In the previous articles, we have dealt with the decoloniality narrative and the Hindu civilisational supremacy of the Hindutva ecosystem. We discussed and compared the ideas of civilisation reform by icons like Allama Iqbal, Swami Vivekananda, Abul Kalam Azad, and Sarwapalli Radhakrishnan. We carry the study forward with two great scholars of the Indian subcontinent, Shah Waliullah Dahlawi and Syed Ahmed Shaheed. Their lives, contributions, and impact on the liberation of India from the colonisation and coloniality of British rule are noteworthy. Both share a relationship. Shah Waliullah provided the agenda for the reformation of Islam. Syed Ahmed was inspired by him and gave practical shape to his ideas.
The Mujaddid of Islam in the subcontinent
Shah Waliullah’s stature in shaping the Muslim identity and discourse can be understood by his title as a true Mujaddid (Revivalist) of Islam. Though a Mujaddid is not a prophet, yet in spirit (mizaaj), he comes very close to one. He is characterised by a clear mind, penetrating vision, unbiased and straightforward thinking, a unique ability to see the right path free from all extremes, a power to think independently of contemporary and centuries-old social prejudices, courage to fight against the evils of the time, an inherent ability to lead and guide, and an unusual competency to undertake Ijtihad and the work of reconstruction (Maududi, A.A.: TajdeedwaAhya e Deen, p. 45). Shah Waliullah indeed ranks among the most outstanding leaders of human history, who by dint of their intellectual powers, carve out a clear and straight highway of knowledge and action out of the Jungle of confused ideas and thoughts.
While going through and turning the pages of his books, one does not at all feel that these were written in a place surrounded by luxury, indulgence and self-worship, killings and coercion, Tyranny and chaos (Maududi, A. A.: TajdeedwaAhya e Deen, p. 89-90).
Most religious learning institutions in the subcontinent owe their existence directly or indirectly to Shah Waliullah. He is as much a source of inspiration and guidance for the Ulama and Mashaikh(scholars) as for modern Muslim thinkers like Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Allama Shibli Noumani, and Muhammad Iqbal, neo-revivalists like Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Sayyid Abdul Hassan Ali Nadwi, and many others. After the death of Shah Waliullah, a band of pupils and disciples carried out his mission, and one of the key figures who brought it into action was Syed Ahmed Shaheed.
The 18th and 19th centuries were very dynamic in a sense that we see revivalist movements starting in Indian subcontinent, whether Hindu revival like Bhakti Movement, Ramakrishna Mission, Brahmo Samaj, etc. or endeavours of Islamic revival. Now the question is why were revivalist movements (Hindu and Muslim) propped up in the subcontinent during the British rule or Colonisation? Let’s use the decoloniality lens to answer this question. They emerged from a critique of Eurocentrism and the coloniality of knowledge, power, and being. This challenged the hegemonic understanding of culture and aimed to dismantle the dominance of Western modernity and colonisation. Hence, the movements of Shah Waliullah and Syed Ahmed were internal reformations of Islam, similar to those on the Hindu religious or civilisational front.
As it challenged the British hegemony and colonial rule, therefore this movement was to become a thorn in the side of India’s British rulers, who labelled it “Wahhabi”. To inhibit people from joining it and to create confusion and split because Abd-ul-Wahhab and his followers had incurred opprobrium in the Muslim world. Almost every European historian, especially W.W.Hunter in his book Indian Musalmans, had dubbed the reformist movement of Sayyid Ahmad as “Wahhabi” and “Wahabism as synonymous with rebellion against the British government.” (W.W. Hunter,The India Musalmans, London, 1876,pp.60-61)
In the second volume of his Decoloniality series, India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation(p. 45), J. Sai Deepak delves into the history of this revivalist movement in India. But his narrative is in stark contrast to the decoloniality. Instead of using the principles of ‘interculturality’and ‘pluriversality,’ he uses the lens of ‘cultural wars’ and ‘clash of civilisations’, which starkly contrasts the decoloniality principle. He then re-reads history, just like his predecessors, using a new label of decoloniality for the old Hindu nationalism paradigm, relabelling it as the Indic Renaissance and painting the Islamic revival movements and Muslims of India in general with a modern ‘War on Terror’ paint. We prefer to call Shah Waliullah’s and Syed Ahmed’s revivalist movement the “Waliullahi Movement,” as opposed to the “Wahabi Movement” used by British historians and the Hindu nationalist rhetoric of decoloniality. Here are J Sai Deepak’s core takeaways from his book regarding the Waliullahi Movement and Indian Muslims in general,
