The Muslims of India: A Documentary Record 0195670566, 9780195670561

Citation preview

THE MUSLIMS OF INDI1\

THE ~LIMS OF INDIA A Documentary Record

Edited by A.G. Noorani

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

I>5 '

t/3~ M~lf

IJ2

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship. and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in India By Oxford University Press, New Delhi © Oxford University Press, 2003 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2003 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced. stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means. without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press. or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department. Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

ISBN O 19 566158 3

Typeset by R.K. Computer Services, Delhi 110 051 Printed at Pauls Press, Delhi-110 020 Published by Manzar Khan, Oxford University Press YMCA Library Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110 001

To The memory of my parents Adbul Majeed and Havabai Noorani

Gf{d · ~'a(( 7e>O~

~{).~~5 ~-1i, 03

Contents Preface Introduction

IX

1

1.

Adjustment to the New Order

2.

Mobilization for Redress of Grieva11ces

112

3.

Political Strategy for Grievance Redressal

174

4.

Hindu Revivalism and Muslim Reaction

186

5.

The Shah Bano Case

216

6.

The Babari Masjid Question

240

7.

New Trends in Muslim Politics

276

8.

Urdu

288

9.

Aligarh Muslim University

345

34

Preface 'T1his is a selection of source material recording how the Muslims 1 of India responded to the situation in which they found themselves after the partition of India, on the attainment of independence on 15 August 1947. The documents selected illustrate the major landmarks, one hopes, as best as a single, compact volume covering half a century can. A definitive record will run into several volumes. The emphasis is largely on the Muslims' responses to the problems they face, and on the debates that ensued in the light of the advice which the community received, immediately on partition and thereafter, from India's leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Azad, and Patel. The Introduction knits the documents together, drawing attention to the major themes. It is not a definitive essay on the subject of the volume. Variant spellings of names, places, or words have been retained as that in the originals. Every attempt has been made to keep strictly to the original documents. I am solely responsible for any shortcomings or blemishes, whether in comments in the Introduction or in the selection of the documents.

A.G. Noorani Mumbai February 2003

Introduction l AThen India was partitioned into two states, India and Pakistan, V V on the attainment of independence from British rule, on 15 August 1947, the Muslims of India found themselves facing the same traumatic change which confronted their forbears ninety years ago at the time of the Mutiny in 1857. Radical change in the political order, amidst bloodshed and carnage, was accompanied with threat to old ways of living. Its dimensions they could only dimly perceive, its reality shook them. They feared the worst. As in 1857, their loyalty to the new state was suspect. They felt helpless and forlorn as they experienced distrust and hostile discrimination in their daily

lives. But there was a big difference between the two situations. The late nineteenth century threw up leaders of high stature-men of remarkable intellectual equipment, cultural attainment, strength of character, and commitment. They had capacity for leadership and were ready to plunge themselves in politics and provide the leadership which the community sorely needed. In 1947, the Muslims ·o f India found themselves leaderless. Those in whom they had, till the day before, reposed confidence, went to Pakistan. The ones who remained had none of the qualities of Syed Ahmed Khan, Ameer Ali, or Badruddin Tyabji. Maulana Abul Kalam Aud, their peer in most respects, demonstrated within months after the partition that his were the gifts of scholarship, even political wisdom and insight, but not of political leadership, still less of organization. Far smaller men came to the fore to grab the mantle of leadership and left imprints which the community has not been able to erase completely. Bereft of determined and wise leadership, the Muslims of India took a wrong turn in 1948-49 and found themselves confused. Some treaded along the cul-de-sac of political mobi1iz.ation for redress of grievances which shows no signs of lessening. The mobilization had been mostly on a commercial basis. Others found themselves largely ineffective in secular parties; not least because of their own inadequacies. On their part, the political parties reckoned that too

2 The

Muslims of India

strident an espousal of the Muslims' cause might cost them support from the majority community and doom them to marginaHzation, if not extinction. The dilemma could be resolved only by a concerted effort by both sides; the Muslims should participate activeJy in all fields of national endeavour, striving to put to rest memories of an unhappy past, while the secular parties should assist them in this effort and make redressal of Muslims' grievances part of a wider campaign for eradication of social wrong and economic deprivation. Things went wrong soon after the partition. Experience even during the British rule amply demonstrated that by themselves constitutional safeguards are hopelessly inadequate. They need political underpinning. If protection was no help, partition was no solution to the problem, rather it aggravated it. Participation in public life alone, in its entire range of activities, provides hope. The deepening divide between Hindus and Muslims was attributed to separate electorates which the Lucknow Pact between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League endorsed in 1916. It held sway till the partition of India in 1947. But a vital aspect of the pact was neglected. It secured the Muslim League' s acceptance of a whole set of proposals for substantial advance in responsible government. Protection of minorities was linked to their participation in the country's march towards freedom. Years later, two socialist leaders, Asoka Mehta and Achyut Patwardhan, made an important point: 'While the Muslims gained substantial weightage, they gave up their right to vote in the General·Constituencies that they had enjoyed so long. In dropping it, they lost an important leverage and began to isolate themselves from the rest of India' .1 The Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms (1918), jointly authored by the Secretary of State for India, Edwin S. Montague, and Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, criticized the Lucknow Pact but acquiesced in it, because it represented an inter-communal accord.2 The Report, nonethel~, pronounced itself unequivocally against separate electorates: A minority which is given special representation owing to its weak and backward sblte is positively encouraged to settle down into a feeling of satisfied security; it is under no inducement to educate and qualify itseU to make good the ground which it has lost compared with the stronger 1Asoka Mehta and Achyut Patwardhan, Tire Communal Tria:zgle in India,

Allahabad: Kitabistan, 1942, p. 107. 2Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1918, para 163, p. 105.

Introduction

3

majority. On the other hand, the latter will be tempted to feel that they have done all they need to do for their weaker fellow-