AMU faculty members discuss Maulana Azad’s contributions at MANUU
ALIGARH : The subject experts and researchers of modern Indian history from the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) delved into the various aspects of the life of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, an ideologue, educationist and one of the prominent leaders of the freedom movement, during the two-day discussion on a book, “Maulana Azad: A Life”, written by Syed Irfan Habib, jointly organized by the Maulana Azad Chair and the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Hyderabad.
Prof Mohammad Sajjad, Department of History, and Mr. Danish Iqbal, Department of English, AMU were invited to the event as discussants by Prof Imtiaz Hasnain, Maulana Azad Chair Professor, MANUU and a former Professor of Linguistics, AMU.
Striking a discordant note on Azad, while speaking on “Maulana Azad and India’s Muslims since 1947: A Discussion on Some Secondary Works”, Prof Mohammad Sajjad invoked a 1970 book by Mushirul Haq, “Muslim Politics in Modern India 1857-1947” and the latest book by Pratinav Anil, “Another India” to raise questions about Azad’s failures as a statesman. Drawing relevance to his conclusion, Prof Sajjad quoted Peter Hardy who said that by insisting on safeguarding cultural rights, India’s Muslim leadership, particularly Azad, created a “juridical ghetto”, as he aimed to become Imam-e-Hind. That turned out to be an act of depoliticization of Muslims, and this persisted even after independence.
He said Mushirul Haq’s book remains under-engaged by the best-known biographers of Azad. However, the loneliness of Azad has been admitted by both Humayun Kabir and M Mujeeb’s 1966 book, wherein, he said:
“[Azad] was too aloof to concern himself with persons, too intellectual to relish political small talk, too proud to think in terms of alliance, affiliation or opposition. He was a statesman who would not accept the normal functions of a politician, and he was so engrossed in principles that he could not become an efficient administrator. He had to be taken for what he was, with no credentials other than his personality.”
“Abul Kalam Azad very wittingly created a halo around him which paved his way to be recognized as one of the ulama; even though he was not one of them. This he had to do, because, otherwise, he would have not been so successful in his attempts in arousing the Muslims in general and the ulama in particular from their political slumber. But since religion was the foundation stone of the political edifice, Azad was to equate politics with religion”.
Prof Sajjad raised questions like why Azad failed in sustaining his two experiments with Darul Irshad (Calcutta), and Madrasa Islamiya (Ranchi) and what role he played in the 1930s when the Shariat Act was being drafted. He also pointed out that Azad’s intervention or non intervention, into Constituent Assembly debates remains an underexplored and under-explained theme.
Mr Danish Iqbal, while grossly benefitting from Faisal Devji ‘s Apologetic Modernity, looked at Azad’s engagement with colonial modernity and its characterisation in the light of the contemporary scholarship on intellectual history.
He illustrated Azad’s focus on Islamic precepts and their reconfiguration in addressing the social and political challenges of the time.