Certain quarters try to make an impression that Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi and
Jama‘at-e-Islami had opposed the creation of Pakistan. Though it is a lie and,
therefore, not worh-talking, it is necessary to present facts for setting the record
straight.
Sayyid Maududi was primarily a
thinker, a scholar and a social reformer. He was not a "politician" in the
currently understood sense. Even Jama‘at-e-Islami began to take part in politics only
after the adoption of the Objectives Resolution in March, 1949. Maulana Maududi was not
involved in active politics in the pre-independence era. During that period his
contribution was in the field of reconstruction of Islamic thought, analysis of the
malaise that plagued the Muslim Ummah and spelling out a strategy for their revival
through an Islamic revolutionary movement.
Second, it may also be stated as a
matter of fact that Maulana Maududi neither opposed Pakistan Movement nor did he
practically participate in it. He had his differences with the way the Muslim League had
organized the movement. He developed his own distinct approach to the challenge faced by
the Muslim Ummah. One has every right to differ from his approach, but it is unfair to
distort or misrepresent his position.
The intellectual and ideological
foundations of the Pakistan Movement were:
(1)
Islam is a complete way of life, a Din which provides guidance for all walks of
individual and collective life and it is a demand of our faith to strive to establish
Islamic society, state and civilization.
(2) In view of this
distinct approach, Muslims cannot be clubbed together with non-Muslims as one nation. This
concept of territorial nationalism is alien to Islam. The two-nation theory simply meant
that Muslims are a separate nation because of their distinct faith, culture and history.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni and some other ulema subscribed to
the nationalist theory of the Congress. Maulana Maududi opposed it and expounded with
great intellectual vigor and moral force the two-nation theory, which was the basis for
the demand of Pakistan.
In support of this thesis we
may quote the late Dr. Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi, a leading historian and a leader of the
Muslim League (He served in the federal cabinet formed by the founding fathers of
Pakistan). Dr. Qureshi in his book Ulema in Politics (Karachi: Ma‘arif Ltd.,
2nd edition, 1974) says: "Maulana Abul A’la Maududi’s writings played an
important role in molding the opinions of religious minded sections" (p. 330). Dr.
Qureshi summarizes Maulana Maududi’s attack on the philosophy and strategy of the
Indian National Congress and on the ulema who supported it:
"Maulana
Abul A’la Maududi’s comments had the nationalist ulema in view, when he wrote
‘you raised hell on Shraddhananda’s Shuddhi Movement: Jawahar Lal
Nehru’s Shuddhi movement you are swallowing with relish like sherbet.’
His [Maududi’s] analysis was that the attack was three pronged. The Muslim idea that
they were a separate community was the first target because, so long as they felt that the
followers of Islam form an entity, they would refuse to be absorbed into the ‘Indian
nation’, hence they were being told that the Muslims did not form a community. Then,
because
they possessed a separate culture which marked them out as a separate people, the Congress
propagandists belittled the importance of the Muslim culture and told them they had no
separate culture. And the third attack was upon the Muslim society to break it up into
mutually hostile classes and groups. He pointed out that the Indian National Congress was
not a communist organization and that it frowned upon the infiltration of the communists
and admonished them not to carry out their activities within its ranks, but they
encouraged them to work among the Muslims. When the Muslim masses disintegrate into mere
individuals and begin progressively to discard their culture and cut themselves off from
the Muslim middle classes to join the non-Muslims of their own class, the process of their
shuddhi would have started and they would be assimilated into Hindu society as a lump
of salt is slowly dissolved if placed in water. And he reminds those Muslims who persevere
in resisting the pattern of the new society, of two statements made by Pandit Jawahar Lal
Nehru saying that ‘those political or cultural institutions that stand in the way of
the proposed change should be obliterated,’ and that ‘when the majority decides
to change the social order, it is not necessary that it should consult the minority. On
the other hand, effective pressure should be exercised upon it and even compulsion and
coercion should be used. Democratic government means in fact that the majority should
control the minority though threats and fear.’" (P. 336-337)
"Maulana
Ab’ul A’la Maududi exposed the fallacy in such arguments quite
convincingly." (p. 337).
"After a
careful analysis of all the issues involved and the policies pursued by the Indian
National Congress, Maulana Abul A’la Maududi reached the conclusion that the Muslims
and the Congress movement had no interests in common. ‘Our death is its life, its
death is our life. Not only is there no common ground between its principles, objects and
methods of work and ours, but in fact they are totally opposed. The difference is of such
magnitude that they and we do not converge on any point, the differences (in its aims and
goals and ours) are like the difference in the cardinal points of the East and the West,
one cannot go in one direction without turning one’s back on the other.’"
(P. 337-338).
"Maulana
Abul A’la Maududi’s careful analysis of the policies of the Indian National
Congress opened many eyes" (p. 339).
Discussing Maulana
Maududi’s critique of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni’s book Muttahidah Qaumiyat
aur Islam (united nationhood and Islam), published in 1939, Dr. Qureshi writes:
"It received a full dress
rebuttal from Maulana Abul A’la Maududi. It is strange, therefore, that it was
claimed that all the ulema had accepted the truth of Maulana Hussain Ahmad’s
arguments as valid and that ‘not a single authoritative or reliable scholar had
countered it.’" (P. 351).
In fact Maulana Maududi’s
rejoinder was so logical, authoritative, polite and devastating that it was beyond the
capacity of any supporter of a united nationhood to counter. Maulana Maududi pointed out
that Maulana Hussain Ahmad has been carried away by his hatred of the British and had
twisted history and facts. Are nations really created by political boundaries? If they
are, why are ethnical, cultural and religious conflicts endemic in many states including
the European countries? Maulana Hussain Ahmad had indulged in willful distortions of the
Arabic dictionary and even the meaning of the verses of the Qur’an. He had no
business to use a well known world like ‘nation’ in any sense except the one
internationally assigned to it. The Muslims and the Jews of Madina did not form a single
nation even after the Prophet had brought about an alliance between them for a short while
after his migration from Makkah to that city. The guarantee of fundamental rights and the
assurance to safeguard Muslim personal law did not ensure continued immunity from
non-Muslim influences and corrosion of Muslim entity and culture. Maulana Maududi then
exposed Maulana Hussain Ahmad’s ignorance of the real meaning of legal terms like
personal law and fundamental rights and their scope and working in a modern state.
"Maulana Maududi’s
superior scholarship, his telling arguments, his cold logic and his knowledge of modern
concepts in political science and law made it impossible for the Jami’at group to
answer his contentions. In fact Mufti Kifayat-ullah who was a faqih (a jurist) and,
therefore, more cognizant of the demands of logic and academic debate, advised his
colleagues against any attempt to continue the discussion, because he opined that Maulana
Maududi was in the right and there was no point in attempting to defend the
indefensible." (pp. 351-352).
Dr. Qureshi, while fully
acknowledging Maududi’s contribution, presents his position on the Pakistan movement
in an objective manner. He says:
"Maulana Abul A’la
Maududi’s contribution in convincing the Muslim intelligentsia that the concept of
united nationalism was suicidal for the Muslims has been mentioned. The logical corollary
of this stand appeared to many the acceptance of Pakistan as the sole goal of the Muslims
of the Subcontinent; but Maulana Maududi’s reaction was more complex and needs a
somewhat detailed discussion in the context of this book and the controversy that it has
created in contemporary politics. He had opposed the idea of united nationhood because he
was convinced that the Muslims would be drawn away from Islam if they agreed to merge
themselves in the Indian milieu. He was interested more in Islam than in Muslims: because
Muslims were Muslims not because they belonged to a communal or a national entity but
because they believed in Islam. The first priority, therefore, in his mind was that Muslim
loyalty to Islam should be strengthened. This could be done only by a body of Muslims who
did sincerely believe in Islam and did not pay only lip service to it. And mere belief was
ineffective unless it led to individual and social and corporate action. Such a body did
not exist and had to be created. It would be brought into existence by presenting Islam as
a dynamic movement and not merely as an institutionalized and traditional religion. Hence
he founded the Jama‘at-e-Islami. He did not oppose the Muslim League, but he felt
that it had accommodated within its fold heterogeneous elements, consisting of communists,
secularists, Muslim nationalists, believers in Islam and non-believers, practicing Muslim
and those who did believe but their belief seldom expressed itself in practice or action.
How could such a body, he argued, bring about the kind of Islamic renaissance that he
thought should be the goal of all Muslim effort in this age when the beliefs of all
religions and Islam in particular were under assault. Islam was under pressure from
foreign influences as well as internal ills. Even well established Muslim nations had
betrayed strong tendencies to stray away from Islam. Therefore, Muslim nationalism was not
enough, the struggle should be given another dimension as well. When asked to cooperate
with the League he replied ‘please do not think that I do not want to participate in
this work because of any differences, my difficulty is that I do not see how I can
participate because partial remedies do not appeal to my mind and I have never been
interested in patch work." (pp. 367-368).
This is an objective evaluation of
the position and contribution of Maulana Maududi. Those who try to put him in the
anti-Pakistan camp are unfair not only to him but to the nation as well.
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada was
Secretary to Quaid-e-Azam and has compiled major documents about the freedom movement. In
his book Evolution of Pakistan (Lahore: All Pakistan Legal Decisions, 1963), he
says about Maulana Maududi:
"In a series of articles in the
Tarjumanul Qur’an, in 1938 and 1939, Maududi unmasked the Congress and warned the
Muslims. He related the history of the Muslims of the Sub-continent, debunked Congress
secularism and showed the unsuitability of India for democratic rule as there would be
only one Muslim vote against four Hindu votes. He condemned the national imperialism of
the Hindus and opined that separate electorates, weighage in Assembly seats and
reservation of proportion in services could not solve the political problems of the Muslim
nation. His proposals embodied three alternatives:
a. An international federation which
should be a State of Federated Nations wherein each nation should be sovereign and should
enjoy cultural autonomy;
b. The scheme envisaged in the
Cultural Future of India prepared by Dr. Latif should be implemented and separate regions
should be demarcated for establishment of autonomous States of respective nationalities.
The Centre should retain minimum subjects. A period of 25 years should be provided for
exchange of population between them. East Bengal, Hyderabad, Bhopal, Junagarh, Chendra,
Tonk, Ajmer, Delhi, Oudh, North-West Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan should be assigned to
the Muslims. Separate regions should be allocated to the Sikhs and the Depressed Classes
if they so desire; or
c. If the first two alternatives are
not acceptable, then there should be separate National Federal States of Hindus and
Muslims respectively with a confederacy between the two. There should be a pact or treaty
between the Federation regarding Defense, Communication and Trade and Commerce." (P.
191, 192).
Putting things in perspective, Syed
Sharifuddin Pirzada, in his final summing up says: "The schemes and suggestions of
Sir Abdullah Haroon, Dr. Latif, Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, a Punjabi, Sayed Zafarul Hasan
and Dr. Qadri, Maulana Maududi, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, Maulana Abdul Wadood Khan and the
Punjab Muslim Students Federation were in a sense milestones on the road to Pakistan."
(P. 258, emphasis added).
The opponents of Maulana Maududi
base their case on his book Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash vol. III.
The references made from this book
are mostly selective, out-of-context and misrepresent Maududi’s actual position. His
criticism over the methodology of the Muslim League is presented as opposition to the idea
of Pakistan. Reference to separate homeland for Muslim majority has been totally
distorted. Maulana Maududi was emphasizing that the real issue was systemic and not merely
of land. In the same context, he wrote: "This country (British India) remains one or
is divided in ten thousand units is not my primary concern. He who regards territory as an
idol may groan and cry if this idol is broken. If I could get even one square mile of land
on which real sovereignty of Allah alone is established I would prefer that little piece
to the whole length and breadth of India."
Non-participation in the 1946
elections has been projected as "forbidding" his followers to vote for Pakistan.
The fact is that in the pre-independence era the Jama‘at members in principle did not
avail of the entire system of the colonial rule, including judiciary, election, etc. A
statement of Maulana Maududi about the referendum in the NWFP makes his position crystal
clear:
"Referendum is cardinally
different from ordinary voting in elections to legislative assemblies (under Islamic
rule). Referendum is about which of the two countries -- India or Pakistan -- this area is
to be a part. Voting in such a referendum is not repugnant to Shari’ah. As such
wherever referendum is being held the members of the Jama‘at are free to vote in this
referendum. Members are free to vote according to their own conscience. However, I can say
in my personal capacity that if I were a resident of the NWFP province my vote in the
referendum would have been in favor of PAKISTAN. As the division of the country is taking
place on the basis of Hindu and Muslim nationalism, all these areas where Muslims are in a
majority should go with the country which symbolizes Muslim nationalism" (Kausar,
5th July, 1947, Tahrik-e Azadi aur Musalman, vol. II, pp. 287-288).
Maulana Maududi never used the world
‘traitor’ the Quaid-e-Azam. He held him in great esteem. For instance, see the
following note he wrote on Quaid’s death in Tarjumanul Qur’an:
"This month Muslims had to face
two calamities causing great shock to them. ...
The first one is the death of the
founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. For the last ten or twelve years, his
personality had served as the focal point of the Muslims, corporate existence.
After him, there is none among us,
neither as an individual nor even as a group, who could draw people’s love and
command their respect, whose sincerity, wisdom, courage and fortitude could be banked upon
and whose charisma could have pulled together the disparate elements of our national
fabric. Whatever image and name Pakistan had inside and outside owed to his tested
statesmanship. For the world, his death may be the passing of a great man and a leader.
But for us, it is a national calamity, for in his death our fledging state has suffered
beyond redemption, which only Allah the Most Merciful can compensate."
In brief, blaming Maulana Maududi and
Jama‘at-e-Islami for opposing the idea and creation of Pakistan is totally
unwarranted and biased. It is unfair to attribute things to a person or a party that have
neither been said or done nor do they fit into the overall pattern of thought and behavior
of that person or party.
Pakistan as conceived by (Allama) Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and
Quaid-e-Azam and the Islamic Movement
