December 30, 2006

There continues the rendering of verses, and the rigors of grinding too, What a strange contradiction exhibits in Hasrat’s temperament!

Of all men who graced the platform of the All India Muslim League during the course of our freedom struggle, Hasrat Mohani was undoubtedly the most vocal and diehard anti-colonialist. A celebrated poet in the classical tradition, a journalist personifying the finest values of his profession, and a politician in whom had blended the traits of idealism and pragmatism - Hasrat Mohani offered a rare synthesis. In all the three domains he chose to engage himself in, his contribution depicts clarity of thought and conviction, accompanied with utmost sincerity. In all the three areas of his occupation he also left lasting imprints. As a poet, he extended the classical tradition and in the words of Maulvi Abdul Haq, 'raised the stature of poetry through his ideas and thoughts.' He devoted his journalism to the creation of political consciousness in his countrymen inculcating in them a sense of their rights which in his days and time amounted to rebelling against the repressive laws of the colonial regime. The path chosen by Hasrat was full of tests and trials, as he was consistently faced by sedition charges and had to undergo long and rigorous imprisonments but as acknowledged by Maulana Ghulam Rasool Mehr, these trials which could have deterred other exponents of freedom from their path, only made him more determined to pursue it. These trials came to Hasrat as the other necessities of life. Not only this, Hasrat could have overlooked other necessities but could not compromise on his principles in order to escape from these tribulations.

Hasrat was essentially a political being to whom politics meant full realization of one's rights and independence to express one's creative urges. As this could not be imagined in a colonial environment, he, right from the beginning, took to a radical path to raise his voice for independence and sought to make his countrymen and the Indian leadership realize that the moderate means of negotiation and making representations before the British government would not bring about any meaningful change in the status of Indian people.

Hasrat Mohani had his initial taste of what repercussions his radical views could have while he was still a student at Aligarh when he was expelled from the M.A.O. College for his political views and activities which did not go well with the College authorities, particularly, the Principal, Theodore Morison. It was only due to the interference of Mohsin-ul-Mulk, Secretary of the College, that he was allowed to complete his graduation.

(Soon after leaving the college, he decided to launch his campaign against the British rule when he brought out his journal Urdu-e-Mu'alla, which published political essays on contemporary issues apart from pieces on academic and literary themes. The political writings of Hasrat were prominent for their depth and analytic rigour. In these essays, Hasrat commented not only the developments in India but also analyzed the contemporary international issues. This suggests that he had good knowledge about the wider world. These also show that Hasrat was quite knowledgeable about the principles of political economy and could apply them to understand and explain the Indian situation. One is pleasantly surprised to see in his articles of Urdu-e-Mualla and a later publication Mustaqil, references to state sponsored capitalism, economic effects of the boycott of foreign goods, imperatives of the development of local industry etc. These essays also help one conclude that while Hasrat was strongly committed against colonialism, the means he suggested to realize independence were quite pragmatic. For instance when he advocated a policy of passive resistance, he elaborated his stance by suggesting that there were only two other means that could be employed to resist colonial rule. One was the moderate constitutional means which, to Hasrat, would at best ensure some space to the Indian elite and would make India not more than a colony with some degree of self-rule. The other was the violent revolutionary method which, too, could not be practiced in India as the conditions here did not support such an extremist solution. Hasrat thought that the only plausible and objective means was the method of passive resistance, which could deprive the colonial rulers of all moral legitimacy and could also unite the Indians for a longer time. Hasrat described it as a middle path between the two extremes - begging for concessions and taking to violence. It is significant that the temporal context in which Hasrat was professing the middle path, made this idea appear quite radical.

The second important aspect of Hasrat's political ideas was the historical mode of thinking which guided him while analyzing the issues at hand and on occasions when he sought to determine the best possible way out in the given situation. It is interesting that Hasrat pleaded political activism in the beginning of the twentieth century, deviating from the course laid down by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who had advised the Muslim community to stay away from politics and concentrate solely on educational attainment. Hasrat did not denounce Sir Syed, rather he held that Sir Syed was right in his time, but now that the times had changed, the Muslims would suffer if they did not take to politics. Therefore, when Muslim League was founded in 1906, Hasrat welcomed it but at the same time he also registered his opposition to the objectives laid down by the League for itself. As it was very prominently proclaimed by the League that it would, apart from other things, ensure the loyalty of the Muslims to the British, Hasrat not only stayed away from the League but strongly criticized its pro-British stance.

Apart from producing political analyses of the contemporary issues, Hasrat also took to practical politics. He began his career by joining, in 1904, the All India National Congress, in which he associated himself with the radical elements including Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak, Arabinda Ghosh, Bipan Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, etc. He was influenced more by Tilak than by any one else. Hasrat strongly opposed the policy of the moderates like Dada Bhai Nauroji, Gokhale, Feroz Shah Mehta, and Madan Mohan Malviya, who preferred to seek political reforms in graduated stages without endangering the overall colonial structure. In fact, this moderate approach suited the British raj itself which soon after 1857 had devised a policy to induct Indians in the colonial administrative apparatus and political institutions, for such cooption of the Indians was considered more useful to strengthen the colonial system of control. As against this moderate approach, Hasrat Mohani came out with the idea of Full Independence, or in his own phrase, Aazadi-e-Kaamil. Demanding complete independence in the first decade of the twentieth century was too bold a stance to be accepted by a wider section of the Indian political elite. Hasrat was not taken seriously but he continued to argue for the implementation of what he had suggested. Hasrat was disappointed when the liberal and moderate element established its sway in the Congress following the historic session of the party held at Surat in December 1907. This lead a number of radicals to part ways with the party. Hasrat, too, left it along with Lokmania Tilak. He did appear on the Congress platform on a number of occasions in the subsequent years but did not accept its discipline. On numerous occasions, he also fell out with the Congress leadership, particularly with Gandhi.

