ABSTRACT
Although Mawdudi shared with Iqbal the view on the importance of education, Mawdudi was far too impatient to devote his time merely to the establishment of a school. From 1939 onwards his political ambitions grew, and this was no doubt spurred on by moving to the politically vibrant Lahore. In actual fact, soon after arriving in Lahore Mawdudi took a train to the Mewat district of Haryana in north-western India to meet up with a remarkable man: Mawlana Muhammad Iliyas (1885-1944). To this day the Mewat district has a large number of Muslims who are referred to as ‘Mev’ or ‘Meo’, and it was also the centre for a group known as the Tablighi Jamaat which – although it has become controversial in recent years – was founded by Iliyas in 1926 as a voluntary, pacifist and independent movement. Although considered a ‘party’, it remains apolitical. Iliyas set out initially to establish a network of madrasas to educate the Meos about correct Islamic beliefs and practices, but was frustrated by the limited impact this had socially and politically, and so he formally launched the Tablighi in 1926 with the slogan ‘Oh Muslims! Be Muslims’. It proved to be remarkably popular as thousands joined in a relatively short period. Iliyas had avery simple but effective method of propagation: he would organize units (jamaat) of at least 10 people and send them off to various villages where they would gather together the Muslims of that village and educate them in the basic Islamic tenets. When Mawdudi met Iliyas on his visit it is recorded that he was very impressed with this figure, describing him as the heir to such venerable names from Indian history as Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624)1 and Sayyid Ahmad Shahid (1786-1831).2
Undoubtedly this visit is key in reinforcing Mawdudi’s belief in the need for his own ‘jamaat’ and he was not, of course, the only one in Lahore at the time that was discussing this as a real possibility. Whereas the Tablighi had a reasonable following in Mewat it was not, at that time anyway, a major player in India. In fact, no Muslim group could claim to have much sway in India, unlike
the Hindus, Sikhs and even the Ahmadis. As for the Muslim League, Mawdudi continued to be critical of this ‘party of pagans’, yet this was
the only national representative for the Muslims in India at the time. At the time if you were a Muslim in India who wanted to engage actively in Muslim renewal there seemed to be a number of options. First, you could join the Congress party. This was founded in 1885 with the primary objective of obtaining a greater share in government for educated Indians, regardless of the religious identity of those Indians. It became more radical, calling for independence for India. In 1907 it split into two factions: the ‘hot faction’ (Garam Dal) and the ‘soft faction’ (Naram Dal), with the ‘hot faction’ more extremist in their attitude against British rule. The Congress Party was important because it was the only mass organization that represented Indian interests and it produced some of India’s greatest leaders, such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah (who was later to become leader of the Muslim League and then first Governor-General of Pakistan), Jawaharlal Nehru and, of course, Mahatma Gandhi who became President of the Congress in 1921. Under Gandhi the party increased in popularity, but was predominantly Hindu. However, it had members from every religious, economic, ethnic and linguistic group, and claimed to represent them all, unlike other parties that represented only Hindu interests, such as the Hindu Mahasabha or Forward Bloc. However, Mawdudi saw the Congress differently. Despite its overtures to Muslims, the predominance of Hindus in the party and its policy of an independent India was, for Mawdudi, a prologue to the creation of a Hindu raj in which Muslim identify would be threatened. Joining the Congress party, therefore, was not an option for Mawdudi. Second, a Muslim could join the Muslim League. This was founded in
Dhaka (now the capital of Bangladesh) in 1906 with the specific aim of protecting Muslim interests in India by representing their needs and problems to the government. The first Honorary President of the Muslim League was Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah Aga Khan (Aga Khan III, 1877-1957), who was the imam of the Nizari Muslims; a branch of Ismaili Shi’ism. The Aga Khan, a man of great wealth, had worked towards Muslim education for many years, and laid the foundations for Aligarh University. However, as the knighthood might suggest, he was pro-British rule and supported reforms introduced by the British. In fact, the first article of the League’s platform was ‘To promote among the Mussalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government’. The headquarters were established in Lucknow and the principles of the League were contained within what is called the ‘Green Book’ written by journalist and poet Mawlana Muhammad Ali Jouhar, the same person who had invited Mawdudi to work for his paper Hamdard in 1924. The loyalty towards the British deteriorated among members of the League, and among Muslims in India generally, because of the events following the partition of Bengal in 1905. This partition was initiated by the then Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon partly for administrative regions. Bengal was as large as France, but with a much larger population, so by splitting the region into east and west it was hoped that the neglected and under-governed east would benefit with a much more manageable region. However, it also
