Nation, Nationalism and Islam: Maulana Azad and Beyond

by MUHAMMAD TAJUDDIN

The only form of state structure legitimate and legal in the world after the Second World War is the nation-state. The same is not true about the nature of governance. Liberal democratic governance has become the universal ideal but still there are autocratic and authoritarian dictators and absolute monarchies in the comity of nations. The idea of the nation and the ideology of nationalism emerged in Europe in the eighteenth century after the renaissance and reformation. The modern states which were being organised in the erstwhile territory of the Holy Roman Empire by absolute monarchs supported the idea of imagining of their respective subjects as distinct nations. The process of nation-formation was facilitated by these monarchs for making the territorial loyalty of their subject superior to religious or other loyalties. The American and the French Revolutions strenghened the process of nation- formation by establishing liberty, equality and fraternity and the pursuit of happiness as Western ideals. The American Revolution resulted in the separation of public affairs from religious affairs and the French Revolution clearly subordinated the ecclesiastical authority to the authority of the state. The gradual expansion of mass education in the native modern European languages and completion of the democratic process through universal adult suffrage reinforced the process of nation- formation in these states.

The Napoleonic war in the Iberian Peninsula created atmosphere for the introduction of the idea of nationalism in the new world of Latin America beyond Europe and the emergence of new nation-states in the Spanish colonies in the early nineteenth century. The idea of nation and the ideology of nationalism inspired in the nineteenth century the national liberation move-ments in southeastern Europe which was under the Ottoman Empire. The First World War resulted in balkanisation of the Ottoman and Austro Hungarian empires and the emergence of new nation-states in southeastern and central Europe.

The nation and nationalism were made global by the League of Nations. The idea of territorial nationality and the recognition of the right of these nationalities to determine their destinies inspired the peoples of the Asian and African colonies to struggle for their freedom. The positive attitude of both the superpowers towards decolonisation expedited the process of nation- state formation in the Afro-Asian region under the stewardship of the UN. The ideology of nationalism motivated the ruling classes of these post colonial states and societies to regenerate themselves through the development of their national languages, construction of their national histories and cultures.

The trajectory of the evolution of the nation and nationalism from the eighteenth to twentieth century had generally been progressive. It created secular, all-inclusive collective identities of peoples living in one territory under one single supreme authority. The formation of a united political community called the nation inspired by the ideology of nationalism of a territorial state transformed the location of sovereignty from one person to one people and facilitated their collective action for freedom, development, prosperity and security. Nationalism has become the most powerful instrument for replacing the rule of person by the rule of law in these nation- states. It has compelled the ruling classes for gradual democratisation, efficient, responsible and responsive governance under popular pressure among these states.

The process of nation-state formation and the propagation of the ideology of nationalism in the Oriental world of Islam have generally been regressive. Unlike the general trend in the world where nation-states have emerged and the ideology of nationalism evolved from within the nation-states has been artificially created and the ideology of nationalism has been imposed from above by the colonial powers. It is ironical to note that nationalism heralded the process of decolonisation in the colonised countries but it became the instrument of colonisation in the oriental world of Islam after the First World War. Nationalism was introduced in the Oriental world for the first time in Egypt by Napoleon during his occupation in early nineteenth century. Egyptian nationalism changed the perception of the ruling class towards the Ottoman Empire and the neighbouring Muslim regions. Under its impact the comprador agents depicted the British suzerain power as the liberator of Egypt. Turkish nationalism was constructed and popularised by three European Jews which was imbibed by the ‘Young Turks’ who brought revolution in the Ottoman Empire in 1908. Turkish nationalism increased the discriminatory oppressive policy of the empire in its Arab territories which was exploited by the British agents in Cairo to arouse the Arabs against the Ottomans. The Arab war of independence during the First World War resulted in a change of masters from the Ottoman to the British or French. The discourse of the nation and nationalism is not very different in Iran and the GCC states.

•

THE courageous rationalist, Abul Kalam, who took Azad as his pen-name during his short lived period of agnosticism tried to grasp the nature of Indian nationalism which was inspiring the secret societies of Kolkata for radical acts and the mass protest movement against the partition of Bengal. As a young man of eighteen he was a witness to the formation of the Muslim League at Dhaka. The League championed the alternative version of Indian nationalism identified in Indian historiography as communalism or separatism and in Pakistani historiography as Muslim nationalism. Azad’s visit to Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Turkey in 1908 provided him first-hand understanding of the situations in these oriental countries. The experiences of this formative phase convinced him that the panacea of all the problems of the Indian people was liberation from British colonialism which could be achieved only through the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims. He also realised that the ideology of Indian nationalism to achieve liberation must be based on Hindu-Muslim unity. Indian nationalism, constructed as exclusive compulsory Hindu identity or exclusive separatist Muslim identity in its reaction, would bring more miseries to the masses instead of liberation.

