Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 175

9 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought

Mirza Asmer Beg

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please;
they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under
circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
– Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
(New York: Die Revolution, 1852)

Sir Sayyid considered both Hindus and Muslims as one qaum (nation) –
arguing that qaum should be used to describe the inhabitants of India even
if they have individual characteristics.1 Explaining further, he wrote, ‘By the
word qaum I mean both Hindus and Muslims. That is the way in which I
define the word nation (nation).’2 This is in contrast to his opinion on the
Hindi–Urdu debate and the participation of Muslims in the programmes
of the Indian National Congress (INC). To understand the rationale
underlying the positions of Sir Sayyid, situating his ideas in the context of
the developments of his times is essential.
This chapter aims to understand Sir Sayyid’s political thought by
examining how Sir Sayyid responded to the political concerns of his times
and contributed to a broader conversation about society, democracy, and
political participation. The attempt is to investigate his ideas on two
important issues: his response to the Hindi–Urdu controversy and his
position regarding the INC.
The first part of this chapter discusses the Hindi–Urdu controversy.
Through the Hindi movement, we discover an important facet of the growth
of Hindu nationalism in north India and see how the Hindi movement was

1 Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, ‘Ta’limaur Ittifaq’ Maqalat-e Sir Sayyid: Taqriri
Maqalat (Lahore: Majlis-e Taraqqi-e Adab, 1963), cited in Hafeez Malik, Sir
Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Muslim Modernization in India and Pakistan (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1980), p. 244.
2 Sayyid Iqbal Ali, Sayyid Ahmad Khan ka Safarnamah-e Punjab (Lahore: Majlis-e
Taraqqi-e Adab, 1991), pp. 154–86.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 176 Mirza Asmer Beg

successful in differentiating Hindi from Urdu and making Hindi a symbol of

the Hindu culture. It also shows how people like Sir Sayyid had practically
no option but to oppose this movement.
The second part addresses the political participation of the Muslims of
India. Sir Sayyid regarded the INC as a step towards the creation of a more
advanced ‘nation’ of Bengali specifically, not of Hindus in general. Like
many others, he considers this a consequence of the asymmetrical impact
of colonial policies in different parts of India, which resulted in a significant
section of Hindu and Muslim middle classes – including many zamindars
and taluqdars – coming together to oppose the INC. Only a short time
before this, many of these protesters had been standing against each other
on the Hindi–Urdu issue.

Hindi–Urdu Controversy
Since the foundation of the Delhi Sultanate in the thirteenth century until
the establishment of British supremacy in the late eighteenth century,
Persian was the official language in north India. In 1837, it was replaced
by Urdu, which drew its inspiration from Persian. During much of the
nineteenth century, many north Indian Muslims and Hindus were familiar
with both Urdu and Persian.
The Hindu kayastha community was particularly proficient in Urdu. Its
members held government positions in large numbers. Along with Kashmiri
Brahmins and Khatris, they held a virtual monopoly at public service, which
remained largely unchallenged until the final decades of the nineteenth
century. A majority of Hindus were at a disadvantage because of the brisk
extension of the government educational system and its division into two
vernaculars, Hindi and Urdu – with Urdu having the preferential position in
administration. Hence, the competition for government service inevitably
became linguistically and communally articulated.
Hindi and Urdu share common grammar, based on Khari Boli, the
regional Hindi dialect of the western North-Western Provinces (NWP) and
Oudh. Only a few insignificant differences, such as the use of Arabic plurals
in formal Urdu or the use of Sanskrit suffixes in Hindi, separate the two
verbally. However, the greatest and most conflicting difference between
the two manifests in their scripts. No writing system may be as diverse as
these two. Moreover, each script is associated with the sacred language of
each religion: Nagari (Hindi script) is adapted from Sanskrit, the language

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 177

of Hindu scriptures, whereas Urdu is adapted from Arabic, the language of

the Qur’an.3
Sir Sayyid began reconsidering his ideas on inclusivity after the dispute
over the official language status, which was enjoyed by Urdu hitherto.
Urdu language in the Persian script had been the strongest link between
the Hindu and Muslim communities of India over a long time. However,
when the movement for replacing Urdu with Hindi as the exclusive language
of north Indian Hindus started in the 1860s, many eyebrows were raised.
Sir Sayyid opined that Urdu was the common heritage of Indians and
thus should be continued. He feared that the differences between the two
communities would increase with time, having disastrous consequences for
the country in the long run. The supporters of Hindi argued that the good of
the Hindu majority required the introduction of Hindi, even if the Muslim
minority suffered because of the change. During this time, the first signs
of differentiation identifying Hindi with Hindus and Urdu with Muslims
appeared. Thus, the process of developing a consciousness of a common
identity based on language and religion began.
Gradually, two ends of the pole emerged – one represented by those
insisting on the use of a more Sanskritized Hindi and the other by those
insisting on the use of a more Persianized Urdu. As the movement gained
momentum, it put the Hindus who were part of the Urdu-speaking elite
in the spot. They had strong economic reasons to be part of the Muslim
legacy, but at a cultural level, they could not oppose Hindi and the Nagari
script because they were considered representatives of the Hindu heritage.
This issue attracted particular attention in 1873, when the supporters of
Hindi presented a memorandum to the Provincial Lieutenant Governor, Sir
William Muir. Sustained efforts for promoting Hindi began in 1893 after the
founding of the Nagari Pracharini Sabha (Society for the Promotion of Nagari)
at Banaras. This society organized resources for the growth of Hindi and
the Nagari script and could produce literature that glorified the Hindu past.
These developments shook Sir Sayyid. To add insult to injury, Babu
Fateh Chand, among others, organized committees at several places with
a central office at Allahabad. These committees planned and coordinated
the activities of various bodies for promoting Hindi. At the same time,
Babu Shiva Prasad – a prominent official of the Provincial Department of
Public Instruction – despite being an Urdu writer, pressed his hatred for

