ويب سائيٹ کو اپنی فيس بک پر شئر کريں اور کمنٹ ميں اپنا کوڈ لکھ ديں آپکو اسئينمنٹ مِل جاۓ گی۔ شکريہ

Home / Education Tutors / AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018
ويب سائيٹ کو اپنی فيس بک پر شئر کريں اور کمنٹ ميں اپنا کوڈ لکھ ديں آپکو اسئينمنٹ مِل جاۓ گی۔ شکريہ

AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

AIOU Solved Assignments 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018. Solved Assignments code 538 Genesis of Pakistan Movement 2019. Allama iqbal open university old papers.

AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

Course: Genesis of Pakistan Movement (538) Semester: Autumn, 2018 Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies) ASSIGNMENT No. 1

Q.1 Write an essay on the Growth of separate Muslim political identity with reference to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and his successors.

Sir Syed’s role in the Growth of Muslim Nationalism:
Through the 1850s, Syed Ahmed Khan began developing a strong passion for education. While pursuing studies of different subjects including European [jurisprudence], Sir Syed began to realise the advantages of Western-style education, which was being offered at newly established colleges across India. Despite being a devout Muslim, Sir Syed criticised the influence of traditional dogma and religious orthodoxy, which had made most Indian Muslims suspicious of British influences. Sir Syed began feeling increasingly concerned for the future of Muslim communities. A scion of Mughal nobility, Sir Syed had been reared in the finest traditions of Muslim élite culture and was aware of the steady decline of Muslim political power across India. The animosity between the British and Muslims before and after the rebellion (Independence War) of 1857 threatened to marginalise Muslim communities across India for many generations. Sir Syed intensified his work to promote co-operation with British authorities, promoting loyalty to the Empire amongst Indian Muslims. Committed to working for the upliftment of Muslims, Sir Syed founded a modern

madrassa in Muradabad in 1859; this was one of the first religious schools to impart

scientific education. Sir Syed also worked on social causes, helping to organise relief for the

famine-struck people of North-West Province in 1860. He established another modern

school in Ghazipur in 1863.

Upon his transfer to Aligarh in 1864, Sir Syed began working wholeheartedly as an educator.

He founded the Scientific Society of Aligarh, the first scientific association of its kind in

India. Modelling it after the Royal Society and the Royal Asiatic Society, Sir Syed assembled

Muslim scholars from different parts of the country. The Society held annual conferences,

disbursed funds for educational causes and regularly published a journal on scientific

subjects in English and Urdu. Sir Syed felt that the socio-economic future of Muslims was

threatened by their orthodox aversions to modern science and technology. He published

many writings promoting liberal, rational interpretations of Islamic scriptures. However, his

view of Islam was rejected by Muslim clergy as contrary to traditional views on issues like

jihad, polygamy and animal slaughtering. Clerics of the Deobandi and Wahhabi schools

condemned him harshly as a kafir. In face of pressure from religious Muslims, Sir Syed

avoided discussing religious subjects in his writings, focusing instead on promoting

education. On the pre-colonial system he said “The rule of the former emperors and rajas

was neither in accordance with the Hindu nor the Mohammadan religion. It was based on

nothing but tyranny and oppression; the law of might was that of right; the voice of the

people was not listened to”.

Sir Syed’s (1817-98) Contribution towards Muslim Education

Perhaps the Muslims of the Sub-Continent owe their greatest gratitude to Syed Ahmed

Khan. He flourished in the second half of the 19th century. His talent, deep-insight, love for

Islam and hard work played a major role in the revival of Muslims in India. Sir Syed Ahmed

Khan was born in 1817 to a Syed family in Delhi. He started his career as a humble judicial

official in the English East India Company. Later on he served on important jobs. Sir Syed

Ahmed Khan alone among his contemporiies realized that the plight of Muslims could not

be improved without a revolution in their attitude towards education. The Muslims were

inimical to western education for three reason.

1. They considered it inferior to traditional Islamic learning.

2. It was being forced upon them by a foreign people, and

3. They thought that an education saturated with Christianity might corrupt their beliefs.

During the war of Independence he saved the lives of many Englishmen. The Government

centered the title of Sir on him. Thus, he won the confidence of the British Government.

After the war of Independence the Muslims were passing through a critical phase. By

refusing to acquire western education they were not keeping pace with modern times. The

Muslims hated English language and culture. They kept their children away from the schools

and colleges. But in this manner they were unconsciously damaging the interests of the

Muslim Community. Their ignorance of the English language and lack of modem education

kept them away from respectable government posts. On the other hand the Hindus

acquired modem knowledge and dominated the government jobs. Syed Ahmed Khan was

the first Muslim leader to realize the gravity of the situation. He was greatly pained to see

the miserable condition of the Muslims everywhere. He decided to devote his full efforts for

the welfare of the Muslims. The first need was the removal of mistrust about the Muslims

from the minds of British rulers. For this purpose he wrote – Essay on the causes of Indian

Revolt in which he proved that there were many factors which led to the uprising of 1857

and that only the Muslims were not to be held responsible for it. In addition he wrote “Loyal

Muhammadans of India” in which too he defended the Muslims against the charges of

disloyalty. These works restored confidence of the British in the Muslims to a large extent.

