Ah Lee.k🔻

Today marks the birth anniversary of Maulana Abul Kalam 'Azad', a pan-Islamist turned Indo-Muslim tribalist. A man who had greatly immersed himself in the pan-Islamist politics, a pioneer of the Khilafat Movement, only to witness the practical futility of such ideology at first hand. Maulana was one of those rare personalities who did not believe in the suicidal sacrifice and destruction of Indian Muslims ('minority provinces') for the sake of the majority provinces. “In order to liberate 7 crore [Pakistani] Muslims ... let the two crores of [Indian] Muslims be smashed.” — Jinnah, Kanpur, 30 March 1941. “My advice to my Muslim brethren in India is to give unflinching loyalty to the State [India] in which they happen to be.” — Jinnah, Karachi, 11 October 1947. Maulana was not shy about acknowledging that Islam had not been sufficient in itself to serve as a unifying identity amongst Muslims for much of history. This is an objectively indisputable reality, yet one that Muslim thinkers and speakers are often reluctant to acknowledge. “... It is true that Islam sought to establish a society which transcends racial, linguistic, economic and political frontiers. History has however proved that after the first few decades, or at most after the first century, Islam was not able to unite all the Muslim countries into one State on the basis of Islam alone ...” — Maulana Azad, 1957. In the same year (1957), he also predicted the eventual separation of Bangladesh (former East Pakistan) from Pakistan (former West Pakistan), arguing on the same theory that Islam alone was insufficient to serve as a binding force. “... No one can hope that East and West Pakistan (i.e. modern Pakistan) will compose all their differences and form one nation ...” In 1971 (13yrs after his death), his critics and mockers were silenced as Bangladesh became independent on the corpses of Sindhu, Indian and Bengali Muslims. Following Bangladesh's independence, the Indian Muslim (Bihari) migrants who remained there were treated in subhuman ways, a condition that persists to this day. Maulana had warned against that as well: “... You who are leaving your homeland today... a time may also come when the natives of Pakistan will rise up, claiming their own distinct, localised identities. If you go and settle in Bengal, you will be called a Hindustani ...” Attached 3rd Pic: “No One Wants Them - neither Bangladesh nor India nor Pakistan. The red cross and international agencies are trying to ways of resetting them.” — Bihari migrants to Bangladesh. We also find that being a Muslim (firm in his Islamic tenets) and an Indian Muslim (firm in this ethnic identity) were his two steadfast identities. Other ideologies, on the other hand, were of little consequence to him. For Maulana, ideologies were clothes, whereas his community and faith were his very body. To preserve his body and ensure its well-being, he did not hesitate to change clothes (adopt or discard ideologies as circumstances demanded). Pan-Islamism (during the Khilafat Movement) and Composite Nationalism (afterwards) should be understood in much the same light. Amongst Maulana's shortcomings was that he was not a mass leader. He did not command a popular following or possess a power base, nor did he enjoy any real political weight. His political vision could never be translated into reality. Many sinister elements attempt to shift the blame onto him. But, I mean, Maulana did not receive your 14,36,927 votes. You never made him your leader or spokesman, nor was his political vision ever implemented. How, then, can you blame him?