Indian Muslims' isolationist and exclusivist mentality: History and Present

[CricketCartoons]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):

Any attempt to introduce a uniform civil code will be an infringement on the religious freedom of Muslims and will not be acceptable.

Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom, and that must include the freedom to follow our personal laws. Secularism should mean the state has no religion, but it must also mean that the state does not interfere with the religion of the people.

Mohammad Ismail (Madras):

It is not the intention of the Muslim community that their personal law should be altered, nor should the uniform civil code apply to them, because it would be an interference with their religious practices, which are an integral part of their life.

Our personal law is based on the Quran and we must retain it. Any attempt to tamper with it will affect our religion and identity, which we cannot compromise.

Z.H Lari (UP):

Muslims have always had their personal law and that must be respected. It is not just a set of rules but part of our identity and religious practice. The state should not compel us to give up our personal law.

Pocker Sahib (Madras):

But if it is intended that the aspiration of the State should be to override all these provisions and to have uniformity of law to be imposed upon the whole people on these matters which are dealt with by the Civil Courts Acts in the various provinces, well, I would only say, Sir, that it is a tyrannous provision which ought not to be tolerated;

Even assuming that the majority community is of this view, I say, it has to be condemned and it ought not to be allowed, because, in a democracy, as I take it, it is the duty of the majority to secure the sacred rights of every minority. It is a misnomer to call it a democracy if the majority rides rough-shod over the rights of the minorities. It is not democracy at all; it is tyranny.

Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):

What the British in 175 years failed to do or was afraid to do, what the Muslims in the course of 500 years refrained from doing, we should not give power to the State to do all at once.

Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):

I wish to submit that they are overlooking the very important fact of the personal law being so much dear and near to certain religious communities. As far as the Mussalmans are concerned, their laws of succession, inheritance, marriage and divorce are completely dependent upon their religion.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

In safeguarding the rights of minorities, we safeguard the fabric of India. A community's culture, language, and laws are its identity.

It is the primary duty of every citizen to promote the well-being of the country and the nation. But that duty must not interfere with his religious and personal freedoms.

 

[RexRex]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is .. but you need to define secularism first, since you have mentioned it several times here.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is .. but you need to define secularism first, since you have mentioned it several times here.

This thread has nothing to do with secularism. And frankly, this is above your pay grade.

 

[RexRex]

This thread has nothing to do with secularism. And frankly, this is above your pay grade.

You mentioned the word four times in your opening post, including in the very first line lol.

 

[CricketCartoons]

KM Munshi and BR Ambedkar presented many arguments in favour of uniform civil code. Presenting one by KM Munshi:

There is one important consideration which we have to bear in mind–and I want my Muslim friends to realise this–that the sooner we forget this isolationist outlook on life, it will be better for the country. Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important problem is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity. But there are many factors–and important factors–which still offer serious dangers to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, “Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation”. From that point of view alone, I submit, the opposition is not, if I may say so, very well advised. I hope our friends will not feel that this is an attempt to exercise tyranny over a minority; it is much more tyrannous to the majority.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

In 2024, i am amazed Muslims have voting right in Bharat.

 

[CricketCartoons]

In 2024, i am amazed Muslims have voting right in Bharat.

Dr BR Ambedkar even said in the assembly, that the Indian muslim members are speaking the same language that Muslim League was asking from the British, and after partition those demands are not valid. Hindus had full majority, but seeing opposition from muslim members, they conceded that we will not make it a law, but put it in Directive Principles, so that it becomes a guiding light and not enforceable at present.

But this is only part 1. There is more to come.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Will wait for further parts before responding

 

[KB]

Part I (covering the time of framing of constitution).


The common myth is that those muslims who demanded partition and got Pakistan, were the ones who wanted to live by Islamic laws, while the Indian muslims chose to stay in India because they wanted to live a secular nation.

Although the beginning of this mentality is much further in history, let's start from around independence and post independence, as we are focussing only on Indian muslims.

Before the constitution was framed, there were many debates in the Constituent Assembly (lasting 2 years and 11 months). Ignoring the muslim members who quit during partition, the prominent post independence muslim members, and their views during the debate were:

Maulana Hasrat Mohani (famous for inquilab zindabad):



Tajamul Hussain (Bihar):



Mohammad Ismail (Madras):





Z.H Lari (UP):


Pocker Sahib (Madras):




Naziruddin Ahmad (Bengal):



Mahboob Ali Baig (Madras):



Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (considered a secularist). Although he was among the most prominent, I kept him for the end to show that even a so called secularist and a moderate muslim and the first education minister of India, also believed that state should not interfere in muslims personal laws.