The Sir Syed Ahmed Khan turned his attention towards the educational uplift of his co-

religionists. He told the Muslims that without acquiring modern education they could not

compete with the Hindus. He pleaded that there was no harm in adopting western sciences

and in learning English language. He issued a magazine named “Tahzib-ul-Ikhlaq” which

projected adoptable European manners. Salient features of the political, educational and

religious contributions of Syed Ahmed Khan are as given below:

1. In 1863 Sir Syed Ahmed Khan established a Scientific Society. The purpose of this society

was translation of English books into Urdu language.

2. During his stay at Aligarh he issued a weekly Gazette called “Aligarh Institute Gazette”.

3. In 1869 Syed Ahmed Khan visited England. There he studied the system of Education.

Moreover he wrote Khutbat-e-Ahmedya in reply to Sir William Muir’s book “Life of


4. In 1870 he issued his famous magazine named “Tehzib-ul-Ikhlaq” in order to apprise the

Muslims of their social evils and moral short comings. This magazine promoted Urdu

language immensely.


Q.2 Write a detailed note on the history of Hindu-Muslim relationship as it evolved

through the period of Muslim supremacy in India (712-1707)?


Hinduism’s early history is the subject of much debate for a number of reasons. Firstly, in a

strict sense there was no ‘Hinduism’ before modern times, although the sources of Hindu

traditions are very ancient. Secondly, Hinduism is not a single religion but embraces many

traditions. Thirdly, Hinduism has no definite starting point. The traditions which flow into

Hinduism may go back several thousand years and some practitioners claim that the Hindu

revelation is eternal. Although there is an emphasis on personal spirituality, Hinduism’s

history is closely linked with social and political developments, such as the rise and fall of

different kingdoms and empires. The early history of Hinduism is difficult to date and

Hindus themselves tend to be more concerned with the substance of a story or text rather

than its date.

Hindu notions of time

Hindus in general believe that time is cyclical, much like the four seasons, and eternal rather

than linear and bounded. Texts refer to successive ages (yuga), designated respectively as

golden, silver, copper and iron. During the golden age people were pious and adhered

to dharma (law, duty, truth) but its power diminishes over time until it has to be

reinvigorated through divine intervention. With each successive age, good qualities

diminish, until we reach the current iron or dark age (kali yuga) marked by cruelty,

hypocrisy, materialism and so on. Such ideas challenge the widespread, linear view that

humans are inevitably progressing.

Vedic Period

The Vedic Period (c.1500–c.500 BCE)

There have been two major theories about the early development of early south Asian


1. The Aryan migration thesis that the Indus Valley groups calling themselves ‘Aryans’

(noble ones) migrated into the sub-continent and became the dominant cultural

force. Hinduism, on this view, derives from their religion recorded in the Veda along

with elements of the indigenous traditions they encountered.

2. The cultural transformation thesis that Aryan culture is a development of the Indus

Valley culture. On this view there were no Aryan migrations (or invasion) and the

Indus valley culture was an Aryan or vedic culture.

There are two sources of knowledge about this ancient period – language and archaeology –

and we can make two comments about them. Firstly, the language of vedic culture was

vedic Sanskrit, which is related to other languages in the Indo-European language group.

This suggests that Indo-European speakers had a common linguistic origin known by

scholars as Proto-Indo-European.

Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the

Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is

that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse

sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing.

Vedic religion

If we take ‘Vedic Period’ to refer to the period when the Vedas were composed, we can say

that early vedic religion centred around the sacrifice and sharing the sacrificial meal with

each other and with the many gods (devas). The term ‘sacrifice’ (homa, yajna) is not

confined to offering animals but refers more widely to any offering into the sacred fire (such

as milk and clarified butter).

Some of the vedic rituals were very elaborate and continue to the present day. Sacrifice was

offered to different vedic gods (devas) who lived in different realms of a hierarchical

universe divided into three broad realms: earth, atmosphere and sky.

Earth contains the plant god Soma, the fire god Agni, and the god of priestly power,

Brhaspati. The Atmosphere contains the warrior Indra, the wind Vayu, the storm gods or

Maruts and the terrible Rudra. The Sky contains the sky god Dyaus (from the same root as

Zeus), the Lord of cosmic law (or rta) Varuna, his friend the god of night Mitra, the nourisher

Pushan, and the pervader Vishnu.

Epic, Puranic and Classical Age The Epic, Puranic and Classical Age (c.500 BCE–500 CE)

This period, beginning from around the time of Buddha (died c. 400 BCE), saw the

composition of further texts, the Dharma Sutras and Shastras, the two Epics,

the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, and subsequently the Puranas, containing many of

the stories still popular today. The famous Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata.