1.Muslims don’t integrate with Indian society, and there is no existence of Ganga-Jamanitahzeeb. It was Shah Waliullah Dehlawi who exhorted Muslims not to integrate into society. “Dehlawi, as part of his teachings, exhorted Muslims of the subcontinent not to integrate into society, since contact with Hindus would contaminate their Islamic purity.”(p.13)
2.Muslims use languages like Persian and Arabic to maintain their purity and alienation. “To ensure that they learned the Quran before they were ‘contaminated’ by the polytheistic practices and idolatrous beliefs of their Hindu ancestors and neighbours, Dehlawi translated the Quran into Persian.….” (p.13)
3.Wahabi is a Middle Eastern coloniality. Muslims follow the Quran and Hadith and early Arab Muslims since they were immediate followers of the Prophet (pbuh). Hence, the author subtly claims that Indian Muslims are not Indians. Here, it is worth noting that the author’s tone shifts from faith to citizenship. “He mandated that Muslims of the subcontinent follow the customs and mores of the early Arab Muslims since they were the immediate followers of the Islamic Prophet.” (p.13)“…my specific objective is to draw attention to the long memory (both territorial and temporal) of Middle Eastern coloniality as reflected by the Wahhabi Movement, its modus operandi and the fact that this mindset still thrives….” (p.19) “Clearly, birth in Bharat alone does not make someone Bharatiya, since more than race or ethnicity, it is the consciousness of being Bharatiya that matters. As long as the consciousness refuses to embrace the Indic element, it remains alien, notwithstanding claims of accrual of nativity by birth.”(p.13) Here, it is worth noting that the author’s tone shifts from faith to citizenship. Muslims follow the Islamic faith. It is as simple as that. The author’s depiction of India as a ‘Singular Hindu Cultural Identity’ or ‘cultural Homogenisation’ is not decoloniality. Unity in civilisational terms needs to be contextualised within the broader plural socio-political dynamics rather than the binary lens of “internal” vs “external”. Such a depiction breeds mistrust and alienation.
4.The author tries to connect a parallel to the “War on Terror” narratives of present times with the Wahabi movement and the idea of Decoloniality and communalism into it. This is what he writes, “Readers may note that it is against this backdrop that Balakot in the NWF, now known as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province in present-day Pakistan, continues to be relevant to Bharat and the subcontinent at large, since its role in indoctrinating and training jihadis remains unchanged.…” (p. 25)This passage also underscores the historical significance of the surgical airstrikes undertaken by the Indian Air Force in Balakot in 2019 in response to the Pulwama suicide bombing. That the seeds for this terror network were sown by Barelvi in the 1800s needs to be pointed out, given the present-day tendency to look at certain incidents in isolation instead of identifying the existence of a thought continuum.
After reading this narrative, one has some logical questions: Who created it? What is the role of British historians like W.W. Hunter? Why are those fighting against the British and the British Raj dealing with them as enemies of the empire, rebels against the Raj, today being rebranded as terrorists? Why not the Patriots? Why not freedom fighters?
All religions, including Hinduism, discussed and underwent reformation during the colonial period. But why is the Waliullahi movement for internal reform of the Muslim community not given that space? Why are they dubbed enemies of plural values and of Hindus? Let’s dive into the resources to find out the answers. We will quote from the same resources as quoted by J Sai Deepak to expose his half-truths and misrepresentations. He relied on British historians like W.W. Hunter and his polemic history, Qayamuddin Ahmed and others.
Hindus, Sikhs and the Waliullahi Movement
The history of this movement and its effect span two centuries. Shah Waliullah Dehlawi sought to revive the Muslim community in the 18th century. His students and disciples who worked through the 19th century took up his ideological work. A resistance movement against British oppression culminated in the Battle of Balakot (1831). Though they lost, the struggle remains symbolic of resistance and sacrifice in the subcontinent’s history. It was fought against Maharaja Ranjit Singh, but was the resistance movement of Syed Ahmed Shaheed against the Sikhs or the British? Was it anti-Hindu? This is what Qayamuddin Ahmed writes,
“One of the misconceptions about the movement which appeared in many of the early writings in English, and to a lesser extent, in Urdu too, was that it was directed against the Sikhs. Sayyid Ahmad had selected the North-Western Frontier tribal area as the base of his operation due to ideological, tactical and strategic considerations. It led, among other things, to a clash with the forces of the Sikh darbar, whose territories lay between Sayyid Ahmad’s base and British India. (Ahmad, Q. (2020). The Wahhabi Movement in India (Second revised edition, p. 300). New York: Routledge.