meant that East Bengal would have a Muslim majority which led to protests, some of which were violent, from Hindus. As a result, the British reversed the partition in 1911 and the League altered its platform to one of Indian independence. This appealed to more Muslims, notably Jinnah who joined the League in 1913 and became its President in 1916, although later taken over by Muhammad Iqbal who, in 1930, first put forward the possibility of a separate Muslim state. This was essentially the beginning of the ‘two-nation theory’: the view that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations and could not live in one state. This theory grew in popularity, and with Jinnah’s return to the League it received new impetus. At the League conference in Lahore in 1940 they committed themselves to an independent state called Pakistan. The creation of Pakistan seemed more and more likely, but Mawdudi
did not throw his hat in with the Muslim League either. In fact, his criticisms of them only increased. Why? If Mawdudi did not want Muslims to be a minority in India, then surely it made sense for there to be a separate state for Muslims. As this is what the League was working towards, why wasn’t Mawdudi in support of this? To some extent this can be explained by Mawdudi’s Mughal heritage. Remember he is a product of a golden era of Muslim rule in India, while the League was calling for Muslims effectively to leave India altogether. This would result in ‘handing over’ the dominion of the Mughals to the Hindus and would make it even easier for Islam in India to disappear entirely. Before 1939 the idea of a separate Muslim state was discussed but was not inevitable, and Mawdudi hoped to halt the rise of Hindu power in India by converting the whole of India to Islam, rather than the alternative of creating a relatively small separate Muslim state. His Musalman Awr Mawjudah Siyasi Kashmakash (‘Muslims and the Current Political Struggle’), which consists of three volumes written between 1938 and 1940, argues against the Hindu nationalism supported by the Congress Party and Muslim nationalism argued for by the Muslim League. The Muslims would still, therefore, be in India, but India itself would be a Muslim state. The initial, and rather vague and abstract, motto of the jamaat (with a small ‘j’) was to act as a ‘counter-league’ to the Muslim League, with political and social ambitions that seemed incredibly idealistic! While certainly idealistic, it should not come as a surprise given Mawdudi’s view of Islam. His paradigm, which seemed to be always at the forefront of his mind, was the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad, for Mawdudi, was a historical demonstration of what one man can achieve despite seemingly against all the odds. Muhammad and the first Muslims did not succeed because he had an instant large following, but because he actually had the opposite, a small group of dedicated and disciplined followers who were morally upright and observed the rigours and disciplines of their religion. As Mawdudi himself said, ‘I was of the opinion that the importance [of a party] lies not in numbers of its members, but in the dependability of their thoughts and actions.’3 Given this paradigm, which led to an Islamic empire
that spread from the Atlantic to the Indus within 80 years of the Prophet’s death, Mawdudi’s optimism may well be understood. But Mawdudi was no prophet, and he soon realized that the possibility to an Islamic India was simply unrealistic, but he stubbornly refused to side with the League. The Jamaat ultimately became a vehicle for Mawdudi, who wanted to be the one who would be the founder of a separate Muslim state rather than Jinnah. A third option for Muslims was to join one of the other existing Muslim
parties. Mention has already been made of the Tablighi Jamaat, but Mawdudi’s independence and stubbornness explains his unwillingness to join with Iliyas, despite his admiration for him. In addition, Mawdudi believed that the Tablihgi were too religious, and as a result unable or unconcerned with social matters. This is the opposite to another concern he had with the Muslim League, namely, that they were too secular. Talk of a separate state was usually couched in terms of a state for Muslims to live in, rather than a state that has any specific Islamic identity, and Jinnah himself came across as very secular and westernized, far more so than Mawdudi. Essentially, however, Mawdudi wanted to lead, rather than be led. This, then, was the fourth and final option: start up your own party. This new party was to be led by Mawdudi, and was to be hierarchical in
nature. We have already seen how Mawdudi looks to history for examples of Muslims forming groups to battle against adversity. First and foremost is the example of the Prophet Muhammad, but Mawdudi could look to more recent examples in Indian history such as the Khalifat movement which, although unsuccessful ultimately, was the first example of how Muslims could be brought together for a cause. The views of Azad and Hezbollah were also firm in Mawdudi’s mind, and the administration of other Muslim bodies, notably Jinnah’s organization of the Muslim League.4 Mawdudi was impressed by the charisma and organizational ability of Muhammad Iliyas, and another highly successful and well-organized Punjab group under the leadership of Inayatullah Mashriqi (1888-1963), the Tahrik-Khaksar had come to Mawdudi’s attention. The Khaksar movement was phenomenal in it success. Founded in Lahore in 1930, it reportedly had 4 million members by 1942. Its programme was essentially to free India from colonial rule and to revive Islam, although it also aimed to give justice and equal rights to all faiths. Mashriqi, considered by some as something of an anarchist, adopted revolutionary language: ‘Khaksar’ being derived from Persian ‘khak’ (dust) and ‘sar’ (life) and so roughly translated as ‘humble person’. The Khaksars all wore the same khaki uniforms, the colour chosen to represent the colour of the earth. Each member was also given a spade, as symbolic of ‘levelling’ society. Membership was strict and all had to adhere to a charter. Mashriqi himself was a charismatic and highly intelligent figure who was nominated for and offered a knighthood, which he declined. It is interesting to speculate what his organization could have achieved if he had not disbanded it in 1947.5