The idea of dharma (law, duty, truth) which is central to Hinduism was expressed in a genre

of texts known as Dharma Sutras and Shastras. The Dharma Sutras recognise three sources

of dharma: revelation (i.e. the Veda), tradition (smrti), and good custom. The Laws of

Manu adds ‘what is pleasing to oneself’.

During this period the vedic fire sacrifice became minimised with the development of

devotional worship (puja) to images of deities in temples. The rise of the Gupta Empire

(320-500 CE) saw the development of the great traditions of Vaishnavism (focussed on

Vishnu), Shaivism (focussed on Shiva) and Shaktism (focussed on Devi).

From this period we can recognise many elements in present day Hinduism, such as bhakti

(devotion) and temple worship. This period saw the development of poetic literature. These

texts were composed in Sanskrit, which became the most important element in a shared


Medieval Period Medieval Period (500 CE–1500 CE) From 500 CE we have the rise of devotion (bhakti) to the major deities, particularly Vishnu,

Shiva and Devi. With the collapse of the Gupta empire, regional kingdoms developed which

patronised different religions. For example, the Cholas in the South supported Shaivism.

This period saw the development of the great regional temples such as Jagganatha in Puri

in Orissa, the Shiva temple in Cidambaram in Tamilnadu, and the Shiva temple in Tanjavur,

also in Tamilnadu. All of these temples had a major deity installed there and were centres of

religious and political power.

Poet-saints and gurus

During this time not only religious literature in Sanskrit developed but also in vernacular

languages, particularly Tamil. Here poet-saints recorded their devotional sentiments. Most

notable are the twelve Vaishnava Alvars (6th–9th centuries), including one famous female

poet-saint called Andal, and the sixty-three Shaiva Nayanars (8th–10th centuries).

Subsequent key thinkers and teachers (acharyas or gurus) consolidated these teachings.

They formulated new theologies, perpetuated by their own disciplic successions


Shankara (780–820) travelled widely, defeating scholars of the unorthodox movements,

Buddhism and Jainism, which around the turn of the millennium had established prominent

seats of learning throughout India. He re-established the authority of the Vedic canon,

propagated advaita (monism) and laid foundations for the further development of the

tradition known as the Vedanta.

Developments in Vaishnavism and Shaivism

The Vaishnava philosophers Ramanuja (c. 1017–1137), Madhva (13th cent) and others

followed, writing their own scriptural commentaries, propounding new theologies and

establishing their own successions. Ramanuja qualified Shankara’s impersonal philosophy,

and Madhva more strongly propounded the existence of a personal God.

Shaivism similarly developed during this period with important philosophers such as

Abhinavagupta (c. 975–1025) writing commentaries on the Tantras, an alternative revelation

to the Veda, and other texts.

The Tantras became revered as a revelation that fulfilled or superseded the Veda. Some of

these texts advocated ritually polluting practices such as offering alcohol, meat and

ritualised sex to ferocious deities but most of these texts are simply concerned with daily

and occasional rituals, temple building, cosmology and so on.

Pre-Modern Period The Pre-Modern Period (c.1500–1757 CE)

Alongside the development of Hindu traditions, most widespread in the South, was the rise

of Islam in the North as a religious and political force in India. The new religion of Islam

reached Indian shores around the 8th century, via traders plying the Arabian Sea and the

Muslim armies which conquered the northwest provinces.

Muslim political power began with the Turkish Sultanate around 1200 CE and culminated in

the Mughul Empire (from 1526). Akbar (1542–1605) was a liberal emperor and allowed

Hindus to practice freely. However, his great grandson, Aurangzeb (1618–1707), destroyed

many temples and restricted Hindu practice.

During this period we have further developments in devotional religion (bhakti). The Sant

tradition in the North, mainly in Maharashtra and the Panjab, expressed devotion in poetry

to both a god without qualities (nirguna) and to a god with qualities (saguna) such as

parental love of his devotees. The Sant tradition combines elements of bhakti, meditation or

yoga, and Islamic mysticism. Even today the poetry of the princess Mirabai, and other saints

such as Tukaram, Surdas and Dadu are popular.

British Period British Period (1757–1947 CE)

Robert Clive’s victory at the Battle of Plassey (1757) heralded the end of the Mughul Empire

and the rise of British supremacy in India. At first, the British did not interfere with the

religion and culture of the Indian people, allowing Hindus to practice their religion

unimpeded. Later, however, missionaries arrived preaching Christianity. Shortly after, the

first scholars stepped ashore, and though initially sympathetic, were often motivated by a

desire to westernise the local population. Chairs of Indology were established in Oxford and

other universities in Europe.