The British authorities, therefore, considered the Wahhabis (this was the label given to Syed Ahmed and his followers by the British), even in their weakened state, a threat to the stability of their rule in India, and subjected them to constant military blows ever since the Annexation of Punjab (1845), which brought them into direct contact with the latter. To try to maintain in the face of all this that the Wahhabi Movement was directed against the Sikhs, not the British government, is to ignore completely the greater part of its history.
Now, let’s look into whether they were Anti-Hindu. In 1826, Syed Ahmed began his journey from British India into the independent tribal territories on the North-Western Frontier to fight the British. He and his followers prepared thoroughly for this task. For such an enormous endeavour, he needed funds and support. Many Hindus supported him to fight the British. Here are a few of the references.
Sayyid Ahmad, who was travelling through Dalmau and Fatahpur, reached Gwalior, where he met with Maharaja Daulat Rao Sindhia. It was probably arranged through the initiative of the Maharaja’s brother-in-law, Hindu Rao, who then wielded much influence in the darbar and who seems to have developed some admiration and respect for Sayyid Ahmad. [Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
In the Battle of Usmanzai (1828), a party of ‘Wahhabis’ captured some cannons from the Durranis and used them effectively against the latter. The Waqai records the interesting case of a Rajput named Raja Ram, resident of Baiswara, who fought in the Wahhabi force on this occasion. At one stage, when the Wahhabis had been ordered to withdraw from one sector under the cover of darkness, he was left alone with the cannons. He kept on firing them throughout the night so that the enemies might think that the Wahhabis were still there. [Waqai’, Tonkms. f.155 b. Ahmad, Q. (2020)].
It was the Hindus who not only helped Sayyid Ahmed militarily but also with monetary supplies. Hindu bankers played a significant role in supporting the Muslim revolutionary forces during this expedition. Here is a reference from Qeyamuddin Ahmed,
Another important fact, often overlooked, is that the work of converting the cash into gold muhrs or of getting the hundis prepared was done through Hindu bankers. The names of the banking houses, RamkishenFuttuh Chand (Delhi), Lall Chand Kurum Singh (Benaras), Manohar Dass (Patna), SamuntRamand Shew Buksh, and of two bankers Moti and Santu of Manara (North-Western Frontier) are mentioned. [Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
It was not Hindu vs Muslim; Syed Ahmed never had a grand welcome from the Muslims. He fought more battles with local Muslim tribal chiefs than with Sikhs. One such incident happened in Peshawar, where he defeated Sultan Khan. But after victory, he was declared Kafir by the local Ulama. Because of the backlash, he restored the government to Sultan Khan, who had been defeated. But hearing this, the local Khans, Hindu Seths, and Sahukars requested him to stay and not to do so. Now, the question is, why did the Hindu Raja meet and admire him? Why was he opposed by the Muslim Chieftains, especially if he was waging a holy war against the Hindus? Why did the Hindus join his army to fight alongside him? Not only that, Hindu bankers even funded Sayyid Ahmed’s forces. The participation of the Hindu bankers increased during the later period. How is this possible?
Trials of Wahabi and our shared future:
Not just this, but later, during the court trials (the Ambala and Patna trials), the sections imposed by the British on them were 121 of IPC- waging war against the queen in the years. Still, the Hindus stood as witnesses in favour of Muslim Revolutionaries. There is also the somewhat remarkable and inexplicable instance of one Nundlall, a resident of Fatuha, district Patna, going all the way to Ambala as a defence witness to depose in favour of the Wahhabis, accused of treason. (Mayo Papers, University Library, Cambridge, U.K: Ms. 7490 Box 13, Memorandum by T.E. Ravenshaw)
The Muslim revolutionaries suffered penal sentences and torture at Kalapani Andaman Islands. Hindus even attended the burial ceremonies of the Muslims. One example is Yahya Ali, one of the prominent convicts buried in the Ross Islands. Yahya Ali died on 29th February 1868 and was buried in the cemetery at Ross Island. Some 2500 Muslims living in the different islands, as well as many Hindus, attended the funeral procession. [Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
Even more important is the book British Rule and Native Opinion. Apparently unconnected with the subject of the Wahhabis, it nevertheless contains beneficial information. The author came to India in the early 1870s to study public opinion regarding some important contemporary events. The Wahhabis were much in the news then, and the author was present at the Malda (1870) and Patna (1871) trials and had taken notes. His remark, which now seems to be prophetic, that he took it “to be among the certainties of life” that the history of these trials would “someday be read with just pride in India.” [Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
If the so-called “Wahabi” convicts were anti-Hindu or hated and plotted against them – why did the Hindus attend their funeral? Why did they empathise and show solidarity with them? Noteworthy is the fact that all prisoners at Kalapani were political prisoners (Hindus and Muslims alike). Leaders of the Indian freedom struggle were well aware of India’s socio-political scenarios and with Who’s Who in India? Did they not understand it? If such a grand conspiracy was hatched against the Hindus by Muslims? A Pan-Islamic or Global Ummah as Sai Deepak wants to portray, were these Hindus idiots not to understand it? Or was the reality utterly different from what the proponents of Hindutva wanted to portray? It’s simple – all Indians were united against the common enemy and coloniser – the British. But one has to be watchful of the British ideas of divide and rule still thriving today in the guise of Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva.
