|
(Dept. of Political
Science, McMaster University)
Abstract: This paper looks at the faith and politics of Maulana
Barkatullah Bhopali, one of the early leaders of the Ghadar Movement.
Despite being a trained orthodox Muslim scholar he was an exponent of the
revolutionary ideology & causes. This paper analyses how he was able to
fuse seemingly different ideologies in his anti-colonial struggle. The
paper will also reflect on his legacy and why it wasn't able to translate
itself into influencing subsequent generations.
Introduction
Maulana Barkatullah Bhopali (1859?-1927) was one of the pioneering leaders
of the Indian freedom movement whose activism stretched from India to
Afghanistan, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Germany, England and the USA. Fired
with revolutionary zeal he concentrated all his efforts on the goal of
freeing India from colonialism. He also continues to remain an enigma in
the academia and in the general public. To begin with he appeared to
subscribe to many ideologies--some of which appear to be seemingly
contradictory. He was a pan-Islamist proponent of the universal caliphate,
a votary of pan-Asianism, a propagator of Hindu-Muslim brotherhood, and
more importantly an Indian nationalist to the core who served as prime
minister of the provisional government of India, among many other things.
How was he able to fuse these differing ideologies and tendencies? Was he
a genuine believer in them or just a pragmatist? How was he able to
overcome the growing chasm between Hindus and Muslims (slight hints of
which can be detected even among the diaspora revolutionaries)? Why has
his legacy not able to survive in the subsequent generations in India as
well as abroad? These and other questions will be tackled in this paper.
First, a brief biography of the Maulana will be presented. Second, his
educational & religious influences examined. This is important as this
early phase continued to have an impact throughout his life. Third, his
views on Hindu-Muslim cooperation, the revival of the caliphate and
socialism & Islam will be presented. It will be argued that contrary to
perceptions there is a method to his thought which is consistent. Lastly,
the reasons behind the neglect of Maulana Barkatullah’s legacy in the
later generations will be examined.
Brief Biography
Maulana Barkatullah’s early years and origins are cloaked in mystery.
There is much dispute about his year of birth with dates ranging from
1859-1866. However, it can be said with certainty that he was born in
Bhopal and was of pathan origin (acchakhani tribe). His father
Shujaatullah first worked as a primary school teacher and later as a
policeman. There is not much more information available on the family
except that he had a sister. The family lived under straitened financial
circumstances. His father died while he was still studying at the Madrasa
Sulaimaniyya. A scholarship given by the state covered his expenses and he
lived in a small room at the house of his friend Miyan Nooruddin Khan
Jagirdar. He graduated from the Madrassa in 1878 after qualifying as an
Alim. He served as a teacher at the same school from 1879-1880. He also
reportedly memorized the entire Qur’an on his own in a few months at the
urging of a teacher.
In 1883 he disappeared mysteriously from Bhopal and ended up in Bombay
where he enrolled himself in Wilson High School in Khetwadi. Despite being
a mature student he did not mind attending the elementary grades. At the
insistence of a certain Mr. Scot he began taking private lessons in
English in return for teaching him Urdu. Within three years he was
proficient enough to qualify for the university entrance examination.
He went to London in 1887 and served as a private tutor teaching Arabic,
Persian, and Urdu. While there he learned German, French, and Japanese
further strengthening his reputation as an autodidact. He was invited by
the British convert Abdullah Quilliam to work at the Muslim Institute in
Liverpool in 1895. He subsequently taught at the Oriental College of
University of Liverpool. He later distanced himself from the Muslim
Institute over its style of functioning.
While in England he came into contact with Indian revolutionaries at the
India House. In response to the then Prime Minister Gladstone's racist
comments about India he launched a flurry of articles and speeches
criticizing the policies. As a result his activities were severely
restricted.
He left for New York in 1899 at the insistence of Muslim convert and
activist Muhammad Alexander Russell Webb. In his six year stint in New
York he churned out a prolific number of articles related to Islam and
India which were published in the Muslim World and also in mainstream
newspapers such as the Forum. To earn an income he taught Arabic. He
developed contacts with the Indian community in other cities of US and
Canada and sought to instill the revolutionary spirit in them. While in
America he kept in touch with fellow revolutionaries in India and had a
scholarly exchange with the poet and nationalist leader Maulana Hasrat
Mohani. In these letters he stressed on the need for Hindu-Muslim unity in
the freedom struggle.
