1. Speech at Lucknow, December 28, 1887.
SAK first defends the nature and method of British rule. On the Indian members of the Legislative Council being chosen for their high social standing rather than ability, he says:
I ask you - would our aristocracy like that a man of low caste or insignificant origin, though he be a B.A., M.A. and have the requisite ability, should be in a position of authority above them and have power in making the laws that affect their lives and property? Never! Nobody would like it. (Cheers). . . Hence no blame can be attached to Government for making these great Raises members of the Council. It is our great misfortune that our Raises are such that they are unable to devise laws useful for the country.He then asserts that the Council, before making any important decision, takes into account the memorials sent by Associations as well as the discussions in newspapers, and so
Can we say that Government, in the method it has adopted for legislation, acts without regard to the opinions of the people? Can we say that we have no share in the making of the laws? Most certainly not. (Cheers)He then lists the duties of any Government as to make the dominion strong, " to preserve peace, to give personal freedom, to protect life and property, to punish criminals and to decide civil disputes." He concludes:
So that whatever comfort we can experience under any Government, we have under the British Government.(Cheers)Given this whole-hearted endorsement of British rule it is not surprising that he was opposed to the Congress. He takes up the issue of the demands of the Congress. The first one he objects to is the request for local competitive examinations for Government jobs.
You know that men of all social positions, sons of Dukes and Earls, of darzies and people of low rank, are equally allowed to pass this examination. . . But those who come from England, come from a country so far removed from our eyes that we do not know whether they are the sons of Lords and Dukes or of darzies and, therefore, if those who govern us are of humble rank, we cannot perceive the fact. But as regards Indians, the case is different. Men of good family would never like to trust their lives and property to people of low rank with whose humble origin they are well acquainted. (Cheers)Further, asserts SAK, the competitive principle is not suitable for a country comprised of many nations, which are not on an equal footing as regards the competition.
Now, I ask you have Mohammedans attained to such a position as regards higher English education, which is necessary for higher appointments, as to put them on a level with Hindus or not? Most certainly not. . . Over all races, not only over Mohammedans but over Rajas of high position and the brave Rajputs who have not forgotten the swords of their ancestors, would be placed as ruler a Bengali who at the sight of a table knife would crawl under his chair. (Uproarious cheers and laughter). . . if you accept the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then, in the name of God jump into the train, sit down, and be off to Madras, be off to Madras! (Loud cheers and laughter)The last reference is to the third session of the Indian National Congress, which had just begun in Madras. The second demand of the Congress he addresses is representation through popular election.
And let us suppose first of all that we have universal suffrage, as in America, and that everybody, chamars and all, have votes. And first suppose that all the Mohammedan electors vote for a Mohammedan member and all Hindu electors vote for a Hindu member. . . there will be four votes for the Hindu to every one vote for the Mohammedan. And now how can the Mohammedan guard his interests?. . . In the second place, suppose that the electorate be limited. . . Suppose, for example, that an income of Rs. 5,000 a year be fixed on, how many Mohammedans will there be? . . . In the normal case no single Mohammedan will secure a seat in the Viceroy's Council. The whole Council will consist of Babu so-and-so Chuckerbutty.(Laughter) . . . Now, we will suppose a third kind of election. Suppose a rule to be made that a suitable number of Mohammedans and a suitable number of Hindus are to be chosen. . . Of necessity proportion to total population will be taken. So there will be one member for us to every four for the Hindus. . . Then they will have four votes and we shall have one.SAK now reminds his audience of the 1857 Mutiny and the persecution of Muslims that followed. Muslim participation in the Mutiny gives the Government "reasonable ground" for suspicion of their loyalties. Participation in the Congress could well trigger another round of persecution.
Suppose that this agitation extends to these Provinces, to the Rajputs and Pathans of Peshawar, do you think it will confine itself to writing with the pen - giz, giz, giz, giz, giz - and to mere talking - buk, buk, buk, buk? It will then be necessary for Government to send its army and show by bayonets what the proper remedy for the agitation is. I believe that when Government sees the Mohammedans and other brave races taking part in this stupid agitation, it will be necessary for Government to pass a new law and to fill the jails.He laughs at the idea of the Congress asking for the repeal of the Arms Act and the enlisting of Indian Volunteers - though he believes Muslim volunteers should be accepted!
A second error of Government of the greatest magnitude is this, that it does not give appointments in the Army to those brave people whose ancestors did not use the pen to write with; no, but a different kind of pen - (Cheers ) - nor did they use black ink, but the ink they dipped their pens in was the red, red ink which flows from the bodies of men.(Cheers)SAK implores Muslims to keep showing their loyalty and earning the trust of Government, for "when trust is established, Government will have no objection to make you also volunteers."