Hindu reformers

The nineteenth century saw the development of the ‘Hindu Renaissance’ with reformers

such as Ram Mohan Roy (1772–1833) presenting Hinduism as a rational, ethical religion and

founding the Brahmo Samaj to promote these ideas. Another reformer, Dayananda

Sarasvati (1824–83), advocated a return to vedic religion which emphasised an eternal,

omnipotent and impersonal God. He wanted to return to the ‘eternal law’ or sanatana

dharma of Hinduism before the Puranas and Epics through his society, the Arya Samaj. Both

of these reformers wished to rid Hinduism of what they regarded as superstition. These

groups were instrumental in sowing the seeds of Indian nationalism and Hindu missionary

movements that later journeyed to the West. Another important figure was Paramahamsa

Ramakrishna (1836-86), who declared the unity of all religions. His disciple Vivekananda

(1863–1902) developed his ideas and linked them to a political vision of a united India.

These ideas were developed by Gandhi (1869–1948), who was instrumental in establishing

an independent India. Gandhi, holy man and politician, is probably the best known Indian of

the twentieth century. He helped negotiate independence, but was bitterly disappointed by

the partition of his country. He was assassinated in 1948. Gandhi drew much of his strength

and conviction from the Hindu teachings, such as the notion of ahimsa (non-violence), and

propounded a patriotism that was broad-minded and magnanimous.


During the resistance to colonial rule, the term ‘Hindu’ became charged with cultural and

political meaning. One central idea was hindutva (hindu-ness), coined by V.D. Savarkar to

refer to a socio-political force that could unite Hindus against ‘threatening others’. Cultural

organisations such as the RSS (Rashtriya Svayam-Sevak Sangh) and VHP (Vishva Hindu

Parishad) have embraced and developed this ideal, which found political expression in the

BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party). These sectarian ideas continued after independence.


AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

Q.3 Do you agree that, Muslim were exploited in political, economic, and social

spheres in the aftermaths of war of independence?


In 1947, with the partition of the country, forty-five million Muslims in India found

themselves in a position somewhat unique in the history of Islam. They formed a sizable

minority in a country that was not under Muslim hegemony, and within which they were so

widely scattered that their absolute large number amounted to very little in terms of power

politics. More importantly, the new framework of politics in the country was such that they

were neither ruling over someone nor being ruled over by someone. Islam, as its adherents

so often say, demands from its followers adoption of a total way of life. However, the rules

and regulations of that total way seem, to my mind, to presuppose a Muslim community

which is in full control of its destiny and which can dictate its terms not only to its own

dissenting members, but also to its non-Muslim compatriots. (Needless to say, the rules and

laws of Islam were never in their entirety enforced after the political machinery of Islam

moved out of Arabia. Muslim kings and caliphs did not create Islamic states.)

In the case of the Indian Muslims, the problem now was, ideologically speaking, how to

function as a larger religio-cultural minority within a secular-democratic polity adopted by

the leaders of a heterogeneous non-Muslim majority. W. C. Smith, in Islam in Modern

History, put much hope in the uniqueness of this historical situation. He expected from it to

emerge “a new interpretation of Islam in terms realistic for the present situation,

superseding pre-partition emotions and viewpoints with a dynamic that would inspire the

community to come to creative grips with today’s problems and opportunities.” In 1956,

when he wrote these words, that interpretation had not appeared; even now, one can point

only to some efforts, such as M. Mujeeb’s and Abid Husain’s, in the field of social and

political history, but that is about all. The Muslim leadership that remained in India did not

take upon itself the task of scrutinising the values and aspirations of the Muslim community

within the new context. The non-theological types took things for granted, expecting

somehow a transformation to occur naturally. The “nationalist” Ulama were not only guilty

of taking things for granted but also of helping sustain a myth they themselves had

perpetrated, that the rights of the Muslims, as defined by the Muslims themselves (i.e. by

the Ulama), will not be tampered with by the government of free India. They forgot that in

terms of realpolitik they had little or no power; they had failed to deliver the goods and had

been in effect rejected by what they claimed was their political constituency.

At the same time, on the ideological plane, they refused to accept that in a secular modern

polity the functional unit must be the individual, and not the community. Likewise, as

shapers of ideas and opinions, they failed to tackle the problem that Narahar Kurundkar, for

example, has referred to in an article in Quest. According to him, the Muslims believe in

their cultural superiority over the Hindus and are so obsessed with the loss of their prior,

inequitable privileges that they “hardly seem to be in a mood to be content with the mere

rights of equal citizenship.” Further he says, “the basic issue is whether or not I have the

right not to be a Muslim.” One can, of course, point to the writings of Maulana Azad and a

few others to counter such a total indictment. Still, the fact remains that the ideas of these

people did not find access to traditional channels for the propagation of religious ideas, nor

did these people start a movement to contact Muslim masses in the manner, say, of the

Tablighi Jama’at. Thus, to my mind, if the Muslim religious leadership is accused of largely

encouraging obscurantism, the accusers are very much in the right.