Maulana Barakatullah reached Japan in 1909 and was appointed a professor
of oriental languages at the University of Tokyo. He brought out a journal
the Islamic Fraternity which was known for its anti-colonial content.
After its suppression he brought out another newspaper by the name of El
Islam which was banned in British India. As a result of British pressure
his appointment at the university was terminated in 1914. It was around
this time that he collaborated in the activities of the Ghadr Party and
took the responsibility of establishing it in the country.
He accompanied the Turko-German Mission to Kabul in 1915 and joined
Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi and Raja Mahendra Pratap to form the provisional
government of India. He served as the Prime Minister of the
government-in-exile. In 1919 he met Lenin and sought his help in India's
struggle for freedom. Throughout the early 1920s he travelled widely in
Germany, France, Turkey and Russia organizing the expatriate Indian
communities on the revolutionary path.
His 1927 visit was his second one to the New World and would prove to be
his last. He was suffering from diabetes and had a host of other ailments
but his love for the nation was such that he undertook the long journey
from Germany along with long time friend and fellow revolutionary Mahendra
Pratap. He arrived in New York in July 1927 and stayed at a hotel in Times
Square. On 15th July 1927, he was given a reception by the Indian
community at Ceylon Indian Inn on 49th Street. He also met the
Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey, founder of the Universal Negro Improvement
Association and African Communities League. The two also spoke at a joint
gathering of African-Americans and Indians. He then travelled to Chicago,
Gary, and several other cities of the Midwest renewing his links with the
Indian and Irish communities among whom he had many friends.
He arrived at the Yugantar Ashram, the Ghadr Party's headquarters in San
Francisco before proceeding to Marysville where he was destined to give
his last public speech. Throughout this trip his constant companion was
Raja Mahendra Pratap who was himself not keeping well and aging. According
to Mahendra Pratap the Maulana last words were: "I have been sincerely
struggling all my life for the independence of my country. Today, when I
am leaving this world, I regret that my attempts did not succeed. But at
the same time I am also satisfied that hundreds and thousands of others
have followed me who are brave and truthful...With satisfaction I place
the destiny of my beloved nation in their hands." He died on September 20,
1927.
Early Influences
In terms of scholarly and ideological influences it is essential that we
take a quick appraisal of the religious and social milieu of Bhopal of his
time. During the time that Maulana Barkatullah was in Bhopal the ruler was
Shahjahan Begum (r.1868-1901). Her husband was the reformer Nawab Siddiq
Hasan Khan (1832-1890) who founded the ultra-conservative Ahl-e-Hadith
movement in India. The scant information available indicates that the
teachers of Madrasa-e-Sulaimaniya were orthodox in the mould of the
Deobandi school of thought. Maulana Barkatullah also studied with Shaikh
Abdul Haq Kabuli who was reportedly ‘revolutionary’ in his thought and was
a follower of the eighteenth century reviver Shah Waliullah Muhaddith
Dehlawi.
Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan was very much alive during Barkatullah’s time in
Bhopal and there is a good chance that he might have met him. The former’s
two sons were his friends. But the sources are silent as to what influence
he had on him. Similarly, the pan-Islamist agitator Jamaluddin Al Afghani
also visited Bhopal and is likely to have met Barkatullah. But we find no
details in Barkatullah’s writings. Most biographies suggest a possible
meeting without actually citing any evidence.
While Barkatullah always had an independent mind it can be said that he
was closer to the Deobandi movement (emphasising its revolutionary &
reformist Shah Waliullahite component) both in terms of faith and
politics. This is evidenced by his later close association with Maulana
Mahmood Hasan and Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi. It is possibly due to this
reason that it will be unfair to identify him with a particular sect. For
example, he had no problems in attending the Milad un Nabi (birthday of
the Prophet) celebrations in London in 1895 and serving as a keynote
speaker.
While his writings show a life-long commitment and attachment to Islam it
is hard to determine how he adhered to the rituals of the faith. For
example, did he pray and fast? Did he consume only halal food? The sources
are silent on this.
