WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
OF
SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN
Compiled and edited by
SHAN MOHAMMAD
Foreword by
RAM GOPAL
NACHIKETA
NACHIKETA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
5 Kasturi Buildings, J. Tata Road,
Bombay 20
14
SPEECH AT THE FOUNDING OF THE
ANGLO-ORIENTAL COLLEGE
Sir Syed gave a speech at the Public Dinner in Honour of the
foundation of the Mahomedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh,
at the Aligarh Institute Hall on 8th January 1877. Friends and
admirers of Syed Ahmad drank the toast of his health with great
pleasure and enthusiasm and the English gentlemen while doing
so sung merrily. In reply Syed Ahmad made the following speech.
The enthusiasm with which you have drunk my health, fills
me with feelings of a mixed nature. I feel obliged to you for the
great honour you have done me; I feel sincerely happy that the
events of to-day have passed off well, but along with these
feelings there is a consciousness that I am neither worthy of the
honour you have done me, nor that the success which the
Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College has hitherto secured, is due
to my exertions to the extent you imagine. But, gentlemen, there
is one thing which I admit sincerely, and without any hesitation,
and that is, that the College of which the foundation-stone has
been laid to-day, has been for many years the main object of my
life. Ever since I first began to think of social questions in British
India, it struck me with peculiar force that there was a want
of genuine sympathy and community of feeling between the two
races whom Providence has placed jn such close relation in this
country. I often asked myself how it was that a century of
English rule had not brought the natives of this country closer
to those in whose hands Providence had placed the guidance of
public affairs. For a whole century and more, you gentlemen,
have lived in the country in which we have lived; you have
breathed the same air, you have drunk the same water, you have
lived upon the same crops as have given nourishment to millions
Speech at the Founding of the Anglo-Oriental College 129
of your Indian fellow subjects. Yet the absence of social intercourse, which is implied by the word friendship, between the
English and the natives of this country, has been most deplorable.
And whenever I have considered the causes to which this unsatisfactory state of things is due, I have invariably come to .the
conclusion that the absence of community of feeling between
the two races, was due to the absence of the community of ideas
and the community of interests. And, gentlemen, I felt equally
certain that so long as this state of things continued, the
Mussalmans of India could make no progress under the English
rule. It then appeared to me that nothing could remove these
obstacles to progress but education. And education, in its fullest
sense, has been the object in furthering which I have spent the
most earnest moments of my life, and employed the best energies that lay within my humble power. (Applause.) Yes, the
college is an outcome to a certain extent of my humble efforts,
but there are other handsr whose existence has not only been
most valuable but absolutely essential, to the success of .the
undertaking. And I feel sure that the honour of the successes
due to them, rather than to me. But gentlemen, the personal
honour which you have done me to-night assures me of a great
fact, and fills me with feelings of a much higher nature than
mere personal gratitude. I am assured that you, who upon this
occasion represent the British rule, have sympathies with our
labours. And to me this assurance is very valuable, and a source
of great happiness. At my time of life, it is a great comfort to
me to feel that the undertaking which has been for many years,
and is now, the sole object of my life,vhas roused on one hand
the energies of my own countrymen, and on the other, it has
won the sympathy of our British fellow-subjects, and the support
of our rulers; so that when the few years I may still be spared
are over, and when I shall be no longer amongst you, the college
will still prosper and succeed in educating my countrymjen to
have the same affection for their country, the same feelings of
loyalty for the British rule, the same appreciation of its blessings,
the same sincerity of friendship with our British fellow-subjects
as have been the ruling feelings of my life. (Cheers.) Gentlemen,
I thank you again for the honour you have done me, and sincerely
reciprocate the good wishes you have so kindly expressed this
evening. (Loud Cheers.)
34
ON WAHABISM
Letter of Sir Syed sent to the editor of the Pioneer from Benares,
on 31 March 187.1 regarding the misconception prevailing in the
English circles about Wahabism.
