WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN

WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN Compiled and edited by SHAN MOHAMMAD Foreword by RAM GOPAL NACHIKETA NACHIKETA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED 5 Kasturi Buildings, J. Tata Road, Bombay 20

14 SPEECH AT THE FOUNDING OF THE ANGLO-ORIENTAL COLLEGE Sir Syed gave a speech at the Public Dinner in Honour of the foundation of the Mahomedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, at the Aligarh Institute Hall on 8th January 1877. Friends and admirers of Syed Ahmad drank the toast of his health with great pleasure and enthusiasm and the English gentlemen while doing so sung merrily. In reply Syed Ahmad made the following speech. The enthusiasm with which you have drunk my health, fills me with feelings of a mixed nature. I feel obliged to you for the great honour you have done me; I feel sincerely happy that the events of to-day have passed off well, but along with these feelings there is a consciousness that I am neither worthy of the honour you have done me, nor that the success which the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College has hitherto secured, is due to my exertions to the extent you imagine. But, gentlemen, there is one thing which I admit sincerely, and without any hesitation, and that is, that the College of which the foundation-stone has been laid to-day, has been for many years the main object of my life. Ever since I first began to think of social questions in British India, it struck me with peculiar force that there was a want of genuine sympathy and community of feeling between the two races whom Providence has placed jn such close relation in this country. I often asked myself how it was that a century of English rule had not brought the natives of this country closer to those in whose hands Providence had placed the guidance of public affairs. For a whole century and more, you gentlemen, have lived in the country in which we have lived; you have breathed the same air, you have drunk the same water, you have lived upon the same crops as have given nourishment to millions

Speech at the Founding of the Anglo-Oriental College 129 of your Indian fellow subjects. Yet the absence of social intercourse, which is implied by the word friendship, between the English and the natives of this country, has been most deplorable. And whenever I have considered the causes to which this unsatisfactory state of things is due, I have invariably come to.the conclusion that the absence of community of feeling between the two races, was due to the absence of the community of ideas and the community of interests. And, gentlemen, I felt equally certain that so long as this state of things continued, the Mussalmans of India could make no progress under the English rule. It then appeared to me that nothing could remove these obstacles to progress but education. And education, in its fullest sense, has been the object in furthering which I have spent the most earnest moments of my life, and employed the best energies that lay within my humble power. (Applause.) Yes, the college is an outcome to a certain extent of my humble efforts, but there are other hands r whose existence has not only been most valuable but absolutely essential, to the success of.the undertaking. And I feel sure that the honour of the successes due to them, rather than to me. But gentlemen, the personal honour which you have done me to-night assures me of a great fact, and fills me with feelings of a much higher nature than mere personal gratitude. I am assured that you, who upon this occasion represent the British rule, have sympathies with our labours. And to me this assurance is very valuable, and a source of great happiness. At my time of life, it is a great comfort to me to feel that the undertaking which has been for many years, and is now, the sole object of my life, v has roused on one hand the energies of my own countrymen, and on the other, it has won the sympathy of our British fellow-subjects, and the support of our rulers; so that when the few years I may still be spared are over, and when I shall be no longer amongst you, the college will still prosper and succeed in educating my countrymjen to have the same affection for their country, the same feelings of loyalty for the British rule, the same appreciation of its blessings, the same sincerity of friendship with our British fellow-subjects as have been the ruling feelings of my life. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, I thank you again for the honour you have done me, and sincerely reciprocate the good wishes you have so kindly expressed this evening. (Loud Cheers.)

34 ON WAHABISM Letter of Sir Syed sent to the editor of the Pioneer from Benares, on 31 March 187.1 regarding the misconception prevailing in the English circles about Wahabism. Dear Sir, It is to be regretted that certain Anglo-Indian journals have misinterpreted the Futwa alluded to in your article of to-day's issue, and have deduced therefrom that Mohammedans in India would be justified in waging war against our Government were the prospects of success certain. As a staunch well-wisher of the British Government, and at the same time as a well-wisher to true Wahabeeism, I venture to claim the indulgence of space for these few lines in your next issue. It may shock some of my worthy friends to see me standing forth as the friend of Wahabeeism, but I trust they will acquit me from the imputation of being a Wahabee in the sense of being a Wahabee conspirator. Wahabeeism as exemplified by certain misguided men in India, is not Wahabeeism at all; and those who are really guilty of conspiring against Government are not acting up to the principles of their religious tenets. I say "really guilty" advisedly, as I have no doubt in my own mind that some persons, whose names I do not like to mention, were falsely imputed with such charges through the enmity and spite of certain parties. The true nature of the Wahabee case now pending in the Patna Court is unknown to me. As regards the portion of the Futwa above alluded to, as having been misinterpreted by the Englishman and other journals, t will now say a few words. The learned Moulavis, under whose authority the Futwa has been given out, declare Jehad against Government to be unlawful and unwarranted by the Moham-