3 Christopher King, ‘The Hindi–Urdu Controversy of the North-Western Provinces

and Oudh and Communal Consciousness’, Journal of South Asian Literature
13, nos 1/4 (1977–78): 111–20, 111–12.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 178 Mirza Asmer Beg

the former Mughal rule in India and its legacy, Urdu. He even implored
the Hindu members of Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Scientific Society to replace
Urdu with Hindi as the language of business in the society. Thus, these
Hindu members began demanding the publication of the society’s journal
in Hindi rather than Urdu.4 For the Hindi movement leaders, language had
become a symbol of cultural and religious distinctiveness. They mobilized
numerous people. Even a lawyer in the high court of the NWP maintained
that the people regarded the recognition of Urdu as the court language as a
pure and simple survival of the old Mughal tyranny in India.5
Sir Sayyid considered Urdu a mixed language and was not opposed to the
recognition of the Nagari script. However, those on the other side, like Saroda
Prasad Sandel, argued that Hindi and Urdu were not the same and that Urdu
should make room for the more popular Hindi, just as Persian had made room
for Bengali and Urdu.6 In 1868, Babu Shiva Prasad wrote a memorandum
favouring Hindi and submitted it to the provincial government. This was
followed by other memoranda in 1869, 1872, and 1873. Although these
did not lead to changes in the government’s language policy, it created
apprehension in the minds of people like Sir Sayyid. Even if the memoranda
did not ask for a change in the court language or elimination of the Urdu
script, it requested that ‘the written character of the immense majority of
the people (that is, the Nagari script) should be used in the courts, and all
summonses, decisions and decrees should be issued in that character’.7
During 1867–1890, many Hindus of the NWP agitated through meetings
and distributed leaflets; this led to groups of representatives approaching the
government, requesting the substitution of Urdu in the Persian script with
Hindi in the Nagari script as the official court language. Similar arguments
were presented before the common masses mainly through poetry and drama
in vernacular literature. In 1882, The Calcutta Review carried an article by
Babu Shyamacharan Ganguli, who exhorted Muslims to accept that ‘Urdu

4 Aziz Ahmad, Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment (Oxford:

Claredon Press, 1964), p. 260.
5 Education Commission Report by the North-Western Provinces and Oudh
Provincial Committee; with Evidence Taken before the Committee, and
Memorials Addressed to the Education Commission (Calcutta, 1884), p. 200.
6 Correspondence between Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Saroda Prasad Sandel,
Aligarh Institute Gazette 3, no. 48 (27 November 1868): 757–9.
7 Kasi-Nagari Pracharini Sabha Ka Arddhshatabdi Itihas (Kasi, 1943), pp. 119–20.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 179

is Hindi in its basis, just as they themselves are largely Hindu by race’.8
During this period, the political conflict between Hindus and Muslims
began in NWP. At this time, the leading Muslims of the province organized
themselves into a political association to oppose the Hindu demands. Sir
Sayyid’s Muhammadan Educational Conference, founded in 1886, began
defending Urdu in its meetings. Overall, the most crucial issue in NWP
during this time was not the spread of English education, but whether Hindi
or Urdu should gain prominence as the medium of primary education.9
A main concern of the Hindi camp was that because of the continued
official importance given to Urdu in the provinces, a large number of Hindus
were being assimilated in the cultural language and script of the Muslims in
the late nineteenth century. In 1896, all vernacular elementary schools in
the NWP and Oudh combined had 50,316 boys studying Urdu and 100,404
studying Hindi. The leaders of the Hindi movement were opposing this
process of assimilation in the late nineteenth century, whereas the Muslims
in the Aligarh school wanted to continue it.10 Hindustani or Urdu was said
to be a symbol of the ‘syncretic culture’, but when the social equilibrium
on which this culture rested was threatened, Urdu became a symbol of a
distinct communal identity.11
Regardless of the true motive of the Hindi movement supporters, the
fact remained that no issue had previously mobilized Hindus in such large
numbers. This was indeed a cause for alarm. For those supporting Urdu,
like Sir Sayyid, communal animosity was the basis of all the agitation for
Hindi and the Nagari script. Without thinking of the public interest, the
Hindus were expressing their religious bigotry. Considering the increasing
competition for government service, the Hindi movement made efforts
to differentiate Hindi from Urdu, denying any assimilation to cultural
traditions associated with the Mughal rule. It glorified a Hindu past,
implicitly giving expression to Hindu communalism. For the Hindus, Hindi
and the Nagari script looked to different religious and historical traditions
than did Urdu and the Urdu script.

