The Maulana on the Mahatma

Raziuddin Aquil

A general public meeting was held at New Delhi’s Constitution Club in February 1948, within days of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, to discuss ways in which his exemplary ethical standards in the service of the nation could be memorialized. The meeting was chaired by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who gave a powerful speech to a shocked audience gathered on the occasion, in an atmosphere which was publicly charged with violent emotions. Maulana Azad highlighted Mahatma Gandhi’s excellence as a devout and broad-minded Hindu who transcended the narrowness and limitations of dominant cultural-markers which were dogging popular politics of the public domain. An extreme form of a narrowly conceived political ideology eventually consumed the Mahatma.  

​Maulana Azad announced that Mahatma Gandhi was no more and commemorations of various kinds had already been established not only in India but also in different parts of the world. Azad informed that the Congress Working Committee (CWC) had also constituted a six-member committee to consider setting up a memorial for Mahatma Gandhi in such a way that the overwhelming spirits of his virtuous philosophy of life was conspicuously revealed before the world. Besides, there were other ways in which the narratives of many dimensions of his activities, written accounts and memorable deeds were being preserved, so that when the coming generations studied his life the truthful veracity of his thoughts and actions would be clearly manifested.

​According to Azad, despite all these, there was a missing compartment which needed to be filled else the commemorative endeavours would remain sorely empty. The Maulana pointed out that “Mahatmaji” dedicated his life to wide-ranging activities and personalities like his emerged in the world only once in a while – shining from above the man-made boundaries of conflict-ridden kinds. Different periods of history of the world reveal that the people have constructed boundaries of various kinds. Geographical delimitations are identified as Europe, Asia, India or the Arab world. Religious identities have classified people as Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, etc. National boundaries can been seen earmarked as English, Italian, Indian, etc. Linguistic demarcations based on dialects and languages as well as racial differentiations on the basis of colour and race have similarly divided people into different sparring categories.

​Azad pointed out that these boundaries are natural requirements of our lives, as social and cultural identifiers, leta‘rafu, as the Quran put it (Urdu: ta‘rruf), so that people know each other for harmonious coexistence. Till such time as they remain within constructive limits they are strong pillars of support, but when they assume destructive forms they destroy and annihilate large communities of people. The history of the world has shown that whenever the boundary-markers are abused for wrong political ends, the very symbol and purpose which used to shine as indicators of excellence are done to dust. See, for example, the case of religious boundaries: It is known to all that religions have emerged to reform the world. Peace, harmony, tolerance, justice, etc., are recommended practices in all religions. Yet, when religious markers take destructive turns they lead to large-scale bloodbath. History has been witness to thousands of horrendous massacres perpetrated in the name of religion. Look at the world around us: whatever has happened has happened in the name of God only. Similarly, races and nations have fallen to false sense of pride and arrogance amidst massive violence and bloodshed.

​Azad further remarked that history had shown that even as the destructive pulls of contentious boundaries created havoc all around, such extraordinary personalities also emerged which were not easily chained into submission to a narrowly defined worldview. They cannot be prevented from rising to the height of greatness, seeing beyond narrow religious blinkers, breaking shackles of nationalism, and crossing limited geographical boundaries of homeland. The Mahatmaji, for Azad, was one such rare and extraordinary figure which rose high and above the man-made boundaries of the world. All the nations, countries, races and communities of people were equal for him.

​Recalling his 28-year-long close association with Gandhiji, from his first meeting at Hakim Ajmal Khan’s house in Delhi in January 1920 till his shocking end in January 1948, Azad stated that this period was spent in such a way that it would seem like they had lived under the same roof, despite some strongly felt moments of disagreements and conflicts. One particular moment was the disagreement over Britain’s participation in the Second World War. The majority of the members of the CWC had agreed with Azad’s view that India can participate, if Britain agreed for India’s Independence after the War. The Mahatma was sharply opposed to this; taking a strong ethical position against the very idea of war, he went in a different direction altogether. He would reiterate that freedom achieved in the shadow of a battle and bloodshed was unacceptable to him. He was, therefore, opposed to India’s participation in the War. Yet, Azad informed, as drafts of CWC’s resolutions were prepared by Gandhiji only, the latter was approached by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Azad for the same, and he agreed to prepare the draft despite the disagreements. This once again underlined his amazing ability to work peacefully despite disagreements.        

