IQBAL AND COLONIALISM – III

(17.5.1969)

The ideological discussion in our country has not always registered a very high standard either on the plane of regard to realities or on the plane of simple logical reasoning. In recent times it has developed a tendency for ignoring even the obvious facts of a case and the conclusions to be derived from them by the plainest common sense.

I have come under fire from certain quarters for trying to establish that Iqbal's message was' a "negation and total overthrow of capitalism and colonialism", and that his political stand was determined by his ideological principles as a Muslim. In my earlier comments on "Iqbal and Colonialism", I had further tried to establish, on the basis of what Iqbal had said in his prose and verse, that Iqbal's attitude to Socialism -- as an anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movement -- was that of sympathy, although he disagreed with the Bolshevik's atheistic ideas.

Now both these themes of my articles are obvious facts and no amount of sophistry can explain them away. Iqbal was an anti-capitalist and was happy that this iniquitous economic system was on its way out. Iqbal was an anti- colonialist, and was happy that its slaves in Asia and Africa were revolting against it. Iqbal was sympathetic to the Russian experiment of socialism as a force which said "La" to the iniquity of the Czarist feudal-capitalist regime, and destroyed it. Iqbal was against the merely negative trend of the Bolshevik socialism which did not proceed from the stage of "La" towards the stage of "man --the affirmation of God. Iqbal was in favour of a socialistic system which based itself not only on "La" but on the unity of "La" and "Illa". It is for this reason that Iqbal wrote to Khawaja Ghulam-us-Saiyyedian, while rejecting the atheism of Bolshevik socialists, that, "As for Socials ism, Islam itself is a kind of Socialism, from which Muslim Society has so far not derived the benefits that it has in it". This theme recurs in his letters to Sir Francis Younghusband and to the Quaid-i-Azam. To Sir Francis he wrote in 1935: "Since Bolshevism plus God is almost identical with Islam, I should not be surprised if, in the course of time, either Islam absorbs Russia , or Russia Islam". To the Quaid-i-Azam he wrote (May 1937): "For Islam the acceptance of Social Democracy in some suitable form, and consistent with the legal principles of Islam, is not a revolution but a return to the original purity of Islam".

A very dear friend of mine has come out with the thesis that to negate Socialism is to affirm Pakistan and1slam. Conversely, it can be said (and that is exactly what he means) that to affirm Socialism is to negate Pakistan and Islam. Now it is well known that many political parties (and not only those of Bhutto and Bhashani) have affirmed Socialism in their manifestoes and programmatic declarations. Mr. Daultana's Council League carries the flag. Mr. Mujib's Awami League carries the flag. Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Mr. Wali Khan and Mr. Mahmood-ul-Haq Usmani carry the flag. Are they all, by virtue of their profession of Socialism, or Islamic Socialism, negating Pakistan and Islam? My beloved and respected friend who has promoted this thesis seems thereby to have made the simple definition of a Pakistani Muslim as one who opposes Socialism. Is this definition acceptable to anybody in this country, except of course the anti-Socialists? Does Iqbal remain the architect of Pakistan by saying what he has said "on the subject in the above quotations from his letters?

Now I may have made an error of judgement in my description of Iqbal as an anti-capitalist, an anti-imperialist, and a pro-Socialist (of theistic variety). I am only human and can make mistakes, misjudgments, and misconstructions even as the next man. Let us go to the authorities who are accredited with having understood Iqbal from closer quarters than a mere distant devotee.

Here is Khalifa Abdul Hakim, on the subject which formed the sum of my article:

"Iqbal was one of those few observers of Western Civilisation who saw also the seamy side of it. It was a ruthlessly competitive society split up into antagonistc nations bent upon exploiting not only their own working classes, but also making all unorganised technically backward people of Asia and Africa victims of economic Imperialism". (Khalifa Abdul Hakim. "Renaissance in Indo Pakistan "; article in History of Muslim Philosophy, edited by Prof. M.M. Sharif. page 1618).

