Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party and its Constitution
A Voice from the Margins: An Appraisal of Ubaid-Allah
Sindhi’s
Journal of Political Studies, Vol.20, Issue - 1, 2013, 159:177
Tanvir Anjum
Abstract
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is among those very few political thinkers
and activists of the twentieth-century India who were
initially
associated with the traditional theological seminaries but
their
political vision was marked by liberalism and
openmindedness.
He established a non-communal political party—
Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in 1924 in order to translate his
political ideals into practice. The Party Constitution
envisaged
the idea of a unique form of confederal form of government
for
the country. It also presented an outline of a
socio-economic
order which was derived from a reconciliation of Socialist
ideals with the Quran and Shah Wali-Allahi thought. However,
he is among one of the least understood and often
misinterpreted Muslim thinkers of India. Thus, there is a
need
to appreciate and reevaluate the political modernism in his
thought and vision.
Key-words: Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party,
The Constitution
of the Federated Republics of India, Confederalism,
Socialism
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (1872-1944) of Deoband School is among
those very few
political thinkers and activists who were trained in
traditional madrassahs or
theological seminaries, but had a thorough understanding of
their
contemporary political and economic ideologies, and were
endowed with a
deep vision and tremendous political foresight. Unlike most
of his fellow ulama
or scholars and political leaders of Deoband School, he was
receptive to
modernism, though in a selective manner. It is for this very
reason that he has
been hailed as ‘the most broad-minded Muslim scholar of
South Asia after
Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi’ by Said Ahmad Akbarabadi, an
illustrious pupil of
Sindhi and a renowned scholar of Islam (see introduction in
Aslam, n.d., p.
10). He was not only an exponent of the religious and political
thought of Shah
Wali-Allah of Delhi (1703-1762), Sindhi was himself a
profound thinker, an
activist and a revolutionary. Amid the reactionary
environment of madrassahs
where he was trained, he was the first religious and
political thinker of the
twentieth century who was able to break away from
traditionalism, and
embraced the various aspects of modernity, including
political modernity.
♣ Author is Assistant Professor
Department of History, Quaid-i-Azam niversity,
Islamabad - Pakistan
Tanvir Anjum
160
Unlike his contemporary ulama, he believed that the
political system of the
Pious Caliphate could not be revived in modern times, since
the Caliphate was
suitable for its coeval social and political environment.
Therefore, for solving
the political problems of India, he suggested a modern
political system.
In order to translate his political ideals in reality,
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
established a political party with the name Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party in
1924, in which he envisaged the idea of a unique form of
confederal form of
government for the country. Nevertheless, he is among one of
the least
understood and often misinterpreted Muslim scholars of
India. His political
ideas and schemes have been evaluated and interpreted by the
Muslim
nationalist historians in an unsympathetic manner. In fact,
the Muslim
nationalist historiographical tradition tends to eulogize
the efforts of only those
Muslim leaders who struggled for the creation of Pakistan,
while ignoring
those who held political views opposed to the ideology of
All India Muslim
League. In the Muslim nationalist historiographical
tradition, which forms a
dominant discourse in the country, at least in the textbooks
of history and
Pakistan Studies, Sindhi’s political modernism has not been
adequately
appreciated. Such a treatment of Sindhi’s political
philosophy and vision calls
for a reevaluation of his political ideals.
1. Political Biography of Ubaid-Allah Sindhi: A Brief
Overview
Born in a Sikh family in District Sialkot in 1872,
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (also
spelled as Ubayd Allah or Ubaidullah) got converted to Islam
from Sikhism by
his own choice during his schooldays in Jampur, District
Dera Ghazi Khan. He
spent some time in the madrassahs of Bharchundi Sharif
(three kilometers
from the city of Daharki, District Ghotki, Sindh) and Dinpur
Sharif (District
Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab). He became a disciple of Saiyyid
al-Arifin Hafiz
Muhammad Siddiq of Bharchundi Sharif in District Sukkur,
though later he
received spiritual guidance and training from others as
well. (Moizuddin, 1988,
pp. 199-201). He joined the renowned theological seminary of
Dar al-Ulum at
Deoband (a town in northwestern UP) in 1889, and became a
pupil of eminent
scholars such as Mahmud Hasan (d. 1920), popularly known as
Shaykh alHind,
and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1905). There he acquired
profound
knowledge of Arabic language, tafsir (exegesis of the
Quran), hadith
(traditions of the Holy Prophet, PBUH), fiqh (Muslim law or
jurisprudence),
falsafah (philosophy) and mantaq (logic). In addition, he
also got acquainted
with the writings of the renowned Sufi-scholar of Delhi,
Shah Wali-Allah, and
Muhammad Qasim Nanawtavi (d. 1880), one of the founders of
the Deoband
School, which had a lasting impression on his thought.
Deoband was started in 1867 as an apolitical religious
institution, but later
under the leadership of Mahmud Hasan, its graduates started
political
activism, and some of them played a very important role in
Muslim politics.
A Voice from the Margins
161
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi started his political career in 1908 when
he was made the
secretary of an association of Deoband graduates—Jamiat
al-Ansar (Society
of Helpers) in Deoband founded by Mahmud Hasan. (Minault,
1982, pp. 28-
29). However, Peter Hardy is of the view that Sindhi himself
founded Jamiat
al-Ansar in 1910 which aimed at a greater fraternity between
the alumni of
Deoband and Aligarh Schools. (Hardy, 1972, p. 181). It had
an apolitical
character. Soon, Sindhi’s views generated controversy in
some circles of
Deoband. As circumstances grew unfavorable for him due to
his consequent
opposition, he decided to leave Deoband in 1913. Mahmud
Hasan sent him to
Delhi where he founded another institution named Nazarat
al-Ma’arif alQuraniyya
with the aim of equipping the Western-educated Muslims with
religious knowledge. Its patrons were Nawab Viqar al-Mulk
(1841-1917),
Hakim Ajmal Khan (1864-1927) and Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari
(1880-1936).
Soon it became a platform for political debates. Here Sindhi
was introduced to
Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931) and Abul Kalam Azad
(1888-1958) by Dr.
