SOROOR AHMED takes us on the eventful road of history to enable us to learn some valuable lessons to build our future.
The year 2007––and the date May 11––is significant in many respects. Not only it marked the 150th year of India’s First War of Independence, it is also the 300th year of the death of the last great Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb. Since his death till 1857, that is another 150 years, Delhi saw more than a dozen Mughal emperors, but of no significance. It was attacked by Nadir Shah, Marathas and Ahmad Shah Abdali and finally ravaged by the British in 1857. However, the British tasted the first major victory against the Mughals in 1757, exactly 250 years ago, in the Battle of Plassey against Sirajuddaullah.
But what the British did to Delhi in the summer of 1857 has few parallels in human history. Not only were thousands of mosques, centres of learning, libraries and other rare structures completely razed to the ground the then British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, even instructed that “Delhi should be deleted from the map and every civil building connected with the Mohammadan tradition should be levelled to the ground without regard to the antiquarian veneration or artistic predilections.”
The British did not stop there. They hanged to death thousands of innocent men, women and children all over the streets of Delhi. Jama Masjid remained a military camp for five years, Fatehpuri Mosque was sold and it was restored to Muslims for namaz only 15 years later and Zeenat Mahal Masjid remained in the hands of the British for more than half a century. Women underwent the most barbaric treatment at the hands of British. William Dalrymple’s recently published book The Last Mughal, would give just a bit of an idea of what actually happened during the darkest days of the Indian history.
The year 2007 is also the centenary year of the Satyagraha movement launched by then 38-year old Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, in South Africa. Eight yers later he landed on the Indian coast fresh from the experience there. In 1917, that is, exactly 90 years ago he launched his movement in India. If the struggle in that rich country at the southern tip of what is called the Dark Continent was between Whites and Blacks here in India it was between the Whites and the Browns.
Internationally speaking, it is on this very year, exactly three centuries ago, that Great Britain came into existence after the unification of Scotland with England; and subsequently it was on this very year that the UK, as a whole, became a constitutional monarchy. The year also marks the bicentenary of the abolition of slave trade in the United Kingdom. And the European Union too completed half century of its existence this year. The European Economic Community, as it was earlier known, came into being after the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It was created essentially to counter the growing influence of the then Soviet Union.
Apparently, these national and international anniversaries may not be inter-related to each other. But if one examines these dates closely one can discover some sort of link between the developments taking place in the Indian sub-continent and in the continent of Europe – to be precise United Kingdom – during the last three centuries. Though Aurangzeb’s death in 1707 and the unification of England and Scotland are entirely different developments taking place in the entirely different corners of the world yet the two dates can be considered as significant in other way. England, where the monarch became a figurehead after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, while Scotland emerged as a significant power of Europe by 1707. However, since that day its fortune started changing globally too.
On the other hand till 1707 Mughal India was educationally, socially, scientifically and culturally much more advanced than any nation of Europe. Even the Ottoman Turks could not reach the outskirts of Austrian capital Vienna till 1683. Till late 17th century Europeans were really afraid of the growing eastern empires. But there is no dearth of people today who lack sense of history and are carried away by the western intellectual propaganda. They think that by 1707 the West was much advanced than India and other Eastern civilizations, for example China. The reality was far from that. India, for example, had about one-fourth share in the international trade by 1750 – even though the decline had started – while British had just 1.5 to 2 per cent. This means that India was much ahead till the mid of 18th century. However, by 1850 the figures changed completely. The British share in the global trade was about one-fourth and that of India just less than two per cent. The one century which brought about all the difference is the 19th century. While United Kingdom, Italy and Germany had been on the path of unification the Mugals in India, the Ottomans in the centre of the world and China in the far east were about to get disintegrated.
The truth is that the actual decline of India started in 1707. The centre of power started crumbling and by 1857 the West finally prevailed over the East – at least in this sub-continent. This notwithstanding this is the fact that till 1857 educationally, culturally and socially Muslims or for that matter the Indians were not doing as badly as it is made out. It was only after tumultuous developments between May 11, 1857, when the first shot was fired against the British in Delhi, to the last week of September, that changed the fortune of India as well as Muslims. And within a couple of decades after 1857 Muslims became the most illiterate, ignorant and ‘uncivilized’ lot. Up to 1947 the decline continued though some Brown Sahibs like Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, did try to educate a handful of Muslim elite. But the problem with him was that he hated the artisans, craftsmen and other Muslim working class people who wholeheartedly fought against the British in 1857. He used the most offensive terminology, Badzat Julahe for them simply because they fought against the British Masters. Such utterances have no place in Islam yet the entire Muslim elite has forgotten and overlooked them.
Sir Sayyid’s approach harmed the Muslims more than it benefited them though the elite have in the last 150 years failed to realize it. Not only that, they do not even allow the debate on the issue.
In contrast take the example of a British gentleman called William Wilberforce, who had championed the abolition of slave trade in Britain exactly 200 years ago. The main reason for fighting slavery was to facilitate conversion to Christianity. He believed that one could not really convert slaves and that they should accept Christ freely. Though this British MP died in 1833 he played a key role in not only the abolition of slave trade but also played a pivotal role in spreading Christianity in India. Though he died in 1833 yet along with Reverend John Jennings played a significant role in converting Indians, particularly Hindus, to Christianity. Jennings was killed in the 1857 uprising.
Exactly 60 years after 1857 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi launched his peaceful struggle. Perhaps he realized the futility of arms resistance as the crushing of Mutiny by the British was too fresh in the mind.
While Gandhiji, with his own style of agitation managed to win over the support of common as well as elite Hindus, also attracted the weavers, artisans and craftsmen belonging to the Muslim community. The elite Muslims, in the beginning ignored, the working class of the community. Aligarh, no doubt, emerged as a centre of learning for Muslims, but it was here that the ‘uncivilized’ and backward Muslims were derided and ridiculed.
So when Jinnah launched his Pakistan movement he got maximum support from this very institution. More than 99 per cent of Muslims never understood Jinnah’s language, English, yet with the support of the elite he managed to carve out a free country – all in the name of Islam.
On the other hand a large section of downtrodden Muslims, Ansaris in particular, understood the verbal as well as the body language of Gandhiji – his symbolic weaving of cloth. Till long they continued to support the Congress. And the Muslim elite of North India failed to understand why.
Three hundred years after Aurangzeb, two centuries after the abolition of slave trade in Britain, 150 years after being thrown out of the throne of Delhi, 100 years after Gandhiji’s Satyagraha in South Africa, 90 years after his first Indian struggle and of course 60 years after independence and creation of weak – and now even truncated – Pakistan Muslim elite of the sub-continent, in general, are yet to learn some bitter lessons. But there seems to be a silver lining. Some of them in the new generation have started realising the ground realities.