“It will be proper for the Muslims to drop such rites (cow slaughter), if by leaving such rites more Hindu-Muslim cooperation can be achieved. Unity is far more valuable and worthy of achievement than this small right. The tradition of sacrifice, according to religion, does not depend on cow slaughter. This tradition can well be maintained without any damage to religion by sacrificing goats and sheep.” This is what Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of Aligarh Muslim University, wrote about the cow slaughter in The Aligarh Institute Gazette of 4 October 1887.
Dr. Shan Muhammad, biographer of Sir Syed, writes, “Once on the occasion of Id-uz-Zuha, some students of the college purchased a cow for slaughter in the college premises. Syed came to know of it and he sent men to check the students. The cow was taken away from the students and restored to its former owner. Prohibiting cow slaughter in the college premises he said : ‘I have repeatedly given my community to understand that it is a folly to annoy our Hindu brothers by resorting to cowslaughter. If friendship can be established between us, then this is far better than cow-slaughter.’
Another biographer of Sir Syed, Prof. Shafey Kidwai, notes, “Having been aware of the religious sensibilities of his fellow citizens, Sir Syed askes the Muslims to desist from the practice of cow slaughter voluntarily. He is of the firm view that such a gesture would result in mutual respect and harmony. In 1887, Eid-ul-Adha passed peacefully in the riotprone area of Meerut, as the Muslims of the area voluntarily gave up cow sacrifice. The sagacity of the citizens of Meerut received a positive response from Sir Syed, who writes: ‘Eid-ul-Adha went off peacefully in Meerut, and no one opted for cow sacrifice. If it is true, I am delighted. We do not want to debate whether Muslims’ insistence on the sacrifice of the cow is right or not and Hindus’ determination not to let it happen is unerring or not. Still, if Muslims climb down a little bit, their action will produce a lasting bond of harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Muslims must part with their insignificant right because unity is far more significant than the right. The ritual of sacrifice is not related to cows only; goats and sheep can serve the purpose.’
Still, a lot of scholars believe that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was the man behind the later movements, mostly led by Muslim League, to slaughter cows. The confusion was created by Theodore Beck, a man Sir Syed chose as principal of his college at Aligarh.
Famous historian Dr. Tara Chand writes, “The doubtful credit for twisting Sir Syed’s original policy and directing it into communalist channels must be given to Principal Beck and his English colleagues. They preached to their students day in and day out, hatred of the Hindus and loyalty to the British and they propagated fear and jealousy of the Hindu intellectuals and the Hindu majority. The Patriotic Association consisting of members of both communities inaugurated by Sir Syed was replaced by the Muhammadan Anglo-India Defence Association at the behest of Beck who became its first Secretary. Unfortunately, some writers both in India and Pakistan have spread the baseless calumny that Sir Syed was the father of the two nation theory.”
Shibli Nomani, another contemporary Muslim stalwart, believed that this was the influence of Beck that Sir Syed opposed Indian National Congress so vehemently. Shan Muhammad wrote, “He (Theodore Beck) joined the College at a time when Nationalism had begun to take roots in India. To the British officers the growth of Nationalism in India was a menace to the British Empire, and had to be fought at any cost. Beck was of the same view, and he made it his life mission to fight nationalism in India with his dexterous policy at Aligarh. Before leaving for India, Beck had said that ‘the parliamentary system in India is most unsuited and the experiment would prove futile if representative institutions are introduced. The Muslims will be under the majority opinion of the Hindus, a thing which will be highly resented by Muslims and which, I am sure, they will not accept quietly.”
In 1893, Beck said in his speech at inaugural session of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Defence Association, “Two agitations have been for some years surging throughout the country —- the National Congress movement and the anti-cowkilling movement. The former of these is ostensibly antiEnglish, the latter anti-Musalman. The objects of the National Congress are to transfer political power from the English Government to certain sections of the Hindu population… to weaken the Indian bureaucracy, to arm the people and to curtail military expenditure by weakening the army…. The object of the anti-cow-killing movement is to prevent Mahomedans from killing cows as a religious sacrifice and to prevent Englishmen and Mahomedans alike from killing cows for food. These have resulted in bloody riots in Bombay, Azamgarh and other places….”
Tufail Ahmad in his popular book ‘Mussalmanon Ka Roshan Mustaqbil’ has said that just as during the palmy days of the Mughal Empire the English East India Company had usurped all the authority, similarly the authority of the college had passed into the hands of Beck due to Sir Syed’s advancing age. There was current at that time a saying in this connection : ‘Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Company Bahadur Ka ; Qaum Khuda Ki, College Sir Syed Ka, Hukm Beck Bahadur Ka,’ i.e., the people belong to the Almighty, the country belongs to the Emperor, and the power belongs to the East India Company, and in the same way, the Muslim community belongs to God, the college belongs to Sir Syed, but the authority rests with Beck Bahadur.
A lot of later scholars including Dr. Rajendra Prasad believed that Beck hijacked the Aligarh Movement in the later years of Sir Syed and turned it towards communalism. Sir Syed’s contemporaries like Nawab Viqar ul Mulk wrote, “Seeing all this (in Syed’s lifetime), those who had the interest of the community at heart became anxious and consultations began to take place. Ultimately some of the trustees in spite of the power, prestige and greatness of Sir Syed Ahmad whose peer will not be found for a long time, came to the conclusion that they should keep in view only the interest of the community and set aside any consideration which they had for the great leader. It was decided to publish a series of articles in the Paisa Akhbar of Lahore. These articles were not to be anonymous but were to have the signatures of men like Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk, Shams-ul-Ulema Moulvi Khwaja Altaf Hussain Hali, and my humble self was also to be a signatory. The first of the series was written by me and was sent to Nawab Mohsin-ul-Mulk Bahadur and Shams-ul-Ulema Moulvi Hali Saheb who were living at Aligarh during those days, for their signatures. Suddenly news of the death of the leader reached me and I immediately wired to Nawab Mohsinul-Mulk to return the articles, because after his death we had no other thought except of his goodness and matchless qualities. As the idea of writing that series of articles was given up at that time, and no complaints could any longer be harboured, I am making these facts known today only for the good of the College.”
This was Beck who continuously wrote and spoke against the cow-protection movement led by Congress. He even went on to gather the signatures of Muslim youth for the same. In the capacity of principal of MAO College, which later became Aligarh Muslim University, his influence was no less on Muslim intelligentsia in time. But, Sir Syed was very clear about the need of Hindu Muslim unity till the very end of his life as can be seen from his writings published in 1897, a few months before his death.
(The views are personal of author)