Ansari. So it was during 1913-15 that Sindhi became
politically active and
came in contact with the Muslim political leaders. (Minault,
1982, p. 30).
In coming years, Sindhi developed a very close relationship
with Mahmud
Hasan, and that was why, in some circles of Deoband, the
former came to be
known as ‘the brain of Shaykh al-Hind’. When during the
World War I, the
British Indian forces left India to fight on the Middle
Eastern and European
fronts, the leading scholars of Deoband deemed the time ripe
for liberating
India from the imperial yoke. Mahmud Hasan planned to
persuade the frontier
tribes to wage war against the British. For this reason,
Sindhi was sent to
Kabul by him in 1915 in order to muster the support of the
Afghan government
and urge the ruler of Afghanistan to attack India to keep
the British Army
occupied on the frontier. The British government, on the
other hand,
pressurized the Afghan government to prevent him from
political activities. The
attempt, nonetheless, could not become successful, and it is
remembered in
history as ‘Silk Letter Movement’ of 1916. (Qureshi, 1999,
pp. 78-80; and
Mian, 1975). Consequently, Sindhi got imprisoned, and
remained in the fort of
Badakhshan for some time.
The failure of the Silk Letter Movement forced Sindhi to
lead a life of exile for
more than two decades, which proved very enlightening for
him as he
travelled far and wide, and got acquainted with the
international politics as well
as his contemporary political ideologies and economic
orders. He spent the
next seven years (1915-22) in Afghanistan (Leghari, 1980),
and later during
his stay in Makkah, he recorded the experiences he had in
Afghanistan in his
partial biography title Kabul Mein Sāt Sāl (Seven Years in
Kabul), (Sindhi,
1955). During these seven years, he closely worked with the
Afghan
government, which was under considerable influence of the
British. He
exchanged views with many influential people and political
leaders.
Tanvir Anjum
162
During World War I, Kabul had become the ‘Switzerland of
Asia’ where the
politicians of various countries had assembled, making the
city a hotbed of
international politics. It was here owing to his interaction
with the Afghan
politicians that his sentiments of Muslim brotherhood had
begun to shake. He
realized that the existence of quam (nation) in geographical
or territorial
context was an objective reality. He soon became aware of
the fact that the
Afghans and the Indian Muslims constitute two separate
nations, since each of
them preferred not to work with the other as subordinate
(Sarwar, 1967, p.
30). Before leaving India, Sindhi had a heightened vigour
for Muslim unity, but
his pan-Islamic dream began to fade when he was in Kabul
where he realized
that the Arabs, Turks and Afghans have their own interests
and specific needs
(Ansari, 1986, p. 517).
Convinced of the futility of communal politics, Sindhi along
with some
associates of the Ghadar Movement (Faruqi, 1963, pp. 59-60)
and IndoGerman-Turkish
Mission, formed the Provisional Government of India in Kabul
in December 1915. (The Hindi Association of the Pacific
Coast, popularly
known as Ghadar Party, was founded in California (USA) in
April 1913, and
organized by a Hindu activist named Hardayal. Its spokesman
was a
newspaper named Ghadar, literally meaning treason, which
began publishing
in 1913. The Party had its branches all over the world, and
its aim was to
liberate India from the colonial yoke). Raja Mahendra Pratap
(d. 1979) was
made life president of the Provisional Government of India,
Muhammad
Barkat-Allah Bhopali (d. 1975) was appointed the Prime
Minister, while UbaidAllah
Sindhi was entrusted with the portfolio of the Home Ministry
(Pratap,
1947, p. 51). This Provisional Government dealt directly
with the Afghan
Government, and also sent missions to the governments of
Russia, Turkey
and Japan to seek their help for the freedom of India, but
the missions failed to
achieve the desired results (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 48-62).
Sindhi’s collaboration
with a Hindu and the non-Muslim foreign governments bear
ample testimony
to his liberal and non-communal outlook in political
affairs. In fact, the Arab
Revolt of 1916 against the Ottoman Empire had also given, in
the words of
Faruqi, a “rude shock to Sindhi’s Islamism” (Faruqi, 1963,
p. 57).
In 1919, he established a para-military organization with
the name of Jund
Allah or Junud-i Rabbaniyya (The Army/Armies of God; also
translated as
‘Muslim Salvation Army’). (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 47-48; see
organizational
structure in appendix A in Mian, 1975, pp. 363-66). He
mustered support of
the people, including the pirs who were enlisted and given
high ranks in the
army. Eventually, he became successful in raising an army of
100,000 against
the British (Ansari, 1992, p. 81). However, the Afghan
ruler, Amir Habib-Allah
Khan (r. 1901-1919) urged him to seek the support of the
Hindus for the
liberation of India from the colonial yoke. Thus Sindhi
joined Indian National
Congress in 1919, and established an independent Congress
Committee of
Kabul in 1922, and himself became its president. Later, he
got it affiliated with
A Voice from the Margins
163
the Indian National Congress in the same year in its Gaya
(Bihar) session
through the efforts of Dr. Ansari (Moizuddin, 1988, pp.
203-4.) Thus, it became
the first branch of the Congress to work outside India.
From Kabul, he went to Moscow in 1922 and stayed there for
eight months. In
the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, in South Asia he was “the only
political thinker of
any considerable caliber to come directly in contact with
Russian communism
at an early stage.” (Ahmad, 1967, p. 195). During this
period, he closely
observed the emergence of Soviet Russia from the ruins of
Tsardom. He also
observed the revolutionary changes introduced by the
Bolsheviks from close
quarters. Moreover, he also studied the fundamental tenets
of socialism.
Sindhi later admitted that his study of socialism “enabled
him to defend his
religious movement, which was a branch of the philosophy of
Shah Wali-Allah,
against the onslaught of atheism and anti-religious trend of
the time.” (Shaikh,
1986, p. 127). He held discussions regarding Islam,
socialism, and their
compatibility. He also met Chechren, the Russian Foreign
Minister, and
sought the assistance of Russia to oust the British from
India.
