Preface to the second edition

[47
the Muslims would be reduced after the departure of the British and felt that consolidation of the British rule in India was in theinterest of all minorities, particularly the Muslims.
Nobody who has lived to see the departure of the British and the actual fulfilment of Syed Ahmed’s fears will blame him. In this, as in many other things, it appears that Syed Ahmed’s only fault was that he saw farther than any other Muslim of his time. Certainly it is unfair to impute any dishonourable motives, and it is refreshing to turn to the words of Maulana Muhammad Ali who, from the presidential chair of the Indian National Congress,. said:
Reviewing the actions of a bygone generation, today, when it is easier to be wise after the event, I still think that the attitude of Syed Ahmed Khan was eminently wise, and much as I wish that some things which he had said should have been left unsaid, I am constrained to admit that no well-wisher of Musalmans, nor or India as a whole, could have followed a very different course in leading the Musalmans.
VIII
Hali in his biography of Syed Ahmed has called his life a model one. Syed Ahmed certainly had many outstanding qualities-energy, industry, moral courage, a dogged will, great capacity for absorbing knowledge from all quarters, political acumen of the highest order, a puckish sense of humour-without which he could not have achieved even a fraction of what he accomplished. He was a born leader of men, leonine in appearance and impressive in speech and during the half a century, for which heheld sway over Muslim destinies in India, he influenced and brought to the forefront a larger number of capable men, than has been done by any other modern Muslim leader.
He, however, had a full share of the defects of his virtuesand if we reflect on his habits and certain incidents of his life, in many respects he appears a most dangerous ”model” to follow. His method of work, for example, would kill a normal human being. He never slept for more than three or four hours, and if, owing.to illness or any other cause, he could not get sleep at night, he would get up and start writing. Actually when he was

48 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

writing his Commentary on the Quran, for sometime he had completely given up going to bed. He would sit and work on the floor, surrounded by books, and tried to keep himself awake by drinking occasional cups of tea. When sleep completely overpowered him, he would take a book for a pillow, and sleep on the floor for an hour or so and again resume his work!
He was equally reckless in his disregard of appearances. He has been called the Father of Modern Urdu Literature, but if so, he was the ”most unliterary of men of letters”. His motto was ”Never mind the manner of writing. Look to matter, first and last.” The result was that, except when he was under the influence of a deep emotion (as, for instance, when he wrote his famous letter to Hali on the publication of the Musaddas or when he poured out his sentiments on re-reading Muir’s book), his writings lack finish and grace. Even his speeches, which he delivered under the stress of some emotion, usually make better reading than his written articles. The traditional attitude of Indo-Muslim writers towards verbal craftsmanship has been just the reverse of Syed Ahmed. With them ”manner” has normally come before the ”matter”. In a community which has traditionally regarded painting as taboo (in spite of the admirable Mughal school of painting) and has left music in the hands of lower classes, it was natural that, for artistic self-expression, people should turn more and more to poetry and semi-poetic prose. Syed Ahmed had no patience with fine or even with well-planned writing, and the result is that, though in his lifetime he was able to brush aside tinselled cobwebs of imaginative writing, and allow bright, healthgiving sunshine into the realms of Urdu prose, today his writings do not attract a large reading public.
He exhibited a similar want of consideration in dealing with human beings. He was a well-meaning, well-mannered Muslim of -old Delhi school, extremely warm-hearted in his fjiendships. The devotion he inspired among a large circle of friends may be judged from the success with which he was constantly able to draw on them for financial and other help for his numerous schemes of public service. But he was emphatically not one of those who, out of what is often termed ”Oriental courtesy,” keep up an appearance of friendship even when the true friendly
Syed Ahmed Khan
[ 49
feeling has departed. He called this hypocrisy and would have nothing to do with it. He acted on these occasions with an amazing brusquerie, and even a marked want of tact. In 1872, some highly-placed European officers, including the Collector of the district, opposed the efforts of the College Foundation cornmittee to obtain land for the college. Syed Ahmed would, thereafter, never invite them to the functions at the college and refused to have any private or social dealings with them.38
He once had a similar quarrel with the Lieutenant-Governor of the province. In 1869, Syed Ahmed, in the course of an article, passed ”some strictures on the Government educational policy” and in reply to that Sir William Muir challenged the facts narrated by him. In the Urdu version of the Lieutenant-Governor’s speech, which Syed Ahmed received in England, he appeared to have been accused of a want of veracity. Syed Ahmed resented this deeply, and not only gave up correspondence with Sir William Muir, but on his return to India, avoided all opportunities to meet him. Ultimately the Lieutenant-Governor got the following letter •written to him by his Private Secretary:
My dear Sir,
The Lieutenant-Governor desires me to say that he was glad to hear, from Raja Jykishen Dass, at Allygurh, of your safe return to India with one of your sons.
His Honour has been looking for an account from you of •your other son’s progress, he being the Lieutenant-Governor’s nominee for the North-West Provinces Scholarship.
Sir William Muir will hope to hear about him and about your own welfare.
Syed \hmed wrote back, referring to Muir’s speech, and plainly hinted that there was no point in the Lieutenant-Governor’s seeing him, if he was ”deemed capable of telling an untruth”. At this Sir William Muir immediately wrote a personal letter, making it clear that, although he still differed with Syed Ahmed about the inferences drawn by him, he could ”never have dreamt of imputing to you anything approaching to a misstatement of facts”.39
Syed Ahmed, as we have already stated, advocated loyalty
towards the reigning government. Same is the policy of those
”who, on account of a weakness of character or for selfish reasons
of personal aggrandizement, can follow no other course. This has
4