8 ‘Hindi, Hindustani and the Behar Dialects’, The Calcutta Review LXXV (1882),
p. 36.
9 Paul R. Brass, ‘Muslim Separatism in United Provinces: Social Context and
Political Strategy Before Partition’, Economic and Political Weekly 5, nos 3/5,
(January 1970): 167–9, 171–3, 175, 177–9, 181, 183–6.
10 Ibid.
11 Alok Rai, Hindi Nationalism (Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2001), p. 61.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 180 Mirza Asmer Beg

The pressure on the government to replace Urdu with Hindi continued

unabated, with the British official policy also appearing to be receptive to this
demand. Urdu was replaced by Hindi first as the written medium of recording
in the courts of law in Bihar. During 1872–1873, the same happened in the
subordinate offices in the Central Provinces and the Darjeeling district
of Bengal. In 1881, the exclusive use of Hindi in the Nagari script was
introduced in Bihar.12
All this culminated in 1900, when Sir Anthony MacDonnell, the
Lieutenant Governor, gave official recognition to the permissive, but not
exclusive, use of Hindi in the Nagari script in the courts of NWP. On 4
July 1900, The Punjab Observer reported, ‘We cannot but characterize it as
anything short of a grave political blunder, and history written a hundred
years later will have to mourn the mistake made in 1900.’ This policy created
considerable confusion on the issue of language. In areas where Muslims
were more in number or were influential, like Punjab and UP, Urdu remained
firmly rooted until India’s independence. However, in places where Urdu
had no such hold, like Bihar and Central Provinces, Hindi and the Nagari
script replaced Urdu.
In 1874, Sir John Strachey, Lieutenant Governor of NWP and Oudh, had
rejected the argument that the government should favour Hindi because of
the number of Hindi speakers is larger. However, by the end of the century,
Sir MacDonnell forwarded the same argument to justify the governmental
recognition of Hindi and the Nagari script through a political argument
documented in a 22 August 1897 letter addressed to Lord Elgin: ‘… the
strong position of Muslims was a risk to the security. The ratio of Muslims
to Hindus should be reduced to three to five.’13
Evidence clearly indicates a fundamental contradiction in the British
language policy among the United Provinces; precisely, it encouraged the use
of Hindi in education along with the preferment of Urdu in administration.
This language policy helped create a flood of Hindi textbooks in the Nagari
script and a class of people with a vested interest in Sanskritizing them.
It also exposed tens of thousands of students to Hindi-medium education
using these textbooks, but denied these students equal access to the

12 Abdul Hamid, Muslim Separatism in India: A Brief Survey 1858–1947 (Lahore:

Oxford University Press, 1971, repr. [1967]), pp. 37–8.
13 Francis Robinson, Separatism among Indian Muslims: The Politics of United
Provinces’ Muslims 1860–1923, Cambridge South Asian Studies (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 134.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 181

very government positions (for which they had gone to school), where
the knowledge of Urdu was privileged. This glaring inconsistency found
no parallel outside the United Provinces, but significantly increased the
differentiation between the two forms of Khari Boli.14
Sir Sayyid feared that the stance of the Hindi movement leaders and the
official language policy was causing a deep rift between the Hindus and the
Muslims, but no Hindu leaders paid attention to Sir Sayyid’s objections.
In addition, when the INC was established in 1885, in the name of the
Indian ‘nation’, it took no position on these divisive official measures or the
disquieting Hindi movement. Several delegates to the INC sessions were
in the forefront of the movement. During the 1890s, the meetings of the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were held in the INC pandal after the closing of
the INC sessions.15 The way INC leaders associated with the demands for
Hindi can be gauged from Lala Lajpat Rai’s 1882 confession that he did not
know the language (Hindi) at the time but was actively promoting its cause
in Punjab and was going to continue supporting the Hindi movement.16
Rai was an admirer of the British rule and maintained that the British were
the liberators from the atrocities and mischiefs of the Muslims. Another
prominent INC leader, Madan Mohan Malviya was a member of the Nagari
Pracharini Sabha since 1894. He acted as its representative on the delegation
supporting Hindi to Sir MacDonnell in 1898. Hindi supporters’ sentiments
resonate in Malviya’s 1897 book Court Character and Primary Education
in NWP and Oudh.
Apparently, scripts and languages were merely a pretext of the struggle
for jobs and access to power. Because these main reasons were not exposed,
the arguments paraded in the support of Hindi carried little weight. A
major argument of the Hindi movement leaders that Nagari was the script
of the masses was not supported by facts – because 97 per cent of them
were illiterate at the time.17 In fact, compared with the Nagari script, the
Kaithi script was more widely used then, and thus, democratic arguments
favouring the Nagari script carried little weight. The reason that the Kaithi