The time is, however, coming when my brothers, Pathans, Syeds, Hashimi and Koreishi, whose blood smells of the blood of Abraham, will appear in glittering uniform as Colonels and Majors in the army.He ends with one last exhortation:
I assure you that the only thing which can raise you to a high rank is high education. Until our nation can give birth to highly educated people it will remain degraded; it will be below others, and will not attain such honour as I desire for it. These precepts I have given you from the bottom of my heart. I do not care if any one calls me a mad man or anything else.
2. Speech at Meerut, March 16, 1888.
In this speech, SAK first denies the claim of "the Bengalis" that their organization is a "National Congress" and has support from the Mohammedans.
. . . I should point out to my nation that the few who went to Madras, went by pressure, or from temptation, or in order to help their profession, or to gain notoreity, or were bought.(Cheers) No Rais from here took part in it. . . And I want to show this that except for Badruddin Tyabji who is a gentleman of very high position and for whom I have great respect, no leading Mohammedan took part in it. . . It is said that Prince Humayun Jah joined it. Let us suppose that Humayun Jah, whom I do not know, took part in it, yet our position as a nation will not suffer simply because two men stand aside. . . To say that the Mohammedans have joined it is quite wrong and is a false accusation against our nation.He recommends that the Hindus also rethink the "wrong notions" that have led them to join the Congress.
The first thing is that they think that as both they themselves and the Bengalis are Hindus, they have nothing to fear from the growth of their influence. The second thing is this: that some Hindus - I do not speak of all Hindus but only of some - think that by joining the Cogress and by increasing the power of the Hindus they will perhaps be able to supress those Mohammedan religious rites which are opposed to their own. . .The latter hope, he says, is futile for "the business cannot be done by force." After this preface, SAK turns to the issue of English rule and the alternatives.
Now, suppose that all the English and the whole English army were to leave India,. . . then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations - the Mohammedans and the Hindus - could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. . . until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land. . . And what will be the result? The result will be this - that foreigners will rule India, because the state of India is such that if foreign powers attack her, no one has the power to oppose them. . . It is, therefore, necessary that. . . the English Government should remain for many years - in fact for ever!Once English Government is accepted, the demand for representative government becomes "utterly vain". Similarly, the demand for Indian control over the budget.
Oh, my brother Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled nations. . . You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this: how upright is her rule. . . See what freedom she has given in her laws, and how careful she is to protect the rights of her subjects.The last appeal is taken up again, in a stronger form.
Our Hindu brothers of these provinces are leaving us and are joining the Bengalis. Then we ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mohammedan can say that the English are not "people of the Book." No Mohammedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mohammedans except the Christians. . . Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them. . .Therefore the method we ought to adopt is this, that we should hold ouselves aloof from this political uproar and reflect on our condition, that we are behind them in education and are deficient in wealth. . . Let the trade which is with the Hindus remain with them. But try to snatch from their hands the trade in the produce of the country which the English now enjoy and draw profit from. . . Never imagine that Government will put difficulties in your way in trade. But the acquisition of all these things depends on education.
3. Letter to Pioneer, April 9, 1888.
Many bitter attacks were made against Sir Syed. Many regarded him as a traitor and a renegade, who had at the age of seventy deserted all his principles for seeking the favour of the Government. He had lectured and preached unity with the Hindus at any cost only four years before, and now he interpreted the Koran in his own way to mean that the Muslims could never be friends with Hindus and that they could only co-operate with Christians, that is, the British Government. He had preached that religion had nothing to do with politics and now made religion the basis of his attack.One of those upset was A.O. Hume. Husain Tyabji quotes a letter that he wrote to Badruddin Tyabji:
Having known the man as I do, I do not believe, he is the wilful and shameless liar and turncoat that his speeches and writings would make him appear. I believe that his popularity with European officials and his K.C.S.I. and the favour recently shown to him by the Viceroy, and the adulation of the little ass Beck [Principal of the Aligarh College], and his immediate entourage have completely turned his head. And this is the view taken by some at any rate of his own personal following.It should be noted that these later speeches of Sir Syed represent not a break from his previous thoughts, but a narrowing of them. Earlier, two main strands can be seen in his pronouncements - advocacy of unity among Indians, and loyalty to the British Empire (particularly for Muslims). The appearance of the Congress created a conflict between these two interests, and the latter won out. It has been said of him that it was not that he did not love India, but that he loved Muslims more. And at that time he felt the interests of Muslims were best served by continued loyalty to the British. Nor were his expectations entirely false. Despite its early announcements of loyalty to the British Government, the Congress did evolve into a body opposed to British rule. More questionable is his belief that the resulting conflict would be particularly damaging for Muslims, if they supported the Congress. To the extent that such damage was done, it may be argued that it was because Muslims did not join the Congress en masse. In this respect, the following remark by Badruddin Tyabji seems apt:
We can no more stop the Congress than we can stop the progress of education, but it is in our power by firm and resolute action to direct the course the Congress shall take. . .Badruddin Tyabji's Responses
Amber Habib / [email protected]
