NEO-OBSCURANTISM AND IQBAL

(30.3.68)

Iqbal's poetry and thought have come under scrutiny again during the last one week in our Press. It is a good thing to look into his works again and again. So many things become clear each time one opens his hooks.

The amusing thing is the occasions which make many hard pressed and otherwise quite unpoetical, and even respectable, souls in Pakistan pore over the various strands of meaning contained in Iqbal's poetry, and pass sleepless nights trying to find ways and means of justifying their personal political commitments through a vivisection of the poet's thought. There have been attempts at recruiting him into the POM's current fight for bourgeois democracy despite the fact that he was a bitter opponent of this system and called it: "the demon of tyranny" and "the gold accumulating war of the capitalists." (Khizr-i-Rah). There have been attempts at enlisting his verses in the service of the Jama'at-e-Islami's front against anti-Imperialist forces in the world, while it is quite fresh in the minds of our people how consistent he was in characterising imperialism as "the cause" of the sufferings of man. "The hidden anguish of humanity is from it." (Pass Cheh Ba'ed Kard)."

The latest attempt at making use of Iqbal for reactionary propaganda was occasioned by the release of Faqir Syed Wahid-ud-Din's documentary film on the life and works of the poet. The basic reason for attack on the film seems to be that it was made by that 'bete noire' of obscurantist politicians-Faiz Ahmad Faiz. But the terms of attack are such that even if Faiz had no association with the making of the film it would have been condemned. The reason being advanced by our "freedom loving" press for the banning of this film-yes, that is the declared aim of the gentlemen who are vociferating against it - is that it dares to show Iqbal as a protagonist of Islamic Socialism.

On an earlier occasion also it happened that Iqbal was sought to be .brought forward as an enemy of Socialism. A contemporary, much devoted to the cause of freedom of speech (a la ,PDM), which is now in the front ranks of the propagandists for banning of the film, (thus revealing the kind of freedom of speech which it and the PDM parties are advocating) has belaboured me with all the swear words that he can think of for defending the free showing of the film. Among other things he has accused me of defending the right of the students to sing and to produce 'plays in their educational institutions. It is a charge to which I plead guilty. And I am proud that I am the only journalist who has consistently defended this freedom of the students, on the basis of Imam Ohazali's writings, while our contemporary indulged in cheap appeals in favour of banning this useful extra-curricular activity of the young. It is strange that this' paper should call for the ban on drama and music while it advocates the showing of the grossest indecency in the form of local and foreign films. One would like to ask if these cheap films whose advertisements appear in its columns every day are composed of character forming sermons?

The new obscurantism being assiduously practised by our contemporary is but a child of the old obscurantism of the religious dogmatist which exercised a stranglehold over the mind of the Muslim people at the beginning of this century. The greatest single contribution of Iqbal to the awakening of our people was precisely his overthrow of this demagogy of theological obscurantists, which on one side sought to make the Muslim content in his slavery to the British Imperialists, and on the other tried to make him into a slave of the Hindu capitalist class. There was a third side to it, but it developed only after Iqbal's death. That was the attempt of the religious demagogue to keep the Muslims outside the struggle for power altogether and thus in effect, advocating Hindu capitalist's slavery as the best course for Muslims. Jama'at-i-Islami was a manifestation of this kind of obscurantism.