Dear Sir,—It is to be regretted that certain Anglo-Indian journals
have misinterpreted the Futwa alluded to in your article of
to-day's issue, and have deduced therefrom that Mohammedans
in India would be justified in waging war against our Government were the prospects of success certain.
As a staunch well-wisher of the British Government, and at
the same time as a well-wisher to true Wahabeeism, I venture
to claim the indulgence of space for these few lines in your next
issue. It may shock some of my worthy friends to see me standing
forth as the friend of Wahabeeism, but I trust they will acquit
me from the imputation of being a Wahabee in the sense of
being a Wahabee conspirator. Wahabeeism as exemplified by
certain misguided men in India, is not Wahabeeism at all; and
those who are really guilty of conspiring against Government are
not acting up to the principles of their religious tenets. I say
"really guilty" advisedly, as I have no doubt in my own mind
that some persons, whose names I do not like to mention, were
falsely imputed with such charges through the enmity and spite
of certain parties. The true nature of the Wahabee case now
pending in the Patna Court is unknown to me.
As regards the portion of the Futwa above alluded to, as having
been misinterpreted by the Englishman and other journals, t will
now say a few words. The learned Moulavis, under whose
authority the Futwa has been given out, declare Jehad against
Government to be unlawful and unwarranted by the Moham-
238
Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan
medan religion, and in support of their verdict they quote the
following precepts:
I. Mohammedans who live under the protection of a Government professing a different faith, are not justified in declaring a
religious war against it.
II. When there exists a treaty or peace between Mohammedans
and some other people of a different religion, Jehad against the
latter is unlawful.
III. Jehad is allowable when there is every probability of
victory to Mohammedans and glory to Islam.
It is the last which has caused the mistake into which AngloIndian journals have fallen, which has made them opine that
were the Mohammedans strong enough to cqpe with the British,
those in India would be justified in rising in rebellion against
Government. This is a perfectly erroneous interpretation of the
clause in question. Its real meaning is that when of two independent kingdoms, the one being a Mohammedan, the other of
a different faith, when there is no treaty between the two, and
when in the non-Mohammedan country Mohammedans are illtreated and are interdicted from preaching their religion, then
the followers of Mohammed are enjoined to consider their
strength and chances of success; and should they deem the latter
likely, they are then to draw the sword for the glory and welfare
of Islam. For example, should the king of Persia think his chances
of success against the Russian Emperor good, should that Emperor
ill-treat Mohammedans, he would be justified, according to his
religion, in declaring war at once. This not being the case, he is
justified in remaining quiet. The Mohammedans in India are, as
shown in the Futwa, in no way justified in engaging in any project
having for its object the subversion of the English Government.
They have perfect freedom of speech, and no one interferes with
their religion; and even were their religion interfered with, their
proper course, according to the Mohammedan religion, would be
to leave the country and not to rebel against Government.
As regards the Wahabees in India, as far as my experience
goes, their principles are identical with those of other Mohammedans as regards the unlawfulness of a Jehad against our
Government. In 1857 when Bakht Khan1 was in Delhi, and
i The dominating figure of the revolt and the leader of the Central government at Delhi.
On Wahabism
239
endeavoured to compel the Moulavis of that city to issue a Futwa,
declaring a jehad against the British Government lawful, two
persons, both Wahabees, boldly opposed him, backed up though
he was by the bayonets of his soldiery. One of these was a famous
Moulavi holding an influential position in Delhi. Again, only
one Wahabee joined the rebels during the Mutiny, and he was
forced to do so. I dare say I shall not be believed in my statement
that true Wahabeeism is not inimical to our Government, and I
have no doubt that many people will abuse me for my Wahabee
proclivities. By the English I shall be suspected as an intriguer,
and by many of my ignorant fellow-countrymen I shall be condemned as a well-wisher to the Government, as one who lends
his name and authority towards checking all unlawful (though
in their eyes lawful) and ambitious schemes. I am prepared for
—am indeed perfectly accustomed to—being misunderstood by
both. Such has been niy lot now for many years.