Fusion of Ideologies?
Hindu-Muslim Unity
As mentioned earlier Barkatullah subscribed to many ideologies which can
be generally grouped together as Pan-Islamic, Indian nationalist (also by
extension Pan-Asian and anti-Imperialist), and communism. How was he able
to reconcile the three? One scholarly opinion is that he used religion as
‘tactical’ tool to motivate Indian as well other Muslims to join the
anti-imperial struggle. According to this view the only thing that could
rouse the Muslims is to appeal to their pan-Islamic identity by raising
the ‘Islam is in danger’ slogan. However, the same logic can be used to
show that he was using any of the two ideologies to serve the purposes of
the third one.
An alternate way of understanding is to conceptualize Barkatullah as an
adherent of common principles of all three with the primary goal of
defeating imperialism everywhere. In a sense this identification with a
plurality of ideologies was similar to the one expounded by Maulana
Muhammad Ali in 1930 in London during the Round Table Conference:
I belong to two circles of equal size, but which are not concentric. One
is India, and the other is the Muslim world. When I came to England in
1920 at the head of the Khilafat Delegation, my friends said: "You must
have some sort of a crest for your stationery." I decided to have it with
two circles on it. In one circle was the word "India"; in the other circle
was Islam, with the word "Khilafat." We as Indian Muslims came in both
circles. We belong to these two circles, each of more than 300 millions,
and we can leave neither. We are not nationalists but supernationalists,
and I as a Muslim say that "God made man and the Devil made the nation."
Nationalism divides; our religion binds. No religious wars, no crusades,
have seen such holocausts and have been so cruel as your last war, and
that was a war of your nationalism, and not my Jehad.
But where our country is concerned, where the question of taxation is
concerned, where our crops are concerned, where the weather is concerned,
where all associations in those thousands of matters of ordinary life are
concerned, which are for the welfare of India, how can I say "I am a
Muslim and he is a Hindu"? Make no mistake about the quarrels between
Hindu and Muslim; they are founded only on the fear of domination.
Barkatullah can also be imagined as a Muslim belonging to three circles of
equal size. However, unlike Muhammad Ali he was not antagonistic towards
these two other identities which allowed him to adopt many seemingly
“unorthodox stances.”
Barkatullah’s writings show that he was a strong proponent of the idea of
a caliphate. In his book Al Khilafa he writes that the destruction of the
caliphate is a loss for and its establishment a blessing for Islam and
Muslims. But what is often overlooked is that he conceptualized the
caliphate at two levels: spiritual and political. In a letter to the
journalist Abdul Majid Daryabadi he writes:
Today, the Islamic countries are divided, in a political sense, and it is
impossible to unite the world of Islam politically. But, yes in order to
improve their moral behavior only a spiritual unity is required. When
their morals are corrected everything else will fall in place. The
important thing is to follow the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet). The
Prophet had, through spiritual development, created personages who went on
to change the history of the world.
The immediate objective was the establishment of a spiritual caliphate. In
his understanding it was logical that establishing it would eventually
lead to the formation of a political caliphate. The idea underlying behind
this thought was that true religion is one and that the variations are a
result of misunderstanding and ignorance. In his long farsi article
published in Hasrat Mohani’s Urdu-e-Mualla in 1907 he writes:
The essential difference of the various peoples of faith is a result of
not understanding terminology, otherwise they are all seekers of the same
thing. For example, Muslims call their sages prophets and saints. Hindus
address theirs with autar, etc…The real goal of God’s religion
(din-e-elahi) is to inculcate the love of humanity and to dispel ignorance
with the light of spirituality.
In this sense the political caliphate was not a narrow sectarian entity
but a universal one appealing to people of all religions. This was also a
long term project which will take many years and centuries. This objective
shouldn’t stop the Indian nationalists and other anti-imperialists from
concentrating on the more immediate goals of freedom from colonialism.
