned from the Defence Council on 11 September at the League’s direction. The Nawab of Chhatari had resigned earlier because he became President of the Hyderabad Executive Council. Begum Shah Nawaz and Sir Sultan Ahmad were expelled from the League for five years for refusing to resign. At its Delhi meeting on the 26th and 27th, the League decided to withdraw from the entire session of the Central Assembly. Accordingly, on the 28th, the Muslim League party walked out of the House. They alleged that the British Government refused to give the League its rightful share of responsibility and authority at the centre and in the provinces. (The Struggle for Pakistan, I. H. Qureshi, pp. 169–191)

By the middle of October, the expansion of the Viceroy’s Executive Council was completed. On the same day, many Congressmen involved in the Non-Cooperation Movement were released from prison. A section of the Congress proposed that power should be assumed again in the provinces. But Mr. Gandhi did not agree.

Meanwhile, the League’s position was not free from crisis. Parties that believed their interests were being harmed united against the Muslim League. Although Bengal’s Premier, A. K. Fazlul Huq, resigned from the Defence Council, he had done so unwillingly. The anti-League circles indirectly assured him of their support. One section of the Muslim League demanded Fazlul Huq’s expulsion from the League. Another favored leniency. Quaid-i-Azam himself favored allowing some time so that the Premier of Bengal could return to his former position. The matter was brought to an end after the League Working Committee discussed the letter in which Fazlul Huq expressed regret.

But at the end of the year, Mr. Fazlul Huq and one of his colleagues, the Nawab of Dacca, left the League group in the Bengal Legislative Council and joined the Congress and other Hindu parties to form a coalition government. The European group in the Council also expressed its support. The new coalition government proved that the Congress on the one hand and the British Government on the other wished to destroy the Muslim League’s influence in Bengal. When the League asked Mr. Fazlul Huq for an explanation, he continued to evade the matter. Consequently, on 11 December 1941, Mr. Fazlul Huq was expelled from the League. (Creation of Pakistan, Justice Sayed Shameem Husain Kadir, pp. 226–27)

Eighth Chapter

The Cripps Mission

Toward the end of 1941, the Second World War assumed a terrible form and began advancing toward the Indian subcontinent. Singapore, the fortress of Britain and its Allied forces, fell into Japanese hands, and the fall of Burma was also imminent. Some people sympathized with Japan. Many Congress leaders viewed Britain and its enemy in the same light. Gandhi said that God had sent Hitler as punishment for the misdeeds of the British Empire. The Congress believed that if Britain became cornered in the war, greater and greater political advantage could be extracted from it.

On 7 March 1942, Japan occupied Burma. Only four days later, on 11 March, after British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill made an important statement in the House of Commons, the War Cabinet reached certain decisions. The decisions were incorporated into a draft declaration. Sir Stafford Cripps arrived in India on 29 March with that draft declaration. Its preamble stated that the purpose of the declaration was to establish a new Indian Dominion.

The substance of the draft declaration was as follows:

Immediately after the end of the war, a body or council would be formed in India to frame a constitution. This council would be elected on the basis of proportional representation by the country’s provincial councils. The Native States would be represented in it.

Britain would accept any constitution framed by this body or council subject to three conditions:

1. Any province could refrain from joining the proposed Union, together with its constitutional status. Such provinces could, if they wished, form separate unions of their own similar to the proposed Union.

2. Since power was about to be transferred completely from British to Indian hands, an agreement would be concluded between Britain and the constitution-making council on all matters relating to this transfer. This agreement would provide for the protection of minority interests.

3. If the Native States did not accept the constitution, it would be necessary to discuss with them certain alterations to the treaty arrangements.

Sir Stafford Cripps explained the draft declaration in a radio broadcast on 30 March. After the broadcast, Cripps appealed to all Indians to accept the Cripps Scheme.

The Indian Reaction

Sir Stafford Cripps continued discussions with India’s political leaders. These discussions centred on three issues: (1) the freedom of provinces of the proposed Indian Union not to join it; (2) representation of the Native States in the constitution-making council; and (3) the immediate formation of a responsible government.

The Non-accession Clause of the draft declaration gave the provinces the freedom to refrain from joining the Indian Union, either individually or collectively. The Congress’s reaction to this was extremely vehement. It believed that this would be a severe blow to India’s unity. Therefore, it could not be accepted under any circumstances.

The Congress’s reaction to the question of representation of the Native States was extremely vehement. It believed that this would be a severe blow to India’s unity. Therefore, it could not be accepted under any circumstances.

Regarding representation of the Native States, the Congress demanded that representatives be elected through a joint electorate system. This would benefit the Congress because the elected representatives would support the majority Congress. The Muslim League, however, could not accept this arrangement. Third, the Congress emphatically demanded that a responsible government be formed immediately at the centre. Since this would reduce the Muslim League to a small minority, it could not accept the demand.

The Congress President exchanged letters with Sir Stafford Cripps for several days. But since the Congress’s demands were not accepted, the Congress announced on 11 April that it rejected the Cripps proposals.

The Muslim League, too, could not accept the Cripps Proposals. The Muslim League’s position was that it could not accept any future scheme or proposal until the basic principles of the Pakistan scheme had been accepted and the Muslims’ right of self-determination had been accepted through a method that reflected the genuine verdict of Muslim India.

After the Failure of the Cripps Mission

After the failure of the Cripps Mission, Congress fell victim to extreme failure and disappointment. Congress wanted to establish its governing authority over the subcontinent by forming a national government. This was a cruel conspiracy to keep the Indian Muslims crushed underfoot. However, the British Government could not, in its own interests, accept this unjust demand of Congress.

Taking Britain’s defeat in the war as self-evident, Gandhi wrote to the Viceroy in May 1940: “This slaughter must be stopped. You are losing, after all. If you persist in your obstinacy, there will be still more bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man. If you stop the war today, he too will follow your example.” The Viceroy replied to this arrogance and treachery with great politeness: “We are now at war. We shall not budge before reaching our objective. I understand your concern for us. But everything will be all right.”

Dissatisfied with the Viceroy’s reply, Gandhi appealed to every Englishman on 6 July: “Lay down your arms. For they have failed to protect yourselves and humanity. You will summon Hitler and Mussolini, and they will take everything from you. Very well, let them occupy your beautiful island, including your delightful mansions.”

-(The Struggle for Pakistan, I.H. Quershi: Both the letters are quoted in G.D. Birla, In the Shadow of the Mahatma: A Personal Memoir (Bombay, 1953, p. 302)

Cripps’s Radio Address

In a radio address delivered for Americans on 26 July, Sir Stafford Cripps explained the background of Congress politics from the time of his visit to India up to its latest intimidation. He said that no responsible government could consider Congress’s demand. The Muslims, who were implacably opposed to Congress domination, and several crores of oppressed communities could not accept this demand either. Accepting Gandhi’s demand would mean creating extreme anarchy and disorder.

He further said, “We cannot allow a visionary, however great a freedom fighter he may have been in the past, to obstruct the United Nations’ efforts to achieve victory in the East.”

In protest against the radio address, Pandit Nehru called Stafford Cripps the ‘Devil’s Advocate.’ He said that, for the harm Britain had done and was still doing to India, Cripps ought to have repented and submitted his appeal to us with the utmost humility.

Rejecting the Muslims’ opposition to Congress’s demand, Nehru said, “I know my Muslim countrymen better than Sir Stafford Cripps does, and what has been said about them is nothing but slander.” (The Struggle for Pakistan, I.H. Quershi; Documents in the Indian Situations Since the Cripps Mission, pp. 47–48)

The ‘Quit India’ Movement (Quite India Movement)

At its session held in Bombay on 8 August 1942, the All-India Congress Committee adopted the ‘Quit India’ (Quite India) resolution. Its psychological cause was deeply tragic.

Congress leaders believed that the defeat of the Allied Powers in the war was inevitable. Congress’s plan was to seize control of the entire country by creating extreme disorder in the country at this opportunity. In this way, Hindu rule could be established in the subcontinent by rejecting all the Muslims’ demands. Recognition of this Congress plan is found in Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s book India Wins Freedom. He says:

He had conceived the plan that as soon as the Japanese reached Bengal and the British troops retreated to Bihar, Congress would take control of the whole country. But this plan of Congress proved baseless and unrealistic.

However, in its resolution adopted on 8 August, Congress declared that the demand of the time was that British rule in India must end. No future promise or assurance would improve the present situation. Therefore, India’s independence had to be declared without delay. Thereafter, an interim government would be formed with the cooperation of the country’s principal parties. Its task would be to defend India and resist aggression. The Congress Committee approved a proposal to launch an extreme mass movement through non-violence in support of India’s independence. Gandhi called it an Open Rebellion, which no government could tolerate. Accordingly, on the following day, 9 August, all Congress leaders were arrested and Congress was declared illegal.

Even after such immediate measures were taken, it was not possible to disrupt Congress’s program. What Gandhi called non-violence was in fact violence. Thus it was seen that widespread disorder and destructive activities had begun in all the Hindu provinces. Such ‘non-violent’ (?) activities as burning railway stations, tearing up railway lines, cutting telegraph wires, and looting and burning post offices continued on a large scale. Killings also took place in many places.

Far from the Muslim League alone, many Hindu organizations too were unable to support Congress’s reckless program. Dr. Ambedkar sharply criticized the Congress campaign. The Liberals, as well as Tej Bahadur Sapru and Jayakar, made adverse comments. The Indian Nationalist League condemned Gandhi’s foolish conduct. The Communist Party of India also stayed away from the movement. Bhai Parmanand, Vice-President of the Hindu Mahasabha, criticized the ‘Quit India’ movement, and its president, V.D. Savarkar, instructed his followers not to support the Congress campaign. (The Struggle for Pakistan, I.H. Wuershi, p. 190)

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah regarded the ‘Quit India’ movement as equivalent to forcing their demands through the use of force at bayonet point and to a devastating civil war. This revolt against the government was in fact a declaration of war against the Muslim League and other non-Congress organizations. There is no doubt that this Congress movement was illegal and unconstitutional, because its purpose was to overthrow an established government.

The people of Britain and various newspapers there sharply criticized this movement. Newspapers in Europe and America also adversely criticized the August movement.

The purpose of Congress’s revolt against the British Government at the critical time of the Second World War was to seize power over the whole of India hastily. Extensive destructive activities were conducted for this purpose. It was for this reason that the Cripps Proposals were rejected.

Another reason for this August movement was that if the transfer of power were delayed after the war, the partition of the country, and thus the establishment of Pakistan, would become certain. Therefore, to thwart the partition of India and the establishment of Pakistan, there was no alternative but to seize power in India. This was Congress’s shortsighted thinking and policy.

The C.R. Formula

The Hindu Congress’s hostile attitude toward the Muslims of the subcontinent, and the Congress leaders’ nightmare of establishing Ram Rajya by eliminating them or at least keeping them crushed underfoot, had destroyed their sense of balance. For this reason, its consistent policy was that whenever it appeared that the Muslims were gaining even a few benefits, Congress would prevent it at all costs, like cutting off one’s own nose to spite another’s journey. Detecting some scent of Pakistan or the partition of India in the Cripps Proposals, Congress rejected them. Thereafter, believing Britain’s defeat in the war to be inevitable, it began the ‘Quit India’ (Quite India) movement and extreme destructive activities throughout India, especially in the Hindu-majority provinces. It hoped that if the Japanese occupied part of India, the British Government would be compelled to accept Congress’s demands and it would be able to establish its domination throughout India. But the result was the opposite. The ‘Quit India’ movement was supported by no quarter. Even the Hindu Mahasabha and the Communist Party sharply criticized it. Congress was declared illegal, and all its leaders, including Gandhi, were arrested and sent to prison.

On the other hand, the Muslim League’s farsighted policy increased its popularity both within and outside the country. In 1943 and 1944, Muslim League ministries were in office in Bengal, Assam, Sind, and the North-West Frontier Province. Although the Unionist Party ministry remained in office in the Punjab, its members supported the Muslim League and the partition of India. As a result, because of its close contact with the people, the Muslim League’s popularity continued to grow and the Pakistan movement also grew stronger. This left Congress leaders deeply frustrated.

In a letter written to Viceroy Lord Wavell on 27 July 1943, Gandhi said that he was prepared to advise the Congress Working Committee to withdraw the non-cooperation movement and give full cooperation to the war effort, provided India’s independence was declared immediately, on the condition that military operations would continue as they were during the war but no financial burden would be imposed on India.

The Viceroy replied to this letter on 15 August. Gandhi’s proposal was rejected therein. It was stated that, after the war, the British Government was prepared to declare India’s independence once a unanimously agreed constitution had been framed. A treaty with Britain would also have to be concluded beforehand. To form, as Gandhi demanded, a national government responsible to the central Parliament, the existing constitution would have to be changed. That was absolutely impossible at that time. The Viceroy did, however, appeal to everyone to cooperate in forming, under the existing constitution, a transitional government in the present circumstances. The proposed government could work well if all parties agreed in principle on the methods and procedures for framing the future constitution.

Expressing his customary reaction, Gandhi said that the British Government was unwilling to transfer the governing power it held over 400 million people until the people of India had acquired the power to wrest it away.

Mr. Gandhi’s words contained an implied warning of another violent movement.

However, after receiving a disappointing reply from the Viceroy, some Congress leaders felt the need to contact Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. They thought it would have been very good if Congress could reach an understanding with the Government through its efforts. But since that was impossible, an understanding with the Muslim League had become essential.

Before Congress changed this attitude, the veteran Congress leader Raja Gopalacharia came to the conclusion that the partition of India was essential for ending the constitutional deadlock. He continued to express his views at public meetings in order to persuade Congress leaders on this matter. At a public meeting in Madras in April 1943, he said, “I am in favor of Pakistan, because I do not want a state in which neither our Hindus nor our Muslims have any dignity or honor. Let the Muslims have Pakistan. We Hindus and Muslims can both retain our dignity. If the British Government creates difficulties, we shall confront them. …I am in favor of Pakistan—but I think Congress will not agree to it.” (The Struggle for Pakistan, I.H. Quershi, p. 205, Speech in Madras—April 1943, quoted in Khaliquzzaman, p. 309)

Raja Gopalacharia further said, “We want an end to British rule. We also want to resolve the political differences between Hindus and Muslims. We must accept the Muslim League as representative of the Muslims. They want us to accept their demand. Their most important demand is Pakistan.”