The Secretive Literature of WaliullahiMovement?
Language plays a critical role in shaping identities. Deepak’s argument revolves around the idea that the Wahabi movement’s literature was deliberately secretive, written in Persian and Arabic, to maintain a distinct identity and avoid assimilation into the broader Indian society. He stresses that the literature constantly returned to its roots in Arabia and alienated itself from the Indian (Hindu) masses to remain pure and uncorrupt, preaching a secretive Jihad. But, the historical evidence is contrary to this claim.
From a detailed inquiry, we learned that the pamphlets were published not only in Urdu and Persian but also in Hindi. Syed Ahmed also emphasised the translation of the Quran and Hadith into vernacular languages. The Wahhabi pamphlets, mostly written in Urdu prose, and a few copies in Hindi, too, are extant. Such works, as were written originally in Arabic or Persian, were translated into simple Urdu, and both the original text and Urdu translations were printed side by side on each page. [Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
Historically, more significant is the repeated emphasis by the Wahhabis on the translation of the Quran and Hadith into the vernacular languages so that the people could read them directly. This is a very important point with them. They urged the necessity and utility of people reading the scriptures directly and urged the translation of the Quran and Hadith in the ‘Hindi language’.[Ahmad, Q. (2020)]
The framing of Shah Waliullah Dahlavi and his school of thought of Islamic revivalism and later Syed Ahmed and his revolutionary efforts, the Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia of contemporary India as an extension of the 18th-century movements and branding them with the yardstick of Hindutva’s political instrumentalization and their portrayal as external threats to Indic Civilisation is incorrect. The historical depth of revivalist movements predates contemporary geopolitical issues and political purposes. They were primarily focused on the internal purification of Islamic practices and jurisprudence in 18th-century Mughal India. Linking them into modern narratives is an act of reductionism, ignoring their broader theological, spiritual, and social dimensions. Deepak concludes his analysis by linking the history of Pan-Islamic thought from Sarhindi to Dahlawi and Barelvi to the Aligarh Movement and, finally, the two-nation theory. This is an act of misreading and misquoting history, a modern Hindutva-bred exercise of “The Clash of Civilisations” narrative. British histories have provided food for the breeding of such narratives.
The Fear-Mongering of W.W. Hunter
The source material on the Wahhabi Movement in English, both archival and published, represents the government official’s view of the Wahhabis, focusing on their anti-government activities. Though some awareness is shown of their religious background, the Wahhabis are presented mainly as conspirators and rebels against the Raj. Similar parallels from the later Indian freedom movement are many, from Subhash Chandra Bose to Bhagat Singh. However, respect and pride are missing for Muslims.
Why the British branded them? Because they provided a new outlook for the Indian freedom movement. A fresh perspective and ideas to the masses to organise against the British. The one that inspired the Revolt of 1857. Tarachand, History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. 11, has a similar outlook. He classifies the WaliullahiMovement as “Resistance and Insurrections” for India’s freedom movement. One of the sections is titled “Waliullahi Movement”. We take the name from here instead of the British coinage “Wahabi Movement”.
Some also questioned Hunter’s finding in the official circles. It was questioned by writers like Anil Seal [Seal, A. (1968). The emergence of Indian nationalism: Competition and collaboration in the later nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] and Peter Hardy [Hardy, P. (1972). The Muslims in British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] that Hunter’s book was a sort of ‘command performance’ and virtually a ‘demi-official publication’. But obvious is the fact that what will the British official stand be against the Indian liberators or revolutionaries? Therefore, the use of these British narratives by Hindutva writers is deeply disturbing and an act of negating the plural values of India and the creation of Indic-oriented state power.