‘‘1913 was an important year in Indian history as it was in this year that Muhammad Ali Jinnah joined the All India Muslim League, without giving up his membership of Congress. Incidentally, in the same year Hasrat also attended the annual session of the League held on 23 March in Lucknow.

In this session a new constitution of the League was adopted, making the attainment of self-government the new objective of the party. It was a striking improvement on the previous constitution and it enabled the party to attract individuals like Hasrat.

In 1913, another session of the League was held in Agra where following the differences created between the Muslims and Hindus through the partition of Bengal and its subsequent annulment, means were considered to redress the situation and this session in a way became a turning point as far as the League was concerned. In the next six years both the League and the Congress held their annual sessions at the same place which itself became conducive to their coming together. Behind the move to bring the two parties closer, were the moderate leaders of the League who seemed to have taken the initiative in their hands from the erstwhile conservative and feudal leadership. Jinnah was in the forefront of the liberal and moderate elements. His efforts to bridge the gap between the Hindu and Muslim points of view brought to him the title of the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. The high watermark of his efforts came in the shape of the Lucknow Pact in 1916, which brought the two communities' leadership closer than ever before. The Lucknow Pact was an excellent piece of political engineering through which Congress was made to concede the Muslim demands hitherto opposed by it vehemently. In this period of cohabitation between Congress and Muslim League, Hasrat made his contribution to strengthen the bond between the two. Though a very traditional Muslim, with conservative ideas on social matters, Hasrat was quite progressive in his political outlook. He looked at the Hindu-Muslim unity from the political point of view and regarded it as a pre-requisite for the strengthening of Indian ranks against colonial rule. He, however, looked beyond these initial steps of inter-community unity and continued to press for full independence - an idea which still was regarded as politically premature by both Congress and Muslim League.

In 1919, Hasrat attended the annual sessions of Muslim League, Congress and Khilafat Committee. All these sessions were held in Amritsar in a highly charged political environment. The incidents in Punjab - Jalianwala Bagh and martial law - had electrified the masses and for people like Hasrat it was the right time to challenge, with full popular force, colonial oppression. In 1921, the League and Congress held their annual sessions in Ahmedabad. In the Congress session Hasrat presented a resolution suggesting that in the program of he party, the phrase 'Swaraj', should be take to mean 'full independence'. To Hasrat's disappointment, Gandhi opposed it, and the resolution failed. Incidently, that very year the League had invited Hasrat to preside over its annual session where he got an opportunity to present his program in detail and seek support for it. In this historic presentation, Hasrat suggested that India be declared United States of India (USI) on the pattern of the USA with maximum autonomy accredited to the provinces. Hasrat went further to suggest that 1st January 1922, should be taken to declare the establishment of the USI. His professed strategy also included the establishment of a parallel government. Explaining this, he said that there were only two means available for resisting an alien rule. One was the use of force, which was bound to result in violence while the other means was the establishment of a parallel government, which could be a useful method of weakening and ultimately defeating of the colonial rule. Hasrat's radical ideas could not find support in the League's ranks either. Hasrat paid the price of his revolutionary scheme perceived as seditious for which he was arrested and imprisoned. This perhaps was the only example of a League leader's imprisonment for his presidential address. Unfortunately, the address could not be owned by the League as its formal policy.

Upon his release in 1924, Hasrat wrote in detail about his scheme of USI and continued to do so in the next two decades remaining attached to his idea.

Hasrat came closer to the League after 1935 when it began to reorganize itself. Hasrat accepted to become a member of the Muslim League Parliamentary Board in UP, and in 1937, played an important role in the modification of the League's program in its Lucknow session. In this session, held on 15-18 October 1937 and presided by the Quaid-i-Azam, Hasrat presented his resolution on full independence. It was a great success for him that his 1921 proposal which could not find support in the League's Ahmedabad session was eventually adopted by it now in 1937. The scheme, apart from ensuring maximum provincial autonomy, also provided safeguards to all the minorities.

Hasrat's close liaison with the League in the 1930s is also evident from his joining a three-member League delegation which was sent by the party to represent it in the Palestine Conference held in Cairo in 1938. The delegation which also included Abdur Rehman Siddiqui and Chaudhry Khaleeq-uz-Zaman was sent on the decision of Muslim League's Council Session held in July 1938 in Delhi. Hasrat was as defiant on the Egyptian soil as he used to be in India. He proposed there that Britain be given a three months ultimatum to leave Palestine. In case it did not do so, direct action should be planned against it by all the Muslims. There, too, he did not find much support for his idea.

In 1945, Hasrat got elected to the Constituent Assembly on a Muslim League ticket which was given to him after much resistance by the UP League leadership which thought that it would be difficult for it to make Hasrat follow party discipline. On the occasion of Cabinet Mission Plan, Hasrat bravely proposed that now that the Muslim League had rejected the Plan, it should devise the future constitution of Pakistan as a logical consequence. This, however, could not be done.

In the last session of the League held in India on 9-10 June 1947, Hasrat opposed the idea of Pakistan joining the Commonwealth. He preferred to stay in India where he thought he was needed more to serve the Muslim community. His membership of the Constituent Assembly continued. However, the ever-defiant Hasrat declined to sign the Indian constitution for India had also joined the Commonwealth which, to Hasrat, was the symbol of what once was the hated British colonial rule. Hasrat Mohani will live in our history as a selfless, dedicated and defiant leader who never compromised with the idea of accepting colonial bondage. He struggled against it through his pen as well as his political activism. He was never short of radical ideas and he had the strength of character and courage to make his views known in a powerful manner even in the face of opposition and hostility. His defiance, in the end, won the day.

— Dr. Syed Jaffar Ahmed

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)