Here I may add that the fault of the leadership has not been so much in their specific ideas

and conclusions as in the manner of thinking that they encourage and even compel people

to adopt. I used to be amused by the proclivity of our Ulama to issue a fatwa, especially a

fatwa of kufr. Hardly any can be excluded among the notable Muslims of the past one

hundred years who did not get accused of infidelity or kufr. But the utter cruelty and

ungodliness of the people who indulge in this habit, sank into my mind only after I read the

fatwa issued by Mufti Zia-ul-Haq of Delhi and published in the Jamiat Times of 20 November 1970, declaring that Professor Javed Alam, in marrying a Hindu lady, had

committed a terrible crime in the eyes of Allah and should be shunned by all true Muslims,

and that the children of this marriage will be like “bastards” in terms of the shariah that the

Mufti upholds as immutable. What the Mufti did was no less criminal than what the

Principal of the Salwan College had done when he fired Professor Alam. The thinking underlying both actions wasir rational.

Separatism and pro-Pakistan feelings. Yes, there is quite a bit of “sympathy for Pakistan” among the Indian Muslims. But the use of the quotation marks is absolutely necessary in the above sentence, because both “sympathy” and “Pakistan” should be clearly understood first. And for that we must consider certain other aspects of recent history. Of the two countries that came into existence in 1947, the leaders of one claimed separate nationhood, culture and civilisation identified by Islam while the leaders of the other made a deliberate choice in favour of secular democracy. But that was not all. Certain details deserve careful attention. The chief leaders of the Pakistan movement were not obscurantist mullahs; they were in fact some of the most “modernist” Muslims of their time. They also belonged to an elite section of the community which had its own motive of self-preservation. Their veneer of modernism hid a basically exploitative nature, concerned with obtaining privileges, not equal rights. In a most blatant fashion they used the emotional attachment of the Muslim masses to religion for their own ends. And once Pakistan became a political reality, they sneaked off to collect their share of the booty, leaving behind those they had assiduously claimed to be exclusively their constituents. The Indian Muslims have yet fully to understand the class orientation of their erstwhile leaders, as well as the true nature of the developments in Pakistan since1947.

Besides Israel, Pakistan is the only country in recent history to be created in the name of

religion, but compared with Israel, it has cost more, much more, in terms of death,

deprivation and displacement of humanity, and has very little to show in the way of serving

its avowed religious and humane cause even within its own boundaries. That universal Islam had nothing to do with Pakistan as it existed could clearly be seen in the colonial war that the Army and the bureaucracy of the West wing waged against the people of East Bengal.

The utter rout of the so-called Islam-pasand parties in West Pakistan elections in 1970 also

showed how strong the desire of the native Pakistani is to define himself anew in regional,

non-ideological terms. He must do it, not merely to further his self-interest, not merely to

protect himself from the cultural chauvinism and exploitative schemes of the people from

other regions, but also to kill that feeling of guilt which he cannot help but feel every time

he hears of anti-Muslim riots in India. He can see clearly that Pakistan has failed in its

alleged aim to “save” Islam and the Muslims of the subcontinent. There are now more

Muslims in India than there are in Pakistan, and they have led a happier life compared with

the non-Muslims of Pakistan. From its inception, rather than serve the cause of Indian

Muslims, Pakistan has harmed it by its rabid anti-India and anti-Hindu posture, by closing its borders and putting restrictions on travel, by hampering even the sale or exchange of Indian publications.

Of course, among the Muslims in India we must distinguish between different groups within

the community. Among the elder elites there are those who were active in the Pakistan

movement but did not go there for purely economic reasons, as well as those who had

always been ideologically opposed to that movement. Then there are millions of others who

in no way can be blamed for the creation of Pakistan, and who are “guilty” only by

association. There are also millions of families which have become divided ever since some of their members found it useful to migrate to Pakistan in order to get a job. Family ties

cannot be destroyed even over several decades. It would be false to say that a majority of

Indian Muslims do not have “sympathy for Pakistan,” but it would be equally wrong to

interpret that sympathy as disloyalty. If ever any proof of their loyalty was needed, it was

given by the Indian Muslims most unequivocally during the days of war with Pakistan in

1965 and 1971. The sad fact is that as victims of similar prejudice, Indian immigrants in

Pakistan are often suspected of having a soft corner for India.

Now that Bangladesh has emerged as a secular, democratic nation, the Indian Muslims must take note of the fact that two assumptions which had poisoned their recent history have

finally been blown to bits. The first is the notion that the Muslims of the subcontinent

formed a nation by themselves. No doubt the original Pakistan — with its two wings

separated by over forty million Muslims in a secular and democratic India — already gave

the lie to that notion, but now its evil nature as well as its baselessness have been

established for ever. In order to save a land, a people and a culture, Muslims and non-

Muslims of Bangladesh together waged a struggle against a tyrant who, on the one hand,

owed his existence to this pernicious concept and, on the other, called his genocidal action a holy war.