(The Struggle for Pakistan, I.H. Quershi, pp. 205)

In 1943, Raja Gopalacharia prepared a formula known as the C.R. Formula. He believed that the formula would serve as the basis for an understanding between Congress and the League. While Gandhi was fasting in prison, the formula was shown to him during a visit, and Gandhi approved it. Subsequently, on 10 July 1943, the formula was published in the newspapers.

As the basis for an understanding between Congress and the Muslim League, Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah accepted the formula and would respectively strive to secure its acceptance by Congress and the Muslim League. The contents of the formula were as follows:

1. The Muslim League supports the demand for India’s independence, subject to the following conditions concerning the constitution of independent India, and will cooperate with Congress in forming a temporary interim government during the transitional period.

2. In the northwestern and eastern regions of India, where Muslims are in an absolute majority, a commission will be appointed to demarcate the boundaries. A referendum will then be held in those regions on the basis of adult suffrage, and the question of separation from India will be settled by the referendum. If a majority votes in favor of a sovereign state separate from India, the decision will take effect. However, the border districts will have the right to join either state.

3. Before the referendum is held, all parties will have the right to present their views.

4. After the decision to separate from India, reciprocal agreements must be concluded concerning defense, trade and commerce, and communications.

5. The transfer of inhabitants will be entirely voluntary and optional.

6. The conditions of the formula will be binding when Britain transfers all powers and responsibilities for governing India.

After examining the formula, the Muslim League Working Committee entrusted Jinnah with responsibility for deciding the matter.

Gandhi and Jinnah exchanged many letters on the matter. Jinnah raised several questions. Gandhi failed to provide satisfactory answers to all of them.

Reasons for the Failure of the C.R. Formula

When investigating the reasons for the failure of Raja Gopalacharia’s formula, several questions arise. What was the purpose of Gandhi’s lengthy exchange of letters with Jinnah on this issue? What was Congress’s attitude toward it? What were the views of the other parties?

The principal reason for the failure of the talks was that Gandhi could not accept the Muslims’ demand for Pakistan in any way. He rejected the Two-Nation Theory and believed that Congress alone was the representative organization of all the people of India. The purpose of the talks was to show the world that he had tried to reach an understanding.

The Sapru Proposals

After the failure of the C.R. Formula, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru put forward several proposals and tried to create an understanding between Congress and the Muslim League. In 1941, he had convened a non-party conference. It produced no result.

The Standing Committee of Sapru’s non-party conference met at Allahabad on 3 December 1944 and formed a Conciliation Committee. Its members were Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru (Chairman), M.R. Jayakar (he did not attend), Bishop Foss Westcott, S. Radhakrishnan, Sir Homi Mody, Sir Maharaj Singh, Muhammad Yunus, N.R. Sarkar, Frank Anthony, and Sant Singh.

Thereafter, on 10 December, Sapru wrote to Jinnah describing the aims and objectives of the Conciliation Board and requested a meeting.

In his reply on 14 December, Jinnah said that he was unwilling to grant any recognition to the non-party conference or its Standing Committee. The following year, on 8 April 1945, Sapru announced the proposals of his Conciliation Committee.

The committee’s proposals clearly revealed its attitude. The first clause of the proposals firmly opposed the partition of India. It also proposed abolishing separate electorates. There is no need to say that these proposals could in no way be acceptable to the Muslims. Jinnah compared this committee to Congress’s domestic servant and said that it had spoken entirely in Gandhi’s voice.

The Desai–Liaquat Pact

After the arrival of the new year, 1945, a new political wind began to blow. Congress leaders were still in prison for the offense of the preceding August movement. News or rumors of an agreement between Congress and the League began appearing in Indian newspapers. Congress members of the Central Legislative Assembly had been regularly attending the Assembly for several months and working together with the Muslim League members. It was heard that Bhulabhai Desai, leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party, was working in complete agreement with Liaquat Ali Khan, leader of the League Party. It was also heard that the two leaders had reached an understanding on the constitution of a temporary national government. Desai met the Viceroy’s Private Secretary, Sir Ivan Jenkins, on 13 January and the Viceroy on 20 January. At this meeting, the Viceroy was informed that a pact had been concluded between Desai and Liaquat. Desai said that Gandhi supported the pact. He further said that Jinnah was aware of the subject of the discussions with Liaquat Ali and approved the alleged pact.

The alleged pact was as follows:

Congress and the League agreed that they would join an interim government at the Centre. It would be formed in the following manner:

(a) Congress and the League would nominate an equal number of members (the nominees need not be members of the Central Legislative Assembly).

(b) Representatives of the minorities (especially the Scheduled Communities and the Sikhs).

(c) The Commander-in-Chief.

After its formation, the government would continue to function under the Government of India Act of 1935. If the Cabinet were unable to pass a particular course of action or measure through the legislature, it would not seek the special powers of the Governor-General or Viceroy to enforce it. This would give it the opportunity to work independently, free from the Viceroy’s influence.

Congress and the League also agreed that, if such an interim government were formed, its first task would be to release the members of the Congress Working Committee from prison.

On the basis of this pact, the Governor-General would be requested to submit to the Government a proposal expressing his willingness to form an interim government on the basis of the Congress–League pact.

The Governor-General communicated the proposals of the Desai–Liaquat Pact to the Secretary of State for India. He raised several questions about it and requested explanations.

Just as the Governor-General was about to meet Desai and Liaquat Ali, Jinnah stated that he knew nothing about the pact. Desai, without becoming discouraged, continued to express confidence in the pact’s validity. To investigate the matter, the Governor-General asked the Governor of Bombay, Sir John Colvin, to meet Jinnah and request him to meet the Governor-General in Delhi, who would be pleased to see him. Jinnah said that he knew nothing about the Desai–Liaquat Pact and that it had been concluded without the permission of the Muslim League.

Meanwhile, although Gandhi approved it, Congress leaders criticized Desai. Both Congress and the Muslim League rejected the pact.

Chapter Nine

The Wavell Plan, 1945

After the failure of the Desai–Liaquat Pact, the Viceroy went to London in May for discussions with the British Government. He subsequently returned to India with a proposal from the Government for removing the deadlock.

On 14 June, the Secretary of State for India presented a proposal in the House of Commons by means of a statement, with a view to resolving India’s future constitutional problems. The proposal stated that the Viceroy would reorganize his Executive Council in such a way that he could nominate as his councillors certain people from among the Indian political parties. It would provide balanced representation for the principal communities, in equal proportions for Muslims and Caste Hindus. Except for the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, all members of this Council would be Indians. After securing everyone’s cooperation in reconstructing the Council, Section 93 would be withdrawn from all the provinces so that popular ministries could be formed.

On the same day, Viceroy Lord Wavell delivered a radio address from Delhi explaining the proposal. Gandhi and the Congress refused to accept equal representation for Muslims and Caste Hindus in the Council.

The Shimla Conference

To continue his efforts, the Viceroy convened an all-parties conference in Shimla on 25 June. Twenty-one people from the Congress, the Muslim League, and other parties attended the conference, including six from the Muslim League, among them Jinnah and Liaquat Ali. Extreme disagreement between the Congress and the Muslim League was observed at the conference. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad said that the Congress could not accept any arrangement, temporary or permanent, that diminished its national status, obstructed the progress of its claim to represent one nation, and reduced the Congress to a communal organization. Jinnah said that the League could not accept a constitution established on any basis other than Pakistan. Discussions continued on the 26th and 27th as well. Since Jinnah was engaged in discussions with the former Premier of the United Provinces, G. B. Pant (PANT), the meeting on the 27th was adjourned after a short time. Thereafter, sessions of the conference were held on the 28th and 29th. It was learned that the Jinnah–Pant discussions had failed. The Viceroy adopted a different approach to the discussions and requested each party attending the conference to submit a list of names of those who would be members of the Viceroy’s Council. He expressed the hope that both the Congress and the Muslim League would each submit a list of eight to twelve names.

On 3 July, the Congress sent its list of names to the Viceroy. On 6 July, after consulting the Muslim League Working Committee, Jinnah submitted the following proposals to the Viceroy the next day:

1. Instead of accepting a list of names from the Muslim League, representatives for the Council would be selected after a personal discussion between Jinnah and the Viceroy.

2. The Muslim League would select all the Muslim members of the Council.

3. Effective safeguards must be provided to protect Muslim interests from decisions of the majority members of the Council.

After discussions between the Viceroy and Jinnah on 11 July, for the last time, the Viceroy said that four Muslim members from the Muslim League would be included in the Council, and the fifth person would be a non-League Punjabi Muslim.

After this, Jinnah said that the League could not cooperate with the Government in forming the Council. Thus, the Viceroy’s Shimla Conference also failed.

Reasons for the Failure

The failure of the Shimla Conference had the same cause that had thwarted all efforts at a Congress–League agreement. A people who believe in Tawhid, Risalat, and the Hereafter can never become one nation with those who deny Tawhid, Risalat, and the Hereafter. Therefore, the Muslims are a distinct nation—this claim of the Muslim League is an incontrovertible truth, proven by countless events on the soil of this subcontinent. Thus, if Jinnah claims that, since the Muslims are a distinct nation, the right to nominate Muslim representatives to the Viceroy’s Council belongs to the Muslim League, the representative organization of the Muslim nation, then everyone should accept this in principle. It is precisely because the Muslims are a distinct nation that the demand has been made for a separate independent state, Pakistan, and the struggle for it continues. The Congress’s unjust and unrealistic claim, however, is that all Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent, without distinction, constitute one nation, represented by the Congress. The Congress claims the future governing power of the country, and, if it obtains it, the Muslims can be eliminated under the rule of the Hindu majority. The Muslims’ fear is not imaginary; it is a proven fact. The Congress is unwilling to accept this truth. When the Viceroy rejected Jinnah’s proposal in support of the Congress’s demands, the conference failed.

General Elections

After Japan’s surrender, the World War ended on 15 August 1945.

Earlier, toward the end of July, the Labour Party won an overwhelming majority in the general election in England. The Labour Party had long maintained close relations with the Congress, and the result of this election greatly delighted the Congress. The Congress began efforts to derive political advantage from it. British policy had been in favor of India’s unity, and the Congress hoped to obtain increasing support from the Labour Party on this issue. This was also the issue that had created a vast distance between the Congress and the Muslim League. The Congress claimed that Muslims and non-Muslims constituted one nation and that the majority party should rule in a united India. The Muslim League, on the other hand, claimed that the Muslims were a completely distinct nation and that, for this reason, they must have a separate independent state. The Government announced that, to reach a final settlement of these two opposing claims, general elections for the central and provincial legislatures would be held at the end of the year, during the winter season.

The Muslim League’s claim received complete recognition in the election. The Muslim League won all the Muslim seats in the Central Legislature. Of the 495 Muslim seats in the provincial legislatures, the Muslim League won 446. The Congress won majorities in the Hindu-majority provinces, which was quite natural. In Bengal, the Muslim League won 113 of the 119 Muslim seats. A. K. Fazlul Huq lost six seats to the Muslim League. Here, Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy formed the ministry.

In Punjab, the Muslim League secured 79 of the 86 Muslim seats. A Muslim League ministry was also formed in Sindh. In the North-West Frontier Province, because of the tremendous influence of the extreme Congress supporter Abdul Ghaffar Khan, known as the Frontier Gandhi, the Muslim League won 17 of the 36 seats, and Dr. Khan formed the ministry.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that this general election conclusively proved that the Muslim League alone was India’s representative political organization. This intensified the Congress’s opposition to the Muslim League. Instead of accepting the Muslim League’s representative character and reaching a political settlement with it, the Congress adopted a policy of creating divisions among the Muslims and refused to transfer political power into the hands of representatives trusted by the Muslims, even in Muslim-majority provinces. As a result, communal differences intensified and a compromise settlement between the two became impossible.

The policy adopted by the Congress regarding Punjab is a striking example of its hostile mentality. In Punjab, the Muslim League won 79 of the 86 Muslim seats. This party had only ten members, three of them non-Muslims. The Congress had 51 and the Akali Sikhs 22. It was entirely just that the largest party, the Muslim League, should form the ministry. The Muslim League could have formed a ministry with Hindus and Sikhs. But this was not possible because of the Congress’s blind hatred of Muslims and the Sikhs’ lack of foresight. Congress President Abul Kalam Azad and Baldev Singh persuaded and induced Khizr Hayat, the leader of the Unionist Party, to form a ministry with the cooperation of the Congress and the Akali Sikh Party. This unscrupulous coalition was formed with the aim of keeping the Muslim League from assuming power in Muslim-majority Punjab. Abul Kalam Azad felt extremely self-satisfied and proud that he had been able to form a non-League ministry in Punjab. (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: India Wins Freedom, p. 137)

Jawaharlal Nehru condemned the Congress’s joining the Punjab ministry, while Gandhi supported Abul Kalam Azad and said that, in the Congress’s view, there could have been no better solution. (The Emergence of Pakistan: Choudhury Muhammad Ali, p. 49)

Chapter Ten

The Cabinet Mission Plan

On 19 February 1946, the British Government announced that a special mission consisting of three Cabinet ministers would be sent to India with the aim of reaching an agreement on the constitutional question after discussions with Viceroy Lord Wavell and the Indian leaders.

In this connection, during a debate in the House of Commons on 15 March, Prime Minister Attlee said that the removal of the complex situation that had arisen in India, a country of many nations, religions, and languages, would be accomplished by the Indians themselves. We are conscious of the rights of minorities. …That does not mean, however, that we can allow the minority to exercise a veto over the progress of the majority.

The Congress was tremendously delighted by the Prime Minister’s statement. But it aroused doubts in League circles, and Jinnah presented the example of the fly being invited into the spider’s web and said—“If the fly refuses, it is said a veto is being exercised and the fly is intransigent” (if the fly rejects the spider’s invitation, it is said that a veto is being exercised and that the fly is unwilling to compromise).

