Iqbal & Division of India

Saray Jahan se Acha Hindustan Hamara
Hum bulbulay hain iski ye gulsitaan Hamara

This piece of poetry was written by Allama Iqbal and is still one of most famous national songs in India.

Its being claimed that Iqbal is the one who gave concept for a separate homeland for Muslims of India.

So what was the turning point that made Iqbal demand for a separate land? Did he demand for a separate land or Independent Muslim states?

Was Iqbal against Hindu- Muslim harmony as being portrayed by by the so called followers of Iqbal like Zaid Hamid who still dream of ruling India for other 800 years through Ghazwa e Hind?

Was Iqbal a pro-military person, who could support the actions of allocating majority of the Budget to military for fighting Hindus?

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Iqbal some how came to the conclusion that the muslims and hindus of the sub continent cannot live together, maybe there were some suspicions as the British had taken over from the muslims and he was feeling that once hindus again get the power back they might create problems for them. His vision was for separate muslim state or a loose confederation (having self rule) within Indian dominion.

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

The idea of Hindu domination is blasphemous to begin with for the community that ruled, the idea of slavery is not bad unless the ruling community becomes the subject of it. though Hindus were providing democratic conuntry not some kingship:)

Iqbal proposed a dominion of muslim states with in the confederation of it, stepping stone to two nation theory at best, the theory was first proposed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar:)

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

It means Iqbal had no problem living with Hindus as far as Muslims get their rights. Iqbal didn't wish a ruling Muslim class, but Muslims on the way of prosperity while living with other communities in harmony and when he said following lines, he didn't mean ruling the world:

Cheen-o-Arab hamara, Hindustan hamara
Muslim main hum, watan hai sara jahan hamara

What was the theory of Savarkar and what do you think was the point that made Muslims separate their ways from Hindus / Congress?

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

He disowned his own song, the demand of muslim is the most debatable thing, Jinnah had 14 points, Mujib had six. Jinnah became role model of Mujeeb. Once special status is demanded within Nation, it automatically becomes stepping stone to secession:). When none of the other group, however small, asked for special treatment, Muslim demands were almost of separation. Iqbal wanted seprated loose muslim confederation, Jinnah demanded separate nation, it was Iqbal's idea that Jinnah developed upon, Iqbal's tomb is in Lahore and his cousin's Samadhi is in India:)

Savarkar demanded separate countries for both communities, He was well known right winger, Not all muslims went with the idea of Pakistan, In most populous Muslim states of UP and Bihar, congress has better support of muslims than league had, even Baccha Khan of KP was not satisfied with Jinnah and famously quoted when he said to Mahatma that he had thrown them with the wolves". Baccha Khan is among the very few non-Indians who got highest civilian award, Bharat Ratna:)

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Famous Pakistani humorist Dr Younus butt (Hum sab umeed sai hain fame) call Bacha Khan 'Sarhadi Gandhi - Gandhi from Frontier Province' :D

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Even here is known as Frontier Gandhi, his Khudai Kidmatgar, Red shirters were famous:), Indians know his as Abdul Gaffar Khan:)

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Iqbal's letter to Mr Jinah in 1937 showing what was his perception for demanding separate Muslim state / states. Its strange that he mentioned the problem that upper class (Muslims) were causing to Muslim masses, before reverting to the problems due to Hindu leaders.

[QUOTE]

**
Iqbal's letter to Jinnah, 28 May 1937(full text)******

Confidential** *** Lahore*
** *** 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 finally have to decide whether it will  remain a body representing the upper classes of Indian Muslims or Muslim  masses who have so far, which good reason, taken no interest in it.**  Personally I believe that a political organization 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 upper classes; the smaller ones 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 it is equally due to foreign rule has not yet fully come to him. But it is bound to come. The atheistic socialism of Jawaharlal 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 least the right to subsistence is secured to everybody. 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 Jawaharlal'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 Brahamnism(sic) 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 [o]f 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 these problems it is necessary to redistribute the country and to provide on 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 Jawaharlal Nehru.

Anyhow I have given you my 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.

[/QUOTE]

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Another letter of Iqbal addressed to Mr Jinnah, where he referred to Hindu Muslim riots and burning of Quran in Sindh. Surprisingly, he didn't consider reason for these incident as neither religious nor economical, but political one.

[QUOTE]

During the last few months there has been a series of Hindu-Muslim riots in India. In North-West India alone there have been at least three riots during the last three months and at least four cases of vilification of the Prophet by Hindus and Sikhs. In each of these four cases, the vilifier has been murdered. There have also been cases of burning of the Koran in Sind. I have carefully studied the whole situation and believe that the real cause of these events is neither religious nor economic. It is purely political, i.e., the desire of the Sikhs and Hindus to initimidate Muslims even in the Muslim majority provinces.