There is an interesting point here, though it needs some qualification upfront. We should acknowledge, that some of these figures that are quoted had been or were at the time Muslim Leaguers - Mohammad Ismail, Z.H Lari and Pocker Sahib. We should also acknowledge that Indian Muslims were not an undifferentiated community with a single view.

This said, if we focus on the leadership, it is relevant to the story that the idea of separate personal law was a key component of the ‘nationalist Muslim’ position in Colonial India and this made it harder to discount after partition.

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam. In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a.

When it came to the Pakistan demand many (though not all) of the ulama denounced it in harsh terms, none more so than Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani. Madani himself had a strong “commitment to a system of separate personal laws,” in the words of historian Barbara Metcalf, who has written a sympathetic study on Madani (with a telling subtitle: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom). As Metcalf writes, “Madani imagined India…as a congeries of communities relatively encapsulated in their individual languages, cultures, education and moral/legal systems…Thus, Muslims would be a ‘community’, guided by religious leadership, following distinctive educational, cultural and legal paths from other religiously defined communities who would do the same.”

An interesting recent work is the book by Pratinav Anil - Another India. For Anil, amongst the ‘nationalist Muslim’ leadership there was an “unflinching belief” in juridification. As indicated above, even before partition many Congress supporting Muslims envisaged India as a “juristic ghetto” where Muslims would be independent of the state and governed by the shari’a. In the post-independent period the Muslim elite retained an attachment to Muslim personal law and more generally to symbols of Muslim culture but, according to Anil, paid insufficient attention to the political, social and economic advancement of the wider Muslim community. For Anil, these elite Muslims “betrayed” the Muslim community with its focus on depoliticisation and juridification rather than on the political and material uplift of the community as a whole.

 

[Champ_Pal]

At the core, for a believing person in Islam, the religion matters first. There is no point in arguing over and over this part again. Even if they say, they love the country they live in, their religion still matters more to them. They believe in after life and Kabr ki Azaab strongly. They have to follow the divine guidance which is obviously greater than any man made law for them.
Hinduism is strongly tied to Janm Bhoomi and Karm Bhoomi. In most Hindus case it is India. To Hindus the country and the land is as important as the religion they follow.

Poor secular Muslims, they are stuck between the two. Religious Muslims question their Imaan and non-Muslims question their loyalty towards the country.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Here a distinction between Muslim modernists and ulama is helpful. To be sure, not all ulama were ‘nationalist Muslims’ or sympathisers of the Congress. Nor did all modernists become ‘separatists’ or supporters of the Muslim League. The picture was far messier than this binary would imply. But it is clear that it was the modernists who spearheaded the campaign for Pakistan and it was from the ranks of of the ulama - particularly those associated with the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind - that the most vociferous Muslim voices were raised against Partition.

The modernists had a very different understanding of the Muslim community to the ulama. Though of course it is a diverse group, in general we might state that they emphasised the ethical, ecumenical and aspirational dimensions of Islam. In case of the reformist ulama, in particular those associated with the Deoband movement, the Muslim community was defined above all by the adherence to the shari’a.

I agree that muslim leaders and ulema had a lot of diversity among their views. There is no doubt on that. My position is, that even with the nuances and diversity of thought, they all agreed that muslim personal laws should be protected from state interference. Whether Muslim League, or Indian National Congress, or independents.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Which effectively means that the State of India, effectively ignores the women rights and the rights of the marginalized within the muslim community. Because the muslim leaders had decided that their system was perfect and doesn't need any state reform. KM Munshi and others gave the arguments that many hindu laws and muslim laws are not fair for women and the weaker section among their community, so it cannot be an argument that the state should look the other eye, because leaders think that their religion based laws needed to meddling.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Which effectively means that the State of India, effectively ignores the women rights and the rights of the marginalized within the muslim community. Because the muslim leaders had decided that their system was perfect and doesn't need any state reform. KM Munshi and others gave the arguments that many hindu laws and muslim laws are not fair for women and the weaker section among their community, so it cannot be an argument that the state should look the other eye, because leaders think that their religion based laws needed to meddling.

The State of India is not secular, so there is no argument here. Just as they don't interfere with women's rights within Sikh religion they follow a similar path with regard to Islam.

I have not read the works of those scholars cited, but many hardcore Muslims of India believed that even creating a separate nation of Pakistan was not condoned by religion.