Therefore in his article Hindu Musalman Dar Hindustan he writes that
Indian Muslims have two obligations—1) Obligation to the Faith 2)
Obligation to the Country. These he claimed can only be fulfilled by
achieving Hindu-Muslim unity:
The love of the country demands the spending of life and wealth in the
service of the nation. The history of humanity is witness to the fact that
a person devoid of love of the country goes outside the pale of
humanity...The obligation to the faith demands that Indian Muslims be the
friends of all Muslims of the world and to help them in whatever capacity
they possibly could. These two obligations can only be fulfilled if there
is a Hindu-Muslim unity.
He found that the security and well-being of the ummah is dependent on
Hindu-Muslim unity:
For the safety of Millat-e-Islamia (the Islamic nation) and the
establishment of the Muslim countries it is vital that Muslims love the
people of Asia in general and the people of India in particular.
In another place he found that the ‘love for the country’ is the bond that
unites Hindus and Muslims:
The point of unity between Hindus and Muslims is the love of the country
as both of them are residents of the same country. Both are equal victims
of the troubles of penury and famine.
It can be asked whether he was using Indian nationalism in the service of
the establishment of a universal caliphate. It doesn’t appear to be so as
he viewed the Muslims as well as the Indians and the Asians as victims of
imperialism. In none of his writings do we ever find an advocacy of
domination of other nations. He was a proponent of what can be termed as a
‘coalition of the oppressed’ with the aim of the defeating imperialism.
This will be explained further below when we discuss his opposition to the
rebellion of the Turkic peoples against the Soviet Union.
He found the practical objectives of the Sunnah to be completely in sync
with those of social justice and workers rights. He found no problem in
putting the universal sense of justice first and foremost when it came to
political and economic matters to the relegation of religious disputes. In
an article titled Hindu, Sikh, Muslim Ittehad (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Unity)
he writes:
The time has come for selecting the nation’s leaders only after scrutiny.
The farmers, workers and the voiceless should follow the lead of the
workers of England and elect their leaders from within their ranks. They
should send them in good numbers in the Congress, the Assembly, the
municipalities and legislative councils. They should place political and
economic issues over all others. The religious rituals can be performed in
the masjids, gurdwaras and temples but they should be kept apart from
political and economic issues. (emphasis mine).
He lamented that the national newspapers of the day concentrated on
highlighting the disputes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims but ignore the
impoverished status of the two hundred and fifty million people of India.
He urged the people to forget about historical and religious disputes and
instead focus on the real issues of freedom and poverty:
It has been two hundred years since Aurangzeb died and his children paid
for his wrongs---meaning his sultanate was snatched from his family. What
does it achieve when we remember the past and cause riots and killings?
Does it give food, clothing and housing to the poor? …Shun the ruffians
and goons who without reason or due to provocation by someone shed the
blood of their brothers. Let them get killed. The world would be better
without them. Are ten or fifteen anti-nationals who cause riots more
important than the two hundred and fifty million who farm and work to
produce?...
Barkatullah had no patience for sectarianism or groupism. He demonstrated
this in action by staying aloof from all internecine quarrels and on many
occasions tried to broker peace among disputing revolutionaries. This is
evident when he chose not to choose sides when a dispute arose in the
provisional government between Raja Mahendra Pratap and Ubaidullah Sindhi.
The latter considered the former to be a ‘biased Hindu under the influence
of Malwiya’, who tried to keep Muslims only for consultation and not for
the actual workings of the government. Barkatullah stayed away from being
a party to the dispute and instead focused all his energies on carrying
the movement forward.
Lenin & Bolshevism
Barkatullah, along with Mahendra Pratap & others, met Lenin in 1918. Both
men deeply impressed each other. He praised Lenin as ‘Illuminating Sun’
(Munawwar Suraj) in an article published under the same name. He
considered him a liberator of the workers and the oppressed:
A new dawn of liberating humanity is rising on the Russian horizon. The
one who is giving this glad tiding to humanity is Ilyich Lenin.
In his stay in the Soviet Union he wrote a pamphlet called ‘Address to the
Muslims’ in which he praised the Soviet Union and asked Muslims around the
world to support it. He considered the Soviet Union to be a natural ally
of Muslims and other oppressed people. After listing a long list of
grievances of Muslims against Britain, France and the USA he stated that
they can never be trusted. He wrote that these forces have even made it
difficult for Muslims to practice their religious obligations in India and
Egypt. He contrasted this with Soviet Russia where he said that Muslims
have full religious freedom and are living a peaceful and prosperous life.
