Iqbal’s Unwavering Conviction and the Blight of Nationalism

After the Partition of the subcontinent, the historical realities of this division are undeniable. Attempts to distort historical events by falsifying them or casting aspersions on Iqbal, aiming to mislead younger generations, are as futile as spitting at the moon—it only falls back on the one who tries. Seven decades later, why is Pandit Nehru’s baseless allegation resurfaced—that Iqbal abandoned the concept of Pakistan under the influence of socialism in his final years? Can such accusations alter ground realities to envision a unified India where events like Kashmir and Gujarat continuously torment Muslims? Why, then, accuse Iqbal, who envisioned a sovereign state like Pakistan? And why do we hear this discordant tune echoing simultaneously in both India and Pakistan? Let’s examine history through the lens of truth.

In his book, The Discovery of India, penned in 1944 while he was imprisoned at Ahmednagar Fort, Pandit Nehru praised Iqbal’s contributions as a poet and thinker. However, while acknowledging Iqbal’s intellectual prowess, Nehru remarked that Iqbal was “a poet, scholar, and philosopher with links to the old feudal system.” He further observed:

“Iqbal was among the earliest supporters of Pakistan, but it seems he realized the absurdity and risks inherent in the proposal.”

Edward Thompson also noted that in a conversation, Iqbal expressed regret about supporting Pakistan at a Muslim League session, feeling the concept ultimately harmful for both India and Muslims. Perhaps he had revised his stance or hadn’t initially given the issue much thought, as it was not yet significant. His general philosophy did not align with the later idea of Pakistan or the partition. Toward the end of his life, Iqbal inclined towards socialism. The success of the Soviet Union greatly influenced him, altering the course of his poetry.

However, Nehru’s claim is entirely unfounded. His allegation stems not from ignorance but malice. Even a cursory examination of Iqbal’s poetry, philosophy, and political thought demonstrates that Iqbal was one of the most vocal opponents of the feudal system. Nehru conveniently overlooks a major historical fact: three years before his book, letters written by Iqbal to Quaid-e-Azam, complete with a preface by Jinnah, had already been published. This English-language book likely crossed Nehru’s path and includes a long letter dated May 28, 1937. In it, Iqbal openly critiques Nehru’s “atheistic socialism,” asserting that not only Muslims but even Hindu society would reject it. Iqbal advised Jinnah that if Islamic law were reinterpreted to address modern economic issues, it would better solve the livelihood challenges of the Muslim community. For alleviating Muslim poverty, a separate legislative assembly, ideally within an independent Muslim state, was essential.

The contents of this letter proclaim:

• Iqbal favours Islam’s economic system over Nehru’s “atheistic socialism.”
• Establishing a separate Muslim state is essential for implementing Islam’s economic ideals within a contemporary framework.
• Just months before his death, Iqbal advised Jinnah to make Pakistan’s creation the political agenda of the All-India Muslim League.
• Iqbal urged Jinnah that the time had come to declare Pakistan as their destination.

Nehru deliberately omitted his meeting with Iqbal, three months before Iqbal’s death, when he visited Javed Manzil with Mian Iftikhar Uddin. However, Dr. Ashiq Hussain Batalvi recorded this memorable encounter in his book, The Last Two Years of Iqbal. Dr. Batalvi writes:

“At that time, Nehru was vigorously promoting socialism, having presided over two Indian National Congress sessions. In both, he proclaimed socialism as the remedy for all of India’s woes. Yet, few Congress leaders shared his views; indeed, prominent figures like Sardar Patel, Rajagopalachari, and Satyamurti openly opposed Nehru’s belief. During their meeting, Iqbal asked Nehru, ‘How many Congressmen share your view on socialism?’ Nehru replied, ‘About half a dozen.’ Iqbal then remarked, ‘Surprising. In your party, only half a dozen support you. Yet you ask me to advise Muslims to join Congress? Do you expect me to sacrifice ten crore Muslims for the sake of six people?’ Nehru fell silent.

Another incident occurred during this meeting, which Nehru also chose not to disclose, though Batalvi recorded it…

“The conversation with these two eminent personalities was ongoing when, suddenly, Mian Iftikhar Uddin interrupted and said, ‘Dr. Sahib! Why don’t you become the leader of the Muslims? Muslims respect you more than Mr. Jinnah. If you were to negotiate with Congress on behalf of the Muslims, the outcome might be better.’ Dr. Sahib, who had been lying down, immediately sat up in anger and said in English, ‘Oh, so this is the tactic! You want to flatter me into opposing Mr. Jinnah? Let me make it clear to you: Mr. Jinnah is the true leader of the Muslims, and I am but a humble soldier of his.’ After this, Dr. Sahib fell completely silent, and a tense stillness took over the room. Pandit Nehru quickly sensed that Mian Iftikhar Uddin’s unwelcome intrusion had upset Dr. Sahib, and that it was pointless to continue the conversation further. Thus, they sought permission and departed.

What is surprising is that Nehru conveniently forgot these unforgettable memories yet gave Edward Thompson’s gossip the status of undeniable historical truth. Edward Thompson, a professor of Bengali at Oxford University with an interest in Indian history, had twice visited British India as a correspondent for the Manchester Guardian. He had close ties with Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Rajagopalachari, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru, often actively opposing the Muslim League while leaving no opportunity to support Congress.

