WHILE talking about Makhzan in my previous column, I had referred to another journal, Tahzibulakhlaq, which, too, has a history behind it, and has been revived in our times with the same aims and objectives which the founder of the journal had.
The founder of the journal was Sir Syed Ahmad Khan who, in pursuance of his programme for social reform for Indian Muslims, made some forays in the field of journalism. In 1866, he took the initiative of starting a weekly journal Akhbar Scientific Society, a bilingual journal in Urdu and English. For this, he was indebted to his visit to England, which provided him with an opportunity to know something about the monthly journals in English. After his return home, he planned a similar journal in Urdu, Tahzibulakhlaq in December, 1870. It had been conceived as a non-literary, non-political journal exclusively devoted to the cause of social reform and rational thinking among Indian Muslims. As is known, Sir Syed enjoyed the company of a galaxy of scholars and writers, who shared his zeal for social change. They wrote for his journal with a missionary zeal.
This zeal has been best expressed in a statement by Sir Syed where he dreams of a golden age when “we will have philosophy in our right hand, Natural Sciences in our left-hand, and the crown of La ilaha ill-Allah on our heads.”
The journal served its purpose well, but had to be closed in its seventh year. However, it was revived after a gap of three years. This time, it could not go on for more than two years. Now it had to wait for 14 years for revival. But once again Sir Syed, being a busy man, found it hard to spare time for the journal. It was finally closed after three years.
The journal was once again revived in the early ’80s under the auspices of the Aligarh Muslim University. It is now published under the editorship of Prof Abul Kalam Qasimi, a distinguished critic and a teacher in the university. He insists that the basic objectives of the journal are still the same as laid down by Sir Syed in his time, which may be defined as social problems, cultural situation and educational betterment of the Muslims.
But times have changed. Indian Muslims now find themselves in a situation very different from the one Sir Syed found himself in. They are faced with new challenges. This journal tells us about their responses to these challenges.
Among the contents is a permanent item, an autobiography, which is being published in instalments. Every time I begin reading it with a sense of curiosity, I leave it in the middle after being bored. It is the autobiography of Abdul Kalam, who is now the President of India. He is a strange man, who has confined himself to his laboratory. He appears to be a modern prisoner who has developed a love for his prison. Rarely he feels compelled to come out of that prison. These rare moments are provided by deaths in his family. It is then he goes to his town and is seen in his elements, listening to his old father, remembering his childhood visits to the mosque of the mohalla. But these are fleeting moments. Soon after the burial, he goes back to his prison-house and is seen engrossed in his scientific work.
It is the autobiography of a technological man devoid of human emotions. Here is a cold description of the technological intricacies of experiments the man is engaged in. He is sensitive to every such intricacy and is insensitive to the warmth of human relationships.
In a recent issue of the journal, Syed Hashim Ali Akhtar, ex-Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh University has, in his article, raised once again the issue of national language. In fact, the issue had been settled once and for all the day India was partitioned as Urdu, in consequence of the Partition, had ceased to be the rival of Hindi. It seems that many among the Indian Muslims have not yet reconciled with this fact. Syed Hashim Ali has widely quoted from the writings of Gandhiji, who, as he has shown, raised a voice of dissent when Hindi was proclaimed as the national language of India.
Gandhiji had evolved the concept of a common language, Hindi-Hindustani which, divested of its highly Persianized and Sanskritized versions was to be written in both scripts, Devnagri and Persian. He stuck to this position even after Partition.
Hashim Ali tells us that on August 24, 1947, Gandhiji wrote a letter addressed to all the newly-appointed governors of the provinces, advising them to learn the languages of their provinces and to write Hindi in both scripts. When he was told that Hindi with Devnagri script had been promulgated as the national language, he said: “I can never agree to it.”
In his Delhi Diary dated October 15, 1947, he wrote: “I have read in papers that Hindi with the Nagri scripts will be the official language of U.P. The news has saddened me.”
On December 18, 1947, he wrote and this was his last statement on the language question: “Have I degraded myself as a Hindu or as a Hindustani by trying to evolve a common language by the mixture of Urdu and Hindi? Can the purpose of an all-India language be served by rejecting Urdu? I will not always be with you. But you will remember my words after I have departed from you.”
WHILE talking about Makhzan in my previous column, I had referred to another journal, Tahzibulakhlaq, which, too, has a history behind it, and has been revived in our times with the same aims and objectives which the founder of the journal had.