The second, more far-reaching as well as more vicious, assumption that has been shattered

is what was tacit in the Muslim communal writings of the past one hundred years, i.e. that

Islam meant Urdu language, Perso-Arabic culture, and the traditions and values of the

earlier, Imperial age and of the more recent feudal and capitalist society. This equating of

Islam with things and ideas of a particular region and time, and of a particular elite class,

has been at the root of all the trouble. And it is this which still causes many of the Indian

Muslims to be so fearful of the future. In fact, the victory of the Mukti Bahini is not only a

victory for secularism and democracy, it also releases Islam from those fetters which were

put on it in this land by self-serving elites and narrow-minded Ulama.

Turning to the matter of separatism in politics, we must bear in mind that the Indian

National Congress, the party of secular democracy, was not by any definition an

ideologically homogeneous body, nor, for that matter, were all of its Muslim supporters less

elitist, more modern, or more secular. Even now, the self-acclaimed Muslim political leaders,

such as those in the Muslim League and the Muslim Majlis – and not necessarily excluding

those who support the party of Mrs. Indira Gandhi — often appeal to irrelevant emotions

and ignore the more fundamental issues that face the whole of India.

Before the last elections in India, much effort was made to create a separate all-India

Muslim party. An All-India Muslim Political Consultative Committee was formed. The Indian

Union Muslim League moved northward to stake out new claims. Muslim voters, however,

showed greater wisdom than those who claim to lead them, and rejected almost all such

groups. Of course, the Congress (R) also appealed to their emotions when it chose to put up

Yunus Saleem, who had been refused the ticket in his original constituency in Andhra

Pradesh, as its candidate in Aligarh. It was a cynical move, and also a dangerous one, as was

shown by the riots during the election.

The Muslim leadership on the political plane has been on the whole reactionary. Muslim

leaders have played on the fears that arise in the community because of the frequent

communal riots. They do not realise that introducing Islam into Indian politics will not

counter the tide of Hindu communalism but will give credence to its extravagant

accusations. Furthermore, what may give an appearance of success at the municipal level is

not likely to make any impression at the level of state and federal politics, as was shown so

vividly by the misadventure of the Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat in North India only a few

years ago. No doubt casteism still holds sway over a large section of the body politic in

India and whatever ideological crystallisation we now have came about only recently; still

persistence in communal politics by the Indian Muslims is not only least desirable but also

least efficacious.

As for the suggestion that these leaders are actually seeking to create a new “Pakistan,” that

is utter nonsense. A separate political party is not enough to achieve that; a geographic area

of Muslim majority in the population is also needed, and there is none within India except

for Kashmir. There is no doubt a separatist movement within Kashmir — in both parts of it,

actually. Some Kashmiris want an independent Kashmir; they do not want to be a part of

either India or Pakistan. But that is a regional movement and is not based on religious

identification. The issue of regional autonomy is very much in the air all over the world. But,

as Girilal Jain has pointed out, the international system is by and large hostile to secessionist

movements, and sovereign states have shown no willingness to allow breakaway

movements to succeed “unless they are so weakened by war and internal disruption that

they are not in a position to act.” Close to home, hundreds of thousands of innocent people

were killed in East Bengal by an army that received supplies and the benefit of silence from

two of the three major powers of the world.

Let us now turn to some of the issues raised by Mr. Balraj Madhok in his

book Indianisation? to support his contention that Indian Muslims are not truly Indians.

“Islam stands for monolithic uniformity.” Certainly Mr. Madhok cannot be unaware of

the variety of sects within Islam! True, the emergence of each of these sects was

accompanied by conflicts that were often quite bloody, and whatever group was in political

ascendancy always tried to suppress the others. But that should not blind us to the variety

of religious experiences that one can find within the world of Islam. At the more mundane

level, and that may be of more interest to Mr. Madhok, he should take some time out to

read through only a month’s file of such Urdu journals as Al-Jamiat, Madinah, Aza’im, Nida-

e-Millat, Burhan, Jamiat Times, and Sidq-e-Jadid. He will find that bickering, wrangling and

character-assassination are to be found in ample measure in the so-called Muslim press.

“Muslims are antipathetic to territorial nationalism.” A glance at the Arab world will

suffice to reject that assertion. Of course, ideologically and ideally, Muslim do like to think

of themselves as internationalists. And so do many non-Muslims too. In any case, if Mr.

Madhok really believes as he claims in democracy and freedom of conscience, he should

not demand adherence to that most dangerous dogma: my country, right or wrong. It is

trite to say that the world is shrinking, yet the fact remains that it is. We are living on a very

small planet, and we are surrounded by an atmosphere that all of us must share. What

happens in one region of the world affects the rest of it, and not merely in the area of

commerce or power politics. We must encourage all drives toward universalism; only in that

lies our salvation. Patriotism is one thing; narrow nationalism, another. As Mahatma Gandhi

said: “Just as the cult of patriotism teaches us today that the individual has to die for the

family, the family has to die for the village, the village for the district, the district for the

province and the province for the country, even so a country has to be free in order that it

may die, if necessary, for the benefit of the world. My idea of nationalism, therefore, is that

my country may become free, that if need be, the whole country may die, so that the human race may live.”