-(Cabinet Mission and after, Muhammad Ashraf, pp. 1–3; Choudhury Mohammad Ali: Emergence of Pakistan, p. 52)

There could be no better example than this. If the minority is unwilling to fall into the trap of the majority’s absolute supremacy and domination, the British Prime Minister regards that as equivalent to a veto and says it cannot be allowed. This makes the attitude of Attlee and, consequently, the British Government clear.

In any case, the Cabinet Mission, consisting of Pethick-Lawrence (Secretary of State for India), Sir Stafford Cripps (President of the Board of Trade), and Mr. A. V. Alexander (First Lord of the Admiralty), arrived in New Delhi on 24 March 1946.

The members of the Mission met and exchanged views with the leaders of the political parties, the provincial premiers, and various other representative persons. They also held discussions with the rulers and ministers of the Princely States.

Abul Kalam Azad expressed deep satisfaction on learning that Cripps was in the Cabinet Mission. This was because Cripps had long been an intimate friend of the Congressmen. Cripps had previously visited India and accepted the hospitality of a certain Indian Hindu, Sudhir Chandra Gupta. (Moulana Abul Kalam Azad: ‘India Wins Freedom’, p. 146)

Azad met the Mission on 3 April. He had built his edifice of argument on the basis of independence. He believed that a Constituent Assembly would prepare the future constitution, and the Congress demanded the formation of a federal government in whose hands would lie at least the departments of defense, communications, and foreign affairs. The Congress would never accept the partition of India.

Jinnah met the Mission on 4 April. Azad met it again on 7 April. Both the Congress and the Muslim League presented their respective positions. The Muslim League’s position was communicated to the Congress President.

The Congress wanted there to be a single Constituent Assembly that would frame the constitution for an all-India federal government and legislature. The central federal government would control foreign affairs, defense, communications, fundamental rights, currency, customs, and planning.

At the convention held in Delhi on 9 April 1946, consisting of Muslim League members of the central and provincial legislatures, a resolution demanded the formation of a sovereign independent state of Pakistan comprising Bengal and Assam in the northeast and Punjab, the North-West Frontier Province, Sindh, and Baluchistan in the west, and the formation of two separate Constituent Assemblies, consisting respectively of the people of Pakistan and Hindustan, to frame their own constitutions. In accordance with this resolution, the Muslim League submitted a proposal to the Cabinet Mission that one Constituent Assembly be formed for the six provinces of the Pakistan Group and another for the six provinces of the Hindustan Group.

The Congress and the Muslim League could not accept each other’s proposals. The principal point of dispute was whether there would be one independent sovereign state in the subcontinent or two independent sovereign states. In either case, there was the minority problem. The Cabinet Mission was unable to remove the differences between the two parties.

Finally, the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy issued a statement on 16 May with a view to resolving the constitutional problem. The central subject of their statement was the preservation of a single state in India. For administrative, economic, and military reasons, the British Government rejected the proposal for two independent sovereign states.

The Cabinet Mission arrived in India on 24 March 1946 and, after remaining for more than three months, left India on 29 June. The purpose of the British Government in sending the Cabinet Mission to India was to present a constitutional solution in the circumstances that had arisen. The members of the Cabinet Mission left no stone unturned in this effort. However, it is true that, in resolving the problem, they—particularly their most influential member, Stafford Cripps—gave priority to the interests of the Congress and thus of the Hindu nation because he was an intimate friend of the Congress.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad says that the Cabinet Mission came to India on 23 March. When Stafford Cripps had previously visited India, J. C. Gupta undertook to host him. He told me that he was going to Delhi to meet Cripps. I sent a letter through him congratulating Cripps on coming to India again. (Abul Kalam Azad: India Wind Freedom, p. 140)

He further says that throughout Cripps’s stay in India, an exchange of letters with him continued. (Abul Kalam Azad: India Wins Freedom, p. 172)

Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi has mentioned in a footnote on page 266 of his book The Struggle for Pakistan—

Sudihir Ghosh, Gandhi’s Emissary (Bombay 1967), gives a revealing account of the secret backdoor negotiations between the Cabinet Mission and the Congress leaders. There were no such intimate contacts between the Muslim League and the British Government; relations worked against Muslim interests at every critical stage. The British had an eye to the future advantage to be gained from friendship with the largest and more powerful community and were willing to go very far indeed to meet its desires.

It has been mentioned earlier that the issue constituting the main cause of the dispute between the Congress and the Muslim League was the demand to establish an independent sovereign state named Pakistan. This was the demand of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which the Congress and the British Government were by no means willing to accept. Through the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Congress made every effort to entrap the Muslim League and establish its own absolute supremacy. The astute politician Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah fully perceived this conspiracy to entrap them and agreed to accept the Cabinet Mission’s proposal conditionally. But everything collapsed because of the Congress’s obstinacy.

In describing the Cabinet Mission’s activities over more than three months and the long history of its discussions with the Congress, the Muslim League, and the Viceroy, I wish to say briefly that the Congress created a great obstruction to reaching a compromise decision. The reason was that the Congress desired to obtain exclusive domination and authority over the future independent India. The Congress was utterly unwilling to share power with the Muslim League. During this period, in a letter to Cripps, Gandhi said, “If you have the courage, do what I have been saying from the very beginning. …Choose one of the Congress and the Muslim League.” (Pyarelal, Mohatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, vol. 1, p. 225; Chudhury Muhammad Ali: The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 62)

Finally, the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy decided to issue a statement with the aim of forming a strong and representative interim government. In the statement they published on 16 May, the names of fourteen persons were announced whom the Viceroy invited to join the interim Cabinet. It would include six from the Congress, five from the Muslim League, one Sikh, one Indian Christian, and one Parsi, including one member of the Scheduled Communities.

It should be noted that paragraph 8 of the statement published on 16 May guaranteed that if both major parties, or either one of them, refused to join a coalition government in the manner described above, the Viceroy would proceed to form an interim government. This government would be as representative as possible, consisting of those who agreed to join it in accordance with the statement published on 16 May.

Thereafter, for a week, Congress leaders, senior Hindu officials, and the Hindu press created a tremendous storm against the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy. Rumors were spread that Muslim League members would be appointed to the vacant Muslim seats in the Cabinet. Gandhi threatened to leave Delhi unless a nationalist Muslim was included in the Cabinet, although Congress President Abul Kalam Azad gave written assurance that the Working Committee would not insist on this matter. Gandhi said in a threatening tone that otherwise the Constituent Assembly would become a rebellious body. When Cripps hurried to seek Gandhi’s help, Gandhi said that the Cabinet Mission had to choose one of the two parties; no attempt at a combination should be made.

-(Pyarelal, Mohatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, vol. 1, pp. 234–37; Chodhury Muhammad Ali: The Emergence of Pakistan, pp. 62–63)

Within a week, the Cabinet Mission surrendered to Gandhi. On 22 June, Cripps’s friend Sudhir Ghosh told Gandhi that he had met Cripps. He said that if the Congress was unwilling to join, reliance could not be placed on the Muslim League alone.

Sudhir Ghosh met Cripps again and went to tell Gandhi that the Cabinet Mission had decided that if the Congress rejected the short-term proposal and accepted the long-term plan, everything done thus far to form an interim government would be rejected and a new attempt would be made. They asked Gandhi and Patel to meet them. Gandhi went to meet the Cabinet Mission with Patel (Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel) and Sudhir Ghosh. Patel had already spoken with Pethick-Lawrence. Pethick-Lawrence said to Gandhi, “I understand that you want to reject the entire interim-government plan on which we have proceeded thus far and reconsider the situation afresh. Very well.”

The understanding subsequently reached between the Cabinet Mission and Gandhi was conveyed to the Working Committee. Then, on 25 June, the Congress President informed the Viceroy in a written letter that the Congress was rejecting the proposal for an interim government and accepting the long-term plan.

Evidence of this kind of mentality on the part of the Congress and Gandhi continued until the moment before the partition of India. The brief discussion above has brought the ugly face of Gandhi’s and the Cabinet Mission’s minds to light in the pages of history.

The League’s Reaction

The light of hope that had appeared for resolving India’s constitutional problem was extinguished because the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy broke the promises they had made. To discuss this situation, a session of the League Council was held in Bombay in the last week of July. At this session, Jinnah said that in discussions with the Cabinet Mission, the Muslim League had given the Congress concession after concession. The reason was that we wanted to reach a friendly and peaceful settlement so that not only Hindus and Muslims, but all the people living in the subcontinent, could move toward freedom. But the Congress had caused immense harm to the people of India through its despicable verbal trickery and bargaining. Throughout the discussions, the Cabinet Mission became a victim of the Congress’s intimidation and threats. All this conclusively proves that the only solution to all of India’s problems is Pakistan.

I think we have left nothing undone in presenting our arguments and evidence. There is now no tribunal to which we can appeal. The Muslim nation alone is our only tribunal.

Thereafter, in a resolution adopted at the session, the acceptance of the Cabinet Mission’s proposal was withdrawn, and the Secretary of State for India was informed.

Chapter Eleven

Direct Action

At that session, another resolution was adopted declaring that, for the purpose of attaining Pakistan and gaining freedom from British servitude and the future domination of the caste Hindus, the time had come for the Muslim nation to resort to Direct Action. An appeal was made to formulate a programme for organizing the Muslims and conducting a struggle when necessary. Moreover, the persons concerned were urged to renounce all titles conferred by foreign governments in protest against the attitude and conduct of the British.

At a press conference convened on 31 July, Jinnah stated unequivocally that Direct Action was not a declaration of war against anyone. He said that only the Muslim League had worked constitutionally and within the framework of the constitution. During discussions on the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Muslim League found the British Government terrified of Congress. Their fear was that, if Congress could not be satisfied, it would launch a struggle a thousand times more devastating than the struggle of 1942. The British had machine guns and could use them as they pleased. Congress was armed with another kind of weapon, and it could not be dismissed lightly. Therefore, we are now compelled to abandon constitutional methods for self-defence and preservation. We have decided to prepare to embark upon a struggle at the appropriate time. (Cabinet Mission and After, Muhammad Ashraf, pp. 311–19; Emergence of Pakistan—Choudhury Mohammad Ali, pp. 69–70)

16 August was fixed for Direct Action. Two days earlier, in a statement he issued, Jinnah said that the day was intended to explain to the Muslim people of India the resolution adopted by the Muslim League Council on 29 July, not to enter into any kind of direct confrontation. Therefore, I appeal to the Muslims to follow our instructions fully, conduct themselves with utmost peace and discipline, and not become playthings in the hands of the enemy.

Abul Kalam Azad’s Statement

I observed among the public a feeling that on 16 August the Muslim League would attack Congressmen and plunder their wealth. 16 August was a black day in the history of India. On that day, hundreds of people lost their lives and property worth crores upon crores of rupees was looted. The Muslim League processions began looting and setting fires. (Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, pp. 168–169)

Despite my sincere and profound respect for Maulana Azad, I would say that he expressed the sentiments of the Hindu Congress. He was in Delhi that day. Therefore, without witnessing the events himself, he made the above comments after merely hearing others’ accounts.

In that book he says that the Muslim League’s Direct Action Day appeared to be of a different kind. In Calcutta I observed a widespread feeling that on 16 August the Muslim League would attack Congress supporters and loot their property. The declaration by the Government of Bengal of a public holiday on 16 August spread panic to an even greater extent. The Congress party in the Bengal Legislative Council protested the decision. When the protest produced no result, they walked out of the Assembly building. Terrible anxiety prevailed among the people of Calcutta, and it increased because a Muslim League government was in power and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy was the Premier. (India Wins Freedom by Abul Kalam Azad, pp. 168–169)

The foregoing statement by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad identifies the real causes of the horrific communal clashes in Calcutta. The causes were:

1. A Muslim League ministry had been established in Bengal, which was intolerable to the Hindus.

2. The Premier was Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, whom the Hindus regarded as anti-Hindu.

3. Several days before 16 August, a false rumor spread that the Muslim League, and the Muslims of Calcutta in particular, would attack the Hindus and loot their property. The purpose of spreading this rumor was apparently to prepare the Hindus to exterminate the roughly twenty-five percent of Calcutta’s population who were Muslims.

Although I was employed in an important government post at the time, I supported the Pakistan Movement wholeheartedly. I had not heard even the slightest indication of any plan in Muslim League circles to attack the Hindus. I was then living in Calcutta with my family; only my wife and four-year-old daughter were at home with me. Had there been any apprehension of disturbances, I could never have gone to the Muslim League public meeting on 16 August with a carefree mind, leaving them alone.

Many others like me joined the public meeting held at the Maidan. When we arrived at the meeting, we saw Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan delivering a speech in English.

I saw no weapons in the hands of the Muslim League workers, not to speak of sticks or clubs. But I found everyone cheerful and invigorated in the hope of attaining Pakistan.

After Raja Sahib, when Suhrawardy Sahib took the stage, reports began arriving of armed Hindu attacks on Muslim League processions and those coming to the meeting. Thereafter, many of the attacked Muslims appeared at the meeting in bloodstained clothes and began recounting the armed Hindu assaults. The audience’s joy turned to sorrow. Terrible tension, fear, and apprehension continued to grow. Muslims constituted twenty to twenty-five percent of Calcutta’s population. Almost all were poor. About five percent of them were outsiders employed in different places.

The fear of how the meeting’s attendees would return home safely, and what would become of their unprotected families, became visible on everyone’s face. The Premier understood this. I remember none of his speech. But, to reassure the crowd, he said, ‘Ham sab dekh lenge,’ and told everyone to return home in an orderly manner. Somehow, saying ‘Allah, Allah,’ we returned home. We lived in the Muslim quarter of Calcutta, Park Circus, and were saved; otherwise, we would certainly have fallen victim to Hindu attacks.

Regarding this horrifying event, Lan Stephens, editor of Calcutta’s then-daily Statesman, said: ‘Probably on the first day’s fighting, and certainly on the second and third days, the greatest loss of Muslim life and property occurred.