"He (Iqbal) was an enemy of Western economic and political imperialism and colonialism, and a bitter critic of Western materialism and naturalism, which overwhelmed by the achievements of physical science, has lost faith in the reality of the spirit. He was equally critical of the religiosity of the East which has become rigid and empty and is worshipping the dead past" (Ibid Page 1630).

"Iqbal looked at Communism as a storm that sweeps away all the foul airs in the atmosphere --Iqbal would welcome a revolution in which the do nothing absentee landlord or the usurious money-lender is swept away. He did not propound any definite scheme of agrarian reform but he turned the attention of the nation to' this gross injustice which the laws of the land and even the laws having the sanctity of religious orthodoxy were trying to uphold and perpetuate". {"Islam and communism", by Khalifa Abdul Hakim p: 117-118).

"He (Iqbal) was pleased that Communism has exposed the hypocrisies of the established orders, religious as well as secular. The slogans of liberty, fraternity and equality camouflaged the instruments of exploitation. In the Communist criticism levelled at the old order there was much truth and that truth was appreciated by Iqbal". (Ibid P. 119-120).

"Iqbal points out the evils of landlordism and capitalism with as much emphasis as any Marxist could command" (Ibid p. 122)

"He wanted Muslim Society to be democratic republican society without monarchs, without capitalists, without land- lords and without priests ...In the mind of Iqbal there was a pattern that had been once realised on earth in the form of God-fearing society which was organised into a Welfare State by the Prophet of Islam. Iqbal realised fully well that ancient society could not be revived in its entirety; history does not repeat itself in the same way. He wanted the original spirit of Islam to create new modes of culture without losing its self identity. He welcomed even the impact of Communism on the entire world, including Muslimdom, but, as already stated, he welcomed it as an essential, but negative phase but he was happy that Communism had awakened the human spirit from its dogamtic slumber and compelled it to recast its time-honoured and creed- sanctioned system ... Scientific technology had created immense wealth and imperialistic exploitation had augmented it to astronomical proporations. But capitalism was burning away its surpluses instead of spreading them over needy humanity... Marxism had predicted the chaos and collapsed this system and turned the attention of humanity towards an urgent need for change. Iqbal acknowledges this service rendered by Communism to humanity". (Ibid p. 123-125).

"Iqbal had no clear-cut scheme of social organisation but he definitely willed to guard against those forces which create privileged and unprivileged classes with a gulf between the haves and have-nots... In so far as Muslim Society is concerned, he definitely demanded that it be reconstructed on the lines of Islamic Socialism which allows freedom of initiative with collective planning" (Ibid p. 126).

Is Khalifa Abdul Hakim for expressing these views -- which are identical with those of mine in my article -- to be regarded as opposed to the ideology of Pakistan ?

Here is the testimony of another authority on Iqbal, whom Dr. Javed Iqbal recommends to us for learning the message of his father. I mean Dr. Annemarie Schimmel. The quotations are taken from the book --"Gabriel's Wing" by that scholar which has been specifically mentioned by Dr. Javed Iqbal. She says: "Russian Communism was regarded by him as a kind of preparatory stage for Islam, and he entertained for long the hope that Russia would leave her "state of negation" and embrace the true faith --"Bolshevism plus God is almost Islam" he wrote once to Sir Francis Younghusband. That is why he has put one of his revolutionary hymns in the mouth of Lenin (whom he confronts, in another poem, with Kaisar whilhelm II). The Russian leader addresses God: "With Thy permission I desire to ask a question, To which the philosopher' theses could provide no answer. Where is the man whose God Thous art? Is it the man of clay who lives beneath the skies? For the East, gods are the Whites of Europe. For the West, gods are the shining dollars --the lot of the helpless labourer -3 very hard. When will this boat of Capitalism be wrecked?" (Bali-JibreeI144).

"However, the materialist outlook of both opposed powers was, for Iqbal, enough reason for not accepting them, and his ideals, for which he found Quranic support, were crystalised in a kind of theistic Socialism as vouchsafed by the tenets of Islam (and opposed to the atheistic socialism of Jawaharlal Nehru in letters to Jinnah). The poet's attitude towards property is the old Islamic one; the conviction that the earth belongs to God, which Iqbal has expressed in his 'poetry at several occasions, is repugnant of every Feudalism". (Gabnel's Wing, by Amemarie Schimsn, page 193).