From Russia Sindhi went to Turkey in 1923 and stayed there
for three years.
During his stay in Istanbul, he carefully observed the
emergence of modern
secular Turkey under the dynamic leadership of Mustafa Kamal
Ataturk (1881-
1938). He met a number of political leaders including Ismat
Pasha, the Prime
Minister of Turkey. Sindhi shaped his political ideology
during his eventful stay
in Istanbul. There he founded Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in
1924. He himself
became its president, whereas his close associate, Zafar
Hasan Aibak was
made its Secretary General. The present work is an
analytical study of this
political party and its Constitution.
In 1926, Sindhi left Turkey for Arabia, and spent the next
thirteen years of his
life there. He spent these years in Makkah, studying and
interpreting the
teachings of the Quran in the light of Shah Wali-Allah’s
works, particularly his
monumental book Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah. He delivered
lectures on the
Quran and its exegesis, the Prophetic traditions or ahadith,
and the teachings
of Shah Wali-Allah. Moreover, he also wrote some books and
articles as well
(ibid., pp. 193-95). He also reviewed the history of the
Muslims, particularly of
India, with a critical look. Though his biographer Hajjan
Shaikh claims that
during these years, he remained aloof from politics, and did
not take part in
any political activity (ibid., p. 187), yet he formed
another political party named
Jamna Narbada Sind Sagar Party in 1939 (See the program of
the party in
Appendix I in ibid., pp. 265-71). He ultimately got
convinced that Islamic
renaissance could only be brought by following the teachings
of the great Sufischolar
of Delhi.
In 1939, he returned to India when the British Government
permitted him to do
so. In the words of Faruqi, during his sojourn abroad his
‘Islamist’ approach to
Tanvir Anjum
164
Indian politics was transformed into
‘nationalist-secularist’. He had left India as
a firebrand agitator and an organizer of revolutionary
activities; he came back
as a thinker (ibid., p. 187). He spent the rest of his life
in austerity and
simplicity, propagating the teachings of Shah Wali-Allah
till his death in August
1944 in Sindh. (For details see his autobiographical sketch,
Sindhi, 1969, pp.
403-9; and Sarwar, 1967, pp. 23-39). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi has
been hailed as
Imam-i Inqalab or the ‘Leader of Revolution’ since his whole
political
philosophy revolves around the ideas of change and
revolution. In fact,
wherever he went from Kabul, he witnessed revolutionary changes
which he
deeply observed and analyzed with an open mind.
Outside India, the revolutionary socialist ideas in the
USSR, the liberal and
progressive views of Ataturk in Turkey, and the puritan
revolution by Wahabis
in Arabia helped him in shaping his philosophy of
revolution. But above all, the
Shah Wali-Allahi thought served as a beacon and guiding
light for him. In
short, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s travels outside India greatly
facilitated him in
comprehending the changes and challenges all over the globe,
and eventually
reaching at a solution of the Indian problems. He came back
to his country
with a heightened vigour and force of argument, a deepened
vision and insight
and a fresh clarity of ideas. That is why, he is considered
to be one of “the
most interesting and romantic personalities of the group of
early Indian
revolutionaries.” (See the views of G. S. Kalyanpur in
Bombay Chronicle, June
22, 1941, as quoted in Hajan, 1974, pp. 117-18).
2. Establishment of Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party
In order to translate his political ideals into reality,
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi founded
a political party under the aegis of Congress Committee of
Kabul in 1924 at
Istanbul, which was known as Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party,
also spelled as
Swarajya Party (Aibak, n.d., p. 102). Its name may be
translated as All India
People’s Republican Party. The Hindi term sarvrāj or swarāj
has generally
been translated as home-rule or self-government. Though the
term was used
and popularized by M K Gandhi, it referred to a ‘disciplined
rule from within’ in
Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi argued that the English terms
independence
and freedom do not convey the meaning enshrined in the
concept of swaraj,
which means freedom with responsibility (Hardiman, 2003, p.
26). In fact,
swaraj is a sacred term, derived from the Vedic literature,
which refers to selfrule
or self-restraint. It is a multi-dimensional concept with
personal, national,
political, social and economic connotations. In political
sense, it means selfrule,
a condition or a state where people are superior to
political institutions,
and power or authority is decentralized in society, which is
not politically
dominated by any single group (Bharathi, 1995, p. 99).
As far as the Hindi or Sanskrit nomenclature of Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party is
concerned, it reflects its non-communal character. As
pointed out earlier,
A Voice from the Margins
165
Sindhi’s pan-Islamic ideals and the dreams of Muslim
brotherhood were
shattered when he travelled outside India, which led him to modify
his sociopolitical
vision. The political vision he envisaged and political
party he founded
promised the Indians a rule with power shared by all
classes, strata and
sections of society irrespective of their caste, class,
colour or creed.
3. Proclamation of The Constitution of the Federated
Republics of India
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi drafted the Party’s constitution titled
The Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India, which envisaged his political
and socioeconomic
vision. It was initially drafted in Urdu and published from
Istanbul in
1924. (In the opinion of Hajan, it was published in 1922,
whereas the correct
date seems to be 1924, mentioned by Razvi, when the Party
was founded).
(Hajan, 1974, p. 121; and Razvi, 1995, p. 112). When it was
sent to India, its
copies were confiscated by the British Government. It was
later translated in
English and Turkish languages in 1926. To avoid censorship,
the English and
Turkish translation was somewhat modified so that it might
not be called an
exact translation in juridical phraseology (Shaikh, 1986, p.
181, n. 36).
According to this Constitution, the aims and objectives of
Sindhi’s broader
program, as enunciated by his associate, Zafar Hasan Aibak,
a retired Captain
of Turkish Army, in his autobiography titled Ap Biti, were
as follows (Aibak,
n.d., pp. 101-2):
1. Winning of complete independence for India;
2. Establishment of a confederal form of government in
liberated India;
3. Safeguarding of Islam, the Muslims and other minorities
living in
India;
4. Formation of a government in India dominated by the
working class
(peasantry, labour, and intelligentsia);
5. Abolition of feudalism and capitalism from the country so
that the
people could not be deceived by the lures of Communism; and
6. Establishment of an Asiatic Federation to counter
imperialism and
colonialism.
