Nationalist Muslim Opposition to the Partition of India: Madani, Azad, and Khan (original) (raw)
Related papers
'The dissenters': Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed's review of Muslims Against Partition
One of the least researched aspects of the Partition of India has been the role of Muslims who opposed the Partition. We are indeed informed about the strong opposition by Congress stalwart Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and the leader of the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Islam, Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madni, to the demand for a separate Muslim state made by the All-India Muslim League, but the general impression in both India and Pakistan is that Indian Muslims as a whole supported the Partition. While in India right-wing Hindus blame Muslims for being traitors to the nation and constantly doubt their loyalty, in Pakistan the national narrative thrives on projecting the demand for Pakistan as rooted organically in the Islamic psyche and ethos – to create the Islamic state as part of religious obligation. Consequently, in Pakistan the creation of Pakistan is considered inevitable. Dr Shamsul Islam’s path-breaking work is a most welcome corrector of this false perception prevalent in both countries. The book covers a great deal of ground and a very useful chapter entitled, ‘Muslim Patriotic Individuals and Organisations’ provides an inventory which can be very handy for further research on this theme. Another chapter presents poetry written by Muslims who opposed Partition.
The Bullies of Partition-Review of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA by Rasheed Kidwai.pdf
Review of MUSLIMS AGAINST PARTITION OF INDIA by renowned author and journalist Rasheed Kidwai "The Bullies of Partition: How the Muslim League silenced the majority of Indian Muslims strongly opposed to the creation of Pakistan. The Muslim League unleashed a reign of terror that attacked secular leaders such as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. In their aggression, they often found support from the British, the Hindu-Right, even sections of Congress A majority of Muslims in pre-independent India were opposed to the two-nation theory and creation of Pakistan, argues a new book titled, Muslims Against Partition, written by scholar Shamsul Islam." https://www.dailyo.in/politics/partition-indian-muslims-mohammad-ali-jinnah-shamsul-islam-indian-muslims-muslims-pakistan-iqbal/story/1/29793.html With thanks to www.dailyo.in This book is currently available in Hindi, Urdu and Bengali.
[Ms. Adrija Roychowdhury, a renowned young journalist with the Indian Express, Delhi is known for her investigative stories on Partition of India and those affected by it in India. It is being reproduced with thanks to the Indian Express, Delhi.] It is an exclusive piece by Adrija Roychowdhury. https://indianexpress.com/article/research/why-a-majority-of-muslims-opposed-jinnahs-idea-of-partition-and-stayed-on-in-india-8090835/
pertaining to the historiography of India's Partition in 1947, most of the works concentrated on Punjab, Bengal, and UP. On the issue of Partition, the Muslim League's communal territorial separatism has been explored whereas Muslim resistance to the politics of Partition remains a largely untold story. Bihari Muslims displayed a fierce anti-colonial struggle through the Wahabbi movement during the better part of the 19th century. Subsequently, the sub-regional nationalism of Biharis emerged against the hegemony of the Bengalis on Bihar, in the forefront of which were the urban educated elites of Muslims and Kayastha Hindus. 'Communalism and communal riots happened in India only during and due to colonialism. Pre-colonial India didn't have this problem of communal conflicts and religious strife.' 'So far as the destruction of Nalanda University by Bakhtiyar Khilji is concerned, there is no direct evidence of it. We don't have even archaeological evidence testifying Khilji's destruction,' Mohammad Sajjad tells Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff.com. http://www.rediff.com/news/interview/communal-riots-never-happen-in-a-political-vacuum/20150422.htm
Why Allama Mashriqi Opposed the Partition of India
August is an extremely important month in South Asian history. In August of 1947, British rule in the Indian subcontinent (now Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) came to an end and two independent nations, India and Pakistan, emerged on the map. Allama Mashriqi (August 25, 1963 - August 27, 1963) was among the frontline leaders who fought for the subcontinent’s freedom and was opposed to the partition of India. He emphatically warned of the devastating consequences of partition for the region and the world. This article, written in honor of Mashriqi’s 55th death anniversary, presents Mashriqi’s point of view regarding partition, discusses some of his major reasons for opposing it and the key actions he took to prevent it, and touches on the impacts for the region when India was ultimately divided despite Mashriqi’s strong objections.
A Laboratory for a Composite India? Jamia Millia Islamia around the time of partition
Modern Asian Studies, 2019
This article explores the role of Jamia Millia Islamia—the National Muslim University—in the formation of a composite national identity in India around the time of partition. This institution, born under the dual influence of the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements, constituted for its members a ‘laboratory’ for the nation. Through their educational experiments and constructive work à la Gandhi, Jamia teachers and students sought to lay the ground for an independence that would be ‘meaningful’ not only for Muslims but for the entire nation. In so doing, Jamia members claimed the right for Muslims to be recognized as ‘unhyphenated Indians’, able to speak for the nation. This article thus discusses the efforts of Jamia members to promote an inclusive conception of ‘composite India’ of which Muslims were fully part. At the same time, it highlights the ambiguous attitude of government authorities vis-à-vis the institution. Despite Jamia members’ strong affinities with Congress leaders, notably Nehru, the school received little support from state authorities after independence. Paradoxically, Nehru's government preferred to turn towards another Muslim institution—Aligarh Muslim University—often considered the ‘cradle’ of ‘Muslim separatism’, in order to reach out to Muslim citizens and promote national integration. By exploring the motivations behind this paradoxical choice as well as the complex relations between Jamia and Nehru's government, this article highlights some of Nehru's own ambiguities towards the ‘Gandhian’ legacy as well as to Muslim representation in secular India.
'Muslims Disown Partition of India' Review in Jana Sangh Today
Review in the Jana Sangh Today which is the English organ of RSS pracharak Balraj Madhok led Jana Sangh. The critique starts with the following statement: The title of the book Muslim Against Partition by Shamsul Islam published recently is intriguing. Does it mean that Muslim leaders who fought for the creation of a separate homeland for the Indian Ummah did not exist? Does it mean that if they did exist, they did not make statements in favour of creation of Pakistan? Should we disbelieve the statements made by such Muslim eminences like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Mohsinul Mulk, Justice Ameer Ali, Maulana Mohammed Ali, Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal, Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, Sir Aga Khan and, Quai-de-Azam Jinnah, and Professor M. Mujeeb to recall a few, in this respect? S. Islam's comment: This book aimed at exposing the claim of Muslim nationalists led by MA Jinnah that all Muslims supported the demand of Pakistan and believed in the two-nation theory. I also put across the historical fact based on the contemporary documents that if there were Muslims who believed that Muslims & Hindus could not as a homogenous nation there were also Hindu individuals & organizatiuons like RSS, Arya Samaj and Savarkar led Hindu Mahasabha who as Hindu nationalist believed in the same kind of religious separatism. In fact, the theory that Hindus & Muslims were two separate nations was propounded by Hindu nationalists at the end of 19th century. Hindu-Muslim communalisms did not represent their respective communities but exclusiveness of sections of Hindus and Muslims who were opposed to united India. The fight was not between Hindus & Muslims but Hindu nationalism and Muslim nationalism subserving the interest of colonial rulers. Unfortunately, the reviewer has quoted Muslim nationalists from my book but not innumerable patriotic Muslims who opposed Muslim separatism even by laying down their lives. I would like to remind the reveiwer that though Hindu-Muslim nationalist were shedding each others blood on streets but they [Muslim League & Hindu Mahasabha supported by RSS] also ran coalition governments in Sind, Bengal and NWFP in 1942 when Congress was banned. Both served the British masters by joining hands whenever later desired and together opposed an all-inclusive India.