(Ian Stephens, Pakistan, London, Ernest Benn, 1963, p. 106; Choudhury Mohammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 76)

These events prove beyond doubt that the Muslim League had no plan to attack the Hindus on 16 August. Rather, Congress prepared a meticulous plan for massacring Muslims in order to exploit the League’s Direct Action for its own base interests. Yet the outcome benefited the Muslims. The creation of Pakistan was accelerated—a possibility that had somewhat diminished after the Cabinet Mission’s proposals. Jinnah openly and unequivocally condemned the brutal events in Calcutta and expressed profound sympathy for those killed and affected.

After the Muslim League’s Direct Action

The communal clashes in Calcutta became a controversial subject of discussion. In the subcontinent, Hindu-Muslim riots occur from time to time here and there. But the cruelty and brutality perpetrated in Calcutta on 16 August 1946 were unparalleled. The killings were carried out under a carefully conceived plan to exterminate the Muslims of Calcutta.

On 24 August, the Viceroy announced the names of the members of the Interim Government.

They were to assume office on 2 September.

It should be noted that on 6 August the Viceroy invited Nehru to form an Interim Government. On 7 August the Congress Working Committee agreed to form the government. On 17 August Nehru told the Viceroy that he wanted to form a strong government by filling the Muslim seats with persons outside the League. The Viceroy disagreed, saying that the Muslim seats should remain open for the time being. Nehru refused to accept this proposal and remained firm on his own.

It later became known that, on the eve of the swearing-in of the Congress Interim Government, the Viceroy had told the British Government that the ceremony should be postponed until the Muslim League agreed to join the government. Prime Minister Attlee rejected the Viceroy’s argument, saying that any further delay would embitter the mood of the Congress leaders and create a breach between Congress and the British Government. Thereafter, an official communiqué issued from Delhi stated that the new Council would assume office on 2 September.

The members joining the new council (The New Executive Council) were: Nehru, Patel, Raja Gopalacharia, Rajendra Prasad, Asaf Ali, Sarat Chandra Bose, John Matthai, Baldev Singh, Sir Shafaat Ahmad Khan, Jagjivan Ram, Ali Zaheer, and C. H. Bhabha. Two Muslims were to be added later. (The Indian Register, 1946, vol. 2, p. 228; Ishtiaq Hossain Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 274–275).

After completing this task contrary to his disposition, the Viceroy visited Calcutta, devastated by communal riots. After visiting Calcutta, he became convinced that, unless Congress and the League reached an understanding, all India would fall victim to a terrible civil war. After returning from Calcutta, he tried to persuade the Congress leaders and, for this purpose, met Gandhi on 27 August. He proposed forming coalition governments in Bengal and at the Centre and put forward a formula. On 28 August Nehru informed the Viceroy that the Working Committee had rejected the formula.

Viceroy Lord Wavell made a desperate effort to reach a settlement but failed. Congress viewed this effort differently. It regarded Wavell as an obstacle to establishing Congress’s exclusive dominance and authority over the subcontinent and set about seeking his punishment. After returning from discussions with Wavell, Gandhi and Nehru both began writing letters. Gandhi first sent Attlee a telegram saying that the Viceroy’s state of mind required an immediate remedy. The accusation against him was that he had lost his mental balance over the Calcutta events. Gandhi demanded that a more capable person replace him. Gandhi also admonished Wavell in a letter, saying that he wanted to bring Congress around to his own view by intimidation. He further said that if the Viceroy was frightened by the deterioration of communal relations and wished to use force to suppress it, the British should leave India immediately and entrust Congress with the responsibility of establishing peace in India.

Meanwhile, Nehru informed some influential friends in Britain by letter that the Viceroy was an extremely weak man who had lost his mental flexibility. He was pushing India toward danger in order to please Jinnah. He said that the Viceroy was acting on the advice of Sir Francis Mudie and George Abel and, in Nehru’s opinion, both were rabidly pro-Muslim. Nehru also called them English mullahs. In short, the substance of Nehru’s letters was: ‘Wavell must go.’

(Leonard Mosley, op. cit., p. 44; Gandhi’s letter to Wavell reproduced in full in Pyarelal’s Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Ahmedabad, 1956; I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p. 276).

Chapter Twelve

The League Joins the Executive Council

The Interim Government assumed office at the appointed time, namely 2 September 1946. Congress was jubilant. Pattabhi Sitaramayya declared that within a few years a national government would be established in India. Whether the Muslim League joined or not made no difference—the caravan would continue moving. Now we must begin to govern this land. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p. 277)

Various political observers in Muslim India and Britain expressed deep regret at the establishment of one-party rule in India. On 25 August Jinnah issued a statement in very strong language. Expressing regret at the Viceroy’s decision, he said that it was inconsistent with the assurances given and promises made to the Muslim League. On the day the new government assumed office, Muslims throughout India hoisted black flags at their homes and shops.

Sir Winston Churchill of Britain strongly protested the government’s decision and warned that an attempt to establish Hindu-majority rule would not succeed without civil war. Cripps had unjustly used his influence to provide advantages to the Hindus. He later said that entrusting the Government of India to the caste Hindu Mr. Nehru had been a fundamental mistake. Lord Templewood, one of the authors of the Government of India Act of 1935, warned against forming a government with the cooperation of only one community. Lord Scarborough predicted that terrible pressure would be brought to bear on the British Government in India to transfer power into the hands of one party, and hoped that this would be resisted. Lord Crasborne severely criticized the government for breaking its promise to the Muslims in June and permitting Congress to form a government in August. Thus, reactions were expressed in various circles in Britain. (I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 277–278)

Before a month had passed after the formation of the Interim Government, the Muslim League realized that remaining outside the government was utterly contrary to Muslim interests. In principle, the Muslim League had refused to join the government. That policy would remain in force. However, political necessity, together with the establishment in the country of a hostile Hindu government, compelled the League to change its policy. As long as the Muslim League remained outside, the Muslims would continue to suffer. Law and order were deteriorating, and there was a danger that Muslims would be exterminated in many regions. Congress had no concern about it. The presence of a Hindu government in power seemed to encourage the wrongdoers. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Muslim League had to join the government in order to protect Muslim India. In Jinnah’s view, he would be able to carry on the struggle for Pakistan more effectively from within the coalition government than from outside it.

The Viceroy himself was very eager to have the Muslim League in the coalition government because he was aware of the crises ahead. For this reason, lengthy and complex discussions continued, on the one hand between Jinnah and Nehru and, on the other, between Jinnah and the Viceroy. Finally, on 25 October 1946, the Executive Council was reorganized as follows:

Congress

Jawaharlal Nehru—(External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations)

Vallabhbhai Patel—(Home, Information & Broadcasting)

Mr. Raja Gopalacharia—(Education & Arts)

Asaf Ali—(Transport & Railway)

Jagjivan Ram—(Labour)

Muslim League

Liaquat Ali Khan—(Finance)

I. I. Chundrigar—(Commerce)

Abdur Rab Nishtar—(Communications)

Ghazanfar Ali Khan—(Health)

Jogendra Nath Mandal—(Legislative)

Minorities

John Matthai—(Industries & Supplies)

C. H. Bhabha—(Works, Mines & Power)

Baldev Singh—(Defence)

Nehru did not view the Muslim League’s joining the coalition government favorably. Moreover, he displayed extreme obstinacy in the allocation of portfolios. The Viceroy wanted one of the three highly important portfolios—External Affairs, Home, or Defence—to be given to the Muslim League. Nehru strongly opposed this. Ultimately, of the five portfolios given to the Muslim League, one was Finance. Congress had agreed to give the Finance portfolio to the Muslim League because it believed that the League would be unable to run it—or would make a fool of itself in trying. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad expressed regret at this decision by Congress, saying that it had been a mistaken decision by his colleagues. Abul Kalam Azad discussed this matter engagingly in his book India Wins Freedom, and I present it here for readers to enjoy.

Maulana Azad says:

Since the League had agreed to join the government, Congress had to reorganize the government and make room for Muslim League representatives. The question now was who would withdraw from the government. It was thought that Sarat Chandra Bose, Sir Shafaat Ahmad Khan, and Syed Ali Zaheer would resign to make room for the League nominees. The Viceroy’s proposal was that the Home Department should be given to the Muslim League. Sardar Patel strongly opposed this proposal. In my view, law and order was necessarily a provincial subject; under the framework presented by the Cabinet Mission Plan, the Centre had very little to do in this regard. Therefore, in the new government structure, the Home Ministry at the Centre had no great importance. For this reason, I supported Lord Wavell’s proposal. But Patel was utterly adamant. He said, ‘I would rather leave the government, but I will not give up the Home Ministry.’

We then considered an alternative. Rafi Ahmad Kidwai proposed that the Finance Ministry be given to the Muslim League. He further said that it was a very important department. But it was a highly technical subject, and there was no one in the Muslim League who could manage it properly. Kidwai thought that the Muslim League would refuse to accept the portfolio. Congress would suffer no harm from this. And if the League accepted it, it would later be proved foolish.

Patel jumped at the proposal and gave it his strongest support. I tried to point out that the Finance Ministry was the key to a government and that, if it came under the Muslim League’s control, we would face tremendous difficulties. Patel opposed me, saying that the League would be unable to run the department and would be forced to reject the proposal. I could not be pleased with this decision. However, since everyone agreed, I had to accept it.

When Lord Wavell informed Jinnah of the proposal, Jinnah said that he would give his answer the following day.

Jinnah too was doubtful whether Liaquat Ali, the League’s principal representative in the Cabinet, would be able to run the department. After learning of the matter, several Muslim officers of the Finance Department met Jinnah. They said that Congress’s proposal was like an unexpectedly ripe fruit and signaled a great victory for the League. …By controlling the Finance Department, the League would exercise authority over every department of the government. They assured Jinnah that he had no reason to fear. They promised to provide Liaquat Ali with every kind of help and cooperation so that he could properly discharge his responsibilities.

Congress soon realized that it had made a great mistake by giving the Finance Department to the League. (Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, pp. 177–179)

In this connection, Choudhury Mohammad Ali says:

In June, when the possibility of forming an interim government first arose, the Quaid-e-Azam discussed with me the portfolios likely to be assigned to the League. He expressed his desire to take the Home and Defence departments. I said that law and order and the police were provincial matters over which the Centre had no control. The Congress provinces would pay no heed to a League Home Minister. Similarly, the Muslim League provincial governments would feel no need to accept his advice. I said that the Defence Department would certainly be advantageous. But if the League wished to influence government policy in every department, it needed to take the Finance Department. At that time I was unable to explain to him the strategic importance of the Finance Department. But now, by the turn of events, the Finance Department has fallen into the League’s lap. When I was summoned again, I strongly repeated my earlier advice. He was hesitant because the Finance Department would be entrusted to Liaquat Ali, the League’s chief representative. I offered every possible assistance and assured both the Quaid-e-Azam and Liaquat Ali Khan of a successful outcome. My proposal was accepted, and Liaquat Ali became Finance Minister. (Chowdhury Mohammad Ali: The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 84).

Coalition Government

Because of Congress’s complete distrust and hostile conduct toward the League, Congress wanted Nehru to be recognized as the leader of the entire Cabinet. The League refused to accept this. At a press conference, Liaquat Ali Khan stated plainly that in the Cabinet Nehru was no one’s leader except the leader of the Congress Party. Although he denied collective responsibility in the constitutional sense, he said that the League ministers would work cooperatively with their colleagues, not only in the interests of Muslims but rather in the interests of all the inhabitants of India.

As communal clashes continued to increase, unity and cooperation were urgently needed. In the second week of October, disturbances began in the Noakhali and Comilla districts of East Bengal, and the situation was brought under control before the end of the month. After investigating on the spot, Governor Sir Frederick Burrows commented that there had been no organized offensive by the Muslim public against the Hindus there. The disturbances had been created by hooligan elements. Lieutenant General Sir Francis Tuker, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, said that the number killed was fewer than three hundred. But the deranged Hindu press deliberately invented horrifying and hair-raising tales and spread them throughout the world. These reports created an intense thirst for revenge among the Hindus of Bihar and the U.P. [E.W.R. Lumby: The Transfer of Power in India 1945–47 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1954), p. 120; Sir Francis Tuker, While Memory Serves (London: Cassell, 1950), p. 176; Choudhury Mohammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 85].

In the first week of November, a planned massacre of Muslims began in Bihar. Of all the terrible riots of 1946, the Bihar massacre was the most horrifying and painful. Its most cowardly aspect was that the Hindu population suddenly fell upon the Muslims according to a plan and with every preparation made. These Muslims and their ancestors had been living peacefully with their Hindu neighbors. The number of women, men, and children killed in these riots was seven or eight thousand. (Sir Francis Tuker: While Memory Serves, pp. 181–82; Choudhury Mohammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 86).

The Viceroy and the central ministers visited Hindu- and Muslim-affected areas and appealed for communal harmony and peace. Despite knowing about the events in Bihar, Gandhi was then staying in Calcutta on his way to Noakhali. Congress Muslims repeatedly urged Gandhi to go to Bihar and restrain the bloodthirsty Hindus. Nevertheless, instead of heading for Bihar, Gandhi went to Noakhali and remained there for four months.

At last, in March 1947, Gandhi was persuaded to go to Bihar. This time Gandhi’s eyes were opened. The provincial ministry evaded everything through deceit and trickery, and showed no remorse at all. General Tuker said, “What seemed most astonishing to our officers was how the Hindu ministers could accept the brutal massacres so calmly.” They said they had done their utmost. But when Gandhi pointed out that no commission of inquiry had yet been formed, Prime Minister Shri Krishna Sinha expressed fear that the League would derive political advantage from it.

The evidence of the Bihar massacre is so strong that no one can create confusion about it. In his book Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Pyarelal gave one chapter the title “The Veil Lifted.” He says that the Bihar riots of 1946 shattered the dream of a united India. This massacre also shattered Gandhi’s faith in the Hindu innate pacifism. From this time onward, a noticeable change began in him. Previously, in every communal riot, his chief concern had been to protect the Hindus. Now he also became concerned about protecting the Muslims. Despite his efforts to establish Hindu political dominance over the whole of India, he made desperate efforts to avoid bloodshed. His human feelings had awakened, and he had to pay for them with his life.

