AIOU Solved Assignments 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn & Spring 2020. Solved Assignments code 538 Genesis of Pakistan Movement 2021. Allama iqbal open university old papers.
AIOU Solved Assignment 1 & 2 Code 538 Autumn & Spring 2020
Course: Genesis of Pakistan Movement (538)
Semester: Autumn & Spring 2020
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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 & Spring 2020
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
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 & Spring 2020
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 & Spring 2020