​Thus, Azad observed that during the long association, there were occasions marred by severe differences and tensions, with emotions running high, but their hearts never turned even for a moment. Notwithstanding those many critical differences of opinion on matters of crucial import, Azad clarified, “we could never break away from the string of his greatness literally holding us by the neck”. The Maulana asserted that he was not a weak or easy person who would quickly fall into meek submission to a new idea or to a powerful authority for that matter. He would resist any challenges thrown at him. The new ideas or arguments will have to be strong enough to be able to subdue and control his mind and intellectually overpower him to eventually hold him by the scruff of his neck to submit to the superiority of that force. Azad recalled that when he met Mahatmaji for the first time he was not blinded by faith and devotion for him – faith of the kind that blinds followers. However, all his signs of greatness were slowly and firmly implanted in Azad’s heart, leading to ever increasing confidence and faith in his qualities par excellence.

​Azad stressed that he and Pandit Nehru had close access to Gandhiji over a long period of time to know him inside out. His life was like an open book, with every page open, and every line, every word and letter shining brightly. Of all the people in the world around him, he must be the only public figure of such an amazing credential of leading a life with no secrets. This is a touchstone of greatness few could pass. Few could also steer clear of the way he did in not being tamed by various narrowly defined ideologies and frameworks, especially those of religious and sectarian associations. He was able to overcome and transcend personal and political lust and greed to raise a high bar of excellence, carving out a niche of his tantalizing greatness. It was not that Gandhiji was not a Hindu. He was undoubtedly a Hindu, but he offered a different interpretation of the Hindu mind and religion, creating an altogether new and wide angle, encompassing all the conflicting boundaries. He was, thus, able to create a space, not only conceptually but also by living a life of the kind he did, where geographical and national borders were irrelevant and boundary walls of other kinds would not survive either.

​For Azad, even imagining reaching that lofty pedestal the Mahatma had created was a virtuous proposition, especially when viewed from the perspective of Hindu religion and society in history and the present. Referring to India’s high civilizational achievements since ancient times, Azad suggested that the old Hindu culture was extremely broad-minded and of all the religions or faiths it was the Hindu religion that had closely observed the notion of monotheism or belief in one God. There are many historical evidence and examples to validate this. However, Azad lamented, that form of Hindu religion is long gone, and several significant columns in the check-list of eminence are blank now. The Greeks were treated in ancient India as Brahmins, for Greece was known as a country heavily invested in knowledge and scientific temperament. Hindu religion eventually began to fall from that level of excellence. Pointing to oppressive and hierarchical stratification of society based on varna, or jati, which was scripturally justified, Azad noted that the notions such as untouchability and rigidity, orthodoxy and narrowness of the mind became rampant.

​However, Gandhiji showed the way, setting a high standard for understanding and practicing Hindu religion, so that viewed from the exalted position he had occupied the struggles and conflicts of different kinds would appear trivial and meaningless to him. Thus, nothing could stop him from a clear vision of the realities of the world. Azad concluded his speech by stressing that any memorial created for the Mahatma will be incomplete if it would not reveal the simple greatness of his mission and inclusive philosophy of his life. It should silently speak to new generations and visitors about the distinguished history of a life dedicated to universal truth. The truth experienced by him can enlighten us all in a completely non-discriminatory manner, just as the sun and its beaming rays do, for a life free from any kind of prejudice.

(Based on Khutbaat-i-Azad, speeches of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, volume I, edited by Malik Ram, reprint, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2006. A shorter version has appeared in National Herald: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/the-maulana-on-the-mahatma)