What is the basic strategy of obscurantism - old and new. It consists of a very simple device. The demagogue proclaims that he is the only true inheritor of Islamic religion and hence the .only authority on the subject. Having convinced the gullible of his authority he proceeds to prove any thesis that may suit him at the moment. In the past he has been proving, variously the loyalty to the British, the loyalty to the Hindu Congress,' the negation of Pakistani nationalism all on religious grounds. At the present moment he tries to prove, again by quoting chapter and verse, that the anti-imperialist revolutionary fight of the people of Africa and Asia is a fight against religion, and hence to be eschewed by the Muslims. On the one hand neo- obscurantism seeks to separate the manifestations of Imperialism - like Israel and Bharat - from the fact and the mechanism of the world wide system of Imperialism of which these are but parts; and on the other hand it seeks to 'divide the revolutionary forces of the peoples of Afro-Asia into the Islamic and non-Islamic so much so that Egypt, Syria and Algeria, are dubbed as godless and non-Islamic, and their and our bitter enemy Israel is praised for its God intoxication which is supposed to have given it victory over the Arab Muslims. Thus the holy name of Islam is used for subversion in the anti-imperialist Afro-Asian camp for the benefit of Imperialist forces, and even the Muslims are declared to be Kafirs. This has happened before. From Sir Syed to Iqbal to Quaid-e-Azam, who among our greatest leaders has not been dubbed as a Kafir by these repositories: of the wisdom of ages?

What are the present tactics of this neo-obscurantist movement? The biggest of these tactics is to use Iqbal, and through him, Islam as an enemy of anti-Imperialist struggle, of which the world-wide Socialist movement is the most consistent and uncompromising ally. Islamic principles and Islamic system of economy, ala Maudoodi, are brought out as an alternative to Socialism, and by way of good measure, to capitalism as well. When you scratch the 'surface you find that Islam for the neo-obscurantist is nothing but the continuation of the status quo of Imperialism and capitalism, even as the anti-Pakistan propaganda of Maudoodi before 1947 was a plea for the Hindu capitalist dominated status quo. Islam (and Iqbal) is posed as an enemy of what is being called territorial nationalism. The conclusion drawn from this internationalist principle of Islam and Iqbal in. the old days used to be (a la Maudoodi again) that Muslims of the sub-continent should not fight for their homeland in their majority areas, now it means that Pakistan should separate itself from its natural allies. in its struggle for survival in the name of an imaginary unity of Islamic countries. Knowing as we do the contradictory political forces working in the various Islamic countries can we hank for our survival on a chimerical entity of this nature, however holy the name under which it is paraded about. '

The dream of Islamic unity or the unity of Islamic countries, or the .unity of the Muslims, is a dream we all cherish. It flows out of the concept of Tauhid, which unites not only the Muslims of the world -for then it would be 'merely a territorial nationalist concept covering the entire geographical area where Muslims live at the moment; it, is a concept which covers all humanity. And in spite of all the current strife and struggle of the nations Tauhid will one day unite the entire human race: But is that a reason for liquidating Pakistan in an imaginary unity, or of weakening its defences and dissolving its relations with the consistent and proven friends and allies that it has?

Somebody has accused the film of Faqir Wahiduddin of appropriating Iqbal to a "mythical international purpose". If the international purpose is mythical it is very much that of Iqbal, and of Islam. It is here that a dichotomy is supposed to exist in Iqbal. When Iqbal sings of the international working class movement, and "the beginning of his (workers') era in the West and the East" in Khizar-i-Rah, it is regarded as a different tune from that in Tuloo-i-Islam which succeeds the earlier poem. But this is only true if we regard Islam as antagonistic to the emancipation of the working classes of the world. Was that the meaning of the Prophet's life (peace be upon him) and the word of God revealed to him?

Islam is for 'Iqbal neither a temporal nor a spatial reality. It is the destiny, not of the Muslim alone, but of the entire humanity. It is not a racial entity but a constantly expanding movement of the whole of humanity towards the realisation of truth. "Life is one and continuous. Man marches always onwards to receive ever fresh illuminations from an Infinite Reality which 'every moment appears in a new-glory.' And the recipient of Divine illumination is not merely a passive recipient. Every act of a free ego creates a new situation, and thus offers further opportunities of creative unfolding." (Reconstruction p. 123). Doesn't the film say precisely this?

Further " the perception of life as an organic unity is a slow achievement, and depends for its growth on a people's entry into the main current of world events As a social movement the aim of Islam was to make the idea a living factor in the Muslim's daily life, and thus silently and imperceptibly to carry it towards fuller fruition."

