An interview in 1946

Q: The Hindu Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of
reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?
A: If Pakistan were the solution of Hindu Muslim problem, then I would have extended my
support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding NWFP, Sind,
Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other, they think they will
get the rest of India a huge country that would be free from anyclaims of communal nature.
If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state both practically
and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision, but will be a
logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90% of
Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently?
The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following
have become victim of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has
completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal
politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Quran. If
they had taken their lessons from the Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet and had not forged
communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the
time of the decline of the Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that
is about 65% of the present numbers. Since then the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim

politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the
other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim
breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher. The political disputes we
created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not
what it is a value system meant for the transformation of human soul. Under British
influence, we turned Islam into a confined system, and following in the footsteps of other
communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus we transformed ourselves into a hereditary
community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into
many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently,
these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values. The
hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely
they are Muslims, but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact now they easily submit
to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics not the religion of
the Quran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of the fact whether it is the
rightsolution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The
question is when and where Islam provided for division of territories to settle populations on the
basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Quran or the traditions of the
Holy Prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of God on this basis?
If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal
system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands including
India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted
its followers to go to the non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan
would not have had even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of
religion is a contraption devised by Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda,
but it finds no sanction in Islam or Quran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim?
Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political
ambitions? The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan
can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets.
The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the
leadership of Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare

commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and God alone knows what is in
the womb of future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts ofreligious
nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious
damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who
may become a part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim minority states the Muslim
youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim majority states. You will see that despite the
increased role of Ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pak

Q: But many Ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [M.A. Jinnah].
A: Many Ulema were with Akbare Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not
discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the Ulema who have brought
humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are
exceptions. How many of the Ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the
last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India we remember no
Ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt, but those
who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also Ulema.
Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, Islam is being used to
pursue and protect the unity of the community.
A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim
history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam
Ali and Hadrat Aisha, widow of the Holy Prophet] Qurans were displayed on lances. Was that
right? In Karbala the family members of the Holy Prophet were martyred by those Muslims who
claimed companionship of the Prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he
subjected the holy mosque at Makka to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can
justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers
inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me, but it is not possible for me to go
against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of
their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it.
Today they can call white black, but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be
stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself if he
agrees to some new proposal.
Now as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the working committee, the division
of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not
affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the
religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A
line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts.
This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation it will not
be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic
event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries.
It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her
territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay especially
in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions
in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:
1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims
can find shelter there?
2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will
pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation
that had lived through it completes its natural term.

3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation
decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The
wealthy Muslims will take over the industry and business and monopolise the economy of
Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise Pakistan
holds for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from
Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious
problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the
new country, and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no
problem with this outside interference as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.
The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know
that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II, Mr
Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr H.S.
Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only Muslim League, look at the history
of Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with
the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at
Rajkot. Subhas Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The
environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt
when it senses danger to its rights and interests.
The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But
after them any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be
possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There
is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the
fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab
world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and
speak a common language. In fact they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no
political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often

engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility. On the other hand, the language, customs and
way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative
warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive
overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and
consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it
happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes.
The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sind, Frontier and Balochistan will open the
doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the
diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and
Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves, what have we gained and what have we
lost.
The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim
business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to
official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the twonation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the
monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be
interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.
I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:
1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has
happened in many Muslim countries.
2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.
3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.
4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.
6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.
7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of
Pakistan.
8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.
In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in
no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come
without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can
inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions can make the answers
deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If
this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under
threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the
Muslim state you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who
can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a
helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British,
who as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to
deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those, who, under the
influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust
through political gimmickry.
Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were
serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic

preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were
treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of Ulema who were an
obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam, in its pristine form,
had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number
of people living in and around Hejaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the
carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is
writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural
centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too
obvious.
If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free
India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life he
can be helped to revival, but if someone is timid and lacks courage, then it is not possible to
help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They
have no fear of God, instead they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with
threats to their existence a figment of their imagination.
After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims.
But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more
than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then India has large
Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth the majority in this country will be interested
to wipe out the Muslims? How will it promote their self interests? Is it so easy to finish 90
million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it
comes to have the largest following in free India.
The world needs both, a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx
and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain
Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact they are more familiar with Islam
and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a
despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of

human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a Messenger who calls to the
worship of God and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic
discriminations and reorganisation of society on three basic principles of God-consciousness,
righteous action and knowledge. In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has
created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions
to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of
Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by
Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the
problems Muslims are facing. In fact it is bound to create more problems.
The Holy Prophet has said, God has made the whole earth a mosque for me. Now do not ask
me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine-crore Muslims were thinly
scattered all over India, and demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure
their majority in one or two regions, that was understandable. Again such a demand would not
have been right from an Islamic viewpoint, but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the
situation, as it exists, is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim
majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations?
By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years
and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of
Hindu Raj. The Hindu Muslim problem that has created political tension between Congress and
League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international
powers this may erupt into full scale war anytime in future.
The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the
Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is
coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about
imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position
to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to
provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them.
Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards, but partition of India cannot

promote their interests. The demand is the politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.
In future India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be
between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not
possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the
interest of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this
impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned
the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This
strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds
of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become
contingent on the partition of India.
Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini
Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had
refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919
he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select
Committee. On 3 October 1925, in a letter to the Times of India he rubbished the suggestion
that Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928, he strongly
favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the National Assembly in 1925, he said, I am a
nationalist first and a nationalist last and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims,
not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution
in the truest sense of the term.
In 1928, Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not
favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies he stressed the
need to work for Hindu Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed
governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the
partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his
response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me,
but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician he has worked overtime to fortify

Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for
him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why
have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather impossible, to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob, but to
suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are
flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow
with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by
imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong.
The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and
righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of
Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and
demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert
all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their
borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations.
How can the unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and
Maulana Husain Ahmad Madni on the subject. In the Quran the term qaum has been used not
only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings
generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of
terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummat [group]? In religious terms India is
home to many people the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs etc. The differences
between Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to
become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and
different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national

independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human
being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.
Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or
regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are
not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them
by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To
them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahabi, Sunni and Shia there
are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like
raising hands during the prayer and saying Amen loudly have created disputes that defy
solution. The Ulema have used the instrument of takfeer [fatwas declaring someone as infidel]
liberally. Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from
the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded
kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mindboggling situations. Even they
had to pass through times of afflictions and trials. The fact is that when reason and intelligence
are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very
difficult.
But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism;
they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion.
History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good
with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless
service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high ranking Prophets were not spared by
these custodians of traditions and customs.