I
50 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

occasionally led to a misunderstanding of Syed Ahmed’s political policy, but as would be seen from an account of his career, Syed Ahmed was completely free from any timidity or personal avarice. His policy of loyalty was based entirely on reasons of national interest. It is interesting to read what a celebrated English crit-c wrote about Syed Ahmed’s method of work. Sir Walter Raleigh, who knew Syed Ahmed during his early association with Aligarh College, wrote some years after his death to Sir Austen Chamberlain:
I remember being struck in India by the close grip that Orientals have of the essentials of politics. My old chief, Sir Syed Ahmed (a great man, and a great politician), was a most potent diplomatist merely because he knew the value of an ungloved hand. He used to disconcert high officials by blurting out the essential at the very beginning of an interview. The diplomatist thinks that diplomacy is the art of coating pills with sugar !40
Shibli, as we shall see in a later chapter, was a thoroughgoing opponent of Syed Ahmed’s political policy but even he -admired Syed Ahmed’s courage and strength of character. In the course of an Urdu article, he wrote in 1910 :
That powerful pen that could produce a book like The Causes of the Indian Revolt and produce it at a time when the country was yet under the Martial Law; that brave man who, in opposition to the Panjab University Scheme, mercilessly shattered all the arguments of Lord Lytton, and expressed, in three articles, Indian demands in a language, unequalled in the entire Congress literature; that hero who walked out of the Agra Durbar because Indians and the British were not treated alike in the matter of the seating arrangements; that fair-minded patriot who hailed the Bengalis as the prime of the country. . . .4i
Syed Ahmed was easily the ablest Indian Muslim of his day. He was essentially sound in his judgment, but he was trying to lead his people in educational, political, literary, religious and social matters, and it was not humanly possible for him to attain perfection in each sphere. What he was able to achieve is a marvel, and normally he gives very rare occasions for criticism, but in the very nature of things, he had to say or do things which, if he had had greater leisure to consider them more fully, he might have avoided. This very busy and preoccupied individual had occasionally to offer opinions without the fullest realisation of implications or to word them in a language which was capable of improvement. Where
Syed Ahmed Kton
[ 51
orne of nis firm convictions or pet fads were involved, the danger of stepping beyond the strict bounds of cautious statement naturally increased. While criticising Hunter’s book, for example, he was possibly correct in challenging tie accuracy of the author’s legal conclusion, but forgot that the book was essentially a fair one and very ably brought out the hardships which the Muslims were suffering. Similarly, his love of higher education, sometimes, led him to an expression of opinion regarding the old system of education which was not always very happily worded. His objections to encouraging technical education, at the expense of higher literary education, have been cautiously worded, but even now they are capable of being misunderstood and his criticism of small local schools or the old-fashioned madrasas, appears unfair to the generation, which is not really in touch with their working. Similarly, he may have been fully justified in holding that the first need of the community was to have a first-rate, well-equipped, modern educational institution, which could train up the future leaders of the people, but in emphasising this, he sometimes overlooked the needs of the distant Muslims who could not afford higher education of the public school type or send their children to Aligarh. Syed Ahmed was, as we have said, essentially wise in his views, but towards the close of his life, in sone matters, he developed a tendency towards extremism and a slightly exaggerated reliance on his views, which occasionally impaired the value of his judgment. The perseverance with which he continued his religious controversies is a glaring instance of how he persisted in the expression of his opinion, even at the risk of imperilling his main work in life. There is no doubt that his religious writings enormously increased his difficulties. His co-workers and friends, like Mohsin-ul-Mulk, advised him to give them up, in the interest of his work. But it would not have been Syed Ahmed, if, out of regard for any possible advantage to himself or to his mission, he had suppressed the expression of what he believed to be the truth. He has laid bare his soul, while writing to a friend of his, who advised him in the interests of his public activities, against expression of unpopular views:
You may not be knowing, but I divide Wahabis [the strict Puritans of Islam] into three categories: (a) Wahabis, (b) bitter

