An assessment of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan ( 1817-1898 )

I had in an earlier post said that creation of Aligarh Muslim University and Benares Hindu University was part of the British policy of divide and rule. A University is by it very nature something universal. How can it be Hindu or Muslim ?

I consequently regard both Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya, the creators of these Universities, as objectively British agents.

Here I may deal with Sir Syed.

 Sir Syed worked for the British East India Company, and in the Great Rebellion of 1857 was loyal to the British, calling the rebellion ' haramzadgi '.

Hali, his biographer, has written that when the British Commissioner of Benares expressed his surprise when Sir Syed, who used to earlier talk of the common welfare of all Indians suddenly changed his stand and started talking only about Muslims. Sir Syed replied " I am convinced that the two communities ( Hindu and Muslim ) will never put their hearts in any venture together. In coming times an ever increasing hatred and animosity appears in the horizon. "

 Thus, Sir Syed is the father of the two nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations, a theory which was later developed by Allama Iqbal ( see his presidential Address to the Muslim league in its Allahabad Session of 1930 ) and Jinnah.

 In 1869 Sir Syed went to England where he was awarded the Order of the Star of India by the British Government., and he was knighted in1888. Would they have given him these awards if he had not been objectively a British agent, loyally serving the British policy of divide and rule and supporting British rule like a faithful lackey ?.

 Many people say that Sir Syed only wanted Muslims to become educated. If that alone had been his endeavour there would be no objection. But if one reads his speeches, e.g.the one given in Meerut in 1888 ( link given below ) it is evident that it was not just that.

  He repeatedly calls Muslims ' my nation' ( paras 1,3,7 etc of the speech ), 'our Mahomedan nation( para 2 ), .'our nation ' ( para 4 ), ' whole Mahomedan nation ', ( para 4 ), ' my own nation'( para 5 ), etc

 Is this not subscribing to the two nation theory which led to Partition in 1947 with all its horrors ( see the stories on Partition by the great writer Saadat Hasan Manto, whom I regard as one of the greatest short story writers of all times ) ?

 In para 7 of the speech he says :
"  In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible "

In para 8 he says "
" It is, therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of everything in India, the English Government should remain for many years — in fact forever "

 So this British lackey shamelessly wanted British rule to continue in India forever
In para 17 he says :

" Oh! my brother Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in India you have had Imperial sway. 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. Of such benevolence as the English Government shows to the foreign nations under her, there is no example in the history of the world. See what freedom she has given in her laws, and how careful she is to protect the rights of her subjects "

 So he shamelessly supports British rule which reduced India, which was a prosperous country under the Mughals, to an impoverished nation under the British..

In paras 19 he says "

 We ought 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 had read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect friendship and affection from any other people.At this time our nation is in a bad state as regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends."

 So according to this unashamed British lackey, Muslims cannot be friends with Hindus, though they are living in the same country, but must dishonourably join hands with the British rulers who were oppressing and exploiting us.

 In para 20 of the speech he goes on to say :

      " Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis. This is our true friendship with our Christian rulers, and we should not join those people who wish to see us thrown into a ditch. 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." And as far as we can we should remain faithful to the English Government. By this my meaning is not that I am inclined towards their religion. Perhaps no one has written such severe books as I have against their religion, of which I am an enemy. But whatever their religion, God has called men of that religion our friends. We ought — not on account of their religion, but because of the order of God — to be friendly and faithful to them. If our Hindu brothers of these Provinces, and the Bengalis of Bengal, and the Brahmans of Bombay, and the Hindu Madrasis of Madras, wish to separate themselves from us, let them go, and trouble yourself about it not one whit. We can mix with the English in a social way. We can eat with them, they can eat with us. 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 be their friends. But it is necessary for us to 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. ".

 So the Indian Muslims must be friendly with the British looters and gangsters and support their rule over India because that was the order of God !

In para 22 he sums up by saying :

"  God had made them ( the British ) your rulers. This is the will of God. We should be content with the will of God. And in obedience to the will of God, you should remain friendly and faithful to them. Do not do this: bring false accusations against them and give birth to enmity. This is neither wisdom nor in accordance with our holy religion "
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_meerut_1888.html

 Is this not like a fawning speech by a British slave, a disgraceful chamcha of the British government ? And is it not furthering the two nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations, and that the Indian Muslims should ally themselves with the British, rather than with their fellow countrymen, the Hindus, ostensibly because the British, being Christians, are people of the 'book'
while Hindus are not?
 Now let us consider another speech given by Sir Syed in Lucknow in 1887 ( link given below ).
 In para 5 of the speech he says :
"   It is a first principle of the Empire that it is the supreme duty of everyone, whether Hindustani or Englishman, in whose power it rests, to do what he can to strengthen the Government of Her Majesty the Queen. "
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_sir_sayyid_lucknow_1887.html
 So instead of fighting jointly with Hindus against British rule, which reduced India from being a prosperous nation under Mughal rule before the British came to India to an impoverished nation by the time British rule ended ( India held over 30% of the world's trade before the British came to India which was reduced to 2-3% by the time they left ), Sir Syed advocated support and strengthening of British rule.
 No wonder the British gave him knighthood and other awards.
I know this post will make me unwelcome in AMU and unpopular with many Muslims ( just as my statement against beef ban made me unpopular with many Hindus ) but that does not matter. The interest of the nation and the truth overrides all other considerations.
I am not a popularity or publicity seeker ( whatever some people may think ), and often what I say makes me very unpopular ( e.g. my statements on Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Tagore, beef ban, burqa, oral talaq, etc ). But I give reasons for what I say, and those who wish to refute me are welcome to give their counter reasons..