Some time after the Bihar massacre, another massacre of Muslims took place at Garhmukteshwar in the U.P. province. A Hindu fair was held there every year. A few Muslim traders would set up shops at the fair. Suddenly, they were attacked. General Tuker says,

Every Muslim woman, man, and child was brutally killed. No news of the massacre could penetrate the iron curtain and reach the outside world. With the assistance of the Hindu administrative machinery, the provincial government kept this Hindu massacre concealed. The Hindu newspapers deliberately publicized in bold headlines that the Muslims had taken revenge several times over. This was done to conceal the misdeeds of the Hindus. Prime Minister Pandit Pant announced that a judicial inquiry committee would be formed. But nothing was done. (Sir Francis Tuker: While Memory Serves, pp. 196–201; Chowdhury Mohammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 87).

Chapter Thirteen

The Constituent Assembly

At the end of July 1946, 296 representatives were elected to the Constituent Assembly. Congress won all but nine of the general seats, and the League won all but five of the Muslim seats; the statement is repeated in the source. The first session of the Constituent Assembly was scheduled for 9 December 1946. But the League refused to participate. It was not even willing to recognize it as legitimate until Congress accepted the Muslim League’s interpretation of paragraph 19 of the Cabinet Mission’s 16 May statement. The Viceroy urged Congress to accept this interpretation. The reward for this request was that Gandhi and Nehru sent telegrams and letters to the British Government seeking the Viceroy’s removal. Seeing no alternative, the Viceroy invited the parties on 20 November to join the Constituent Assembly under the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah immediately described this as a grave mistake. He said that the Viceroy had failed to understand the terrible situation and its realities and was trying to please Congress. No League representative attended the Constituent Assembly session on 9 December.

In this situation, the British Government invited two Congress and two League leaders to London in an effort to make one last attempt. On the Viceroy’s advice, a Sikh representative was also invited.

On 2 December 1947, Lord Wavell traveled to London with Nehru, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, and Baldev Singh. Discussions continued for four days.

The fundamental disagreement between Congress and the League concerned the interpretation of the Cabinet Mission’s 16 May statement—that is, the grouping of the provinces. The Cabinet Mission itself gave the interpretation that was also the Muslim League’s interpretation. But Nehru was utterly unwilling to accept it. A severe political deadlock arose.

Since no compromise or settlement was reached because of Congress’s obstinacy and rashness, the British Government issued a statement on 6 December. Its final paragraph said that the success of the Constituent Assembly could not be expected without decisions based on an agreed procedure. If the Constituent Assembly drafted a constitution without representation from a large section of the people of India during its preparation, the British Government could not forcibly impose such a constitution on unwilling populations.

The government’s statement mentioned above and the Cabinet Mission’s statement of 25 May failed to bring about any change within Congress. Nehru and Baldev Singh returned to India to participate in the Constituent Assembly. Jinnah and Liaquat Ali remained in the United Kingdom for some more time. At a press conference in London, Jinnah said that if Congress accepted, in unambiguous language, the British Government’s interpretation of the statement published on 16 May, he would ask the League Council to reconsider the matter. In a speech in London, Jinnah showed that Pakistan’s population was larger than that of any other state in the world. “We are accepting Congress control over three-fourths of India. Congress objects to accepting Pakistan because it wants the whole of India. Then where are we to remain? The question now is whether the British Government wants to transfer power, by the force of its bayonets, to the Hindu majority. If so, I will say that you have lost the last particle of your honor, fairness, justice, and decent conduct.” [Some Recent Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Vol. 2, ed. by Jamiluddin Ahmad (Lahore: Muhammad Ashraf, 1947), pp. 496–508; Chowdhury Mohammad Ali, The Emergence of Pakistan, pp. 91–92].

On the one hand, Congress in India continued to demand in a strident voice that the League be expelled from the Interim Government if it did not join the Constituent Assembly; on the other hand, the British Government’s declaration of 6 December hinted at a new political change in the near future.

E. W. R. Lumby, who was associated with the Cabinet Mission Secretariat, says that this was the first declaration by the British Government that the Cabinet Mission Plan would be abandoned. After the Cripps Proposals, it was the first official declaration to contain, in one form or another, an indication of Pakistan. Speaking in the House of Commons, Cripps clearly stated in the final paragraph of the government declaration that if the League could not be persuaded to join the Constituent Assembly, the areas of the country where it held a majority could not be compelled by any decision. (E.W.R. Lumby, op. cit., p. 129; I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 184–

A question now remains: why was Congress so uncompromising in demanding the League’s expulsion from the government? There were several reasons. Congress called the Interim Government a national government, and its responsibility was collective. Nehru was regarded as the Prime Minister of this government. In Britain too, the pro-Congress and left-wing press sang the same tune. For example, The New Statesman described the government as a cabinet with collective responsibility, whose Prime Minister was Nehru (7 September 1946). In India, Lord Ismay, Mountbatten’s Chief of Staff, referred to Nehru as Deputy Prime Minister (The Memoirs of General the Lord Ismay, London, 1960, p. 418). His statement was highly ridiculous. For if Nehru was the Prime Minister, then who was the Viceroy—the Prime Minister?

The League councillors refused to accept Nehru as the head of the Interim Government, or even as the head of the non-League bloc. Jinnah said that the Interim Government was nothing other than the Viceroy’s Executive Council. It had been reorganized politically. The Viceroy, with his special powers, was its head. Nehru was merely the Vice-President of the Council. His task was only to preside in the Viceroy’s absence. He had no greater power or status than the other councillors.

This wounded Nehru’s vanity, which led him to continue making the unjust demand that the League be expelled. (I. H. Qureshi: The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 282–283).

Chapter Fourteen

The Mountbatten Mission

At the beginning of the new year, 1947, India’s political and constitutional situation was such that there was either an Interim Government at the Centre or the Viceroy’s Executive Council, in which Congress and the Muslim League remained amid profound differences. The Constituent Assembly had been in session since 9 December 1946, and the League continued to boycott it. As a result, Congress was demanding the League’s expulsion from the Viceroy’s Council. On 13 February, Nehru demanded the League’s expulsion in a letter to the Viceroy. On 15 February, Patel threatened that unless the League left the government, Congress would leave the Interim Government. (The Indian Annual Register 1947, vol. 1, p. 35; I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, p. 287).

In this heated situation, Prime Minister Attlee issued a statement on 20 February 1947. He said that such an uncertain situation could not be allowed to continue any longer. The British Government wished to make it clear that it would take the necessary steps to transfer power into the hands of responsible Indians by June. If an agreed constitution was not drafted within that period by a fully representative Constituent Assembly, the government would consider to whom power in British India should be transferred in due course—whether to some form of central government in British India or by whatever existing method might be considered most reasonable and conducive to the interests of the Indian people.

At the end of the statement, it was also announced that Admiral the Viscount Mountbatten would become Viceroy in place of Wavell.

Four days later, the Secretary of State for India announced in the House of Lords that this decision had been taken on the advice of responsible Indian leaders. The purpose was to exert pressure so that the Indian parties would reach an agreement.

No one should have difficulty understanding that “responsible Indian leaders” here meant Gandhi and Nehru, and that “agreement” meant accepting Congress’s demand concerning the League.

Readers may naturally be curious to know why Lord Wavell was removed at India’s most critical political moment. Whatever anyone sympathetic to Congress may say, several events testify that Wavell was punished in order to please Congress, especially Gandhi and Nehru.

Was there any fundamental disagreement between Prime Minister Clement Attlee and his Cabinet and Lord Wavell, for which Wavell had to pay the price? No evidence of this is found in history. The reason was something else. Let us therefore investigate.

It is worth noting that Lord Wavell was initially very popular with Congress. When the Muslim League wanted to form an Interim Government in June 1946, Wavell obstructed it. Later, he allowed Congress to form a government without the League. Earlier, he had stated quite firmly that India’s geographical unity or integrity could not be denied under any circumstances, which provoked intense anger from the League. Subsequently, warmth between the Viceroy and Congress began to diminish. After the bloody riots in Calcutta, Congress asked the Viceroy to dismiss the League ministry in Bengal, even if this meant infringing the rights granted under the Government of India Act of 1935. The Viceroy did not agree. As a result, he became unpopular with Congress. Then, despite repeated demands that the League councillors be expelled from the Viceroy’s Executive Council, when the Viceroy refused to accept this, the break in relations became final. Gandhi’s telegrams and letters to the British Government seeking the Viceroy’s removal, and Nehru’s letters to his friends in Britain for the same purpose, were all described by the Secretary of State for India as being “on the advice of responsible Indian leaders.” Nehru was extremely delighted at Wavell’s removal and Mountbatten’s arrival in India as Viceroy.

Lord Mountbatten reached Delhi on 22 March. His appointment delighted Congress. He had already had a relationship with Nehru. He was not an unfamiliar figure in India, because during the Second World War he had been Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Southeast Asia. For that reason he had to come to India repeatedly, which served as a base for wartime operations. About two years earlier, he had met Nehru in Malaya, and they were attracted to each other. It was not known, however, that he was a Congress partisan. His close adviser, Lord Ismay, feared that Mountbatten would be regarded as pro-Hindu and hostile to the Muslim League. (Cempbell-Johnson, Allan: Mission with Mountbatten, p. 23; Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 239).

As a matter of procedure, Mountbatten was permitted to establish a personal secretariat in addition to the Viceroy’s staff. This was his “Kitchen Cabinet.” The most powerful personality at the root of his success was V. P. Menon. The Viceroy drew him into his policy-making circle. The gentleman had been serving as constitutional adviser to the Central Government since 1942. Alongside his administrative ability, he possessed considerable political acumen. He was Patel’s devoted follower. His own book, The Transfer of Power, Calcutta, 1957, makes it clear that even before becoming associated with the Viceroy’s personal secretariat, he had always expressed views against the League. He now became a great power behind the reins of government.

(Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India, p. 239).

Mountbatten had carefully and cautiously selected his staff in England before bringing them with him. One of them was Lord Ismay, who had been Churchill’s principal personal adviser during the Second World War. There was also Eric Civil, Lord Wavell’s former private secretary and Assistant Private Secretary to George VI. These two were the Viceroy’s principal advisers on general and civil matters, while Lord Ismay was Chief of Staff. V. P. Menon was the constitutional adviser. Staff meetings were held frequently. At first, Menon was invited to the meetings occasionally. Later, he was invited to every meeting. The Viceroy and everyone else knew that Menon was one of Patel’s most trusted men. As a result, Patel not only knew all the confidential internal information of the Viceroy’s Council, but also used this spokesman to influence the Viceroy’s policy. If a Muslim had occupied Menon’s position and maintained contact with Jinnah, neither the Viceroy nor Congress would have tolerated him. Could the Muslim League, and the Muslims of India, have expected justice from these people?

The Evolution of the 3 June Plan

Mountbatten had been appointed Viceroy in India with the objective of seeking an agreed solution for a united India on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan. But after reaching India and observing the course of events and the opposing views of the political leaders, no possibility of either an agreed solution or a united India could be seen. Therefore, the Viceroy concentrated on preparing a plan centered on the Prime Minister’s declaration of 20 February.

After consulting his advisers, he prepared a plan for the transfer of power. Its basis was that power and authority would be transferred to the provinces, or to confederations of those provinces that decided to group together before the actual transfer of power. On 1 April, Ismay gave the draft plan to Menon to prepare a timetable, with amendments. Menon carried out the order and at the same time expressed his opinion, saying that it was a bad plan and would not work. The final plan was presented at the Governors’ Conference and approved. On 2 May, Lord Ismay and George Abel left for London with the plan for approval at the Whitehall. The Viceroy hoped to receive approval by 10 May and would request the party leaders to meet together on 17 May to learn their reactions.

Mountbatten then went to Shimla with Sir Eric Civil and Menon. There Menon had an opportunity to speak privately with the Viceroy and, arguing against the plan sent to London, said that it would not work. Before hearing all of Menon’s arguments, Nehru and Krishna Menon suddenly arrived in Shimla on 8 May to stay with the Viceroy. The Viceroy asked Menon to speak with Nehru. On 9 May, Menon told Nehru that power would be transferred on the basis of Dominion Status to two Indias—not to the provinces or to their confederation. On 10 May, the Viceroy discussed the plan with Nehru, Menon, and Sir Eric Civil; the discussion was recorded in the minutes and treated as part of the records of the Government of India.

That same day, the plan approved in London reached the Viceroy, with some amendments, of course. After dinner, the Viceroy called Nehru and showed him the plan that had been approved. After reading it, Nehru became furious and said, “I, Congress, and India—none of us can accept this.”

On 11 May, Mountbatten summoned Menon, told him Nehru’s reaction, and asked what could now be done. Menon said that implementing the plan I proposed on 9 and 10 May would divide the country into many units, whereas my plan would preserve India’s essential unity. Those regions that did not wish to remain part of India would be permitted to separate.

A staff meeting was hastily called, and Nehru was also invited. The Viceroy asked Nehru whether he approved Menon’s plan. After looking at it, Nehru approved it.

Thereafter, the Viceroy returned to Delhi on 14 May and departed for London on 18 May to persuade the Cabinet to approve the plan. Lord Ismay and George Abel opposed Menon’s plan. The Viceroy emphatically declared, “If the British Government does not approve this plan, I shall resign.” The Cabinet approved the plan within only five minutes, without changing even a single “comma.” The Viceroy returned to India with his party on 31 May, in the manner of a victor.

Now it is as clear as daylight that the plan which was to hasten the end of the British Empire in India and initiate a change on the map of Asia and the world was prepared by a Hindu Congress-sympathizing adviser of the Viceroy, with the assistance of Nehru and Krishna Menon. For a whole month, the Viceroy discussed this plan, which was to change the fate of the country and of several crores of its people, with a handful of his favorites; yet at no stage was Jinnah summoned even once. This has exposed the extremely narrow and intensely anti-Muslim mentality of Mountbatten and, indeed, of the British Government. It will remain inscribed forever in the pages of history.