"Besides the philosophical representatives of Western Europe the new apostles of Socialism and other emerging political trends attracted Iqbal's interest. He acknowledged the utmost importance of Karl Marx and his teaching which was, then, spreading widely over the world, but could naturally, not reconcile himself with his materialist outlook.” (Ibid page 327).

Can Dr. Schimmel (or Dr. Javed who recommends her book) be regarded as anti-Pakistan for saying what she has said above, which is no more, nor less, than what I said in my article?

Let us see what Dr. Shaikh Mohammad Ikram has to say on the subject of Iqbal's attitude to Capitalism and Socialism:

"Another question on which he had very much of an open mind, in spite of his orthodoxy, was Communism. Of course, Iqbal was firmly opposed to the irreligious tendencies of Russian Communism, but he greatly appreciated the Communist efforts to readjust the existing disparity between various sections of the society. Long, before the Progressive Writers' Association carne into existence, he wrote stirring poems on the present inequalities. (Like the "Inqilab, Inqilab, O Inqilab", of Zabur-i-Ajam); and was the first among the Indian Muslim writers of note to make appreciative references to the Russian experiment. As a matter of fact, in a letter to Sir Francis younghusband he went so far as to say: "Since Bolshevism plus God is almost identical with Islam, I should not be surprised if in the course of time, either Islam would absorb Russia on Russia Islam "(P. 189 -- Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan 1965).

Has Shaikh Mohammad Ikram also turned anti- Pakistan for affirming exactly what I was affirming?

Let us go to another authority on Iqbal and on Muslim thought. Here is Prof. Aziz Ahmed (Professor of Islamic Studies, University of Toronto) in his book "Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan" published 1967 by Oxford University Press:

"The State to which the universal Islamic Society can belong is so far an unrealised ideal Muslim State . A great deal of effort is devoted throughout the works of Iqbal to the attempt to define this ideal state in terms of modern ideologies. Of these he rejects modern western democracy as essentially plutocratic and based on racial inequality and the exploitation of the weak. He does not regard Islam and socialism as necessarily mutually exclusive or antagonistic; he regards -Islamic concept of equality and Muslim rejection of racialism as similar to socialist theory, and the Socialist elimination of monarchical institutions as parallel to Muslim iconoclasm." (p. 158).

"The nature of life and the universe is a movement from “la” to "illa", from negation to positivism, from denial to affirmation. The particle "la" in isolation denotes revolution, destruction of false gods, but not value-creating construction. Communism has bogged down in the stage of "la" in negative ness, in destruction of old injustice as well as of old values, but has failed to emerge so far into the creative stage of "illa" (p. 158-159).

There may be some doubt about all the above authorities on Iqbal. So let us take the trouble of reading what Dr. Javed Iqbal has to say on the subject.

In an essay called "Introduction to the study of Iqbal", published in the volume "Iqbal -- the poet of Tomorrow," edited by Khwaja Abdur Rahim and published by "Markaziya Majlis-i-Iqbal" of which Khwaja Sahib is the President, Dr. Javed Iqbal writes as follows: .

"Iqbal shared the disgust of the progressive writers with the imperialism of the Western secular Capitalist democratic order. He was of the view that Asia was bound to rebel against the acquisitive economy which the West had developed and imposed on the nations of the East. In his opinion, Asia could never comprehend modern western capitalism with its undisciplined individualism. However, since Iqbal believed in the rebirth of passionate and creative faith in God, he could never accept the Progressive writers' communist utopia based on atheistic socialism." (p 17-18).

"The socialist revolution which Iqbal dreamed of could be achieved only through the promulgation of the Prophet's Law". (page" 18).

"The. revolution of which he was the Prophet was to be realised only be establishing the Islamic socialist democratic order." (page 18).

