Maulana Azad바카라s failures in sustaining and multiplying his institutional experiments towards building up a cadre base of Ulama for his brand of politics through the Darul Irshad of Calcutta (1914), and the Madrasa Islamiya of Ranchi (1921) also contributed to his loneliness.
Bringing out a comprehensive biographical account of Maulana Azad (1888-1958) is a challenging task in various ways. The first challenge for a professional historian is to figure out the aspects that have been left out in the pre-existing or extant accounts, which are many.
The latest arrival, Maulana Azad: A Life, by S. Irfan Habib (Aleph, 2023) would and should be expected to grapple with the pertinent questions, such as these:
1. In the 1930s, when the Shariat Act was being drafted and legislated, what roles did Azad play? Why Jinnah was seen in the driver바카라s seat on this count? Why did the League become more successful politically, under Jinnah, rather than the nationalists under Azad?
2. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, what did Azad do? He remained mostly silent, and/or, got out of the debate when voting took place on some of the crucial issues. This aspect has been brought out in detail by Pratinav Anil, in his latest book, Another India: Making of the World바카라s Largest Muslim Minority, 1947-1977. Anil is rather very harsh against Azad. In fact, his provocative rhetoric and polemics are not sparing anyone.
3. Post-independence, why couldn바카라t the interventions of nationalist Muslims against the Two Nation Theory be popularised? More so, when India바카라s Muslims, as a collective, were made to suffer from guilt and circumspection! The critiques were from Husain Ahmad Madani (1887-1957), Abul Mohasin Sajjad (1880-1940), Hifzur Rahman Seohaarvi (1901-1962), Tufail Ahmad Manglori (1868-1946), Abdul Qaiyum Ansari (1905-1974), etc. Their Urdu language critique of the two-nation theory is elaborated in my 2014 book, Muslim Politics in Bihar: Changing Contours; Venkat Dhulipala바카라s 2015 book, Creating New Medina deals with these in greater detail.
4. Did Azad engage with the likes of Qaiyum Ansari on the question of caste and social justice for the historically subordinated Muslim communities? What did Azad do on the question of gender justice among the Muslims, when Nehru was pushing the reforms in Hindu Personal Law in the 1950s?
Almost none of the above issues have really been taken up by S. Irfan Habib, with any degree of depth. Thus, Mushirul Haq 1933-1990) is the only 바카라biographer바카라 (1970) of Maulana Azad who helps us understand the 바카라loneliness바카라 of Azad, as to why a big chunk of Ulama deserted him and took along the narrative-making class of the Qaum towards the politics of the Muslim League, after 1938?
Maulana Azad바카라s failures in sustaining and multiplying his institutional experiments towards building up a cadre base of Ulama for his brand of politics through the Darul Irshad of Calcutta (1914), and the Madrasa Islamiya of Ranchi (1921) also contributed to his loneliness. Intriguingly, even after becoming the education minister of free India, Azad couldn바카라t look back upon the Madrasa of Ranchi, .
Immediately after Azad바카라s death, his associate Humayun Kabir (1906-1969) brought out an anthology, a memorial volume, in 1959, in which a lot of the contemporary stalwarts (scholars and politicians) contributed their tributes and eulogies. The same year, another associate, Abdur Razzaq Malihabadi (1895-1959) brought out Azad바카라s Urdu memoir as told to him by Azad himself; he also published Zikr-e-Azad, both after Azad바카라s death. This one is different from Azad바카라s India Wins Freedom, dictated to Kabir. It added 30 pages, in 1988, as bequeathed by Azad. (To date, I haven바카라t been able to comprehend what was so provocative about the 30 pages, that, to be released or revealed, it had to wait for long three decades after Azad바카라s death).
In 1976, Arsh Malsiyani brought out his biography. VN Datta바카라s biography came out in 1990, and the one by Ian Henderson Douglas was edited and published in 1991. Tirmizi바카라s account came out in 1991. Syeda Sayyidain Hameed바카라s anthology (1990) compiled some well-informed essays, and subsequently, she brought out a biography in 2014. In 1992, Mushirul Hasan compiled an anthology on Azad comprising scholarly essays by some of the best-known historians. In 2010, S Irfan Habib compiled an anthology of essays on Azad and the National Education System.