A Question That Agitates the Mind

The plan for the partition of India has been finally approved by the British Government. It will be officially announced on 3 June. Before the plan was approved by the Government, Nehru had already expressed his consent to it. The question now is: how was this possible? How did Congress, Hindu India, and its principal spokesmen Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel agree to dismember Mother India? Did they abandon their long-cherished golden dream of establishing Ram Rajya in an undivided India?

General Tuker, highlighting the vengeful attitude of the Hindu majority, said—

At last they said, “All right, if the Muslim League wants Pakistan, let them have it. We shall cut away their territory inch by inch, so that it will seem incapable of surviving, and whatever remains will no longer be economically viable.” (Sir Francis Tuker: White Memory Server, London, Cassel, 1950, p. 257; Choudhury Mohammad Ali: The Emergence of Pakistan, p. 123).

The speech Patel delivered in the Indian Constituent Assembly in 1949 confirms the accuracy of Tuker’s foregoing remark. In his speech Patel said, “I agreed to partition as a last resort, when we had lost everything. Mr. Jinnah never wanted a truncated Pakistan. But in the end he had to swallow it.” (Quoted in Kewnl L. Panjabi, The Indemiable Sardar, Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhaban, 1962, p. 124; Choudhury Mohammad Ali—Ibid, p. 123).

Congress’s acceptance of partition was a tactical step. But the objective remained unchanged; to reach that objective, it was necessary—

1. Hindustan, or the Indian Union, had to be recognized as the successor to the British Government in India. Pakistan would be regarded as having broken away with some territories.

2. The areas to be attached to Pakistan would be extremely small and would be confined to East Bengal, West Punjab, Sindh, and Baluchistan. The Frontier Province would remain outside Pakistan. Thus Pakistan would be strategically encircled.

3. Pakistan would be deprived of time, means, resources, military and civilian manpower, and supplies, creating extreme obstacles so that it could not establish itself firmly.

4. Everything necessary would be done to prevent Pakistan from surviving. (Congress leaders were certain that Pakistan would not survive for long. Accordingly, their objective was to try to destroy Pakistan’s economy.)

To achieve these ignoble objectives, Hindu India needed the assistance of the British, who controlled the entire civil administration and army. On the eve of their departure, the entire administration, including Mountbatten and Radcliffe, worked in the interests of Hindu India, as will be mentioned later.

—(Chudhury Mohammad Ali: The Emergence of Pakistan, pp. 123–24).

Chapter Five

The Process of Transfer of Power

The process of transferring power to India was begun. The provincial legislatures of Bengal and Punjab were instructed to meet in two separate sections each: one section consisting of the Muslim-majority districts and the other of the remaining districts. The members of the two sections of each legislature would sit separately, and they would have the right to decide whether or not they wanted the partition of their province. If a simple majority in either section decided in favor of partition, partition would take effect. After the decision on partition, each section of the legislature would decide on behalf of the areas it represented whether to join the existing Constituent Assembly or the new Constituent Assembly. After this decision, the Governor-General would appoint a Boundary Commission to demarcate the boundaries between the two parts of Punjab. This would be done on the basis of identifying contiguous Muslim- and non-Muslim-majority areas. The Commission was also advised to consider other factors. Similar instructions were given to the Bengal Boundary Commission.

The non-European members of the Sindh Legislative Assembly would sit together and decide whether to join the existing Constituent Assembly or the new Assembly. In the North-West Frontier Province, a referendum would be held to determine which Constituent Assembly the voters of that land would join.

Baluchistan would also be given an opportunity to express its opinion on the matter. If the province of Bengal decided in favor of partition, a referendum would be held in Sylhet district of Assam. This would determine whether they wanted Sylhet to remain part of Assam or to join East Bengal. If they wished to join the new province, the Boundary Commission would demarcate the boundary.

If Punjab and Bengal decided in favor of partition, new elections to the Constituent Assembly would be held on the following basis:

Province General seats Muslim Sikh Total

Sylhet District 1 2 0 3

West Bengal 15 4 0 19

East Bengal 12 29 0 41

West Punjab 3 12 2 17

East Punjab 6 4 2 12

Since the British Government wished to transfer power before June 1948, legislation would be passed during the current session of Parliament so that power could be transferred this year to one or two authorities on the basis of Dominion Status.

On 2 June the Viceroy convened a conference of seven leaders. They were Nehru, Patel, Kripalani, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar, and Baldev Singh. The plan was presented to them and approved. When Mountbatten met Gandhi, he tried to persuade him by saying that, in the present circumstances, the plan was the best possible. Although Gandhi had supported the plan before it was sent to Britain, he was now opposing it—only to deceive the world and the League.

On 3 June the plan was made public before the entire world. At a press conference on 4 June, the Viceroy said that at every stage and every moment he had worked hand in hand with the leaders. Therefore, the plan had not caused them either resentment or surprise.

His conscience did not restrain a person of his responsibility from telling such a blatant lie to deceive the world. No one except members of his staff, the plan’s draftsman V. P. Menon, and Nehru had the slightest knowledge of the plan. It had also been kept secret from the League.

In any event, it was announced at that press conference that 15 August 1947 had been fixed as the provisional date for the transfer of power.

The All-India Congress Committee met on 14 June and adopted a resolution accepting the plan. At the same time, regarding the partition of India, it emphatically stated that no human agency could alter the form and shape that geography, mountain ranges, and the sea had given India, nor could it obstruct the determination of its ultimate destiny. The Committee believed that when the present emotions subsided, India’s problems would be considered in their proper perspective and the erroneous doctrine of the two-nation theory would be discredited and abandoned. Abul Kalam Azad said, “I am certain that the partition will be temporary.” The Hindu Mahasabha said that India was one and indivisible, and that no peace would be established until the separated areas were reunited with the Indian Union.

Various Hindu leaders, authors, and newspapers cherished the hope that India would one day again become one and undivided, and expressed that hope before, during, and after partition. On 15 August Gandhi said, “I am certain that a time will come when this partition will be abandoned.” The Congress mouthpiece, The Hindustan Times, expressed the same hope in an editorial. Menon, the author of the partition plan, himself said that the purpose of August 1947 was not to sever the bond that had bound India for more than a century and a half. It was a common belief among Hindus that Pakistan would not survive long and that, under Congress, India would become an undivided India—(Economist, 17 May 1947; Sunday Times, 1 June 1947; Manchester Guardian, 15 Aug. 1947; Round Table, Sept. 1947, p. 370; Guy Wint, The British in Asia, p. 179; I. H. Qureshi, The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 195–96).

These statements and reactions clearly prove that Hindu India could not accept the existence of Pakistan in its heart. Not only that, from 15 August 1947 until the time of writing this—October 1993—Hindu India has been making every effort to swallow the entire territory called Pakistan and establish Ram Rajya in an undivided India. The restoration of India’s pre-1947 geographical condition is now being openly advocated at various seminars and public meetings. For this purpose, economic and cultural aggression from India has been greatly intensified.

Canvassing and Debate over the Governor-Generalship

In this tense situation in India, both Congress and the Viceroy’s House held the view that the Governor-General of the two new Dominions would be the same person, namely Mountbatten.

A few days earlier, Jinnah had said that there should be a Super Governor-General above the Governors-General of the two Dominions. This idea was probably proposed so that the process relating to partition could be completed easily from a neutral standpoint. But Mountbatten opposed it, and Whitehall supported Mountbatten.

When Nehru proposed that Mountbatten become Governor-General of India, Mountbatten told Nehru and Patel that he expected a similar proposal from the Muslim League as well.

Despite many efforts, Mountbatten could not persuade Jinnah.

On 2 July, Jinnah informed him that he had decided to become Pakistan’s Governor-General himself. Even then, Mountbatten did not abandon hope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, through the Nawab of Bhopal. This dealt a tremendous blow to Mountbatten’s self-respect. It is true, however, that if Mountbatten had been made Governor-General of Pakistan, he would have been Pakistan’s Indian Governor-General. Jinnah saved the country from this danger. (I. H. Wureshi: The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 296–300).

Implementation of the 3 June Plan

The Bengal Legislative Assembly met on 20 July, and by a vote of 126–90 decided to join the new Constituent Assembly. Thereafter, the members from the non-Muslim-majority areas, by a vote of 58–21, decided in favor of partition of the province and joining the existing Constituent Assembly. The members from the Muslim-majority areas of East Bengal, by a vote of 106–35, decided against partition of the province and at the same time to join the new Constituent Assembly. Thereafter, the members from the Muslim-majority areas of the province voted 69–27 against partition. On the other hand, the members from the Hindu-majority areas voted 50–22 in favor of partition and joining the Indian Constituent Assembly.

The Sindh Legislative Assembly met on 26 June and, by a vote of 30–20, decided to join the new Constituent Assembly. In Baluchistan, the Shahi Jirga and the official members of the Quetta Municipality met and unanimously decided to join the new Constituent Assembly.

On the other hand, in the referendum held in Sylhet in early July, an overwhelming majority of voters voted in favor of separating from Assam and joining East Bengal.

The condition of the referendum in the North-West Frontier Province was that voters would vote either to join the Indian Constituent Assembly or to join the new Constituent Assembly. Abdul Ghaffar Khan demanded that voters be given the opportunity to vote for an independent Pakhtunistan. Gandhi and Nehru supported Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s demand. The Viceroy rejected the demand, saying that the procedure incorporated in the 3 June Plan could not be changed without the consent of both parties. Jinnah was unwilling to accept this change. Ghaffar Khan instructed his followers to abstain from voting. Even so, 289,244 votes were cast for the new Constituent Assembly and only 2,874 votes for the Indian Constituent Assembly.

Prime Minister Attlee introduced the Indian Independence Bill in the House of Commons on 4 July. It was passed by the House of Commons on 15 July and by the House of Lords on 16 July. The Bill received Royal Assent on 18 July. Thereafter, two separate provisional governments were established for India and Pakistan on 20 July.

As the fruit of seven years of struggle, a new independent and sovereign state called Pakistan was established. The establishment of such a state was the first occurrence of its kind in world history.

Pakistan was indeed established, but when Congress, Hindu India, and the British Government failed in their outright opposition to it, they suddenly agreed, within a very short time, to a truncated Pakistan. The plan for the transfer of power was prepared by a Hindu officer sympathetic to Congress. Jinnah was kept completely in the dark about it. The plan was published only two and a half months before the final transfer of power, so that the Muslim League would have no opportunity to deliberate. It was just like suddenly attacking an enemy camp while it was asleep. The Boundary Commission further reduced truncated Pakistan. Many Muslim-majority areas that rightfully belonged to Pakistan were forcibly incorporated into India. Moreover, after partition, Pakistan was completely deprived of the state assets rightfully due to it. Perhaps this was the financial penalty for the crime of demanding Pakistan. All this was done through a conspiracy of Congress and the British so that Pakistan could not survive even for a while.

The fundamental reason for the demand for Pakistan was that if power in India were transferred to the Hindu majority, not only would the lives, property, honor, and dignity of Muslims be endangered, but their very national identity would be eradicated. The two and a half years of Congress rule in the Hindu-majority provinces before 1940 are its glaring proof.

But even after the partition of India, the slaughter of Muslims in India did not stop. Crossing rivers of blood, hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women, and children crossed the border and took refuge in Pakistan.

A senior official of the Government of Pakistan, Mr. Altaf Gauhar, said—

I reached Karachi before the massacres began in Delhi. …The number of oppressed refugees arriving after crossing the border continued to increase, and the spine-chilling stories of widespread massacres compelled everyone to engage more fully in national service. (An article published in a special issue of a Pakistani daily newspaper.)

Altaf Gauhar has indicated that massacres took place in Delhi itself, the capital of India. Mr. Gandhi undertook a fast in an effort to stop the horrific massacres in various parts of Delhi. But in the end he could not stop them even by giving his life.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad said:

Gandhiji began stating the conditions for ending his fast. They were:

1. Attacks on Muslims by Hindus and Sikhs must cease immediately. They must be assured that they would be able to live together like brothers.

2. Every effort must be made by Hindus and Sikhs to assure Muslims that not a single Muslim would leave India because of a lack of security for life and property.

3. The attacks on Muslims on moving trains must stop, and the Hindus and Sikhs carrying out these attacks must be restrained immediately.

4. The Muslims who lived around the shrines of Nizamuddin Auliya, Khwaja Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki, and Nasiruddin Chiragh Dehlavi, and who had left their settlements, must be brought back and rehabilitated in their neighborhoods.

5. The shrine of Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki has been damaged. The Government can of course repair these things. But the Hindus and Sikhs themselves must do this as an act of atonement.

6. Most important of all, a change of heart is necessary. Its importance is greater than fulfilling the conditions. The Hindu and Sikh leaders must give this assurance so that there will be no further need for obstinacy on this account. Then Gandhiji said, “Let this be my final fast.” (Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, p. 238).

Maulana Azad said:

After partition, the situation reached a climax. A section of Hindus, under the leadership of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, began openly saying that Gandhiji was helping Muslims against Hindus. Pamphlets were also distributed on the matter. One pamphlet stated that if Gandhiji did not change his policy, steps would be taken to assassinate him. (Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, pp. 240–241).

At last Gandhi had to give his life on 30 January 1948. Maulana Azad says: I went to Birla House again and was surprised to find the gate closed. I saw thousands of people gathered there. I understood what had happened. I got out of the car and walked to the door of his room. I found the room’s door also closed from inside. Someone saw me through a glass window and took me inside. Someone said in a tearful voice, “Gandhiji has been shot.” I saw him lying on the floor. His face was pale, his eyes closed, and his two grandsons were holding his feet and weeping. I heard, as if in a dream, “Gandhiji is dead.” (Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, pp. 141–42).

Several decades have passed since the partition of India. During this period, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed in independent India, and many of their mosques and religious sites have been destroyed. No one was seen fasting in protest against this. Yet anyone who dared to do so would have met Gandhi’s fate. In independent India, speaking in support of Muslims is considered a grave crime. In the massacres, hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women, and children were killed; their shops and homes were burned, and their wealth was looted. But the Government neither takes nor is able to take measures to find and punish the killers. After the destruction of the historic Babri Mosque, far from punishing the criminals, the Government of India has had to remain hostage to them. It was precisely because they understood with certainty that these things would happen that Muslims had to demand a separate and independent homeland. In reality, the extreme anti-Muslim hostility of the Hindu people and their leaders gave birth to Pakistan.

