(Dr. Shan Mohammad in his book Writings and Speeches of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan has tried to dispel the myths around Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s belief in secularism. Here, we are producing the chapter from the book, where the author has explained that idea of Qaum (nation) in Sir Syed’s speeches and writings. Following is the text of the book chapter by Dr. Shan Mohammad.)
Sir Syed is denounced as the father of two-nation theory on the basis of the word “Nation” used frequently in his speeches. Historians on Modern India have so much distorted his conception of the nation that it is difficult for a man to separate the grain from the chaff. No chroniclers, barring a very few, have endeavoured to sift the true spirit of Sir Syed’s approach to the word ‘Nation’. The words nation and community mean the same to Sir Syed and he has invariably used the word nations where he should have used the word communities. It goes to prove that wherever he has used the word nation he means community in the technical sense of the term. He was not conversant with the nineteenth century western connotation of the word nation and whatever he has said should not be confused with it. Extensive quotations from his speeches justify his approach. Some relevant extracts from his speeches having a bearing on this much too important subject are given in the pages that follow:
Addressing a meeting at Gurdaspur on January 27, 1884, Sir Syed said:
“By the grace of God, two nations live in India at the moment and they are so placed that the house of the one joins that of the other. The shadow of one’s wall falls in the house of the other. They share the same climate, take water from the same river or well. In death and life as also in joys and griefs of others every one is a participant. One cannot live without the cooperation of the other. If united, we can sustain each other, if we are disunited, it would lead to the destruction and downfall of both. You might have seen and heard in the old history books, and we see it today also, that the word nation (Qaum) applied to the people who live in the same country. All the people living in Afghanistan are called one nation. The diverse people of Iran are called Iranis. Europeans hold different religious beliefs and ideas but they are considered as one nation. In short, from time immemorial the word nation is used for the inhabitants of a country though they may have their separate characteristics. Oh Hindus and Mussalmans, do you inhabit any country other than India? Do you not both live here on the same land and are you not buried in this land or cremated on the ghats of this land? You live here and die here. Therefore remember that Hindu and Mussalman are words of religious significance otherwise Hindus, Mussalmans and Christians who live in this country constitute one nation (Cheers). When all these groups are called one nation, then they should be one in the service of the country, which is the country of all. I need not dilate on the advantages of cooperation and amity. One who does not cooperate also knows that he is behaving badly. Those people who are hostile to each other, whenever they think for themselves they realise that it is a bad thing. What is best and most desirable is co-operation. Whatever will be done by cooperation will be good. Thus we should cooperate with each other as by co-operating thus we can develop national education and discipline.”
In another lecture at Jullundur, February 4, 1884, he said: “Gentlemen, centuries have passed when God willed that Hindus and Mussalmans might consume the products of this country, breathe the air of this country, they may live on and die on this land. From this phenomenon it appears to be the will of God that both these groups may live together in India as friends but more particularly as two brothers. They may form two eyes on the beautiful face of India. These two nations (communities) which have mixed like rice and pulse may live in co-operation. As long as this amity is not achieved undoubtedly national education would not be properly organised. If Hindus and Mussalmans build their buildings of two bricks and one-and-a-half bricks separately, nothing would be achieved. They should first of all complete one work unitedly and when it is done they should start the other. I am pleased to mention that the Hindu brethren have also assisted in our college and have met the requirements of their needy brethren as God-fearing men. The trustees of the college have also not forgotten this. They have arranged for their lodging in the same campus, education on the same benches, movement in the same compound and playing on the same fields for members of both the nations, so that mutual friendship may develop. In my opinion there is no other way better than this. But I do not mean that the people of our country may not think of the development of their nations. They should think over whatever I say and if there is anything else they should do it. But it is not advisable that one work should be left unfinished and the other is started.”
Replying to the address presented to him by Anjuman-e-Lahore, Punjab, he expressed the same feeling and said: “I have used the word nation several times in this Anjuman. By this I do not mean Muslims only. In my opinion all men are one and I do not like religion, community or group to be identified with a nation …. I wish that all men irrespective of their religion and community may unite together for commonwealth. Our religions are undoubtedly different but there is no reason for enmity among us on this account.”
These speeches of Sir Syed are self explanatory and one would, without any stretch of imagination, can conclude that he never used the word nation in the technical sense of the term, and also never considered Hindus and Mussalmans as two nations. There is no speech of Sir Syed which reveals that he ever thought of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations. The historians distorted the sentences out of the context and interpreted them according to their own modes of thought. Sir Syed’s relation with the Hindus were the same as with the Muslims and he considered them as the two eyes of a matchless bride and appealed to both of them to live in unison. The Pakistani historians out of their admiration for Sir Syed hail him as “the first Pakistani” while the Indian historians out of their bias call him the father of two-nation theory and thus the forerunner of the idea of Pakistan. This is too far-fetched an idea as Sir Syed had nothing to do with all this. The Times has rightly assessed the political role of Sir Syed when it cites that “the Syed never contemplated anything as drastic as the creation of an Islamic State inside the sub-continent. His main purpose was to ensure that his coreligionists in India made themselves capable of taking their own place in India alongside the Hindu community: it was an equal partnership that he was working for, not the partition of India. He could not, and did not, foresee that in the last resort partition might prove tl1e only practicable way of protecting the rights of Muslims; he would doubtless have been startled to learn that after his death he would be credited with a prophetic prescience which he would have been the last to claim.”