4. Main Clauses of the Constitution
The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India
presents a clear picture
of the political and socio-economic ideals of Ubaid-Allah
Sindhi. He rejected
the idea of India as an indivisible single entity and the
notion of creating a
single nationhood, which was advocated by the Indian
nationalists. (See the
Tanvir Anjum
166
views of Sindhi in The Constitution of the Federated
Republics of India, Eng.
trans. Zafar Hasan Aibak, Istanbul, 1926, pp. 10-11 as
quoted in Shaikh,
1986, pp. 159-60). According to him, the Indian
Sub-continent was,
geographically speaking, quite naturally divided into three
distinct zones:
north-western, eastern and southern zones. He promulgated
the idea of
dividing India into three such zones along linguistic and
cultural lines. All three
zones were thus to be declared as republics or democracies.
The Northwestern
Indian Republic was to comprise of East Punjab, West Punjab,
the
Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan and Gujarat.
Similarly, the
Eastern and Southern Indian Republics were also to form two
separate
republics or democratic states. These three Republics were
then to join a
‘Central Government of the Federated Republics of India’.
(Aibak, n.d., p.
105). Thus, Sindhi’s Constitution envisaged a unique form of
confederalism for
the country. But initially, he planned to limit the sphere
of his political party to
the Indo-Gangetic plains. He selected the North-western
India for his program
and worked on it in greater detail (Hajan, 1974, pp.
122-23). The rest of the
two Republics were to be divided along cultural and
linguistic lines in the same
manner.
In these Republics, the electoral system was to base on
universal adult
franchise, i.e. all adult men and women were to be granted
suffrage. But what
is interesting to note is that every social strata was to
elect its own
representatives for the Parliament according to its
population. In this way, the
Parliaments or the Legislative Assemblies of the three
Republics were to be
dominated by peasantry, labour/manual workers and
intelligentsia (those
involved in mental labour), constituting the majority of the
country’s population.
Only such a form of government based on proportional
representation could,
in his opinion, safeguard the interests of working classes
adequately (Aibak,
n.d., p. 106).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi also laid down some cardinal economic and
socio-political
principles for the conduct of these Republics. These can be
briefly summed up
in the following (ibid., pp. 106-8):
1. All public utilities were to be nationalized, i.e. to be
taken over by
the state.
2. Private ownership of movable and immovable property was
to be
restricted and property exceeding a prescribed limit was
also to
be taken over by the state.
3. Wealthy and affluent persons were to be excessively taxed
which
could go as high as 60% of their income.
A Voice from the Margins
167
4. All big landholdings were to be nationalized and the
feudal
system was to be abolished. However, in Republics having a
clear Muslim majority, landlords were to be forced to
renounce
the ownership of their lands according to the decision taken
by
the second Pious Caliph, Hazrat Omar (r. 634-44), and
according
to another verdict by Imam Abu Hanifah (699-767), absentee
landlordism or rent-farming was also to be abolished by
force.
These landlords would be permitted to work as agents of the
government.
5. Every agriculturist family could retain that much land
which it
could directly cultivate by itself.
6. Usury or interest was to be completely abolished, and all
old
debts of workers were to be written off. Arrangements would
be
made for granting interest-free loans to the people in
future.
7. Labour unions were to run the nationalized industries,
and the
workers were to be granted share from the profit.
8. Free accommodation and medical facilities were to be
provided
to the workers.
9. Education till middle standard was to be free and
obligatory for
every child.
10. International trade and commerce was to be placed in the
hands
of the Central Government, while the domestic commercial
activities were to fall in the jurisdiction of co-operative
societies.
However, the merchants and traders could become members of
these societies.
11. Every Republic was to declare its state religion which
was
necessarily to be the religion professed by its majority.
But the
religion should not contradict the cardinal economic and
social
principles of the party program mentioned above.
12. The three Republics were not to be responsible for their
foreign
affairs, defense and international trade and commerce which
were to be controlled by the Central Government of the
Federated Republics of India.
13. It also envisioned the formation of an Asiatic
Federation in future
to counter imperialism. Governments were to be established
in
Tanvir Anjum
168
Asia along the lines of the above-mentioned principles.
Moreover,
Russia was also to be included in the Federation.
Regarding the membership of the Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party,
Sindhi
maintained that anyone irrespective of caste, creed, colour,
or gender could
become member of the party. However, what was mandatory for
the members
was to keep down their needs and comforts of life to the
standard of an
average cultivator in the country. Therefore, any property
exceeding one’s
needs was to be transferred to the party (Hajan, 1974, p.
124). In the words of
Sindhi: “Under our government, capitalist system may have no
possibility of
revival and out party programme may not be considered a vain
display, or a
political weapon.” (The Constitution of the Federated
Republics of India, pp.
10-11 as quoted in Shaikh, 1986, p. 161). It shows that he
believed in creating
a certain level of economic equality among the people in the
country, and
those who had active interest in politics and wished to be
party members were
required to sacrifice their possessions. Moreover, it was
not merely equality in
economic terms which Sindhi intended to create; it was
social equality as well
which he idealized. For this reason, the Hindu volunteers of
the Party were
required to extend fraternal treatment to all Indians including
the
untouchables, and consider them as equals (Hajan, 1974, p.
125).
Sindhi also proposed the formation of six executive and
legislative bodies: (1)
The Volunteer Corps; (2) The Sarvrajia Conference; (3) The
Sarvrajia Working
Committee; (4) The Mahabharat Sarvrajia Congress; (5) The
Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Central Committee; and (6) The Panchayats
(invested with all the
legislative, financial and judicial powers). (Shaikh, 1986,
pp. 174-75; and
Hajan, 1974, pp. 125-27). Since India had a multi-religious
population and the
Hindus were in an over-whelming majority, he was
particularly conscious of
the Hindu sensitivities. Therefore, he proposed that cow
slaughter should be
banned in areas having mixed population of Hindus and
Muslims (Hajan,
1974, p. 125) so that the people having multi-religious
backgrounds could live
side by side in harmony and peace.