Chapter Sixteen

Conclusion

In the concluding part of this history, it has also been necessary to write a brief history of the Pakistan Movement, because the Muslims of Bengal were intimately connected with this movement. Moreover, the distinction of presenting the historic Lahore Resolution, or Pakistan Resolution, was bestowed upon Maulvi Abul Kasem Fazlul Huq (Sher-e-Bangla), the illustrious Muslim-minded son of undivided Bengal and Prime Minister of Bengal. Although Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah led the Pakistan Movement, the contribution of the Muslims of Bengal to this movement was the greatest.

The announcement of the Partition of Bengal on 20 July 1905 and its implementation from 16 October aroused intense anger among the Hindu community of Bengal and the whole of India, and a vigorous movement to annul the Partition of Bengal began. This movement created a wave of new consciousness among the Muslims and awakened in them the inspiration of a distinct Muslim national identity. As a result, the Muslim League, the only political organization of the Muslims of the subcontinent, was born in Dhaka in 1906. On 1 October of that year, a delegation of thirty-six Muslims led by Aga Khan met the Viceroy at Simla and demanded the introduction of separate electorates for Muslims on the ground that they constituted a distinct nation; the demand was accepted. The Morley–Minto Reforms enacted in 1909 recognized separate electorates. Thus, it became a constitutional document.

After the Partition, some circles raised the question of whether only temporary emotion had been active behind the demand for Pakistan, or whether its causes were solely political and economic. Or did the Muslims demand Pakistan as a reaction to the hostile conduct of the Congress?

Not one of these was the fundamental cause of the Pakistan Movement. Emotion certainly existed. It is this emotion that inspires people to give their lives in order to reach their goal. But this emotion was neither temporary nor meaningless. Mere emotion cannot bring about such a great historical revolution. Gandhi, many Hindu leaders, and newspapers commented that when this temporary emotion of the Muslims subsided, they would once again become part of undivided India. Yet after more than four decades, when the emotion of the Muslims who desired Pakistan had not diminished even slightly, it became clear that their emotion was not a temporary matter. A noble purpose lay behind the creation of this emotion.

In his speech at the Muslim League session held in March 1940, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah stated unambiguously the great purpose for which the demand for and movement toward Pakistan had been undertaken:

It is extremely dofficult why our Hidnu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in stricy sence of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders. It is a dreame that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and will lead India to destruction, If we fail to revise our nations in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two dofferent religious philosophies, social customs and Iiterature. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations. Which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is puite clear that Hindus and Musslamans derive their aspirations from diffirent and they have different espisodes. Very often the hero of one in a foe of the other and like wise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a singh atate, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of any fabric that may be built up for the government of such a state –(Ideological Foundations of Pakistan by Dr. Waheed Qurashy,pp.96-97).

In his speech, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah brought out precisely this truth: that Hindus and Muslims are two separate and distinct nations in many respects, and that it is impossible and impractical to bind them together and form a single state. India was divided on the basis of this Two-Nation Theory.

But is the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two entirely separate and opposing national entities a new discovery by Jinnah or the Muslims? The correct answer to this question will determine whether Pakistan was demanded under the influence of emotion and excitement, or for political and economic reasons.

The Islamic Way of Life

To obtain the correct answer to the foregoing question, it is necessary to acquire knowledge about the Islamic way of life. The correct concept of Islam presented by Allah Almighty and His prophets and messengers is that Islam, unlike other religions, is not merely a collection of certain rituals and ceremonies. Islam is a complete code of life established on the basis of the revealed scripture of Allah, the Holy Qur’an, and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

In terms of the concept of religion currently prevalent in the world, Islam is much more than a religion. It is not merely the name of a relationship between the Creator and humanity. Islam’s religious concept is extremely comprehensive. Beginning with iman and aqidah, it establishes complete control over worship and every aspect and sphere of life. Islam has its own civilization and culture, history and heritage, and its own moral, political, and economic systems. It has a legal system, judicial system, family and educational systems, as well as its own policies of war and peace and its own foreign affairs system. Just as there is an inseparable relationship among the roots, branches, leaves, foliage, flowers, and fruits of a tree, so too these systems are inseparably and intimately interconnected.

In reality, Islam is a complete code of life for humanity to live a successful life in this world. Islam teaches the way to live a successful life in both worlds, this world and the Hereafter. For this reason, Islam’s religious concept is entirely different from the concepts of other religions.

According to Islam’s historical concept, this true din (Islam) was first revealed by Allah Almighty to Adam (peace be upon him). Adam (peace be upon him) was the first human being. From him, the human race began to spread throughout the world. From that time onward, this true din—Islam—has prevailed in the world. After him, in every age, prophets and messengers came among different peoples in different lands and continued to present the call to the true din. Finally, Islam reached perfection through the Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace be upon him).

The Concept of Nationality in Islam

Those who accept this din and system wholeheartedly are called believers, while those who reject it are called unbelievers. Believers and unbelievers can never become one. When Allah Almighty sent the first human being and first prophet, Adam (peace be upon him), down to the world, He gave the following command:

“I said, ‘Go down from here, all of you. Then, when guidance concerning the way of life comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance will have no cause for fear or grief. But those who refuse to accept it and reject My words and commands and prohibitions will surely be the inhabitants of Hell; they will remain there forever’ (Surah al-Baqarah: 38–39).

It is clear from the foregoing verse of the Holy Qur’an that divine guidance has divided humanity into two groups or two nations—one believers and the other unbelievers. This division was made on the very first day of human life in the world. Every prophet preserved this division in his age. The Prophet Shu’ayb (peace be upon him) explained these two groups as two separate millahs or nations. For example: ‘Their chiefs and leaders, who were proud of their superiority, said to him, “O Shu’ayb! We will drive you and those who believe with you out of this town, or else you must return to our millah.” Shu’ayb replied, “Are we to be forced back to it, even if we are unwilling?”

We would surely be fabricating a lie against God if we returned to your millah after Allah had delivered us from it.

—(Surah al-A’raf: 89–90)

This verse also makes it clear that even in the time of the Prophet Shu’ayb (peace be upon him), the millah of the Muslims was separate and the millah of the unbelievers was separate. This division and this terminology also exist among the Ummah of Muhammad and continue to be used to this day.

The concept of nationality in Islam is universal. A person from any country or nation enters the din of Islam after reciting the Kalimah Shahadah and becomes an equal participant in Islamic nationality. In Islam, acknowledgment of iman and aqidah is sufficient to acquire nationality. Islam’s method of acquiring nationality differs from the methods of the other nations of the world. To acquire Jewish nationality, it is necessary to be of Jewish descent in addition to holding Jewish beliefs. To acquire Hindu nationality, participation in Hindu worship, rituals, and religious ceremonies is sufficient.

An Independent Social System

The logical demand of Islam’s all-encompassing code of life and distinct nationality is that an independent social system must be established for it. There must be an independent state where Islam’s commands and prohibitions can be observed. But under a life of subjugation, most of its injunctions cannot be followed.

After living for thirteen years in a society controlled by the polytheists in Mecca, when the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) reached the favorable environment of Medina, he established an Islamic social system and state there. He was the administrator of this state. There he fully implemented Islamic law. Then Allah Almighty revealed the following verse:

‘I have perfected the din for you.’

The din attained perfection when, for its perfection, implementation, propagation, and dissemination, a separate homeland was found and an independent social system was established.

The word ‘Pakistan’ was not used in the sense of a geographical region; it was used in the sense of a distinct and independent Islamic state. In this sense, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani called the Islamic state of Medina ‘the First Pakistan.’ He said:

Through the historic Hijrah of the Beloved Messenger (peace be upon him), Allah Almighty’s hand of power ultimately established a kind of ‘Pakistan’ in Medina.

(Khutbat-e Usmani, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, p. 140; Tarikh-e Nazariyya-e Pakistan, Professor Muhammad Salim, p. 31).

The independent homeland demanded in the Lahore Resolution was not called Pakistan. Chaudhry Rahmat Ali preferred this name. For the first time, while delivering a speech at the ‘Bazm-e Shibiri’ gathering in 1915, he said: ‘Northern India is Muslim, and we shall keep it Muslim. Not only that—we shall make it a Muslim state. We can do this only when we and this northern region of ours cease to be Indian. This is its precondition. The sooner we abandon Indianism, the better it will be for us and for Islam’ (Chudhury Rahmat Ali: p. 172; I.H. Qureshi: The Struggle for Pakistan, pp. 115–116).

Chaudhry Rahmat Ali did not initially use the name Pakistan either. He spoke of a Muslim or Islamic state.

A discussion of history proves beyond doubt that the Pakistan Movement began in Rajab 93 AH (712 CE), when Imaduddin Muhammad bin Qasim, a seventeen-year-old commander, landed at the port of Debal (present-day Karachi), liberated the oppressed Muslim women and children from Raja Dahir’s prison, and built the first mosque there. Quaid-e-Azam said that the Pakistan Movement began when the first Muslim set foot on the soil of Sindh, which was the gateway of Islam into India.

After Debal, Nirun (present-day Hyderabad), and then Sehwan bowed before the Islamic flag. On 10 Ramadan, the fort of Rawar was captured, and Raja Dahir was defeated and killed in battle. Brahmanabad (present-day Sanghar) and Alor were conquered afterward. In 96 AH, Multan surrendered, and northern India was preparing to voluntarily acknowledge the authority of Muhammad bin Qasim. Unfortunately, Muhammad bin Qasim was summoned to Damascus. He established genuine Islamic governance in the regions under his control. This system so impressed the Hindus and Buddhists that a great number of them sought refuge in the cool shade of Islam (Justice Syed Shameem Husain Kadri: Creation of Pakistan, pp. 1–2).

The Inherent Characteristics of Islam

The inherent characteristic of Islam is that a Muslim cannot submit to, acknowledge the authority of, or accept the laws and rule of anyone except Allah, the One and Un شریک. Islam is a complete code of life, and its principles encompass the spiritual and worldly aspects of human life. The state and religion cannot be separated from one another. Through the Kalimah Tayyibah, Allah’s sovereignty and the leadership of the Messenger (peace be upon him) are acknowledged.

Establishment of Islamic Law and Governance in the Subcontinent

Muhammad bin Qasim was not merely the founder of an Islamic state in this subcontinent. Rather, he was a pioneer of Islamic civilization and culture. The tree of civilization and culture that he planted continued to grow and flourish with time, and the Islamic flag came to fly throughout the Indian subcontinent. Muslims continued to arrive in India as conquerors. With them came soldiers, poets, writers, spiritual leaders, intellectuals, and artists. Many of these rulers were not good Muslims in their personal lives, and many were also ascetic types. Nevertheless, Islamic law prevailed throughout the country during the period of Muslim rule.

But after the end of Muslim rule, Western man-made laws were introduced in place of Islamic law: the Indian Civil and Criminal Codes of Procedure and the Indian Penal Code were introduced. Thus, the Muslims not only lost the state; in place of Islamic, or Allah’s, law, infidel laws were imposed upon them. How all avenues of their livelihood were closed, how their many lakhs of revenue-free landholdings were confiscated, and how they were reduced to beggars on the street—these matters have been discussed in detail in this book.

In an interview with Radio Pakistan, Maulana Maududi, while describing the ideological background of Pakistan, said:

If we limit our discussion to the words and terminology ‘Pakistan Movement,’ we will do grave injustice to the subject. For one thing is the word and terminology Pakistan, and another is the purpose that had long stood before the Muslims of this subcontinent, and which the Muslims ultimately brought to such a stage that they could struggle to obtain a country along with this terminology. This objective became clear to the Indian Muslims when Muslim rule in this subcontinent fell. They then realized that, since they held a particular view of the world and life and followed a distinctive civilization, they could preserve their national identity only when political power remained in their hands. If political power passed into the hands of non-Muslims, they could not live as Muslims in this country, and they would have no life as Muslims at all. This feeling began to arise among them immediately after the fall of Muslim rule in India. This feeling assumed different forms at different times.

At times this feeling expressed itself in the emergence of Hazrat Syed Ahmad Shaheed Barelvi and Hazrat Shah Ismail Shaheed with a jihad movement. They gave their lives freely for the establishment of an Islamic state. At other times, this feeling took the form of establishing religious madrasas in various places, so that the Muslims would not forget their din and be swept away by the powerful flood of the godless civilization and irreligious thoughts and doctrines imported from Europe.

Then the second phase began: British rule became firmly established here, and gradually they began introducing a democratic process of the kind through which their own country was governed. Their concept of nationality and democracy was that all the inhabitants of England constituted one nation and that the rights of the majority party were recognized. The British wanted to introduce this democratic principle in India as well. In their view, all the inhabitants of India likewise constituted one nation, and majority rule could operate among them. This gave rise among the Muslims to the feeling that if a government of the majority party were established here, the Muslims would have to remain a minority forever, and their civilization, culture, and national identity would disappear. Under such a government, Muslims would be unable to enact laws from their own perspective. They would have no right to participate in the administration of the government or in determining other policies. In other words, Muslims would be unable to implement their civilization, culture, and philosophy of life. Rather, a non-Islamic civilization and philosophy of life would be forcibly imposed upon them.

Maulana says that this was the situation which, after British rule was established, appeared before the Muslims in the form of a question or challenge. It took the Muslims a long time to find an answer. For a prolonged period they tried to solve the difficult question of what form political, cultural, and social security could take for Muslims as a minority under a system of government in which the inhabitants of India would be regarded as one nation and majority government would be established. Various matters were evaluated to determine how such security could be obtained. At one stage, separate electorates were demanded for this purpose (the Simla Deputation, 1906). On that basis, an agreement was then reached between the League and the Congress (the Lucknow Pact, 1916). Various proposals continued to be considered afterward. Gradually, the Muslims realized that no legal safeguards under such a democratic system would be of any use to them. They felt this clearly when Congress governments were established in the Hindu-majority provinces in 1937. At that time, the Muslims directly experienced that majority-party government in the subcontinent, with Muslims living as a minority under it, meant that their national existence would gradually be erased. After gaining this experience, the Muslims began to think that the approach by which they had so far tried to solve this problem was meaningless and impractical.