238 Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan medan religion, and in support of their verdict they quote the following precepts: I. Mohammedans who live under the protection of a Government professing a different faith, are not justified in declaring a religious war against it. II. When there exists a treaty or peace between Mohammedans and some other people of a different religion, Jehad against the latter is unlawful. III. Jehad is allowable when there is every probability of victory to Mohammedans and glory to Islam. It is the last which has caused the mistake into which Anglo- Indian journals have fallen, which has made them opine that were the Mohammedans strong enough to cqpe with the British, those in India would be justified in rising in rebellion against Government. This is a perfectly erroneous interpretation of the clause in question. Its real meaning is that when of two independent kingdoms, the one being a Mohammedan, the other of a different faith, when there is no treaty between the two, and when in the non-mohammedan country Mohammedans are illtreated and are interdicted from preaching their religion, then the followers of Mohammed are enjoined to consider their strength and chances of success; and should they deem the latter likely, they are then to draw the sword for the glory and welfare of Islam. For example, should the king of Persia think his chances of success against the Russian Emperor good, should that Emperor ill-treat Mohammedans, he would be justified, according to his religion, in declaring war at once. This not being the case, he is justified in remaining quiet. The Mohammedans in India are, as shown in the Futwa, in no way justified in engaging in any project having for its object the subversion of the English Government. They have perfect freedom of speech, and no one interferes with their religion; and even were their religion interfered with, their proper course, according to the Mohammedan religion, would be to leave the country and not to rebel against Government. As regards the Wahabees in India, as far as my experience goes, their principles are identical with those of other Mohammedans as regards the unlawfulness of a Jehad against our Government. In 1857 when Bakht Khan 1 was in Delhi, and i The dominating figure of the revolt and the leader of the Central government at Delhi.

On Wahabism 239 endeavoured to compel the Moulavis of that city to issue a Futwa, declaring a jehad against the British Government lawful, two persons, both Wahabees, boldly opposed him, backed up though he was by the bayonets of his soldiery. One of these was a famous Moulavi holding an influential position in Delhi. Again, only one Wahabee joined the rebels during the Mutiny, and he was forced to do so. I dare say I shall not be believed in my statement that true Wahabeeism is not inimical to our Government, and I have no doubt that many people will abuse me for my Wahabee proclivities. By the English I shall be suspected as an intriguer, and by many of my ignorant fellow-countrymen I shall be condemned as a well-wisher to the Government, as one who lends his name and authority towards checking all unlawful (though in their eyes lawful) and ambitious schemes. I am prepared for am indeed perfectly accustomed to being misunderstood by both. Such has been niy lot now for many years. In conclusion, I will only say that I trust the Patna trial will be closely watched both by the Government and by the public. If the prisoners are really guilty of the offence with which they are charged, they have been guilty of a great crime against society and against the true principles of their religion. Let their punishment be sharp and severe. Government, however, must bear in mind that the sects called Wahabees and Bidaties 2 are bitter enemies, that their feelings towards one another are as bitter as were those of the Roman Catholics towards the Protestants in the days of the Reformation; and that it is therefore not at all improbable in this land of intrigue that false charges have been laid against innocent men, and that hundreds of false witnesses will testify to their guilt. Syed Ahmed Benares, 31st March 1871. 2 The creators of new ideas and things in religion which is not certified by Quran and Hadees.

35 THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS Badruddin Tyabji persuaded Sir Syed to join the Indian National Congress, but he refused to join it. Replying to Badruddin Tyabji he wrote the following letter. Sir, I read in your paper, dated April 2nd, a letter from my distinguished friend Mr Badruddin Tyabji, about the National Congress. I think it fit that I should myself write a reply to it, and I ask you to be so good as to give it a place in your valuable columns. I was very glad to learn that when my distinguished friend honoured the Madras Congress by becoming its President, he "rigidly excluded all questions which were merely of a provincial character, or in regard to which the three Presidencies were not practically agreed, or where the Hindus were opposed to the Mussalmans as a body, or vice versa." On my own behalf and on behalf of very many of our mutual co-religionists I thank him for this proceeding. I also agree with him in this "that the Congress could not be rightly termed a National Congress where any particular resolution could be carried against trie unanimous protest of either the Hindu or Mussalman delegate." But I go further: I first of all object to the word "delegate". I assure my friend that of the Mohammedans who went from the North- Western Provinces and Oudh, there is not one to whom the word "delegate" can be applied. I know well the condition of my own Province. Not ten Mohammedans came together to elect any one of those Mohammedans who went. In those districts from which they went there were not among the Raises and influential Mohammedans, nor among the middle classes, ten men who knew what the National Congress was, nor who had elected whom. Four days ago, a Mohammedan of liberal views, who went to Madras as a delegate, boasted that his glory lay in this: that the