6. Analysis of the Constitution in the Light of Sindhi’s
Political Vision
The impact of the writings of Shah Wali-Allah on the political
vision of UbaidAllah
Sindhi was tremendous. During the final phase of his life,
he tried to
philosophize his theory of nationalism in terms of a special
Muslim social
theory derived from the writings of Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi
(Faruqi, 1963, p.
57). In his works, particularly Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah,
Shah Wali-Allah had
enunciated some socio-economic and political principles at
length. To him, the
basis of capital generation should be effort and hard work,
i.e. capital should
not be allowed to generate further capital without being
effectively utilized. He
emphasized safeguarding the rights of peasantry, labour and
intelligentsia.
These people, according to Shah Wali-Allah, deserve
prosperity and welfare.
A Voice from the Margins
169
They should not be heavily taxed and their hours of work
should also be
restricted so that they could pay heed to their ethical and
spiritual uplift.
Wealth should not be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a
section of
society. Gambling should be stopped. The capitalists who
unduly tax and
burden the peasantry and workers should be eliminated. The
peasantry and
workers should be paid according to their labour, and their
contract with the
employers should be bilaterally agreed upon. The terms of
reference and
conditions should not be dictated by the employers.
Luxurious life style should
be eliminated, so that equality could reign supreme in the
society (Mian, 1975,
pp. 78-80). Regarding political structures, Shah Wali-Allah
proposed the
formation of an international bloc with autonomous but
strong units (ibid., pp.
81-82). In addition, according to him, it was the same
fundamental truth which
underlies all the world religions. Their religious leaders
deserve esteem
because they all shared some basic principles, and the
ultimate goal of their
social principles was the same (ibid., p. 82).
After going through the details of the socio-economic
principles enunciated by
Shah Wali-Allah, one can conclude that Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
borrowed heavily
from them. In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, much of the “basis
of Sindhi’s
concept of an Islamic socialist theocracy is…derived
piecemeal from WaliAllah”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198). Sindhi elaborated the views of Shah
Wali-Allah
and translated them into a modern language in order to address
the
contemporary problems. He attempted to present a unique
blend of
nationalism and internationalism in his political
philosophy. Moreover, it was
Sindhi who first talked about an alternative system of
parliamentary form of
government, and envisaged a plan of the Federated Republics
for India. His
idea of creating a Federation of Indian Republics propounded
in 1924 was an
appropriate solution of the Indian problems keeping in view
the contemporary
political realities. At that time, the Khilafat Movement had
come to a close,
shattering the hope of the Hindu-Muslim unity in political
arena.
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s real accomplishment lies in his novel
alternative scheme
for the composition of the Parliament or Legislative
Assembly. To him, the
representation in the Assembly was not to be based upon
territorial electoral
constituencies. The masses, on the contrary, were to be
professionally
represented, creating a majority of working class in the
proposed Assembly. In
fact, he advocated a system of proportional representation
in the Legislative
Assemblies so that the peasantry, labour and intelligentsia
could be
represented and have a say in the decision-making. However,
unlike the
Marxist ideology, which idealizes ‘dictatorship of the
proletariat’, Sindhi was
ready to give proportional representation to the landlords
and capitalist as
well, but since they were few in numbers, the Legislative
Assemblies he
envisaged was to be dominated by the peasantry, labour and
intelligentsia,
and not the landlords and capitalists. In fact, he wanted a
“permanent system
of economy to be established which could save the masses
(peasants,
Tanvir Anjum
170
workers and the intelligentsia) from falling in debt and
poverty and save the
country also from foreign loans that could be detrimental to
political
independence of the country.” (Zafar Hasan, The Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party,
Istanbul, September 25, 1924, p. 29, as quoted in Razvi,
1995, p. 113). In fact,
he believed in human dignity and equality, and opposed to
any form of human
servitude. On one occasion, he argued that a human being
could not be a
servant of another; though one could help others (Moizuddin,
1988, p. 208).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s idea of socialized production in
nationalized lands and
industries was sagaciously devised from the history of
Muslim jurisprudence,
though his critics maintain that it was inspired by the
Communist ideology. His
Constitution essentially differs in character from the
Manifesto of the
Communist Party. The latter envisaged the dictatorship of
the proletariat
excluding all other sections and classes of society from
power. Sindhi’s plan,
however, gave due consideration to the moneyed classes—the
landlords,
industrialists and capitalists who constitute only a
fraction of the society. He
proposed their representation in the government as well.
Moreover, unlike the
socialist state, the profit earned from the production units
(industries, etc.) was
not to be taken up by the state, but to be shared by the
whole working class.
In the words of Aziz Ahmad (Ahmad, 1967 pp. 200-1):
“The main difference between the communist and Islamic
economic
philosophies, according to Sindhi, is that while both agree
that the
process of the distribution of wealth should be ‘from each
according to
his ability’, Islam would prefer it to be ‘to each according
to his need’
rather than to ‘each according to his work’. In other words
Sindhi would
like to see Islamic socialism on the lines of a western
welfare state.”
Regarding the question of Indian nationalism, Sindhi
believed that India was
not a single country having one single nation as maintained
by the leaders of
the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha. He attacked the myth of Indian
unity and
maintained that India was the home of many nationalities. He
considered the
cultural and linguistic affinities to be the basis of a
nation. Owing to these two
unifying symbols, his concept of nationalism was essentially
space-bound. He
was mindful of the geographical realities defining the
concept of a nation in the
Western thought.
He believed that within the Muslim community, there were
distinct groups
having ethnic, cultural and linguistic differentiation.
Thus, the Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party was the “first political organization which
declared India a
multi-national country…” (ibid., p. 114). As far as these
cultural diversities
were concerned, India resembled Europe where the English,
French,
Germans and Italians, etc. were considered different
nations. He defined
nation as a collectivity of men united by ties of language
and culture. But India
could not be divided into many petty states like the Balkan
States (Sarwar,
A Voice from the Margins
171
1967, p. 425). The only solution, according to him, was that
every unit should
be granted freedom and autonomy, and the centre should bind
them together.