Maulana says that at that time the Muslims were repeatedly assured that the Muslims and non-Muslims of India constituted one nation. But the actual fact is that they had never been one nation and could never become one. From the time the Muslims came to settle in this country, they never lived with the non-Muslims as one nation. … If they were one nation, where did this disease of Hindu-Muslim untouchability come from? Why are their national heroes separate? Why are the sources of their inspiration, emotion, and feeling different? If they were one nation, how could they live as a nation separate from the Hindus? Therefore, it is an absolute truth that they were never one nation and could never be one for any period. An unrealistic hypothesis is now being forcibly imposed upon the Muslims. That it could not be effective or fruitful became as clear as daylight after Congress governments were established in several provinces (1937–39). Those who proclaimed that Hindus and Muslims were one nation themselves proved through their actions that Hindus and Muslims are not one nation. Rather, this was a great political fraud by which they sought to keep the Muslims reduced to a slave nation.

Maulana says:

It was at such a time that, in 1937, I began writing those articles through which I instilled in the Muslims the awareness that, under an infidel-majority party, you cannot preserve your national existence. ……Then I deeply realized that no kind of legal guarantee could save the Muslims. Therefore, there was no alternative but to consider another means of ensuring the security of the Muslims in this subcontinent. The alternative I had in mind, and which I presented clearly, was that, first of all, a sense of national distinction should be fully awakened among the Muslims, enabling them to know their own identity. They would learn what the principles of their life were, how they were a separate and distinct nation from other nations—indeed, a millah—and how to keep this sense of national distinction alive. At that time the Pakistan Movement had not yet begun. The first task then was, as I have said, to determine how the Muslims could be saved from the trap of one nationality that was being spread around them. —[As a result of the book Maulana composed to establish the distinct nationality of the Muslims, entitled Mas’ala-ye Qawmiyyat, the concept of separate nationality became firmly rooted among the Muslims.]

Maulana further said: As the idea of a separate nationality became firmly rooted among Muslims, their awareness of the need to establish a separate state also grew. Thus, the Pakistan Movement assumed a definite and coherent form. In this situation, two important questions arose. First, the regions in which Muslims were in the majority were situated far from one another. What else could unite them, and what else could it be, except Islam? The second question was that Muslims were a minority in a large part of India. If a democratic government were established, they would inevitably have to submit to the slavery of the majority there. What means of security would they have in such circumstances? There was no clear answer to this question. But this made one truth clear: the idea that ultimately inspired Indian Muslims to struggle for the establishment of Pakistan and united them was not any political or economic emotion. Rather, it was a pure religious devotion. Otherwise, the Muslims of regions such as Madras, Bombay, C.P. and U.P. could have had no reason whatsoever to struggle to attain Pakistan. They could never have hoped that their areas would be included in Pakistan. The actual fact is that, in the regions that later became Pakistan, the Pakistan Movement was not as strong as it was in the Muslim-minority regions. What other reason could there be except that Islamic sentiment alone was the motivating force behind this movement? Muslims had a complete conviction that, whatever their fate might be, their sacrifice would at least bring into existence, in the name of Islam, a state where the message of Islam would be upheld and the Islamic social order would be established in practice. This was the emotion and devotion expressed in the slogan: “What is the source of Pakistan?—La ilaha illallah.” It was such a slogan that, hearing it, Muslims threw themselves into the fire of the Pakistan Movement like moths. Thereafter, so vast a number of people supported the Pakistan Movement that at most only one or two percent of Muslims dissented. In my view, the Pakistan Movement had only two foundations. One was that we are not part of any other nation in the world; rather, we are a separate nation. Nor can we, by joining with any other nation, create a composite nationality. Secondly, the basis of our nationality is our faith. Apart from this, our nationality has no other basis. To me, this is the sole meaning of the Pakistan ideal.

—(A historic interview. Radio Pakistan recorded the interview, and four years later, in 1980, it was transcribed and published.)

It is now as clear as daylight that the Pakistan Movement was not undertaken merely for political or economic reasons, or under the influence of a temporary emotion. The movement certainly had an emotional force. But the source of that emotion was the Muslims’ iman and aqidah—their faith and conviction—which began with the creation of humankind itself.

Nearly half a century after the establishment of Pakistan, it is being loudly proclaimed that the Two-Nation Theory has been proved erroneous. Its propagators are so fanciful that, assuming the Two-Nation Theory to have been disproved, they are campaigning to restore the subcontinent to its pre-1947 geographical condition.

On the one hand, the slaughter of Muslims is proceeding at full scale in India and Kashmir, mosques are being demolished and temples built in their place; on the other hand, false and deceptive propaganda for one nation is being conducted. Yet just as such propaganda achieved nothing in the past, it will achieve nothing in the future either.

The history of the Muslims of Bengal has established that the Hindus sought to avenge the Muslims’ several-hundred-year rule in the subcontinent by keeping them as their slaves or by exterminating them. To that end, history was distorted by claiming that Hindus had been persecuted under Muslim rule, forcibly converted to Islam, and that their women had been freely abused, and so on. Hindu writers, through their literature, spread hatred of Muslims and incited Hindus against them. In this matter, the Hindu community and the British government gave each other complete help and cooperation. Just as the English could not have secured their throne in this country without the active help and cooperation of the Hindus, so the Hindus could not have treated Muslims in an inhuman and devilish manner without the blessing of the English. Finally, the process of transferring power in India was hastily devised while keeping the Muslims in the dark; Punjab and Bengal were partitioned, Pakistan was made smaller and more constricted, and extreme injustice was done to Muslims in the demarcation of the borders. By pleasing the Hindus in this way, the British government took revenge on the Muslims for its long-accumulated hostility toward them. Moreover, by suddenly incorporating the Gurdaspur District, Pakistan’s rightful due, into India two days later, the seeds of an everlasting conflict between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir question were sown. Similar injustice was also done in determining the borders of divided Bengal.

This history ends here. We believe that society is not lacking in people capable of writing it more beautifully within the context and from the perspective in which it has been written. With the hope that thoughtful people will come forward to impart correct knowledge of their past history to the new generation and thereby infuse new vitality into the Muslim national identity, I bring my writing to an end.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

References

1. Social History of Muslim Bengal, Maulana Akram Khan.

2. Tohfat-ul-Mujahideen, Sheikh Zaynuddin.

3. Eastern Bengal District Gazetteer, Chittagong. Indigo Commission Report—1861.

4. Riyaz-us-Salatin, Ghulam Husain Salimi. Tabaqat-i-Nasiri.

5. History of Bengal, Sir Jadunath Sarkar.

6. History of Bengal, Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay.

7. Bengali Language and Literature, Dinesh Chandra Sen.

8. The Story of Bengali Literature, Maulana Akram Khan.

9. Hussain Shahi Bengal, M.R. Tarafdar.

10. British Policy and the Muslims in Bengal, A.R. Mallick.

11. Mahanirvanatantra, Revelations 4 and 5.

12. The Fall of Siraj-ud-Daulah, Dr. M. A. Rahim.

13. Census of India Report, 1911 A.D. Hill’s History, Volumes 1 and 2.

14. The Development of Middle-Class Society: The Transformation of Culture, Abdul Mawdud.

15. Muslim Struggle for Freedom in India, Muinuddin Ahmad Khan.

16. Calcutta Review, 1850, 1913, and various issues.

17. The Indian Mussalmans, W.W. Hunter, Bangladesh Edition 1975.

18. The History, Antiquities, Topography & Statistics of Eastern India, M. Martin, London—1938, Vol. 2.

19. Calcutta Christian Observer, July 1832, November 1855.

20. The Discovery of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

21. Oxford History of India.

22. The Life of Charles Lord Metcalfe.

23. History of Bangladesh: The Medieval Period, Ramesh Chandra Majumdar.

24. The Complete Works of Rabindranath, Centenary Edition.

25. The Great Divide, H.V. Hodson.

26. Survey of Indian History, K.M. Panikkar.

27. Barobabu, Syed Mujtaba Ali.

28. The Passage of the Centuries, edited by Dr. Hasan Zaman.

29. Bengali Muslim Public Opinion as Reflected in the Bengali Press—1901–1930, Mustafa Nurul Islam.

30. Rajsingha; Kapalkundala; Anandamath—Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay.

31. The Complete Works of Bankim, sixth edition, 1382. Bengal of the New Age, Bipin Chandra Pal.

32. Monthly Islam Pracharak, Jyaishtha issue, 1314.

33. Times of India, July 1925, July and December 1918.

34. Weekly Sultan, Riazuddin Ahmad and Maulana Maniruzzaman Islamabadi, Jyaishtha issue (1923).

35. Indian Sedition Committee Report 1918.

36. The Indian Middle Class: Their Growth, B.B. Misra.

37. Jinnah and Gandhi, S.K. Majumdar.

38. Muslim Separatism in India, A. Hamid.

39. Dastan-e-Zulm, published by the Secretary of the Malabar Hindu Aid Society, Amritshahar, 1922; the booklet Malabar Ki Khooni Dastan.

40. Political India, Cumming.

41. Siyasat-e-Millia, Muhammad Amin Zuberi.

42. The Bengali Muslims & English Education, M. Fazlur Rahman.

43. Appendix to Chahar Darvesh, I.F. Smith.

44. Education in Muslim India, S.M. Jaffar, 1935.

45. Promotion in Muslim India During Muhammadan Rule, N.N. Law.

46. Economic History of India, R.C. Dutt.

47. On the Education of the People of India, C.E. Trevelyan.

48. Review of Buchanan’s Treaties, Sharp.

49. Report of Bengal Provincial Committee, Education Commission.

50. Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, Trevelyan, Vol. 1.

51. Vernacular Education in Bengal, H.A. Stark.

52. Macaulay’s Minutes in Education in India, Woodrow, 1862.

53. Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, Trevelyan, Vol. 1.

54. Select Committee Report, House of Commons, 1831–32.

55. An Advanced History of India, John Marshall.

56. Board’s Collection 909, and various issues.

57. History of Bengali Prose Literature, Sajanikanta Das.

58. The Course of the Novel in Bengali Literature, Sri Sri Kumar Bandyopadhyay.

59. History of the Struggle for Independence, Abu Jafar.

60. Journal of Asiatic Society of Bengal, Dr. James Wise, Vol. LXIII, 1894.

61. The Story of Those Days in the Newspapers, Brajendranath Bandyopadhyay.

62. Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 2.

63. Shahid Titumir, Abdul Gafur Siddiqui.

64. Bengal Criminal Judicial Consultations, 1832.

65. Colvin’s Report, J.R. Colvin.

66. The Wahhabi Movement, Abdul Mawdud.

67. Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed, Ghulam Rasul Mehr.

68. Tawarikh-i-Ajeeb (The Autobiography of an Andaman Prisoner), Maulana Jafar Thaneshwari.

69. Background to the Sepoy Rebellion, Abdul Mawdud.

70. Modern Religious Movement in India, Faepuhar.

71. Our Struggle for Liberation, Mohammad Waliullah.

72. Some Personal Experience, Sir Fuller Bampfylde.

73. Indian Politics Since the Mutiny, C.Y. Chintamoni.

74. History of the Indian Mutiny, Col. J.B. Malleson.

75. Partition of Bengal, A.R. Mallik.

76. History of the Muslims of Bengal, Dr. M.A. Rahim.

77. India of Today, Sardar Ali Khan, Bombay, 1908.

78. Iqbal: Selected Writings and Speeches.

79. History of the Partition of Bengal, Ibn Raihan.

80. Nations in Making, Surendranath Banerjea.

81. The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, N.C. Chudhury.

82. Indian Problems, S.M. Mitra.

83. The Times, Weekly Edition, London, various issues.

84. Sangbad Bhaskar, Calcutta, June 1857.

85. Glimpses of Old Dhaka.

86. The India We Served, Sir Walter Lawrence, London, 1928.

87. History of the Freedom Movement, Dr. Moyenal Huq.

88. One Life, One Ideology, One Movement (Urdu), Abul Afaq.

89. The Struggle for Pakistan, Istiap Husain Qureshi.

90. Some Recent Speeches & Writings of Mr. Jinnah, Lahore, 1952.

91. The British Achievement in India: A Survey, Rawlinson.

92. Muslim Political Thought through the Ages 1562–1947, G. Allama Mopbul Academy, Lahore.

93. Creation of Pakistan, Justice Syed Shameem Hussain Kadir.

94. Full Text of Jinnah-Gandhi Letters, Durlab Singh.

95. History of Bengal, Benoy Ghosh.

96. Armaghan-e-Hijaz, Allama Iqbal.

97. Evolution of Pakistan, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Lahore, 1963.

98. Hindu-Muslim Ittehad par Khulakhat Mahatma Gandhi Ke Nam, Muhammad Abdul Qadir Bilgrami, Aligarh, 192.

99. The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-continent, I.H. Qureshi.

100. The Making of Pakistan, Richard Symonds.

101. India Wins Freedom, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

102. The Emergence of Pakistan, Choudhury Muhammad Ali.

103. Cabinet Mission and After, Muhammad Ashraf.

104. Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase, Pyarelal, Vol. 1.

105. Pakistan, Ian Stephens, editor of the Statesman.

106. Leonard Moseley.

107. The Transfer of Power in India, E.W.R. Lumby.

108. While Memory Serves, Sir Francis Tuker.

109. The Memories of General the Lord Ismay.

110. The Indian Annual Register 1947, and various issues.

111. Mission with Mountbatten, Campbell-Johnson, Allan.

112. Economist, May 1947; Sunday Times, June 1947; Manchester Guardian, August 1947; Round Table, September 1947.

113. The British in Asia, Guy Wint.

114. Ideological Foundations of Pakistan, Dr. Waheed Qureshi.

115. Khutbat-i-Usmani, Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani.

116. Tarikh-e-Nazriya-e-Pakistan, Professor Muhammad Salim.

117. Maulana Maududi’s radio interview, later published in booklet form.

— The End —