In conclusion, I will only say that I trust the Patna trial will
be closely watched both by the Government and by the public.
If the prisoners are really guilty of the offence with which they
are charged, they have been guilty of a great crime against society
and against the true principles of their religion. Let their punishment be sharp and severe. Government, however, must bear in
mind that the sects called Wahabees and Bidaties2 are bitter
enemies, that their feelings towards one another are as bitter
as were those of the Roman Catholics towards the Protestants
in the days of the Reformation; and that it is therefore not at all
improbable in this land of intrigue that false charges have been
laid against innocent men, and that hundreds of false witnesses
will testify to their guilt.
Syed Ahmed
Benares, 31st March 1871.
2 The creators of new ideas and things in religion which is not certified
by Quran and Hadees.
35
THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
Badruddin Tyabji persuaded Sir Syed to join the Indian National
Congress, but he refused to join it. Replying to Badruddin Tyabji
he wrote the following letter.
Sir,—I read in your paper, dated April 2nd, a letter from my
distinguished friend Mr Badruddin Tyabji, about the National
Congress. I think it fit that I should myself write a reply to it,
and I ask you to be so good as to give it a place in your valuable
columns. I was very glad to learn that when my distinguished
friend honoured the Madras Congress by becoming its President,
he "rigidly excluded all questions which were merely of a provincial character, or in regard to which the three Presidencies
were not practically agreed, or where the Hindus were opposed
to the Mussalmans as a body, or vice versa." On my own behalf
and on behalf of very many of our mutual co-religionists I thank
him for this proceeding. I also agree with him in this—"that the
Congress could not be rightly termed a National Congress where
any particular resolution could be carried against trie unanimous
protest of either the Hindu or Mussalman delegate." But I go
further: I first of all object to the word "delegate". I assure my
friend that of the Mohammedans who went from the NorthWestern Provinces and Oudh, there is not one to whom the
word "delegate" can be applied. I know well the condition of
my own Province. Not ten Mohammedans came together to elect
any one of those Mohammedans who went. In those districts from
which they went there were not among the Raises and influential
Mohammedans, nor among the middle classes, ten men who knew
what the National Congress was, nor who had elected whom.
Four days ago, a Mohammedan of liberal views, who went to
Madras as a delegate, boasted that his glory lay in this: that the
The Indian National Congress
241
Hindus, and not the Mohammedans, had elected him. Then how
inappropriate and absurd to apply the word "delegate* to
Mohammedans under such circumstances? Secondly, I object to
the implication that the only condition under which the Congress
cannot be termed "national" is if any resolution be carried against
the unanimous protest of either the Hindu or the Mohammedan
members. The fact of any resolution being carried unanimously
does not make the Congress a "national" one. A Congress can
only be called "national" when the ultimate aims and objects
of the people of which it is composed are identical. My distinguished friend himself admits that some of the aims and objects
of Mohammedans are different from those of Hindus, while some
are similar; and he desires that the Congress should put aside
those in which they differ and confine itself to those in
which they agree. But under these circumstances how can
the Congress be a National Congress ? Moreover, ftiy friend
has not pointed out what plan both sides should adopt for
accomplishing those aims on which Hindus and Mohammedans
differ. Should Mohammedans and Hindus each haVfc their owii
Congress for their special objects in which they differ from one
another? If so, as their aims are conflicting and contradicting,
these two Congresses will go on fighting each either to the death;
but when they meet in that Congress which my friends call the
National Congress, they will then say: "No doubt you are my
nation; no doubt you are my brother; no doubt your aims and
my aims are one. How do you do, my brother? Now we are
united on one point."