“Muslims are insular and are making themselves more insular against India’s ancient

cultural heritage instead of adopting it.” There is some truth to this statement, but only

some, otherwise members of the Jama’at-e-Islami and the Tablighi Jama’at would be

sleeping a more peaceful sleep. But what Mr. Madhok actually has in mind is made clear by

the recommendations he makes as to the ways the Muslims can be Indianised.

(1) Urdu, with its special script, is a symbol of separatism; it must adopt Devanagri. Since a

Perso-Arabic script is also used for Sindhi and Kashmiri, Mr. Madhok’s reasoning is

somewhat confused. Further, Urdu is not all that exclusively the language of the Muslims, as

is evident from the fact that a great deal of Hindu revivalist literature and journalism is still

produced in Urdu. Nor should one forget those virulent posters in Urdu that appeared all

over Delhi and Punjab during the Hindi versus Punjabi controversy. Frankly, I have grave

doubts that Hindi purists would relish seeing Urdu novels and poetry being printed in the Devanagai script.


AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

Q.4 How did the establishment of Muslim league contribute towards the emergence

of Muslims Nationalism in India.


After the creation of the Indian national Congress and its time as a ‘representative’ party for

the people of the Indian sub-continent, there was felt a need to reassess its claims at

unbiased representation. From the very start of its existence the Congress had shown clear

its interest to safeguard the rights of Hindus, alone. Some of the Congress leaders adopted

a revolutionary policy to establish Hindu Raj in the sub-continent under the guise of a

national movement.

The prediction of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan Soon proved to be fact that, “Hindus and Muslims

are two different nations who have different ideologies.” The Muslims of India were greatly

disappointed by the anti-Muslim stance that the Congress seemed to have adopted. The

events following the partition of Bengal and Urdu-Hindu controversy strengthened the

desire of the Muslims to organize themselves politically as separate community. The birth of

All India Muslim League at Dacca on 30th December 1906 came as an expression of that desire.

Following are the reasons for the establishment of Muslim league.

1. Indifferent Attitude of the Congress towards Muslims: All India National Congress was a

pre-dominantly Hindu body. Its interests were always at odds ends to those of the Muslims.

By 1906, Muslim leaders were convinced that they must have their own party which may

speak for the community on all important occasions.

2. Educational and Economic Backwardness: Muslims had lagged far behind from the

Hindus in education and economic progress. Educational and economic conditions could

only be up graded by establishing a separate Muslims organization that could represent the

wishes of the Muslims.

3. Urdu-Hindi Controversy: The Urdu-Hindu controversy began with the demand of Hindus

to replace Urdu by Hindi as official language in Deva Nagari Script. Sir Anthony Macdonal,

the then Governor of UP ousted Urdu from public offices. Congress clearly sided with Hindi

and supported the movement against Urdu and there was no other political party to

support Urdu. Thus, the need of formation of a Muslim political party was felt severely.

4. The Evolution of Minto Marley Reforms: The turning point came in the summer of 1906

during John Morley’s budget speech, in which he hinted of constitutional reforms. At that

time Muslims did not have a political platform to demand their share. It was reasserted that

they wanted a separate political platform.

5. The Success of Simla Deputation: Minto offered fullest sympathy to the Muslim demands.

The success of Deputation compelled the Muslims to have a separate political association of their Own.

6. To Save Muslim Entity: The belief uttered by sir Syed Ahmed Khan that the Muslims were

somehow a separate entity. The Muslims did not believe that Hindus and Muslims formed

one nation. They were different by religion, history, languages and civilization. It became

essential for Muslims to establish a political party of their own.

A resolution to form the All India Muslim League was passed by Nawab Salimullah Khan and

was seconded by Hakim Ajmal Khan, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Moulana Zafar Ali. The

resolution was passed by All India Educational Conference on 30th December 1906. A

committee was formed to prepare its draft constitution. Sir Agha Khan was appointed as

President and Syed Hassan Balgrami was appointed as secretary, while Nawab Mohsim-ul-

Mulk and Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk were made joint secretaries with six Vice- Presidents, a

Central Committee with forty Members was also constituted. In this way Muslim league was established and become the sole representative of Muslims.

Knowing the circumstances which led to the formation of Muslim league was not difficult to make out what it aimed to. However, the Muslim league laid the following points as its Objectives.

1. To create among Muslims the feelings of loyalty towards British Government and to remove misconception and suspicious.

2. To Safeguard the political rights of the Muslims and to bring them into the notice of the Government.

3. To prevent among the Muslims, the rise of prejudicial feelings against the other

communities of India.

