Author: KR Phanda
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: April 4, 2005
Those familiar with Muslim League
politics between 1906 and 1947 will not be surprised at Mr Badrul
Islam's demand in his article, "AMU calls for justice" (March 3).
The writer says that the Aligarh Muslim University "needs to act
independently in all affairs including admissions". During the first
40 years of the 20th century, the Muslim League's behavioural pattern
was characterised by accusations, demands and denunciations of the
Indian National Congress. The reactions of the Congress, led by Mahatma
Gandhi, was marked by acquiescence, cajolery and surrender to Muslim
demands.
Even after the creation of Pakistan
on religious basis, the Congress did not stop pandering to Muslim
demands. HRD Minister Arjun Singh's twin gifts for the AMU on its
56th annual convocation at Aligarh on March 2 should be seen in light
of this age-old appeasement policy. He has announced financial assistance
of eight crore rupees as well as statutory minority status for AMU.
The Congress, thanks to its votebank
politics, may not want to inform the public that the AMU's founder,
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, had nothing but contempt for it. He was the
first Muslim 'moderate' to articulate the two-nation theory that
eventually led to the creation of Pakistan.
As reported in the Pioneer of January
11, 1888, Sir Syed had characterised the Congress as a "Bengali movement",
"a stupid organisation", and Congress sessions as a mere scribbling
and talking shop. He had described Bengalis as people "who at the
sight of a table knife would crawl under their chair" (Badruddin
Tyabji, Husain B Tyabji, Thacker and Co, Bombay, 1952, p 197). Another
Muslim leader of the time, Sir Aga Khan, wrote about the AMU: "Surely
it may also be claimed that the independent, sovereign nation of
Pakistan was born in the Muslim University of Aligarh" (The Memoirs
of Aga Khan, Cassel & Company, London, 1954, p 36).
The status of the AMU had been decided
by the Supreme Court in its judgement delivered on October 20, 1967:
"The Aligarh University was neither established nor administered
by the Muslim minority and, therefore, there is no question of any
amendment to the 1920 Act violating Article 30 (I), for the Article
does not at all apply to the University" (S Azeez Basha vs Union
of India, SCR, 1968). Subsequently, under Muslim pressure, the Congress
Government overturned the Supreme Court judgement.
The AMU can be said to have been
the centre of Muslim separatism and the intellectual cradle of the
Muslim League. The 1906 memorandum submitted by Muslim leaders to
Lord Minto at Shimla was drawn up by Aligarh intellectuals led by
Syed Hosien Bilgrami. The foundation of the Muslim League in the
same year was also their work. Professor Francis Robinson records
that "the secretaryship and power in the League generally was to
remain in the hands of Aligarh and UP men for most of its existence"
(Separatism Among Indian Muslims, Cambridge University Press, Great
Britain, 1974, p 149).
The AMU should have been abolished
for its anti-national record after Independence. Instead, the Government
encouraged the setting up of more such institutions. Why should taxes
collected from Hindus be used for an institution that has preached
and practised separatism? Why should Muslim institutions get grants
and autonomy denied to Hindu institutions? Why should India's largest
minority be given special rights while the 'normative' secular paradigm
treats Hindus as second class citizens in their own country?