He asserted the fact that nations speaking different
languages are forced to
create a commonality by ideological unity which is sometimes
provided by
religion and sometimes by an economic ideology, such as in
Communism.
Therefore, unity created by such a hegemonic ideological
commonality cannot
be termed national; rather it is international in nature
(ibid., p. 426). The
universality of Islam does not prevent splitting of states
into national units but
at the same time, every nation should consider itself a
component of a wider
community of human race (ibid., p. 436). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
also presented a
model for an Asiatic Federation, a secular regional bloc of
like-minded
countries agreeing to his proposed program. In fact,
countering imperialism
had been one of the major goals of Sindhi’s political
vision. He perceived it as
a common threat to many weak countries of the world. The
proposed
formation of the Asiatic Federation was aimed at countering
the imperialistic
designs of the World powers, and it also reflects his belief
in a supranationalist
ideology.
In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, Sindhi’s acceptance of
composite nationalism
as a political solution for the Indian problems was ‘far
more restricted’ than
other Deoband leaders (Ahmad, 1967, p. 196). Sindhi’s
approach was
altogether different from the Indian Muslim nationalists like
Abul Kalam Azad
and Husain Ahmad Madani (d. 1957). To him, separate
nation-states could not
be formed since the Indians were ethnically and
linguistically very rich and
diverse. Therefore, to him, the only solution was the
formation of an Indian
Federation of autonomous Republics. The teachings of Islam,
according to
him, do not stand in contradiction to the establishment of
Muslim nation-states
all over the globe. Thus, he presented a blend of the
communal and nationalist
stances represented by the All India Muslim League and the
Indian National
Congress respectively. His program envisaged the formation
of an
autonomous Muslim state in North-western India within the
Indian Federation.
Sindhi also professed internationalism since he wished other
countries to join
the regional bloc after becoming autonomous units or
federated republics
professing his socio-economic and political principles.
According to Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the central government was
to be secular in
nature. The federating units or republics were allowed to
declare their state
religions, but the Centre was not to be concerned with the
matters of faith. The
Centre was not to interfere in the religious policies of the
units, unless and
until they contradict the cardinal socio-economic and
political principles laid
down by the Sarvrajia Party. He was a broadminded and
liberal Muslim thinker
who was an ardent advocate of religious tolerance and
co-existence. In his
writings, he appreciated the religious policy of Mughal
Emperor Akbar (b.
1542-d. 1605). In Akbar’s era, he says, a bloody Shia-Sunni
sectarian strife
was going on between the Persians and the Turks in the
Middle East, which
Tanvir Anjum
172
had even led to violent conflict and wars. Similarly, the
contemporary Europe
had become a war theatre where the Protestants and the
Catholics were at
daggers drawn, fighting in the name of Christianity.
However, on the contrary,
the sixteenth-century India presented a peaceful picture.
The secular
government of India under Akbar was not dominated by any
religious group
(Sarwar, 1967, pp. 436, 339-40); rather it presented a
diverse religious mosaic
with different communities sharing power with the ruling
house. Such views of
Sindhi generated a lot of controversy (Akbarabadi, 1989, pp.
176-86).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi was a realist political thinker, and his
pragmatic approach
can be best illustrated by his insistence that his fellow
countrymen should
admit their defeat at the hands of the British, and
acknowledge the fact that
their way of living, cultural traditions and legal system
had been undermined
by the ideological onslaughts and the policies of the West.
The old order, in
his opinion, could not be revived in the same form. One had
to work for the
establishment of a new system. However, the spirit of the
old order was to be
captured, which was the crux of the Quran and Islam, but the
new order could
appear only in a new garb altogether (ibid., pp. 196-97).
Thus, he held an
innovative and progressive approach towards the modern day
problems of
compatibility of the old and the new, or the tradition and
modernity. Moreover,
he believed that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions
in Europe would one
day inevitably culminate in the mental and spiritual
progress of the West.
Recognition and adoption of their material advancement by
the Indians is the
only course open to them for their progressive march in
human history (ibid.,
pp. 69-70).
In the first quarter of twentieth century, Syed Ameer Ali
(d. 1928) and Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) stood as the champions of
intellectual modernism
in India. However, it was Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the only
religious thinker
associated with a theological seminary or the traditional
centre of Muslim
learning, who held a liberal and progressive approach
towards the
contemporary political, social and religious problems.
Although he was
brought up and trained in a reactionary environment, he was
successful in
manifesting a clear divergence from the traditional
conservative path trodden
by the South Asian ulama. Unmindful of the socio-political
and economic
onslaughts of the West, the ulama had focused all their
energies against the
British missionary activities. Sindhi exhorted the ulama
retired in shells of their
hackneyed traditions to shun their hermit-like attitude
which was characterized
by escapism. Sindhi urged them to courageously face the
challenges of
rapidly changing modes of time and respond accordingly. As a
true follower of
Shah Wali-Allah, he tried his utmost to bridge the yawning
gulf of differences
among the people and reconcile the old and the new, the
conventional and the
modern. W.C. Smith considers him among those liberal Muslim
leaders who
provoked much ‘excitement and action’ among the people
(Smith, 1957, p.
64).
A Voice from the Margins
173
Sindhi was a true follower of the intellectual modernism of
Shah Wali-Allah. He
criticized his contemporary ulama who insisted on reviving
the Caliphate.
Sindhi maintained that the political system of the Pious
Caliphate could not be
revived in contemporary times. The Pious Caliphate, suitable
for its coeval
social and political environment, could not necessarily be
viable for the
subsequent ages. It was only in the light of the basic
principles of the Pious
Caliphate that new forms of ‘Quranic Governments’ could be
evolved in future
(Sarwar, 1967, p. 55). Sindhi also believed that the
decision unanimously
taken by majority of a party can be termed as Ijma (consensus
of a majority of
religious scholars) which can take place at all times.