'(Reconstruction p. 140-141). The film is a commentary on this germinal idea in Iqbal and in Islam.

Given such a perception of the meaning of Tauhid, not as an entity descriptive of the Muslim community, but as the ideal of the entire humanity, Iqbal could not have made the mistake of either confining himself within the nationalist mould of the Indian Congress, nor of even an Islamic nation antagonistic to the rest of humanity.

Much has been said about Iqbal's controversy with, Maulana Husain Ahmed. One wishes that those who talk about Iqbal's works and ideas should take a look at what he said in reality. Thus they would also realise that there was no contradiction in Iqbal's negation of territorial nationalism and his advocacy of a territorial national homeland for the Muslims of India. Here are some of the things that he said "The pronouncement of the Maulana that nations are formed by countries, is not objectionable. Because from ancient times nations have been associated with countries and 'countries with nations. We are also Indians and are called Indians ... The word "country" as used here is a purely geographical term, and in this sense it does not conflict with Islam ... In these meanings every human being naturally loves the land of his birth and is ready to make sacrifices for it in accordance with his capacity The love of one's country, is a natural human emotion, but in the political literature of modern times the meaning of country is not' merely geographical, but it is a principle of the human social formation, and in this sense it is a political concept. Since Islam is also a principle of human social formation hence, when "country" is used as a political concept then it comes into conflict with Islam... Islam is not merely the proclaimer of ethical reformation of man but is desirous of a gradual but fundamental revolution in the social life of common humanity 'which should transform altogether its national and racial attitudes into '" purely human conscience... This is the ideal of the Millat of Islam. One cannot say how many centuries will pass before Man attains to those heights". So much for the ideal of internationalism as an Islamic and an Iqbalian ideal. How does this broad sweep of imagination contradict either his love for the country called India at that time, or his advocacy for the international working class movement and socialism? Why should he be ashamed of having written the song "Chishti ne jis zamin men" and "Tarana-i-Hindi"? Both are written from the point of view of the Indian Muslim, not of the Indian Hindus, if you look carefully at their texts.

Yes Iqbal was a fighter for the freedom of the Indian sub-continent; so were countless of our people through two centuries of British Imperialist domination. But he was not an Indian nationalist therefore. Because in the same open letter to the Indian nationalist Madani he says: "As Muslims it is our duty to break the bonds of British slavery, and to end the Englishman's domination. Our objective from this independence is not simply this that we become free, but so that Islam can continue and the Muslims can become strong. Therefore the Muslim cannot be a helper in the formation of a Government whose foundations are on those very principles on which the British Government is based".

Those who have objected to the inclusion of shots of the Khilafat and the 1919 Martial Law tortures in the Punjab should realise that these events are as much a part of the history of tl1e Muslims' struggle for independence as the 1857 movement the wars of Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan, the Faraizi movement, and the movement of Syed Ahmed Shahid. These are stages in the long struggle of our people's search for self-realisation. To negate them would mean negating our past and the memory of our people.

But the past as well as the present is not composed of cut and dried simplifications which Mr. Intizar, and others of his way of thinking are trying to evolve. History of a nation is full of complexities. It is true that the boundaries do not form a nation; it is the nation which forms boundaries. But it is also true that a nation's ideals are not something which are imprisoned by its boundaries. In Islam it is truer than anywhere else. If the Muslim--and Iqbal was certainly and above - all a Muslim--feels akin to the movements which are leading humanity in the direction of an international human society, he is not thereby going off the track. If we understand what Iqbal meant in his letter to Madani, he is going in the right direction even if the goal is many centuries away. So is Faqir Wahiduddin. Islamic values and hence Pakistani values, as we see them expressed in Iqbal--are the highest ideals of the human race. Those who wish to replace them by narrow nationalism are surely not Iqbal's followers.

NOTES:

1. Published in The Pakistan Times. 30.3.68.