I ask my friends honestly to say whether out of two such
nations whose aims and objects are different, but who happen to
agree in some small points, a "National" Congress can be
created? No. In the name of God—No. I thank my friend for
inducing the twelve Standing Committees to sanction the rule
"that any subject to which the Mussalman delegates object, unanimously or nearly unanimously, must be excluded from all
discussion in the Congress." But I again object to the word
"delegate", and would suggest that instead of that word be substituted "Mussalman taking part in the Congress." But if this
principle which he has laid down in his letter and on which he
acted when President, be fully carried out, I wonder what there
will be left for the Congress to discuss. Those questions on which
242
Writings and Speeches of Syed Ahmad Khan
Hindus and Mohammedans can unite, and on which they
ought to unite, and concerning which it is my earnest desire that
they should unite, are social questions. We are both desirous that
peace should reign in the country, that we two nations should
live in a brotherly manner, that we should help and sympathise
with one another, that we should bring pressure to bear, each
on his own people, to prevent the arising of religious quarrels,
that we should improve our social condition, and that we should
try to remove that animosity which is every day increasing between
the two communities. The questions on which we can agree are
purely social. If the Congress had been made for these objects,
then I would myself have been its President, and relieved x my
friend from the troubles which he incurred. But the Congress
is a political Congress, and there is no one of its fundamental
principles, and especially that one for which it was in reality
founded, to which Mohammedans are not opposed.
We may be right or we may be wrong; but there is no Mohammedan, from the shoemaker to the Rais who would like that the
ring of slavery should be put oh us by that other nation with
whom we live. Although in the present time we have fallen to
a very low position, and there is every probability we shall sink
daily lower (especially when even our friend Badruddin Tyabji
thinks it an honour to be President of the Congress), and certainly
we shall be contented with our destiny, yet we cannot consent to
work for our own fall. I ask my friend Badruddin Tyapbji to leave
aside those insignificant points in the proposals of the Congress
in which Hindus and MoKammedans agree (for there are no things
in the world which have no points in\ common—there are many
things in common between a man and a pig), and to tell me what
fundamental political principles of the Congress are not opposed
to the interests of Mohammedans. The first is that members of the
Viceroy's Council should be chosen by election, on which stress
was laid in the recent Congress of Madras, over which our friend
Badruddin Tyabji presided. I proved in my Lucknow Speech that
whatever system of election be adopted, there will be four times
as many Hindus as Mohammedans, and all their demands will be
gratified, and the power of legislation over the whole country will
be in the hands of Bengalis or of Hindus of the Bengali type, and
the Mohammedans will fall into a condition of utmost degradation. Many people have heaped curses and abuses on me on account
The Indian National Congress
243
of my Lucknow Speech; but no one, one even my friend Badruddin
Tyabji, has answered it. Whether the Bengali demands be right
or wrong, I do not like to see my nation fall into this degraded
condition; and at any rate I do not wish to join in proposals
which will have this result. If I were not afraid of making fliis
letter too long, I would discuss all the principles of the Congress
in detail, and point out that they are all opposed to the interests of
Mohammedans, and would bring them loss. But I will state briefly that as a general rule all political questions which can be
discussed are dangerous and prejudicial to the interests of Mohammedans, and that they should take part in no political Congress.
Leaving this aside, it is not expedient that Mohammedans should
take part in proceedings like that of the Congress, which holds
meetings in various places in which people accuse Government
before crowds of common men of withholding their rights from
her subjects, and the result of which can only be that ignorant and
foolish men will believe Government to be tyrannical or at
least unjust. They will suffer greater misfortunes from doing so
than the Hindus and the Bengalis. What took place in the
Mutiny? The Hindus began it; the Mohammedans with their
eager disposition rushed into it. The Hindus having bathed in the
Ganges became as they were before. But the Mohammedans and
all their noble families were ruined. This is the result which
will befall Mohammedans from taking part in political agitation.
In America first this kind of political agitation began. By degrees
the minds of men grew more excited. The last words which came
from their mouths were "no taxation without representation".
Let those people who have the strength to say and act on these
words join the Congress and the political agitation. If they join
it without this strength, it is but the clapping of impotent
hands. We have not that strength. The Bengalis and those
obscure Mohammedans who joined it at Madras may possess such
strength. For them it may be a blessing; but the participation
in it by our nation would be for us a curse.