14 Christopher R. King, One Language Two Scripts: The Hindi Movement in

Nineteenth Century North India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994),
p. 186.
15 Sharif Al Mujahid, ‘Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Muslim Nationalism in India’,
Islamic Studies 38, no. 1 (1999): 87–101, 93.
16 Lakshminarayan Gupta, Hindi Bhasha aur Sahitya ki Arya Samaj ko Den
(Lucknow: Sahitya Mandir Press, 1961), pp. 258–62.
17 Rai, Hindi Nationalism, p. 58.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 182 Mirza Asmer Beg

script was not considered by the Hindi movement leaders was that this script
was somewhat associated with Hindustani, rather than Sanskrit, and was
known to both the Hindus and Muslims – which made it not ‘pure’ enough
to create a basis of differentiation. Therefore, the reason underlying the
Hindi movement and its consequences was the contest between two elite
groups: the entrenched Urdu-wielding Avadh elites (including both Muslims
and Hindus) and the emergent and aspirant savarna Nagari–Hindi elites.
As the Hindi movement intensified, the situation became so polarized
that ignoring their economic interest associated with Urdu, kayasthas
passed a resolution in the first Kayastha Conference in 1988. The resolution
favoured the introduction of the Nagari script in government courts and
offices. At its conclusion, a memorandum was sent to the Lieutenant
Governor.18
As time passed, there grew a deep-rooted hatred of the Urdu script. Raja
Shiva Prasad bared his heart out stating that the arguments were specifically
directed against the use of the Persian script, not Persianized Urdu – which he
himself used with considerable ability. In an 1868 memorandum, he wrote,
‘… the official script thrusts a semitic element into the bosoms of Hindus
and alienates them from their Aryan speech … to read Persian is to become
Persianised, all our ideas become corrupt and our nationality is lost.’19
However, in this conflict, both sides demonstrated competitive fidelity
by being cautious not to antagonize the British. When Raja Shiva Prasad
petitioned the government on behalf of the Nagari script in 1868, he said,
‘Never will it be safe to leave any district without a fair-complexioned
head. It is not the excess but the dearth of the fair-complexioned that we
have to complain of.’20 The opponents of the Hindi movement were equally
prompt in pointing towards the connections among the Hindi movement,
the cow protection movement, and the emergent INC. On 18 June 1900,
the Urdu periodical Al Bashir warned, ‘The Hindi–Urdu controversy, the
cow protection societies and the system of competitive examinations …
though they apparently seem to be directed against the Muslims, are really
appendages of the INC, and indirectly breathe a spirit into the country which
cannot possibly be beneficial to the British government.’

18 Charles H. Heimsath, Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 281–3.
19 Shiva Prasad, Memorandum: Court Character in the Upper Provinces of India
(Banaras: Library of the Nagari Pracharini Sabha), p. 5.
20 ‘Strictures upon the Strictures of Sayyad Ahmad Khan Bahadur’ (Banaras, 1870),
p. 16, quoted in Rai, Hindi Nationalism, p. 36.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 183

Sir Sayyid foresaw the consequences of the Nagari/Hindi politics, and

in a 29 April 1879 letter to his friend Mehdi Ali Khan from London, he
expressed his anguish by explaining that ‘it would open an unending vista
of split and strife between Hindus and Muslims. The rupture would never
be healed…. The two communities would be irrevocably rent asunder’.21
With these developments in the background, Sir Sayyid argued that status
quo should be maintained regarding the language policy. Although this
position advantaged the Avadh elite, it emphasized unification of Indians,
rather than their differentiation – which the Hindi movement leaders were
attempting. Sir Sayyid anticipated the consequences of this movement, and
thus, his response was guided by his concern for the Muslim community as
well as the larger cause of social amity and harmony. Accusing Sir Sayyid
of being communal and exclusivist for advocating the cause of Urdu and
exonerating the supporters of Hindi of all charges (for doing exactly the
same thing in their support for Hindi) would be a great injustice to Sir
Sayyid and his legacy.
The basis of Sir Sayyid’s arguments can be understood by looking at the
way this issue has played out in the political arena of independent India. As
recently as 2014, the UP Government’s decision to accord Urdu the status of
second official language was challenged by the UP Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
in court. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, which eventually ruled
that the state’s decision was constitutional. The real reason underlying
this opposition was not genuine (or imagined) concerns for Hindi, but the
communal consciousness present in the public sphere. Even today, Urdu is
unpalatable to those who look at the language issue through the communal
lens. Even in the twentieth century, these individuals are not ready to shed
the political baggage of the nineteenth century.

Political Participation of Muslims

In the Hindi movement, the communal fault lines in the Indian society were
becoming quite visible. Sir Sayyid saw that this movement was leading to
majority communalism, which eventually would have marginalized the
Muslims, who were in minority and considered the reason for the perceived
disadvantages of the majority. Not guided by some exclusivist agenda, his