The Indian National Congress 241 Hindus, and not the Mohammedans, had elected him. Then how inappropriate and absurd to apply the word "delegate* to Mohammedans under such circumstances? Secondly, I object to the implication that the only condition under which the Congress cannot be termed "national" is if any resolution be carried against the unanimous protest of either the Hindu or the Mohammedan members. The fact of any resolution being carried unanimously does not make the Congress a "national" one. A Congress can only be called "national" when the ultimate aims and objects of the people of which it is composed are identical. My distinguished friend himself admits that some of the aims and objects of Mohammedans are different from those of Hindus, while some are similar; and he desires that the Congress should put aside those in which they differ and confine itself to those in which they agree. But under these circumstances how can the Congress be a National Congress? Moreover, ftiy friend has not pointed out what plan both sides should adopt for accomplishing those aims on which Hindus and Mohammedans differ. Should Mohammedans and Hindus each havfc their owii Congress for their special objects in which they differ from one another? If so, as their aims are conflicting and contradicting, these two Congresses will go on fighting each either to the death; but when they meet in that Congress which my friends call the National Congress, they will then say: "No doubt you are my nation; no doubt you are my brother; no doubt your aims and my aims are one. How do you do, my brother? Now we are united on one point." I ask my friends honestly to say whether out of two such nations whose aims and objects are different, but who happen to agree in some small points, a "National" Congress can be created? No. In the name of God No. I thank my friend for inducing the twelve Standing Committees to sanction the rule "that any subject to which the Mussalman delegates object, unanimously or nearly unanimously, must be excluded from all discussion in the Congress." But I again object to the word "delegate", and would suggest that instead of that word be substituted "Mussalman taking part in the Congress." But if this principle which he has laid down in his letter and on which he acted when President, be fully carried out, I wonder what there will be left for the Congress to discuss. Those questions on which

242 Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan Hindus and Mohammedans can unite, and on which they ought to unite, and concerning which it is my earnest desire that they should unite, are social questions. We are both desirous that peace should reign in the country, that we two nations should live in a brotherly manner, that we should help and sympathise with one another, that we should bring pressure to bear, each on his own people, to prevent the arising of religious quarrels, that we should improve our social condition, and that we should try to remove that animosity which is every day increasing between the two communities. The questions on which we can agree are purely social. If the Congress had been made for these objects, then I would myself have been its President, and relieved x my friend from the troubles which he incurred. But the Congress is a political Congress, and there is no one of its fundamental principles, and especially that one for which it was in reality founded, to which Mohammedans are not opposed. We may be right or we may be wrong; but there is no Mohammedan, from the shoemaker to the Rais who would like that the ring of slavery should be put oh us by that other nation with whom we live. Although in the present time we have fallen to a very low position, and there is every probability we shall sink daily lower (especially when even our friend Badruddin Tyabji thinks it an honour to be President of the Congress), and certainly we shall be contented with our destiny, yet we cannot consent to work for our own fall. I ask my friend Badruddin Tyapbji to leave aside those insignificant points in the proposals of the Congress in which Hindus and MoKammedans agree (for there are no things in the world which have no points in\ common there are many things in common between a man and a pig), and to tell me what fundamental political principles of the Congress are not opposed to the interests of Mohammedans. The first is that members of the Viceroy's Council should be chosen by election, on which stress was laid in the recent Congress of Madras, over which our friend Badruddin Tyabji presided. I proved in my Lucknow Speech that whatever system of election be adopted, there will be four times as many Hindus as Mohammedans, and all their demands will be gratified, and the power of legislation over the whole country will be in the hands of Bengalis or of Hindus of the Bengali type, and the Mohammedans will fall into a condition of utmost degradation. Many people have heaped curses and abuses on me on account

The Indian National Congress 243 of my Lucknow Speech; but no one, one even my friend Badruddin Tyabji, has answered it. Whether the Bengali demands be right or wrong, I do not like to see my nation fall into this degraded condition; and at any rate I do not wish to join in proposals which will have this result. If I were not afraid of making fliis letter too long, I would discuss all the principles of the Congress in detail, and point out that they are all opposed to the interests of Mohammedans, and would bring them loss. But I will state briefly that as a general rule all political questions which can be discussed are dangerous and prejudicial to the interests of Mohammedans, and that they should take part in no political Congress. Leaving this aside, it is not expedient that Mohammedans should take part in proceedings like that of the Congress, which holds meetings in various places in which people accuse Government before crowds of common men of withholding their rights from her subjects, and the result of which can only be that ignorant and foolish men will believe Government to be tyrannical or at least unjust. They will suffer greater misfortunes from doing so than the Hindus and the Bengalis. What took place in the Mutiny? The Hindus began it; the Mohammedans with their eager disposition rushed into it. The Hindus having bathed in the Ganges became as they were before. But the Mohammedans and all their noble families were ruined. This is the result which will befall Mohammedans from taking part in political agitation. In America first this kind of political agitation began. By degrees the minds of men grew more excited. The last words which came from their mouths were "no taxation without representation". Let those people who have the strength to say and act on these words join the Congress and the political agitation. If they join it without this strength, it is but the clapping of impotent hands. We have not that strength. The Bengalis and those obscure Mohammedans who joined it at Madras may possess such strength. For them it may be a blessing; but the participation in it by our nation would be for us a curse.