However, it should be
taken on the condition that the party should uphold goodness
and virtue, and
be working for the establishment of the Quranic rule
(Sarwar, 1982, pp. 91-
92).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s party program declared its dissociation
with all panIslamic
movements. The party clearly proclaimed its inability to
recognize any
international religious convention or any religio-political
institution like
Caliphate or Khilafat (Sarwar, 1972, pp. 51-52). His views
on the issue can be
compared to those of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who argued that
the Caliphate
had ended after the abdication of Imam Hasan (AS) in 660
after ruling for a
period of less than six months, and the subsequent rulers of
the Umayyad,
Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties were mere kings, and not
Caliphs (Amir,
2000, p. 29), though they adopted high-sounding titles for
themselves.
Moreover, being an Islamic modernist, Sindhi did not despise
the ideology of
Marxism unlike his contemporary ulama. He considered it as a
commendable
effort aiming at the amelioration of humanity but he deemed
Islam higher than
Marxism in many degrees (Sarwar, 1972, p. 196; see details
on pp. 185-307).
He was opposed to communalism and professed
internationalism. For this
very reason, he first wanted the Indian Muslims to resolve
their differences
and then wished to see all Indians belonging to diverse
creeds working
together hand in hand. He tried to evolve a synthesis by
reconciling the two
rival strands of Deoband and Aligarh, which represented
traditionalism and
modernism respectively. He wanted the religious sections of
the Muslim
community to work with the Western educated Muslims for
solving their
common problems. Similarly, he wished to see the Hindus and
the Muslims
working together in an atmosphere of harmony and peace. That
was why he
was not ideologically opposed to the Indian National
Congress which
professed non-communalism. However, he was critical of the
Congress
leadership and ‘Gandhism’, since Gandhi claimed both
political and religious
leadership (Sarwar, 1967, p. 420; and Faruqi, 1963, p. 7).
As mentioned
earlier, Sindhi was the founder president of ‘Congress
Committee Kabul’
established in Kabul in 1922. Later, with the efforts of Dr.
M. A. Ansari it got
affiliated with the Indian National Congress. Thus, it
became the first branch of
Congress founded outside India. However, after Sindhi’s
return to India in
Tanvir Anjum
174
1939, he practically withdrew from the Congress politics,
albeit he retained its
ordinary membership (Sindhi, 1969, pp. 407-9; and Moizuddin,
1988, p. 207).
His party program also embraced the ethical principle of
non-violence, which
he had admittedly borrowed from the Gandhian philosophy with
profound
gratitude (Sindhi, 1969, p. 408), though he also promoted
the doctrine of jihad,
defining it as “[d]ynamic action aimed at a social and
revolutionary end.”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198).
Sindhi himself claimed that he was the first Indian to
present the idea to
dividing India in Kabul in 1916 (Aslam, n.d., pp. 60-61),
but it has been
asserted that Sindhi’s Party program was not taken seriously
by his
contemporary political leaders, particularly those of Indian
National Congress.
The only exception was perhaps Lala Lajpat Rai (d. 1928),
one of the founders
of Hindu Mahasaba, who after having inspiration from
Sindhi’s plan, presented
his own scheme of partition. Some of the Muslim leaders such
as Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal, and the Unionist leader, Sir Fazl-i-Husain
(d. 1936) also
appreciated Sindhi’s party program (see introduction in
ibid., p. 11; and
Ghulam Mustafa Qasmi’s editorial of Al-Wali, Hyderabad,
Sindh, October
1970, p. 14, as cited in Razvi, 1995, pp. 118-19). Razvi
argues that Sindhi was
the first political leader to clearly present the idea of
dividing India into several
states or zones, and all the Muslim political thinkers who
came after him
directly or indirectly took inspiration from his Party’s
Constitution. Razvi goes
on to argue that the schemes for solving the political
problems of India
presented by Hasrat Mohani (d. 1951) and the Cabinet Mission
Plan had
some features which bore resemblance with Sindhi’s
Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India (Razvi, 1995, pp. 120-21). The
scheme of
creating three zones in India presented by the Cabinet
Mission in 1946 can be
well compared to his idea of creating federal units in the
country. The three
British Cabinet members proposed the formation of an
All-India Union
Government consisting of a three-section federation.
As pointed out above, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is one of the
marginalized voices in
South Asian political thought, as his political ideas and
vision have not been
adequately understood and interpreted, particularly in the
Muslim nationalist
historiographical tradition. He has generally failed to find
a favourable mention
in the writings of Muslim nationalist historians in
Pakistan. For instance,
according to I. H. Qureshi, he was “a total convert to the
ideas of nationalism
and socialism”, as his Constitution “bears the unmistakable
stamp of the
philosophy of Moscow communism.” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 315).
Qureshi soon
contradicts his own statement when he asserts that Sindhi
“rejected
communism”. (Ibid., p. 316). As a matter of fact, to people
like Sindhi,
socialism was an effective tool that could be used in the
nationalist struggle
against the British. Like many other early Muslim
socialists, he did not reject
Islam in favour of socialism; in fact, he tried to bring
socialism within the
framework of Islam, and make the two ideologies compatible
to each other
A Voice from the Margins
175
(Ansari, 1986, p. 537; for details of other Indian Muslim
socialists, see pp. 509-
37). Moreover, he tried to reinterpret socialism in the
light of the teachings of
Shah Wali-Allah. His variant of socialism was not atheistic;
it was theistic
socialism.
Again, in the opinion of Qureshi, his scheme was “an outline
for some kind of
Utopia in the Subcontinent…” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 316).
Qureshi further asserts
that Sindhi was not a ‘revolutionary’, and he did not find
any support from the
masses as well (ibid., p. 318). He further states: “He was
not taken seriously
by any significant political group in the Subcontinent; he
found neither
acceptance, nor did he provoke any opposition…[he was ] an
eccentric
visionary” (ibid.) According to Said Ahmad Akbarabadi (d.