He urged them to support the USSR.
Barkatullah’s support for Soviet Russia was undeterred during the Basmachi
rebellion when the Muslim Turkic people rose under the leadership of Anver
Pasha. Barkatullah tried to broker peace with Anver Pasha by arguing that
Central Asian people should unite under the Bolshevik flag and that this
will guarantee them support fromUSSR in their struggles against
imperialism. But Anver Pasha refused to budge.
Despite his fondness for Lenin and the egalitarian principles Barkatullah
refused to be called a ‘Bolshevik’ and once again tried to form a common
ground between Islam and Communism as he had done with the Indian national
movement. He considered the Communists to be allies and friends. In this
instance as well he treads the middle path as compared to some Indian
revolutionaries who either converted to Communism or rejected it
completely. For example, when Ubaidullah Sindhi told Lala Lajpat Rai that
he plans to seek the support of the Soviets the latter supposedly said:
‘For God’s sake don’t do this. These Communists will destroy India.’
Conclusion
Maulana Barkatullah Bhopali was an innovative revolutionary who
successfully combined various ideological strands in his
anti-imperialistic goals. While remaining firmly wedded to his Islamic
faith he didn’t hesitate in fusing it with the Indian freedom and
Communist movements. As rightly said by Maia Ramnath he was the ‘most
important interface between Pan-Islamism, communism and the Indian
national liberation struggle.’
For such an iconic figure it is ironic that he hasn’t received the
deserving academic attention or public recognition. Most of the work on
him consists in Urdu and that too bordering on hagiographical. Despite the
naming of a university after him in Bhopal his memory continues to be
relegated to the margins of the memory of the Indian freedom struggle. One
reason for this might be due to the fact that Barkatullah refused to be
pigeonholed with a particular category, organization or group. He worked
with a variety of organizations with the single minded purpose of freeing
the nation. Another reason could be that a majority of his writings have
never been translated. The loss is for all those who care for social
justice in India and elsewhere including in diaspora South Asian
communities which need a unifying figure.
1. A slightly variant
version of this section was published by this author on TwoCircles.net
portal on 2 July, 2009.
2. Shafqat Rizvi, Naqeeb-e-Inquilab: Maulana Barkatullah Bhopali. (Patna:
Khuda Baksh Oriental Public Library), 5.
3. Ibid, 8
4. Ibid, 14
5. Ibid.
6. Syed Ali Abid Wajdi Al Hussaini, Maulana Barkatullah Bhopali (Bhopal:
Madhya Pradesh Urdu Academy, 1986), 100.
7. Saxena, 25.
8. Al Hussaini
9. Cited in Al Hussaini,p.234. Translation my own.
10. Rizvi,8
11. Al Hussaini, 97.
12. Shyam Sunder, Barkatullah Bhopali (Bhopal: Swaraj Sansthan
Sanchalnalay, 2004), 24.
13. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speech at the Fourth Plenary Session of the
Round Table Conference in London, 19th Nov.1930.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_muhammadali_1930.html
14. Letter to Abdul Majid Daryabadi reproduced in the Sach, July 1st,
1926. Translation by this author from Urdu.
15. Al Hussaini, 214.
16. Rizvi, 194.
17. Reproduced in Rizvi, 60. Translation mine. (MAAK)
18. Reproduced in Al Hussaini, 121. Translation mine. (MAAK)
19. Reproduced inRizvi, 56 Translation mine. (MAAK)
20. Reproduced in Rizvi, 43. Translation mine. (MAAK)
21. Reproduced in Rizvi, 200. Translation mine. (MAAK)
22. Abdullah Leghari (ed.) Maulana Ubaidullah Sindhi ki Sarguzisht-e-Kabul
(Islamabad: Qaumi Idara Barai Taraqqi-e-Sqafat, 1980), 107-108.
Translation mine. (MAAK)
23. Rizvi, 158.
24. Rizvi, 179
25. Rizvi, 180
26. Ubaidullah Sindhi, 221.
27. Maia Ramnath,Haj to Utopia (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2012), 222.
-0-
|