21 Shaykh Muhammad Isma`il Panipati (ed.), Maktubat-e Sir Sayyid (Lahore:

Majlis-e Taraqqi-e Adab, 1959), p. 103.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 184 Mirza Asmer Beg

ideas for the political participation of the Muslims were well thought and
based on a sound understanding of the situation. A main demand of the
INC was that members of the Viceroy’s Council should be chosen through
election: This was the emphasis in the INC meeting at Madras, presided
by Budruddin Tyabji. Expressing his apprehension on this issue, Sir Sayyid
argued, ‘… the power of legislation over the whole country will be in the
hands of Bengalis or of Hindus of the Bengali type and the Mahomedans
will fall into a condition of utmost degradation.’22
Sir Sayyid was aware of the numerical inferiority of the Muslims.
Moreover, he was apprehensive of the first-past-the-post system. Long
before the system was introduced in India, he could foresee that it would
be to the great disadvantage of the Muslims. He explained it in quite clear
terms: ‘And first suppose that all Mahomedan electors vote for a Mahomedan
member, and all Hindu electors for a Hindu member; It is certain the Hindu
members will have four times as many, because their population is four
times as numerous.’23 Sir Sayyid’s views on the inherent weakness of the
first-past-the-post system were much ahead of his time. After studying
John Stuart Mill’s writings, he was convinced that where the majority vote
is a decisive factor in a political system, the electors need to rise above
the narrow considerations of race, religion, language, region, and caste.
Otherwise, the minorities and marginalized groups would have very little
voice and their legitimate concerns and aspirations would be at the mercy
of the majority. Appreciating the diverse nature of the Indian society and
the communal divide, he anticipated that with the kind of dispensation the
INC desired to create in India, the Muslims would be increasingly side-lined.
Unfortunately, his fear became reality in 1936, when in popular elections
for the Legislative Assembly in UP, the INC won the majority, with most
of those elected being Hindus who then became ministers. Held after the
enactment of the Government of India Act, 1935, this election gave voting
rights to only about 14 per cent of the Indian population. Nevertheless,
this was an improvement compared with the Government of India Act,

22 Sir Sayyid’s reply to Mr. Badruddin Tayabji’s letter published in The Pioneer in
1888, quoted in Writings and Speeches of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, comp. and ed.
Shan Muhammad (Bombay: Nichiketa Publications Limited, 1972), pp. 240–3.
23 Sir Sayyid’s speech at Lucknow, 28 September 1887, in Sir Syed Ahmad on the
Present State of Indian Politics, Consisting of Speeches and Letters Reprinted
from the ‘Pioneer’ (Allahabad: The Pioneer Press, 1888), pp. 1–24, a modern
facsimile version (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1982).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 185

1919, which gave only 3 per cent of the adult population the voting rights.
Eventually, the first-past-the-post system, with universal adult franchise,
was operationalized after India’s independence.
In April 1890, a petition signed by approximately 40,000 Muslims from
nearly 70 cities and towns of India was presented to the House of Commons,
through Sir Richard Temple. The petitioners prayed, ‘… your Honourable
House will not introduce the principle of election into the Constitution
of the Indian Councils as requested by the Indian National Congress.’24
This move elicited some support from the British press as well. The Times
denounced the INC’s scheme as a clever devise created by a ‘little organized
clique of baboos to gain power for itself’.25 Consequently, the Indian Councils
Act, 1890, did not introduce any form of elective government. Sir Sayyid’s
views on this subject did not change until the very end. In December 1896,
on his directions, a scheme dealing with the Muslim representation in the
Legislative Council and the Municipalities was drafted. This scheme, crafted
by Theodore Beck and Sayyid Mahmud, was presented to the government
by the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental Defense Association.
Sir Sayyid also did not appreciate the intricacies of democracy, mainly
because democracy then had not evolved to its present liberal maturity
anywhere in the world and was largely a preserve of the rich and propertied
class of men. Sir Sayyid based his opposition to participatory democracy in
India on a sociological argument. He argued that the English society is made
up of free-acting individuals, unrestrained by ‘community’ allegiance. In
India, however, individuals are trapped within institutional communities.
In the political arena, they do not act as free individuals. Because the society
demands, they support candidates of their own community. A Muslim has
to vote for a fellow Muslim, and a Hindu for a fellow Hindu. Sir Sayyid said
that this was a fact of the Indian culture. Therefore, until the society and
culture individualized, democracy would remain unsuitable for India. He
identified that the problem still plagues the Indian polity. He concluded
that for the time being, having the British as impartial referees was useful.26
The increasing numbers of educated middle class individuals from Bengal
in the government jobs posed a challenge to the entrenched Avadh elite.
Consequently, they protested against the INC, which they felt was created

24 The Pioneer, 12 May 1890.

25 The Times, India, 23 June 1890 (London).
26 Hamza Alavi, ‘Misreading Partition Road Signs’, Economic and Political Weekly
37, nos 44/45 (2–15 November 2002): 4515–17, 4519–23, 4516.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 186 Mirza Asmer Beg

by the Bengalis to further their own ends. Because Sir Sayyid also belonged
to this group of elites, he opposed the INC and founded the United Indian
Patriotic Association in 1888. Raja Saheb of Banaras, Raja Bhinga, and Babu
Shiva Prasad, all of whom were in the forefront of the Hindi movement, as
well as Munshi Naval Kishore, who was earlier with the INC, came together
to oppose the INC.
Considering that the British Government had mainly blamed the
Muslims for the events of 1857, Sir Sayyid thought that it would be better
if the Muslims did not commit any such folly and again become suspects
in the eyes of the British, who according to him were going to rule over
India for a long time. He argued, ‘Leaving this aside, it is not expedient that
Mahomedans should take part in proceedings like that of the congress, which
holds meetings in various places in which people accuse government before
crowds of common men of withholding their rights from her subjects.’27 He
wanted to redeem the Muslim community from the stigma of disloyalty,
and through education, prepare it to avail the benefits of British rule. He
argued that although the Muslims and Hindus had together risen against the
British in 1857, after the rebellion was brought under control, the Muslims
were primarily held responsible for daring to rise against the British and thus
faced the wrath of the imperialists first. This made Sir Sayyid ask Muslims
to stay away from the INC.
As the INC embraced the cause of Hindi, people like Sir Sayyid began
weaning away from the INC, because they distrusted the increasingly
divisive Hindi movement. Sensing that the cause of Hindi commanded a
clear democratic advantage, the emergent INC had taken hold of the Hindi
movement. Unsurprisingly, Sir Sayyid, along with many others, opposed
the INC for this step. An Urdu daily newspaper reported that a large anti-
INC meeting was held in Lucknow on 3 December 1899. Attended by
approximately 5,000 gentry, it condemned the INC’s support for Hindi.28
In December 1887, while the INC held its meeting in Madras, Sir Sayyid
addressed the Muhammadan Educational Congress in Lucknow. Here,
he denounced the INC as an attempt by Bengalis to take over India. The
INC had always accused the British for their ‘divide and rule’ policy, but
this attempt to divide Indians on the issue of language failed to draw the
attention of the INC.

27 Sir Sayyid’s reply to Mr Badruddin Tayabji’s letter published in The Pioneer in

1888, quoted in Writings and Speeches, ed. Muhammad, pp. 240–3.
28 Oudh Akhbar, 3 December 1899 (Lucknow: Nawal Kishore Press).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 187

According to Sir Sayyid, the arguments he advanced for Muslims to

keep away from the INC were in the larger interest of the country. His fears
regarding any vocal and passionate political mobilization were not meant to
depoliticize the Muslims or create a communal consciousness among them.
He simply believed that it was not politically wise for the Muslims to join
the INC; this was in the best interest of the country. He said, ‘There has
grown up in India a political agitation and it is necessary to determine what
action should be taken by the Muhammedan community with regard to it.
Although my own thoughts and desires are towards my own community,
yet I shall discuss whether or not this agitation is useful for the country….’29
He felt that only education could lead the Muslims towards empowerment
and choosing political activism over education would make them slip
further down the abyss of backwardness. He was convinced about neither
the objectives of the INC nor their commitment to their stated objectives.
Hence, for him, advising Muslims to join the INC was impossible. However,
in the retrospectively constructed nationalist narrative, some have called
him a ‘separatist’ based on his call to the Muslims for nonparticipation in the
early INC. Sir Sayyid did have a point, but in this all-pervasive, entrenched
nationalist narrative of the twenty-first century, there is a limited chance
that many would appreciate his nuanced arguments.
Notably, the INC then was not a body fighting for the independence of
the country, but merely a group of loyal elite Indians that would petition
the British Government, while ensuring that none of its actions and deeds
amounted to antagonizing the government’s powers. The INC was convinced
of the providential nature of the British rule and hoped for its continuance
in India. From the first two decades of its existence until much after Sir
Sayyid’s demise, the INC did not make any worthwhile contribution to the
cause of nationalism. Hence, Sir Sayyid and many others like him disagreed
with its modus operandi. At that time, neither the INC nor Sir Sayyid and
his friends were disloyal to or opposed the British Government. In fact, Sir
Sayyid thought that by only making demands to the government without
having the required commitment to go to any extent to get these demands
met, betrayed the nonseriousness of the INC towards its proclaimed goals.
Hence, according to him, the INC’s actions did not make much sense: ‘What
benefit is expected from all this for the country, and what revolution in the
government can we produce? The only results can be to produce a useless
uproar to raise suspicion in government….’30

29 Sir Sayyid’s speech at Lucknow, 28 September 1887.

30 Ibid.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 188 Mirza Asmer Beg

Notably, not only Sir Sayyid and a handful of Muslims (who did not
agree with the INC and its style of functioning) but also several prominent
Hindus did not agree with the INC. These people included most Muslim
and Hindu taluqdars of Oudh. Sir Sayyid wanted the British Government
to appreciate this fact. Furthermore, while he believed that the movement
started by the INC was not a national movement, Sir Sayyid was cautious
to ensure that no exclusivist message was conveyed by his opposition to the
INC. Hence, suggesting that Sir Sayyid wanted to keep the Muslims away
from the INC while all other people supported the INC is quite misleading.
Sir Sayyid’s harshest critics were also Muslim. Thus, apprehensive that the
aforementioned perception might gain ground, he argued,

In India all people-the officials and the public-are well aware of the
opposition that has been raised by Hindus and the Muhammedans
to the INC. But the supporters of the INC are trying by wrong
means to create a false impression on England that the whole of
the people of India, Hindus and Muhammedans, are in its favour.
Hence it is necessary for us to inform the people of England that
the Muhammedans and many influential and powerful Hindus are
opposed to it.31