1985), one of the
renowned pupils of Sindhi, his ideas and efforts could not
produce desired
results owing to two major reasons: (i) Sindhi’s speech and
writings did not
match his political and religious ideals; his writings were
not very coherent and
well-argued; and (ii) the rigidity in his thought often led
to harshness during
heated discussions with his fellows, which prevented the
wider dissemination
of his views (cited in Moizuddin, 1988, p. 209). In the
opinion of Ayesha Jalal,
he remained a voice on the margins, and he himself knew that
very few
people understood his mission and philosophy. He remained
outside the
mainstream politics in India represented by the two major
political parties,
Indian National Congress and All India Muslim League (Jalal,
2008, p. 225). In
the words of another scholar, he was
“much ahead of his time…. He ploughed a lonely furrow in the
country
of his birth…. He combined too much and harmonized too much.
He
was drawn and attracted by widely diverse movements of
thought. But
he seems to have had a highly integrating faculty and a deep
sense of
history.” (Khan, 2000, pp. 160-61).
Sindhi is often accused of intellectual oscillation by his
critics. They forget that
thinkers may have political ideas which evolve and develop
over time, and
there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Dr. Muhammad
Iqbal’s political
thought was, for instance, also evolutionary. He was
initially a champion of
Indian Nationalism, but then he became a Muslim Nationalist.
In other words,
he rejected territorial nationalism to embrace Muslim
nationalism, which he
rejected to promote pan-Islamism. Soon he was convinced of
the
impracticality of pan-Islamic ideals, and he started
asserting that “Bolshevism
plus God is almost identical with Islam”. It was only in the
final phase of Iqbal’s
life that his political thought was matured, when he
rejected all the ‘isms’
including democracy, capitalism, fascism, nationalism and
socialism.
Therefore, it will be erroneous to present Iqbal as an
Indian nationalist, or panIslamist
or Communist. Similarly, Sindhi cannot be termed as a
Communist or
a pan-Islamist. His political thought was evolutionary, like
many other political
thinkers, and it should be understood as such.
Tanvir Anjum
176
References:
Ahmad, Aziz. (1967) Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan,
1857-1964.
London: Oxford University Press.
Aibak, Zafar Hasan (n.d.) Aap Biti. Vol. 2. Lahore: Mansur
Book House.
Akbarabadi, Said Ahmad. (1989) Mawlana Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
aur un kay
Naqid. Lahore: Al-Mahmud Academy.
Amir, Safia. (2000) Muslim Nationhood in India: Perceptions
of Seven Eminent
Thinkers. New Delhi: Kanishka.
Ansari, K. H. (1986) Pan-Islam and the Making of the Early
Indian Muslim
Socialists. Modern Asian Studies. Vol. 20 (3).
Ansari, Sarah F. D. (1992) Sufi Saints and State Power: The
Pirs of Sind,
1843-1947. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aslam, Muhammad. (n.d.) Mawlana Ubaid-Allah Sindhi kay
Siyasi Maktubat.
Lahore: Nadwat al-Musannifin.
Bharathi, K. S. (1995) Thoughts of Gandhi and Vinoba. New
Delhi: Concept
Publishing Company.
Faruqi, Ziya-ul-Hasan. (1963) The Deoband School and the
Demand for
Pakistan. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Hajan, Shaikh Muhammad. (1974) The Political Thought of
Maulana
Ubaidullah Sindhi. In The Quest for Identity (Proceedings of
the First
Congress of Pakistan History and Culture Held at the
University of
Islamabad, April 1973). Vol. III. Eds. Waheed-uz-Zaman and A
H Dani.
Islamabad: University of Islamabad Press.
Hardiman, David. (2003) Gandhi: In His Time and Ours. Delhi:
Permanent
Black.
Hardy, Peter. (1972) The Muslims of British India.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jalal, Ayesha. (2008) Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South
Asia. Cambridge; MA:
Harvard University Press.
Khan, Abdullah. (2000) Mawlana Ubayd Allah Sindhi’s Mission
to Afghanistan
& Soviet Russia. Peshawar: Area Study Centre.
A Voice from the Margins
177
Leghari, Abd-Allah. (1980) Mawlana Ubaid-Allah Sindhi ki
Sarguzasht-i Kabul.
Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural
Research.
Mian, Saiyyid Muhammad. (1975) Tehrik-i Shaykh al-Hind:
Angrezi Sarkar ki
Zaban Mein. Lahore: Maktaba-i Rashidiyya.
Minault, Gail. (1982) The Khilafat Movement: Religious
Symbolism and
Political Mobilization in India. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Moizuddin, M. (1988) Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi. The Muslim
Luminaries:
Leaders of Religious, Intellectual and Political Revival in
South Asia.
Islamabad: National Hijra Council.
Pratap, Mahendra. (1947) My Life Story of Fifty Five Years.
Dehrandun: World
Federation.
Qureshi, I. H. (1972) Ulema in Politics. Karachi: Ma’aref.
Qureshi, M. Naeem. (1999) Pan-Islam in British Indian
Politics: A Study of the
Khilafat Movement, 1918-1924. Leiden: Brill.
Razvi, Shafquat Hussain. (1995) Mawlana Obaidullah Sindhi: A
Political
Study. Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society. Vol.
XLIII. Part II.
Sarwar, Muhammad. (1967) Mawlana Ubaid-Allah Sindhi: Halat-i
Zindagi,
Talimaat aur Siyasi Afkar. Lahore: Sindh Sagar Academy.
Shaikh, Muhammad Hajjan. (1986) Maulana Ubaid Allah Sindh: A
Revolutionary Scholar. Islamabad: National Institute of
Historical and
Cultural Research.
Sindhi, Ubaid-Allah. (1969) Khudnawisht Halat-i Zindagi. In
Bis Barey
Musalman. Ed. Abdur Rashid Arshad. Lahore: Maktaba-i’
Rashidiyya.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. (1957) Islam in Modern History.
Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
---------. (1972) Afadat wa Malfuzat-i Hazrat Mawlana
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi.
Lahore: Sindh Sagar Academy.
---------. (1982) Shah Wali-Allah aur un ka falsafah.
Lahore: Sindh Sagar
Academy.