"Satan drew in Europe 's mind the fantasy of imperialism based on a secular capitalist democratic order of the power elite and thus divided humanity into the groups of the exploiters and the exploited. As a natural consequence thereof, atheistic Socialism emerged, and Communism came to be established. In order to destroy Communism Satan revealed the dream of fascist authoritarianism. Satan alone is capable of dragging the European nations into war because he can reduce them into destroying each other. He is himself the creator and protector of the secular capitalist- democratic order. Therefore he is not afraid of the threat of the Communist revolution of tomorrow. The only revolution of which he is scared is the possibility of the awakening of the Muslims and the establishment of the Islamic-Socialist democratic order -- from what has been stated already, it can be safely concluded that the achievement of Pakistan is merely the realisation of a fraction of Iqbal's dream. His ideas on the establishment of the Islamic Socialist democratic order in the Muslim countries and the unification of the world of Islam are far from being realised." (P 19-20).

In the same book in an essay entitled "Iqbal's contribution to liberalism in modern Islam." Dr. Javed says:

"Iqbal provided the Muslims with an Islamic interpretation of Socialism." (Page 218).

In his introduction to Iqbal's Diaries called "Stray Reflections," Dr. Javed Iqbal has this to say (in 1961):

"He (Iqbal) was therefore the first Muslim in the Indian subcontinent to express a coherent demand for the establishment of Islamic Socialism."

Now Dr. Javed Iqbal does not become anti-Pakistan for saying that Iqbal was responsible for giving the Muslims "an Islamic interpretation of Socialism". Why pick on me for saying no more than that? By coining the term "Islamic Socialist Democratic order," Dr. Javed Iqbal needs to be congratulated and lionised by Mr. Bhutto's People's Party. They also have their ideological stand based on these three essentials -- Islam, Socialism, Democracy. I

When at the beginning of 1968 Mr. Bhutto was attacked for his use of the term "Islamic Socialism", another authority on Iqbal, Agha Shorish Kashmiri, rose in defence of Socialism. In his editorial in the Weekly Chattan of 12th February 1968 , he wrote as follows, referring to the attacks on Mr. Bhutto by certain misled Maulvis, and the critical statement on their behaviour by Maulana Mufi Mahmud, President of Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Islam. The leading article by this great master of words is entitled, "Beware of the anger drenched glance of the Prophet", the sub-title is "Traders of the honour of Prophet hood." I shall quote the relevant parts of the beautifully poetic editorial in my humble and rudely prosaic attempt at translation.

"Just think! the objection is that Bhutto has used the term Islamic socialism. The charge is that thereby he has (dust be in my mouth) insulated the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed from God we come and to Him we return.

"As far as the objection is concerned, it is altogether meaningless. The term Islamic Socialism is not the invention of Bhutto. This term has been used by many Islamic leaders and it continues to be used by them. It is to be found even in the addresses of the Quaid-i-Azam. He said on more than one occasion that the economic system of Pakistan would be based on Islamic Socialism. The term is to be found in (the works of) Allama Iqbal. President Ayub has used it many times. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad has said in "Tarjumanul Quran' Vol. II about Socialism that it should be given the opportunity to experiment. But why the bowels of these tender-bodied beauties of Shariat start grumbling at the use of the term Islamic Socialism is beyond our comprehension. And then to deduce from this objection the charge, that the Prophet hood has been insulted, is such a stupid affront, that we tremble at the mere conception of it... Respected Ulema! Remember, the nation does not merely want equality in the ranks of the mosques, it demands equality on the dining cloth of economy also. This is socialism, which is being proclaimed, and nobody has any power to prevent it now. You wish to prove through your speech that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a representative of capitalism (God forbid). By saying indirectly that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the representative of capitalists do not insult the poverty-sticken Ummat. This your impudence has become unbearable for us. The poor have laid down their lives for the honour of the Messenger of God. None of you have proved to have any sense of honour. Your only purpose in life is to gobble up bread in the name of the Prophet."

Agha Shorish has raised a question in a recent article of his. He asks "how something which is wrong in Rawalpindi can be right in Lahore ." In view of above quotation from his writing, we are justified in asking how something which was right on 12th February 1968 can have turned into its opposite and become wrong on 12th May 1969, and that also in the same publication -- and what is more by the same editor?

NOTES:

1. Published in The Pakistan Times. 17.5.69.