52 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

Wahabis and (c) thrice bitter Wahabis. I count myself in the third category, and except for what I consider the expression of truth, I do not care a jot for anything else, and believe this to be the very first step towards Islam. . . .
Satan, our enemy, deceives us, under the guise of virtue. We are asked to believe that we are performing noble deeds, and serving the public; and, now, if we utter an unpopular truth, people will be scared, and our noble work will suffer! This is, in reality, the deception of Satan, under the guise of virtue. To suppress or fight shy of the truth, and still to expect that virtue will flourish, is like sowing barley and expecting wheat to grow.
Syed Ahmed persisted in the expression of his unorthodox and unpopular views on religious questions. When the Aligarh College was established, he had agreed to hand over all religious affairs of the college to a committee of orthodox Muslims and had promised to have nothing to do with these matters himself Under this arrangement, the spiritual side of the college was deprived of the support of a dynamic personality, but Syed Ahmed faithfully carried out the agreement. He not only left the management of the religious affairs of the college severely alone, but would not allow any of his controversial publications to fall into the hands of the college students. Outside the college, however, he did not give up his activities. As a matter of fact, now, he embarked upon the most ambitious of his religious works-the Commentary on the Quran. During his controversy with Muir and, after reading the Christian literature on Islam, he had felt that if Islam was to appeal to Indian Muslims, even after they had received a modern education, a new interpretation of Islam reconciling it with the latest scientific theories was essential. He had spread the modern education amongst Muslims, and he felt it was his duty to save them from any adverse effects this may have on their loyalty towards their religion.
A year after the foundation of the college, he started his cornmentary. He devoted more of his time to this work, till, at length, seven bulky volumes were published, but he died before his task was finished. This book, even as it is, is a colossal monument of industry and scholarship. Syed Ahmed ransacked the entire literature of Islam to cull out authorities whose views supported his thesis, that there was nothing in the Quran which was incom-
Syed Ahmed Khan
[53
patible with modern science. ”The word of God (Quran),” he said, ”must be in harmony with the work of God (Nature).” He followed the Mutazili method in conforming religion to science, and is regarded as the leader of modern Mutazilites. Some of his conclusions are open to criticism and whenever an assertion is made with regard to an ancient revealed religion, that it conforms in every respect to the latest scientific opinion, some far-fatched interpretations are inevitable, but the Commentary is a monumental work. Of course, it is possible to differ from the basic principle, that religion should conform to scientific knowledge, but if the need for proving Islam as fully compatible with all modern knowledge is accepted, Syed Ahmed would seem to have fulfilled this need as well as anyone else has done so far. To judge the stupendous nature of Syed Ahmed’s work, it is only enough to compare his Tafsir with the celebrated Al-Manar Commentary on the Quran. Syed Ahmed wrote in Urdu, and hence his work is not so well known as the Arabic Commentary of the Egyptian scholars, but in ripe scholarship, close reasoning and soundness of judgment, it has not been excelled by the later publication.
In writing his Commentary, Syed Ahmed had shown scant regard for the susceptibilities of the ordodox, but luckily it aroused much less active hostility than his Tahzlb-ul-Akhlaq. For one thing, his point of view was now generally known, and did not shock the public opinion as much as it did a few years back. He also was now a maturer and, if not a sadder, at least a wiser man. In the early days, when his views were criticised, he retaliated and so the fires of controversy were constantly fed. Now his attitude was different. He smiled at the severest possible criticism or even downright abuse, and disarmed opposition, or at least made it look ridiculous, by a puckish sense of humour.
Unluckily, it cannot be said that the object, to which Syed Ahmed devoted so much of energy and time, has been achieved. His Commentary may have provided adequate answers to the wavering or the sceptical, and some of his theories have be;n incorporated in their systems by modern sects, like the Ahmadis, but it cannot be said that his views have found general currency, or that they have been adopted even by those Muslims who have received modern education. This is partly due to the revival of