The first session of all India Muslim league was held at Karachi on 29th December, 1907 and

was presided over by Adamji Peer Bhai.

It was being felt from the beginning that the All India Muslim League would not achieve

considerable success without winning the British Public opinion to its side. Therefore, Syed

Ameer Ali organized the branch of Muslim league at London. The inaugural meeting was

held on 6th May 1908, at London Caxton Hall. It was participated by the Muslim and those

British people who favoured their view point.

There come into being a political body which was to play a decisive role in the destiny of

the Muslim peoples of the Indian sub-continent. The day the Muslim delegation won recognition of the demand of separate electorate, the course of the Muslim freedom struggle was charted. It was the beginning of the growth of Muslim national consciousness.

It farmed visible institutional expression in the form of Muslim League which after a forty

(40) years struggle was to achieve for the Muslims the culmination of their national

aspiration, Muslim League became a mass movement of the Muslims and succeeded in

achieving Pakistan in 1974. Actually the new breed of leadership like Quaid-i-Azam

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was instrumental in its metamorphosis.

After the acceptance of the demand of separate representation in the Minto Morely

reforms, it was common sense to have political party to fight elections for Muslim

representation. Whatever may have been the effects of Muslim league, but it made clear

that the interests of Muslims must be regarded completely separate from those of the

Hindus. Any fusion of both the communities in future was not possible. It steered the ship

of Muslim destiny safely through of Political chaos and turmoil to the safer harbour of Pakistan.


AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

Q.5 Analyze and compare 1909 and 1919 Act, focus your attention on the Muslim

Politics, while discussing their impact on the Indian Politics?


In 1909, the Morley-Minto Reforms were initiated under which (1) the principle of election

to the central legislature, provincial legislatures, municipalities, district boards, chambers of

commerce and universities was recognised, and the landholders and others were granted

the right to vote; and (2) a communal electorate by creating a number of Muslim

constituencies for the Centre as well as provinces was introduced.

In 1919, the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms were approved, under which the

bicameral system was introduced at the Centre:

(1) The Council of States, and

(2) The Legislative Assembly.

About 70 per cent of the members were elected to these councils. The principle of direct

election was recognised. Separate electorates were maintained for Muslims, Anglo-Indians,

Europeans, Sikhs and Christians, and for non-Brahmanas in Madras (now Chennai). Tilak and

Mahatma Gandhi were of the view that the reforms should be implemented on a trial basis.

In 1920, Gandhi launched a non-violent and Non-Cooperation Movement, and at the same time rejected the reforms. The Ali brothers (Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Ali), the pioneers of the Khilafat movement, joined hands with the Mahatma in the national struggle against the British.

The peasants and workers were also drawn into the struggle against the British. The Non-

Cooperation Movement, a revised form of the Swadeshi movement, urged people to resign

from government offices, shun the law courts, withdraw from English schools and colleges,

and boycott elections. The use of indigenous goods, khadi and home-spun cloth was

strongly advocated. Gandhi was arrested in 1924, for steering the Non-Cooperation Movement

By this time, the Congress party was a divided house consisting of:

(1) The Swaraj Party led by Motilal Nehru and C.R. Das;

(2) The followers of Tilak;

(3) The Justice Party of Madras; and

(4) The independents led by Jinnah.

Consequently, there was no cohesion in the Indian National Congress. Communal riots

broke out in 1924. However, the Mahatma dedicated himself for restoration of communal

harmony and for the upliftment of Harijans. The Hindu Mahasabha, which was formed in

1915, also became active as a result of communal disturbances.

The government, without bothering about the popular sentiments against its policies, implemented the reforms of 1919. Elections were held. The central and the provincial governments were reconstituted. The Moplah rising (August 1921) worsened communal relations.

The Non-Cooperation Movement was reactivated. A violent incident occurred at Chauri

Chaura in Uttar Pradesh. The Khilafat movement weakened. Gandhi was arrested in 1922,

and with his arrest the Non-Cooperation Movement came to a standstill. The Indian

National Congress became weaker. Communalism raised its ugly head. Elections were

fought on communal lines. Nationalist forces lost their vigour.

AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn 2018

Drop Your Book Code & Get Assignments


About Tanveer

Muhammad Tanveer graduated from the Virtual University Of Pakistan with a B.S. in Software Engineering and is now a writer for Pcbeducation.com and Education News Daily. His background in EDUCATION TUTORING brings a critical eye to his reviews and features, helping students make the best decisions for their studies.

Check Also

aiou solved assignments

AIOU Solved Assignments 2 Code 8615 Autumn 2018

AIOU Solved Assignments 1 & 2 Code 8615 Autumn 2018. Solved Assignments code 8615 Management …

aiou solved assignments

AIOU Solved Assignments 2 Code 8614 Autumn 2018

AIOU Solved Assignments 1 & 2 Code 8614 Autumn 2018. Solved Assignments code 8614 Educational …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *