A civil war has been going on in the shape of Hindu Muslim Riots
DATE: 28th May, 1937
My dear Mr. Jinnah,
Thank you so much for your letter which reached me in due course. I am glad to hear that you will bear in mind what I wrote to you about the changes in the constitution and programme of the League. I have no doubt that you fully realise the gravity of the situation as far as Muslim India is concerned. The League will have to finally decide whether it will remain a body representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim masses who have so far, with good reason, no interest in it. Personally I believe that a political organisation which gives no promise of improving the lot of the average Muslim cannot attract our masses.
Under the new constitution the higher posts go to the sons of the upper classes; the smaller go to the friends or relatives of the ministers. In other matters too our political institutions have never thought of improving the lot of Muslims generally. The problem of bread is becoming more and more acute. The Muslim has begun to feel that he has been going down and down during the last 200 years. Ordinarily he believes that his poverty is due to Hindu money-lending or capitalism. The perception that equality is due to foreign rule has not yet fully come to him. But it is bound to come. The atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal [Nehru] is not likely to receive much response from the Muslims. The question therefore is: how is it possible to solve the problem of Muslim poverty? And the whole future of the League depends on the League’s activity to solve this question. If the League can give no such promises I am sure the Muslim masses will remain indifferent to it as before.
Happily there is a solution in the enforcement of the Law of Islam and its further development in the light of modern ideas. After a long and careful study of Islamic Law I have come to the conclusion that if this system of Law is properly understood and applied, at last the right to subsistence is secured to every body. But the enforcement and development of the Shariat of Islam is impossible in this country without a free Muslim state or states. This has been my honest conviction for many years and I still believe this to be the only way to solve the problem of bread for Muslims as well as to secure a peaceful India.
If such a thing is impossible in India the only other alternative is a civil war which as a matter of fact has been going on for some time in the shape of Hindu Muslim riots. I fear that in certain parts of the country, e.g. N.W. India, Palestine may be repeated..Also the insertion of Jawarhar Lal’s socialism into the body-politic of Hinduism is likely to cause much bloodshed among the Hindus themselves. The issue between social democracy and Brahmanism is not dissimilar to the one between Brahmanism and Buddhism. Whether the fate of socialism will be the same as the fate of Buddhism in India I cannot say. But it is clear to my mind that if Hinduism accepts social democracy it must necessarily cease to be Hinduism.
For Islam the acceptance of social democracy in some suitable form and consistent with the legal principles of Islam is not a revolution but a return to the original purity of Islam. The modern problems therefore are far more easy to solve for the Muslims than for the Hindus. But as I have said above in order to make it possible for Muslim India to solve the problems it is necessary to redistribute the country and to provide one or more Muslim states with absolute majorities. Don’t you think that the time for such a demand has already arrived? Perhaps this is the best reply you can give to the atheistic socialism of Jawahar Lal Nehru.
Anyhow I have given you my own thoughts in the hope that you will give them serious consideration either in your address or in the discussions of the coming session of the League. Muslim India hopes that at this serious juncture your genius will discover some way out of our present difficulties.
Yours Sincerely,
(Sd.) Mohammad. Iqbal
P.S. On the subject-matter of this letter I intended to write to you a long and open letter in the press. But on further consideration I felt that the present moment was not suitable for such a step.
7 thoughts on “Iqbal’s letter to Jinnah: A civil war has been going on in the shape of Hindu Muslim Riots (28/05/1937)”
Comments are closed.
MUSLIMS IN INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT
c.570–632 Life of the Prophet Muhammad
711–713 Conquest of Sind and Multan by Muhammad ibn Qasim.
998–1030 Reign of Mahmud of Ghazni. Raids on India.
1020 Lahore becomes part of Ghaznavid empire.
1151 Rise of Ghuri empire.
1186 Capture of Lahore by Muhammad Ghuri.
1192 Defeat of Prithvi Raj by Muhammad Ghuri at Tarain.
REFERENCE
1- “Islam” is used for the religion, “Muslim” for a member of the religious community.
2-R. C. Majumdar, “The Arab Invasion of India,” Journal of Indian History, Vol. X (1931), supplement.
3- H. M. Elliot and John Dowson, The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians (London, 1867-1877)
HINDU REACTION TO MUSLIMS
1-W. H. Moreland and A. C. Chatterjee, A Short History of India (London, 1945), p. 193.
2-K. M. Sen, Medieval Mysticism in India (London, 1936), p. viii.
3-Quoted in Tarachand, The Influence of Islam on Indian Culture (Allahabad, 1946), p. 228.
4-M. T. Kennedy, The Chaitanya Movement (Calcutta, 1925), pp. 92–93.
5-T. K. Raychaudhuri, Bengal under Akbar and Jahangir (Calcutta, 1953), pp. 94–95.
6-E. C. Sachau, Alberuni’s India (London, 1914), I, 22.
7-Mahdi Husain, The Rehla of Ibn Battuta (Baroda, 1953), p. 182.
Memoirs of Zehir-ed-Din Muhammed Babur, trans. by J. Leyden and W. Erskine, rev. by Sir Lucas King (2 vols.; London, 1921), provides account of Babur’s reign.
REF OF MUGHAL RULE IN INDIA
1-Abul Fazl, Ain-i-Akbari, trans. by H. Blockmann et al. (Calcutta, 1927–1941), I, 3.
2-Abdul Qadir Badauni, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, trans. by G. S. A. Ranking, W. H. Lowe, and Sir Wolseley Haig (Calcutta, 1884–1925), III, 216.
3-Abdul Qadir Baudauni, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, trans. by G. S. A. Ranking, W. H. Lowe, and Sir Wolseley Haig (Calcutta, 1884–1925), III, 127.
Infallibility Decree of 1579
Whereas Hindustan has now become the center of security and peace, and the land of justice and beneficence, a large number of people, especially learned men and lawyers, have immigrated and chosen this country for their home. Now we, the principal ulama, who are not only well versed in the several departments of the law and in the principles of [[159]] jurisprudence, and well acquainted with the edicts which rest on reason or testimony, but are also known for our piety and honest intentions, have duly considered the deep meaning, first, of the verse of the Quran: “Obey God and obey the Prophet, and those who have authority among you”; and secondly, of the genuine tradition: “Surely, the man who is dearest to God on the day of judgment is the imam-i-adil; whosoever obeys the Amir obeys Thee; and whoever rebels against him rebels against Thee” ; and thirdly, of several other proofs based on reasoning or testimony; and we have agreed that the rank of a sultan-i-adil is higher in the eyes of God than the rank of a mujtahid. Further, we declare that the King of Islam, Amir of the Faithful, Shadow of God in the world, Abul Fath Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar Padshah Ghazi (whose kingdom God perpetuate), is a most just, most wise, and a most God-fearing king. Should, therefore, in the future, a religious question come up, regarding which the opinions of the mujtahids are at variance, and His Majesty, in his penetrating understanding and clear wisdom, be inclined to adopt, for the benefit of the nation, and as a political expedient, any of the conflicting opinions, which exist on that point, and issue a decree to that effect, we do hereby agree that such a decree shall be binding on us and on the whole nation.
Further, we declare that should His Majesty think it fit to issue a new order, we and the nation shall likewise be bound by it, provided always that such order be not only in accordance with some verse of the Quran, but also of real benefit to the nation; and further, that any opposition on the part of his subjects to such an order passed by His Majesty shall involve damnation in the world to come, and loss of property and religious privileges in this life.
This document has been written with honest intentions, for the glory of God and the propagation of Islam, and is signed by us, the principal ulama and lawyers, in the month of Rajab of the year nine hundred and eight-seven. [ Abdul Qadir Baudauni, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, trans. by G. S. A. Ranking, W. H. Lowe, and Sir Wolseley Haig (Calcutta, 1884–1925), III, 127]
Majma-Ul-Bahrain
by Dara Sikha
This small tract is of supreme importance to a student of comparative religion as it embodies, so far as I know, the first and perhaps the last attempt of its kind to reconcile the two apparently divergent religions. It is the last original work of Dara Shikuh and, as such, has an importance of its own. And, according to one authority, it was this very work which brought about his death. It is said that this tract was laid before the ecclesiasts who declared its author a heretic and sentenced him to death, which was only too faithfully carried out by his over-zealous brother.
An examination of the concluding portion of the work will show that it was written in 1065 A.H., that is, when Dara was 42. It ap|)ears from the Introduction that Dara wrote this work, according to his own inspiration and taste, for the members of his family.’’ He declares openly, I have nothing to do with the common folk of both the communities.”
The tract begins with an Introduction and contains Twenty sections having the following headings : —
The Elements.
The Senses.
The Religious Exercises.
The Attributes.
The Wind.
The Four Worlds.
The Fire.
The Light.
The Beholding of God.
The Names of God, the Mo»t High.
The Apostleship and the Prophetship.
On Barhmdnd