Religio-Political Dynamism in the 20th Century Colonial India and Subsequent Muslim Response: A Case Study of the Punjab Province

Abstract

Religio-Political Dymanism is a term that was coined in the 20th century political milieu especially in the perspective of famous Khilafat Movement in the backdrop of the World War I (1914-1919). The entire ‘Muslim India’ stood with their Turkish Brethren at that time of turmoil and upheaval in order to provide them helping hand against the ominous British Imperial designs to disintegrate centuries old Ottoman Empire. This movement that could later be called a mother of all other movements like Tehrik-i- Hijrat (Migration Movement) of 1919-1920, Tehrik-i-Tark-i-Mawalat of 1919-1920 (Non-cooperation Movement) and Tehrik-i-Nafarmani of 1929-1930 (Civil Disobedience Movement). It was for the first time in Indian History that Ulama (Muslim religious scholars as they were called by the community) and Masha’ikh (commonly called as pirs:spiritual guides) arrived into political arena and later this nexus or liaison was established on more profound and stable grounds. This early immature unison failed to prove its worth as the issue of Khilafat was extra-terestrial and was called as an ‘international problem’ by some seasoned politicians like Iqbal and Jinnah. They were of the view that changes and challenges on international scenario were under rapid changes and could not solely be controlled by Indian Muslims who were already in the bonds of slavery and the roots of International Imperialism were very deep which could not easily be deracinated. However; this religio political dymanism proved its effectivity during the decisive phase of freedom movement when the religio-political relationship between religious ranks and All India Muslim League used ‘religion’ as effective tool to attract and convince ‘Muslim India’ under the banner of two-nation theory. ‘Muslim Response’ as another effective term applied in Indian political milieu is actually the counter-strategy of Muslim political intelligentsia to mainly cope with the propaganda of Indian National Congress, the represenatative of Hindu Majority in the garb of so-called ‘nationalism’. Although a faction of Ulama supported the nationalist’s agenda of Congress. So they were called as ‘nationalist Ulama’ who opposed All India Muslim League demand for a separate homeland. Another faction of Muslims called Unionists were the landlords of Punjab, ‘the landed aristocracy’ who were previliged by the British Colonizers in order to subdue the Indian subjects of rural areas. During the War of Independence, this artificially created class appeased their colonial ‘benefactors’. These land artiatocrats like Sir Fazl-e-Hussain, Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, Sir Chhotu Ram, etc established their own political party in 1923. They worked for their own vested interests and nothing to do with the common folk. They were so powerful in Punjab that Jinnah had to sign a pact with them to seek help for the Muslim unity, called Jinnah-Sikandar Pact in 1937, as AIML had badly failed in 1937 General Elections. In order to curb their power, it was quite advisable to adopt another strategy so ‘religio-political nexus’ of Ulama-League which was later transformed into ‘religio-political dymanism’ by the dint of political circumstances filled this gap. The research paper in hand explains the political process and circumstancial pressure that brought AIML and Ulama closer and also highlights the fact that a considerable faction of Ulama, the Ulama-i-Ahl-i-Sunnat worked voluntarily, unconditionally and were sincere with cause of Islam and Pakistan and this fact was proved after the partition of India that they did not demand any reward from the newly established administrative set up.