54 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan

orthodox Islam under the influence of Abul Kalam Azad and Iqbal, but this must be partly attributed to the decline of real interest in religion.
Syed Ahmed’s peculiarities of character, which were the overflow of an honest, straightforward, puritanical temperament, increased his difficulties, but he had to suffer many accidental misfortunes also. Of his two very able sons, one died prematurely, and the other-Syed Mahmud-had a nervous breakdown, from which he did not recover during the lifetime of his father, and died shortly after his death. Added to these domestic misfortunes were some serious difficulties connected with the college. In 1889, after certain instances of indiscipline by the college boarders, who were supported by some influential members of the College cornmittee, serious difficulties arose between the European members of the staff and those Committee members, and to assuage the fears of the European staff, which was supported by high Government officers, a new Trustee Bill had to be adopted. This resulted in a split amongst the supporters of the college, and caused no little pain and anxiety to Syed Ahmed. In 1895, an even bigger misfortune fell. Shyam Behari Lai, the college accountant, by forging cheques and receipts, defrauded the college to the extent of a lakh of rupees,
Syed Ahmed was struggling courageously against these misfortunes when a development took place in the attitude of Indian Muslims towards Turkey, which caused him great anxiety. At that time the cloud that appeared on the horizon was no bigger than a hand, but Syed Ahmed, with his characteristic foresight, saw how it would grow, and tried to arrest its becoming a menace to the welfare of his people. He had greatly encouraged friendship between Turkey and Indian Muslims. Amongst the Muslim countries abroad, he saw in Turkey the only one from which Indian Muslims could learn something for modernising their life and improving their social habits. In the Tahzib-ul-Akhlaq, he constantly published articles about Turkey. He was probably the first Indian Muslim to wear (what was at that time) the Turkish Fez, and he made it a part of the college uniform. But now Indian Muslims began to take an interest in Turkish affairs, which, without being of any material help to Turkey, might jeopardise
Syed Ahmed Khan
[
their own future. Towards the end of his life, Gladstone, the Liberal Prime Minister of England, started a campaign against Turkey, which had important repercussions in India. The Indian Muslims looked upon the Armenian rebellion against the Turks and the war between Greece and Turkey as a revival of the old crusades against the Muslims. Many influential Muslims began to refer to the Turkish Caliph as the spiritual head of the Muslim world, like the Pope amongst the Roman Catholics. Syed Ahmed became uneasy. His personal sympathies were emphatically with the Turks, but he feared that this outburst of pro-Turkish feeling amongst the Indian Muslims, without effectively helping the Turks, might complicate their relations with the British. Since the Revolt •of 1857 he had worked assiduously to smooth out differences between the Indian Muslims and the British, and, after the rise of the Indian National Congress, had begun to rely more and more on an Anglo-Muslim alliance to save Muslims from being submerged by the sister community. This line of approach was being threatened by the new development. He, therefore, wrote a series of articles denouncing the activities of Gladstone, and indicating on which side the sympathies of the Indian Muslims lay, bul emphatically warned bis Indian co-religionists against imputing religious motives to political warfare and allowing ineffective sympathy for the Turks to imperil their own welfare. He also made it clear that in their long history-and particularly under the Mughals-the Indian Muslims had never regarded the Sultan of Turkey as their spiritual head and that they were under no religious obligations to him. Syed Ahmed not only used his own pen for this unpopular but, from practical point of view, sound piece of advice, but obtained the help of other scholars, and Shibli •wrote a well-documented article in support of the thesis advanced by Syed Ahmed.
Syed Ahmed was now advancing in years and, apart from old age, the blows which he had suffered towards the end of his life, seriously affected his health. He, however, did not allow this to interfere with his activities. The casual way in which he refers in his letters even to serious illness is typical of the man. In March

