Pratinav Anil’s latest literary endeavor, “Another India: The Making of the World’s Largest Muslim Minority, 1947-77,” stands as an extensive, meticulously researched work that sparks debate and reflection.
Within the context of the Muslim question in post-independence India, Anil takes a no-holds-barred approach to critique the policies and programs enacted during the Nehruvian era, a period he characterizes as having undertones of Islamophobia.
One of his primary targets for criticism is Mushirul Hasan’s 1997 book, “Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims since Independence,” which Anil dismisses as “an inventory of elite political maneuverings in which Muslims are little more than spectators.” He extends similar criticism to other scholars such as Rafiq Zakaria, Moin Shakir, and Omar Khalidi.
Anil’s central mission is to spotlight Muslim agency and reframe the minority question within the broader context of India’s democratic landscape. He posits that “communal” appeals led to trouble, while “secular” mobilization failed to gain traction, perhaps due to politics mired in guilt and circumspection.
Anil extensively excavates historical archives, unearthing intriguing instances such as Lord Wavell’s reference to Shafaat Ahmad Khan as “cheap butter of insincere compliments” and Hasrat Mohani’s characterization of nationalist Muslims as “slaves of the Congress.” He even highlights the derogatory labels applied to figures like Syed Mahmud and Muhamamd Ismail, revealing the complex dynamics within the Muslim community.
Delving into Modern Indian history, it becomes apparent that the roles of leaders like Maulana Azad in the politics of the Shariat Act, 1937, and their involvement in the Constituent Assembly Debates (1946-1949) are a source of fascination. Anil takes a deep dive into Azad’s contributions, portraying him in a less favorable light.
Azad’s loneliness and helplessness within the Congress, despite serving as its president from 1940 to 1946, were already illuminated in Rizwan Qaiser’s 2011 book, “Resisting Colonialism & Communal Politics: Maulana Azad & the Making of the Indian Nation.”
READ MORE: ‘Conquer the women’: Colonial roots of France’s abaya ban
In contrast to the Cambridge School’s perspective, Anil doesn’t assign any blame for India’s Partition to the British. He contends that the Partition plan was accepted by key figures like Jinnah, Gandhi, and Nehru. This leads him to acknowledge the aspirations of communal separatism, where the League sought economic and political empowerment for Muslims, while nationalist Muslims focused on cultural and legal sovereignty.
However, Anil does concede that, “at least in the realm of discourse and high politics, the Congress represented some kind of secular ideal.”
Anil’s critique of Maulana Azad is particularly noteworthy, sourced from primary and secondary sources. Azad’s prolonged absence from parliamentary debates, accusations of truancy, and failure to answer questions all reflect negatively on his agency. Anil questions Azad’s counsel for Muslims to “live as loyal citizens,” interpreting it as submission rather than agency.
Azad’s explanation of the Hyderabad police action and his advice for Muslims to take responsibility for their own upliftment hint at diminished agency in Anil’s eyes. Azad’s stance on parliamentary quotas, his subsequent volte-face, and his silence on key issues all contribute to a perception of reduced agency.
Anil’s narrative emphasizes the silence of nationalist Muslim figures, including Azad, in crucial moments. This leads to the historian’s challenge of uncovering their agency amid a labyrinth of silence.
The book also sheds light on Azad’s silence on issues like preventive detention, which Anil attributes to a desire to please Nehru and Patel. While others like Sadullah argued against this practice, Azad’s silence prevailed.
Anil reveals that the Congress used figures like Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul and Tajammul Husain to silence voices like Azad’s on political safeguards. This underscores the complexities of defining secularism in post-colonial India.
Anil also examines Azad’s resignation from the language committee over the Urdu language issue, illustrating the tension between political and cultural concerns.
Anil critically analyzes the Muslim elites in late colonial and post-independence India, particularly in Uttar Pradesh. He questions their prioritization of Shariat politics over political power, highlighting the unique preservation of Muslim Personal Law in India amidst global reforms.
Anil argues that India’s socio-political landscape in the 1980s witnessed competitive communalization, with both Hindu and Muslim leaders neglecting the material interests of their respective communities. He laments the orthodoxy that prevailed after the Ayodhya dispute and its impact on Muslims in an Islamophobic society.
In conclusion, Pratinav Anil’s work, while provocative and polemical, offers a critical examination of Nehruvian policies and their implications for Indian Muslims. Despite the challenges posed by complex language and terminology, the book makes a significant contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding Muslim agency in India. Anil remains hopeful about the potential for Muslim agency and assertion, as demonstrated by the citizenship rights movement of 2019-2020.