Rizwan Qaiser (1960-2021), in his 2011 account, demonstrated Azad바카라s helpless peripheralization and loneliness as the President of the Congress during 1940-1946. He culled out evidence where even the tall Congress leaders (like Sardar Patel, Sampurnanand, P.D. Tandon, etc. in their correspondences with Gandhi, Rajendra Prasad, Nehru etc.), expressed their dislikes for the Maulana, the President of the Congress. 바카라In Gandhiji바카라s perception even before Azad relinquished his presidentship, he was reduced to a position where 바카라. Qaiser also dedicated a chapter on Azad바카라s contributions to free India as its Education minister; and his immensely significant roles in creating institutions of arts, letters, literature, knowledge, music, dance, etc. Thus, the majoritarian tilt of the provincial and lower units of the Congress in the last decade of colonialism could be demonstrated by Qaiser. Ironically, despite these many corpuses of literature on, and by, Azad, Ramchandra Guha바카라s Makers of Modern India had excluded the scholar-politician, Azad, from his list.
Meanwhile, in 1970, Mushirul Haq (1933-1990) brought out a political biography of Azad with the title, Muslim Politics in India, 1857-1947. This is a comprehensive and critical account. It is surprising that the most comprehensive biographies (viz., Ian Douglas, V. N. Datta, etc.) haven바카라t made adequate engagement with Haq바카라s critical account. Also, this is the only book of Haq that he hasn바카라t trans-created into Urdu. Though, one of its chapters, 바카라Maulana Azad: Facts and Fancies바카라 has been rendered into Urdu by Akhtarul Wasey. This chapter points out factual and other discrepancies and inconsistencies in various accounts pertaining to Azad바카라s life, education, politics, etc. Haq deserves to be quoted at length simply because the better-known biographical accounts of Azad don바카라t engage adequately with Haq바카라s pertinent arguments. He writes:
바카라Abul Kalam Azad very wittingly created a halo around him which paved him way to be recognized as one of the ulama; even though he was not one of them. This he had to do, because, otherwise, he would have not been so successful in his attempts in arousing the Muslims in general and the ulama in particular from their political slumber. But since the religion was the foundation stone of the political edifice Azad was but to equate politics with religion바카라 (p. 71).
Haq바카라s significant contribution is to have diagnosed and found out the genesis of why Azad바카라s politics of erecting a combined resistance of Muslims and Hindus, failed in the face of the communal-separatist politics of the Muslim League, particularly after 1938, when the competitive communal politics, actively prodded by the colonial state became a triumphant force. Haq argues (p. 104) that Azad바카라s language of reconciling Islam with Nationalism had become unintelligible to the Ulama.
Thus, Haq says (pp. 132-133), this 바카라was one of the factors which helped the Muslim League to win the sympathies of the Muslims for the claim that the Muslims were a separate nation, in spite of the repeated statements of Maulana Azad and other nationalist ulama that India was the motherland and that there was only one nation in India, the Indian Nation바카라. Haq also argues that, without Azad's scheme of Amir-e-Hind and Shariah courts, the Ulama were not able to become ambitious for political power.
Haq argues that Azad바카라s was politics based on the cultural protection of Shariah. Peter Hardy (Muslims of British India, 1972) called it a fatal politics of creating a 바카라Juridical Ghetto바카라. In this politics of the 바카라Ghetto of Shariat바카라, something was inherent and inevitable: In the last decade of colonialism, Shariah, with political power could be offered only by the League's Pakistan. This was lapped up by the narrative-making class of the Muslims who always suffered from the syndrome of being ex-rulers, an obsession with power theology. Hence, the League emerged victorious in 1946-1947, among the narrative-making class of the Qaum, who were evidently supported by the British colonial state.
Humayun Kabir (1959), and to some extent, Muhamamd Mujeeb (1966), had made this personality assessment, of loneliness, or, aloneness, of Azad. However, Kabir and Mujeeb couldn바카라t articulate why the bigger chunk of Ulama deserted Azad. Pratinav Anil (Another India, 2023) terms this loneliness of Azad as his taking refuge in the cultural realm, which, according to Anil, is de-politicization and robbing Muslims of their agency. Anil testifies to the loneliness of Azad in his dipsomania.