1894, he wrote to a friend, ”I have been lately somewhat ill. The action of my heart had slowed down and the circulation of blood

56 ] Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan
was retarded. This Jed to a swelling of the feet and the thighs, but it was nothing more than a result of the slow action of the heart, and now. . . .”
A year later, Sir Abdul Qadir saw him at Shahjahanpur, \\here he was conducting the annual session of the Mohammadan Educational Conference:
I was struck with his wonderful energ\. Though he was then an old man of seventy-eight, he sat for more than six hours every day in the Conference, as its Secretary. He gave numerous interviews to its members and visitors in the hours preceding and following the sittings and, with the exception of the time of meals, he was busy from early morning till late at night, unruffled and majestic,
Hali, who saw him about this time, wrote in a letter to a friend:
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is slightly less than eighty, and has suffered many blows and sorrows, but fiom his activities and the arrangements he is making about the college, one would think that he is going to live for ever !
Syed Ahmed’s last years were clouded by personal tragedies, but his work for the college and his people continued right till the end. Eight days before his death, he employed his pen once again in support of Urdu, in the Hindi-Urdu controversy, which was lifting its head once again, and, shortly thereafter, commenced an article in vindication of the Prophet.
The end came suddenly. He fell ill on 24 March 1898. and passed away, two days later, with his favourite verses of the Quran on his lips.
IX
Syed Tufail Ahmed in a book, which is not remarkable for any partiality towards Syed Ahmed, sa>s : ”The Indian Muslims realised their decay and downfall only about 1870, and this was the time when Syed Ahmed started his movement of reform. At that time the Indian Muslims realised for the first time that the responsibility for their progress and welfare, which was being formerly shouldered by the Muslim government, had now to be discharged by themselves, and their well-being in future would depend on their efforts. In short, Syed Ahmed’s movement made
Syed Ahmed Khan
[57
them self-conscious, and they began to use their limited resources to regain their lost glory.”42 Pannikar writes, ”Indeed, it could well be claimed for Syed Ahmed that not only had he arrested the disintegration of Islam but in the course of a generation had restored it to a position of great importance and undoubted influence.”43 Choudhry Khaliquz-Zaman repeatedly refers to Sir Syed as ”Father of Muslim India,”44 and ”Father of Modern Muslim India” certainly he was.
Syed Ahmed filled a big void created in the life of the Muslim community by the disappearance of Muslim rule. But he did more. His long life, spanning almost a century, bridged the gulf between the medieval and the modern Islam in India. Himself a relic of the palmy days of the Great Mughals, he ushered in a new era. He gave the Indian Muslims a new cohesion, a new political policy, a new educational programme, a new prose, a new approach to their individual and national problems, and built up an organisation which could carry on his work. Before him there was all disintegration and decay. He rallied together the Indian Muslims, and became the first prophet of their new nationhood. He could very well say about seventy million Muslims of India :
”
! ju, oljjIS” jclji jlj j They were like a multitude, that had lost its bearings in the
wilderness. I gave my clarion-call, and lo, they became a compact caravan !
Notes