And the new constitution is such that even in the Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on non-Muslims. The result is that the Muslim Ministry can take no proper action and are even driven to do injustice to Muslims, partly to please those on whom they depend, and partly to show that they are absolutely impartial.

Thus it is clear that we have our specific reasons to reject this constitution. It seems to me that the new constitution is devised only to placate the Hindus. In the Hindu majority provinces, the Hindus have of course absolute majorities, and can ignore Muslims altogether. In Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are entirely dependent on Hindus. I have no doubt in my mind that this constitution is calculated to do infinite harm to the Indian Muslims. Apart from this it is no solution of the economic problem which is so acute among Muslims.

The only thing that the communal award grants to Muslims is the recognition of their political existence in India. But such a recognition granted to a people whom this constitution does not and cannot help in solving their problem of poverty can be of no value to them. The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakeable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India. In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is a redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities.

Many British statesmen also realise this, and the Hindu-Muslim riots which are rapidly coming in the wake of this constitution are sure further to open their eyes to the real situation in the country. I remember Lord Lothian told me before I left England that my scheme was the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that it would take 25 years to come. Some Muslims in the Punjab are already suggesting the holding of a North-West Indian Muslim Conference, and the idea is rapidly spreading. I agree with you, however, that our community is not yet sufficiently organized and disciplined and perhaps the time for holding such a conference was not yet ripe. But I feel that it would be highly advisable for you to indicate in your address at least the line of action that the Muslims of North-West India would be finally driven to take.

To my mind the new  constitution with its idea of a single Indian federation is completely  hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces, reformed on the  lines I have suggest above, is the only course by which we can secure a  peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why  should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal be considered as  nations entitled to self-determination just as other nations in India  and outside India are. 


Personally  I think that the Muslims of north-West India and Bengal ought at  present to ignore Muslim minority provinces. This is the best course to  adopt in the interests of both Muslim majority and minority provinces.  It will therefore be better to hold the coming session of the League in  the Punjab, and not in a Muslim minority province. The month of August  is bad in Lahore. I think you should seriously consider the advisability  of holding the coming session at Lahore in the middle of October when  the weather is quite good in Lahore. The interest in the All-India  Muslim League is rapidly growing in the Punjab, and the holding of the  coming session in Lahore is likely to give a fresh political awakening  to the Punjab Muslims.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (Sd.) Mohammad Iqbal

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Bar-at-Law

[/QUOTE]

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

Nehru's atheistic socialism never seemed pragmatic before it became reality, Brahminism or casteism was/is equally muslim thing as well, It was later when modern Independent India became socialist secular democratic republic, its divine meaning came into reality, Nehru's vision was to have a country governed by the laws formulated by supreme representative body of individuals called parliament.A country where everyone can live freely, his vision brought enemity with china when he gave shelter to Dalai Lama:). Hindus and other Indians accepted Nehru's idea, however large section of muslims never saw democracy as a solution, they thought their problem can be solved by following Shariat and muslim laws and for that as Iqbal proposed muslim state was needed. Being muslim is just one factor of any individual personality, other factors are linguistic group, social group, sect, place of origin etc. to form a country any of these identities can work but to sustain it one needs a very stable and powerful ideology.

Re: Iqbal & Division of India

I think any ideology can only work for long run with strong economic conditions. Muslims of India could get a separate country on the name of religion (though I think it was more on economical fears), but weak economy and fight for scare resources shattered two nations theory.

Here is an extract from Rajendra Prasad Book India Divided related to the Mr Jinnah's response when he was point out for economical problems of the new Muslim state:

[QUOTE]

When confronted with these problems on which depends the future well-being of the people inhabiting the regions proposed to be separated from the rest of India, Mr M. A. Jinnah is reported to have told Mr Herbert L. Mathews, in an interview appearing in the New York Times of September 21, 1942:

'Afghanistan is a poor country but it goes along; so does Iraq and that has only a small fraction of the 70 million inhabitants we would have. If we are willing to live sensibly and poorly so long as we have freedom, why should the Hindus object?. . .The economy will take care of itself/ This may furnish a good debating point but is hardly the way to deal with a question affecting the well-beingof 70 million Musalmans and uprooting and demolishing in a cruel and unceremonious manner what has taken centuries to build up.
[/QUOTE]

Mr Jinnah had a good idea about the economic problems that the new nation had to face, but his philosophy of living sensibly and poorly was not followed by later Pakistani Government that not only separated Bangla Desh, but this attitude of extravagance (spending on military and avoiding basic things like Health, Education) still haunting the Pakistanis.