To educate his countrymen about his goal of freedom and the strategy of Hindu-Muslim united struggle he launched Al Hilal in July 1912. In the opinion of Rajmohan Gandhi, the journal preached pure Islam and Indian independence simultaneously. He interpreted the Quran to ask the Muslims to fight against British imperialism as a religious duty on the ground that it commanded the believers to fight against slavery. He derived sanction for Hindu-Muslim cooperation on the basis of the prophetic tradition of the covenant of Madina which was signed between the Muslims and Jews. The covenant aspired to bind the Muslims and non-Muslims into one nation—the Ummah Wahida. This was a bold, unusual and unorthodox but rational and visionary hermeneutics of the classical text and tradition to derive correct strategy of struggle in the contemporary situation.

Azad was the first Indian thinker to publically propagate the inclusive character of Indian nationalism shunning the prevalent path of exclusivism of the extremist Hindu Congress and Muslim League leaders. He reasserted the idea of inclusive nationalism which was conceptualised by the moderate Congress leaders and worked for India’s freedom on this principle before the arrival of Gandhi on the national scene when it was unconventional. Gandhi defined this nationalism as composite nationalism and made it the mainstream of nationalist thought and behaviour during the Non-Cooperation- Khilafat Movement. The fiasco of the Hijrat Move-ment further convinced Azad that territorial national identity is the only justifiable collective identity for Muslim like others all over the world. He knew that the Islamic religious collectivity of the Ummah and the territorial collectivity of the nation may be compatible in many situations but may not be compatible in every case. He took upon himself to make it compatible in the Indian context. His aspiration to become Imaul Hind and a front rank leader of the Indian national movement at the same time was an endeavour to make the Ummah and nation compatible.

He was the last man among the Congress leaders to acquiesce to the idea of partition after Gandhi. Partition, in his opinion expressed in India Wins Freedom, was not the failure of the ideology of the composite nationalism but that of its practitioners. Unfolding of the sub-continental history after Azad and the history of the contemporary Muslim world hasindisputedly proved the correctness of his vision.

The greatest limitation of the Occidental idea of the nation and its ideology of nationalism is its majoritarian assimilative character. The ideal of Western nation, represented by its proto- types, the French nation and the American melting pot, and the history of their constructions vividly prove it. Azad was the Oriental herme-neutician to adapt it for the Oriental and post-colonial global milieu of the twentieth century by changing its character from majori-tarian assimilativism to united integrationism. The idea of composite nationalism, the first model of united integrated nationalism discovered by India, has been advanced in Canada to the next stage in the form of multicultural nationalism. Post-apartheid South Africa has further improved it by exploring the strategy of reconciliation among the rival communities to bind them genuinely into a nation.

Muslim states of the Orient, though functioning as nation-states, have reservation about the ideology of nationalism in the name of Islam and its colonial origin in the region. The real reason of this paradoxical behaviour and using Islam as an excuse is to maintain the security of their autocratic regimes from public pressure which can be aroused by nationalism, as has been the case throughout the world, to achieve the goal of popular sovereignty and democracy. Another reason given against nationalism by the ruling class of these states is that it inhibits trans-national regionalism or Islamic universalism. The hollowness of the charge became clear from the fact that the weakest transnational regional organisations in the world are the Arab League and the Organi-sation of the Islamic Conferences which are based on the bond (asbiah) of the Ummah; some of the core members of these organisations are these conservative states. The first generation nation states of Europe, despite their history of hostility and war, have succeeded in forming the most effective transnational organisation—the European Union which is a visible proof to falsify this charge.

A new wave of nationalism is blowing in the Orient in the second decade of the twentyfirst century. It has succeeded in overthrowing the fake nationalist autocratic regimes planted and sustained from above by the neo-colonial powers in Tunisia and Egypt and gathering strength in others. It is ironical to note that the neo-colonial Western powers have launched an appropriately sanctioned attack on the Libyan autocratic regime in favour of the Libyan uprising but have acquiesced the intervention of the GCC forces under Saudi leadership to protect the Bahraini autocracy and to smash the popular national uprising there. The duality in the response of the Western powers against the popular democratic uprisings in Libya and Bahrain is because of the convergence of the national interest of the Libyan uprising with that of the Western countries but the convergence of the interest of the all GCC monarchies and that of their Western sustainers. The Western stake in the continuation or overthrow of the Yemeni autocrat is only political; so the quest of the poor Yemenis for their self-determination, democracy and rule of law has to sustain itself for a longer time to draw world attention and intervention.

These nationalisms have evolved from below and they are genuine in character with mass support. They have taken the relationship between Islam and nationalism beyond the stage of compatibility to the stage of fusion. In the stage of fusion Islam and nationalism both are passing through the phase of compromise and adaptation in these Occidental countries.

[Revised version of a paper “Occidental Idea and Oriental Hermeneutics: Azad on Nation and Nationalism†presented at an international seminar on “Maulana Abul Kalam Azad: An Architect of Indo-Persian Culture†organised by the Centre of Persian and Central Asian Studies, School of Languages, Litrature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, March 1-3, 2011]