Before considering Sir Sayyid a narrow-minded community leader, it

would be prudent to consider that he worked with Hindus in the Scientific
Society, the Aligarh British India Association, and the United Indian
Patriotic Association. He was also supported by several Hindu zamindars
and Rajas in his college, and many leading Hindus were members of his
college committee. In the early years of his college, there were significant
number of Hindu students and teachers. Between 1879 and 1900, there were
1,573 Muslim and 451 Hindu students in the Muhammedan Anglo-Oriental
College.32 Ten Hindu teachers were also appointed.33
On the other hand, the symbols, slogans, ideas, phrases, and idioms
used to bring the masses towards the INC were majorly Hindu in the

31 Sir Sayyid’s letter to the editor of The Pioneer in opposition to the Indian
National Congress after the formation of the United Indian Patriotic
Association, 8 August 1888.
32 Sayyid Iftekhar Alam, Muhammadan College History (Agra: Matba Mufid-e
Aam, 1901), pp. 135–6.
33 Khaliq A. Nizami, Sir Syed on Education, Society and Economy (Delhi: Idarah-e
Adabiyat, 2009), p. 87.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 189

religio-cultural sense. Although it might have been unintentional, this fact

alarmed the Muslims. In 1893, after the Hindu–Muslim riots in Bombay,
Tilak started the Ganapati celebrations in Poona. In these processions,
songs denigrating Muslim and British rulers were sung. In one case, a
procession attacked a mosque, adding communal colour to the whole
celebration.34 In the Bengal Council, Lal Mohan Ghose questioned the
propriety of parading the Muharram procession in the streets of Calcutta.
Surendranath Banerjee expressed great joy when the cow-killing circular
of the Bengal Government was issued. The attitude of the INC leaders and
the resurgence of Hindu nationalism embodied in the form of the Bharati
Varsha National Association, Arya Samaj, and anti-cow-killing societies,
distressed the Muslims. These factors further alienated this community
and created suspicions in their minds.
This situation is strikingly similar to the current developments in India,
where the strengthening of majoritarian forces and their aggressive intent
has intensified the feelings of insecurity and fear among the minorities,
particularly the Muslims. These developments are a stark reminder that
Sir Sayyid’s fears regarding the rise of majoritarianism were not entirely
unfounded.
Sir Sayyid also opined that the demands of the INC may disturb the
communal amity in the country. He added, ‘These proposals of the congress
are extremely inexpedient for the country…. To create animosity between
them is good neither for peace, nor for the country, nor for the town.’34 Sir
Sayyid is often accused of creating a sense of difference between the Hindus
and Muslims. By contrast, he worked tirelessly in search of the points of
convergence between the two communities. He further thought that the
INC and its demands would never evoke any positive response from the
British Government, rather disturb the fragile peace of a country India had
become. ‘The result of these unrealizable and impossible proposals can be
only this: that anger and excitement will spread throughout the people, and
the peace of the country will be destroyed.’35
On 22 November 1888 in a meeting of the United Indian Patriotic
Association, Raja Shiva Prasad tabled a resolution to establish a new
central association at Lucknow for opposing the INC, named Indian Loyal

34 Sir Sayyid’s speech at Meerut, 16 March 1888, in Sir Syed Ahmad on the
Present State of Indian Politics, Consisting of Speeches and Letters Reprinted
from the ‘Pioneer’ (Allahabad: The Pioneer Press, 1888), pp. 29–53, a modern
facsimile version (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1982).
35 Sir Sayyid’s speech at Lucknow, 28 September 1887.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 190 Mirza Asmer Beg

Association. He wanted approval for a petition addressed to the government,

signed by the Maharaja of Banaras and some others. The petition asked the
government to add certain sections to its criminal code for suppressing
seditious writings of the INC leaders in the press. This petition required
the INC leaders to be charged of sedition, with appropriate legal action. It
was a serious petition, which Sir Sayyid did not agree with. For him, the
INC was a body of the Bengali elites, with which he had a difference of
opinion; however, he did not believe that the organization was disloyal to
the government, although it had adopted extremely immoral methods with
regard to public affairs. He bore no animosity against the congressmen and
disagreed that he ‘should undertake the work of trying to have them arrested
by the criminal courts. We believe that what they want is very harmful for
the Mohammedans, for Rajputs, and especially for the peace of the country….
Let the government do what it thinks fit.’36 Thus, leaders like Raja Shiva
Prasad and Raja of Banaras nursed a deep-rooted animosity towards the INC,
whereas Sir Sayyid was opposed to the INC at the level of ideas.
Those with a very insular understanding of the term ‘nationalism’ often
blame Sir Sayyid of being a traitor to the cause of Indian nationalism. On the
contrary, Sir Sayyid considered India a country where people of all hues lived
together, where a territorial uniqueness still allowed cultural communities
their space. His engagement with the traditional Islamic values and history
did not deter him from redefining the role of religion in the modern era. Here,
he found no qualms in positing religion as a private matter, thus keeping
it out of the public sphere. In his Urdu essay ‘Mazhabi Khayal Zamana-e
Qadeem aur Zamana-e Jadeed mein’, Sir Sayyid noted that in the early era,
humans were created for the sake of religion whereas in modern dictum, the
latter has been created for the former. According to Sir Sayyid, religion in
the past dealt both with the spiritual and physical needs of a human society;
now it was meant to deal only with the spiritual aspects.37
His rational outlook in religious matters also negates his image of an
inward-looking community leader – which some analysts have bestowed
upon him. Sir Sayyid was the only prominent Muslim disputing the claims
of the Khalifa of Turkey and wanted to sever the link of Indian Muslims
with the international Muslim fraternity. He argued that Indian Muslims

