ABSTRACT
The Congress in its early years did not lack the support of a fair number of enlightened and liberal Muslims from all parts of India, but its efforts to secure the sympathy and co-operation of the educated Muslim community in general were foiled by some ultra-loyal Muslim leaders, chief amongst whom was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. 1 Syed Ahmed Khan appealed frankly to the fears, prejudices and self-interest of his co-religionists in order to keep them away from the Congress. He impressed upon them the fact that they were economically and educationally backward and needed the patronage of the British Government if they were to hold their own against their more advanced countrymen. He described the Congress as ‘Bengali’ and ‘seditious’ and warned the Muslims not to ‘give rise to suspicions of disloyalty’ 2 by associating with it. He assured them that the demands of the Congress were inimical to their interests, that competitive examinations and representative institutions would, if allowed, only increase the predominance of the Hindus in the services and the legislatures. ‘The object of the promoters of the National Congress is’, he said, ‘that the Government of India should be English in name only, and that the internal rule of the country should be entirely in their own hands.’ 3 India, argued Syed Ahmed Khan, was not fit for representative institutions as she was ‘peopled with different nations’. 4 The Hindus were four times more numerous than the Muslims. ‘Therefore we can prove by mathematics that there will be four votes for the Hindu to every one vote for the Mahomedan. And now how can the Mahomedan guard his interests? It would be like a game of dice, in which one man had four dice and the other only one.’ 5 Syed Ahmed Khan characterized the proposals of the Congress as ‘monstrous and 180unreasonable’, 1 ‘unrealizable and impossible’. 2 ‘Can you tell me of any case in the world’s history in which any foreign nation after conquering another and establishing its empire over it has given representative government to the conquered people?’ he asked, and added, ‘Such a thing has never taken place.’ 3 He advised the Muslims in India ‘to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mahomedan can say that the English are not “people of the Book”. No Mahomedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mahomedans except the Christians. He who has read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect friendship and affection from any other people.... If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the “people of the Book”.... Whatever hope we have of progress is from them. The Bengalis can in no way assist our progress. And when the Koran itself directs us to be friends with them, then there is no reason why we should not act as God has said. Besides this, God has made them rulers over us. Our Prophet has said that if God place over you a black negro slave as ruler you must obey him.... We should be content with the will of God.’ 4 And for a good many years the bulk of the educated Muslim community in India remained ‘content with the will of God’ and that of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.