Azad바카라s loneliness was acute when towards the last years of Gandhi바카라s life, Azad was hardly on very good terms with Gandhi. It appears (though, this aspect awaits further exploration) that Azad was falling out of Gandhi바카라s favour, and Zakir Husain was increasingly occupying this space. Gandhi was not in favour of Azad being included as a minister in the Interim government in 1946. In the last decade of Azad바카라s life, he was barely on talking terms with Zakir. So much so that, after Zakir became the Vice-Chancellor (1948-1956) of the Aligarh Muslim University, the VC, while seeking government funds for the AMU, was having correspondence more with Dr Rajendra Prasad, rather than with the education minister, Azad. Laurence Gautier in two of her recent essays, on AMU, has hinted at this.
Thus, we end up finding hardly anything new in the latest biography of Azad by S. Irfan Habib. For readers who are inquisitive about comprehending the unprecedented rise of majoritarianism and looking up to Azad in order to resist and contend with it, one may not find much enlightenment and insight from this book. For this, as said earlier, Haq바카라s 1970 book is much more helpful. This is certainly not to deny the significance of the book for the new generation who will get to know about Azad and his contributions to the politics and culture of modern India.
Haq바카라s critique of Azad바카라s gigantic role in politicizing the Ulama up to the 1920s is important not to be ignored and to be paid deeper attention to, it has to do with the question of understanding compatibility or incompatibility or inadequate compatibility, with Indian Secularism, of a larger section of Muslims in post-independence India. Haq, in his 1972 booklet, Islam in Secular India, deals with this issue. A chapter of this booklet, 바카라Secularism? No; Secularism?, Well-Yes바카라, is, particularly significant to be re-read in our times, as also in order to assess the role of Azad. Haq says, 바카라The Indian Muslims are in a dilemma: so far as the secular state is concerned, it is acceptable, for one thing, no alternative is available and, for the other, a secular state guarantees religious freedom. But the philosophy of secularism is considered to be a poison for religious life바카라. He further says:
바카라On the question of secularism, however, Indian Muslims appear broadly divided into two sections. The first group, in a minority and rather contemptuously called 바카라secularist바카라 includes mostly modern educated Muslims who hold that religion, as a faith, can co-exist with secularism. The second group, led by the "Ulama, stands by the view that religion is not only faith but shariah, also. Faith may co-exist with secularism, but shariah cannot바카라.
For this state of mind among the common Muslims of India, Haq argues, Azad바카라s role, since 1919, is largely responsible, who, according to Hardy, created a 바카라juridical ghetto바카라.
Of all the available studies on Azad, Mushirul Haq is possibly the only scholar who has tried to look comprehensively into Azad바카라s position on religious politics and its implications in the colonial as well as post-independence periods. Haq바카라s expositions help us become more informed about the shariah-obsessed politics of India바카라s Muslims since the early 20th century persisting till date. Haq바카라s last intervention in this regard was in 1988, in a talk hosted by and addressed to the AMU alumni in Delhi. The title of the published tract is, Mazhab aur Hindustani Muslim Siyasat: Kal aur Aaj, i.e., Religion and India바카라s Muslim Politics: Past and Present. This talk was delivered when the Shah Bano issue was fresh in the mind of the audience, most of whom had taken sides with the so-called shariah, fuelling majoritarianism in a rather unprecedented way, since then. [Two years later, Haq was assassinated in Kashmir].
In sum, notwithstanding many limitations of S. Irfan Habib바카라s portrait of Azad, it is indeed a good, lucid book for lay readers, particularly helpful for non-Urdu readers. It would help in understanding various significant facets of Maulana Azad in the making of modern India. A deeper look into and critical re-evaluation of the failures of the scholar-politician however may offer even deeper insights to fight the current menace of the sub-continental majoritarianism.
[Note: This is an extract of the presentation that I made in MANUU, Hyderabad, on 18 August 2023, in a panel discussion on the book, Maulana Azad: A Life, with the author, S. Irfan Habib]
(Mohammad Sajjad is a professor of history at Aligarh Muslim University.)