36 Sir Sayyid’s letter to the editor of The Pioneer, 24 September 1888.

37 Panipati, Maqalat-e Sir Sayyid, vol. 3 (Lahore, 1963), pp. 24–7, quoted by Iftekhar
H. Malik in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan: Muslim Renaissance Man of India – A
Bicentenary Commemorative Volume, ed. Abdur R. Kidwai, ch. 12 (Mumbai:
Viva Books, 2017), p. 214.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 Understanding Sir Sayyid’s Political Thought 191

had to survive in the Indian situation and not turn to a foreign power for
their moral or religious survival. ‘His emphasis on ijtihad or independent
reasoning and disapproval of taqlid or adherence to the four authoritative
schools of Islamic jurisprudence set him apart from the ulama that saw in his
modernist intellectual stance a barely disguised attack on their preeminent
status in Muslim society.’38
In the final decades of the nineteenth century, an Indian nation did not
exist. Sir A. O. Hume talked of a congeries of communities.39 Because the
idea of an Indian nation was yet to develop in India, no one then accused Sir
Sayyid of dividing the nation – a myth created by some twentieth-century
writers.
Sir Sayyid, a person who despite his differences with the INC worked for
communal harmony and inclusivity has been condemned as an exclusivist
and proponent of the two-nation theory. The predicament of Sir Sayyid
is the same as that Indian Muslims are in today. When they talk of their
legitimate concerns and rights, their patriotism is suspected. When they
protest if pushed against the wall, they are branded as anti-national.

Conclusion
In some of the Indian writings, Sir Sayyid’s role has been largely
misrepresented because of his opposition against the Hindi movement and
the INC. He deserves to be judged more objectively. None of the Hindi
movement protagonists is loathed currently. Instead, all venom is spewed
on Sir Sayyid for advocating the cause of Urdu. Hamza Alavi argues that
although Bankim Chandra Chatterjee has been highly acclaimed by some
scholars as the pioneer of Indian nationalism, his violent hostility towards
the Muslims and his declaration that British were not our enemies are often
ignored. Bankim advocated English education and accepted the British rule
just as Sir Sayyid did, but Bankim is honoured, whereas Sir Sayyid is hated
– for holding the same views.40 As late as 1894, even Aurobindo Ghosh had
this to say about the INC: ‘The congress is dying of consumption; annually

38 Ayesha Jalal, ‘Exploding Communalism: The Politics of Muslim Identity in

South Asia’, in Nationalism, Democracy and Development: State and Politics
in India, ed. Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, pp. 1–21 (Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1998–1999), p. 6.
39 Sir William Wedderburn, Allan Octavian Hume, C.B.: Father of the Indian
National Congress (London: Fisher Unwin, 1913).
40 Alavi, ‘Misreading Partition Road Signs’, p. 4516.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011
 192 Mirza Asmer Beg

its proportion sinks into greater insignificance.’41 However, he is still never

characterized as anti-national. These unique differences in assessments
reveal the intellectual biases underlying the Indian nationalist thought.42
Until he was alive, Sir Sayyid carried the image of a broadminded leader.
It was only in the twentieth century that all kinds of accusations began
being hurled at him. Sir Sayyid went to Punjab in 1884. Of the hundreds of
addresses presented there, the one presented for the Indian Association of
Lahore by its President, Sardar Dayal Singh, is particularly noteworthy. It
talks about Sir Sayyid’s ‘liberal attitude towards the section of the country
other than your own co-religionists…. Your conduct throughout has been
stainless of bigotry’.43
Even until his last breath, Sir Sayyid’s commitment towards inclusive
politics did not desert him. Only one week before his death, Sir Sayyid wrote,
‘We should have the courage to accept that the education which is teaching
our Hindu youth to hate the Muslims will one day make them understand
that until Hindus and Muslims come together and do not learn to respect the
feelings of each other, neither of them will get a place of respect under the
British rule.’44 Today, we can understand how prophetic these words were.

41 Niharranjan Roy, ‘Nationalism in India’, in Sir Syed Ahmad Khan Memorial

Lectures, ed. Shan Muhammad, pp. 120–230 (Mumbai: Viva Books, 2107), p.
174.
42 Alavi, ‘Misreading Partition Road Signs’, p. 4516.
43 Ali, Sir Sayyid Ka Safarnamah-e Punjab, p. 157.
44 Aligarh Institute Gazette, 19 March 1898, Aligarh.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University College London (UCL), on 20 Dec 2019 at 10:47:07, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108594196.011