The basis of Nehru’s accusations against Iqbal stemmed from an alleged conversation between Edward Thompson and Allama Iqbal. This statement by Thompson contradicts the documented evidence of Iqbal’s letters to Quaid-e-Azam as well as the above-mentioned account of the Iqbal-Nehru meeting. Iqbal remained passionately devoted to the idea of Pakistan until his last breath, tirelessly advocating for its realisation, and advised Muslims that instead of praying for his long life, they should pray for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s long life, as Jinnah alone possessed the ability to steer the nation to its desired shore. It remains unclear why Nehru overlooked these points or deemed them unsuitable for his book, perhaps considering them politically inconvenient or contrary to his ideological beliefs.

نگاہ بلند، سخن دلنواز، جاں پُر سوز
یہی ہے رختِ سفر میرِ کارواں کیلئے

High-minded, kind-hearted, soul-stirring

This is the route for the caravan

Iqbal often said, ‘My Prophet (PBUH) taught us that the best among you is the one with the best

character.’ This is why, despite ideological differences, mutual respect between Allama Iqbal and Pandit Nehru persisted. In 1933, during the Round Table Conference in London, Nehru criticised the behaviour and mindset of Muslim delegates, supporting Gandhi’s perspective. This critique took Iqbal by surprise, as Nehru had not attended the conference, whereas Iqbal had. Gandhi represented Congress at the conference and, upon his return, claimed to have personally accepted all of the Muslims’ demands but accused them of sabotaging the conference due to ‘political backwardness.’ Believing Gandhi, Nehru issued a highly critical statement against the Muslim delegates. To counter Gandhi’s allegations, Allama Iqbal wrote to Nehru, in which his dignified response is worth noting:

‘I have always valued Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s sincerity and straightforwardness. His latest statement in response to the Mahasabha critics reflects this sincerity—a rare quality among today’s Indians. However, it appears that Pandit Ji’s understanding of the delegates’ conduct in the past three Round Table Conferences is somewhat biased.’

After expressing this goodwill, Iqbal candidly revealed the true facts, explaining that while Gandhi had indicated a personal willingness to accept the Muslims’ demands, he had also clarified that he could not guarantee Congress’s approval, nor could he ensure that Congress would ever grant him full authority in this regard. Essentially, Gandhi had dismissed all the Muslim demands. Additionally, Gandhi imposed an unfair condition that Muslims renounce their support for the specific demands of the Dalits, which they refused, thus angering Gandhi.

In his letter, Iqbal raised a pointed question:

‘Given Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s publicly professed socialist ideals, how could he possibly support such a dehumanising condition? At the very least, it does not suit him to accuse Muslims of political regression. In such circumstances, those who understand the communal objectives of the Hindus are justified in concluding that Pandit Ji is an active participant in the communal campaign launched by the Hindu Mahasabha.'”

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s second accusation against the Muslims was that they were opposed to Indian nationalism. In response, Allama Iqbal stated, “If by nationalism, they mean the merging of various religious communities into one in a vital sense, then I am indeed guilty of rejecting this idea of nationalism. I want to ask Pandit Nehru a simple question: How can the issue of India be resolved if the majority nation refuses to accept even the minimal safeguards required by a minority of one hundred million people, which they consider essential for their survival, and does not accept the decision of an impartial mediator, while continuously insisting on a singular nationalism that only serves its own interests? Two outcomes arise from this: either the majority Hindu nation will have to accept that it will remain an agent of British colonial rule in the East forever, or the country will have to be divided in a manner that considers the religious, historical, and cultural circumstances, such that elections and the communal issue in their current form will no longer arise.”

This statement by Allama Iqbal in response to Pandit Nehru was certainly seen by Pandit Ji, and it clearly highlights Iqbal’s progressive, broad-minded, and humanistic approach from beginning to end. This statement does not deny the concept of Pakistan, but rather affirms it. In light of this, Pandit Ji’s claim that Iqbal abandoned his vision of Pakistan after 1930 seems neither based on honesty nor historical truth, but rather as an attempt to cover up historical reality with the veil of bias. Let’s consider some more authentic historical references:

When Pandit Nehru, in Modern Review (Calcutta), welcomed the promotion of nationalism and secularism regarding the situation of the Muslim world, in response, Iqbal also addressed Pandit Ji’s intellectual misguidance in Modern Review (Calcutta), seeking to redirect his thoughts into the right intellectual path. At the beginning of his long article, Iqbal candidly said:

“I do not wish to keep from Pandit Ji and the readers the fact that Pandit Ji’s articles have caused a painful upheaval in my mind. The manner in which he has expressed his thoughts indicates a mindset that, for me, is difficult to attribute to Pandit Ji. He does not like the religious and political stability of the Muslims of India. Indian nationalists, whose political thinking has crushed any sense of reality, are unwilling to accept that the Muslims of north-western India have developed a sense of autonomy.”

Dear readers, please pay attention to Iqbal’s analysis that “Pandit Ji’s political thinking has crushed the sense of reality” — time soon proved this truth. When Pandit Ji finally became aware of the solid realities of South Asian life, he visited Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and began advising him to accept the hard truth — the truth of the creation of Pakistan. Maulana Azad mentioned this in his book India Wins Freedom in the following way:

“After a few days Jawaharlal came to see me again. He began with a long Preamble in which he emphasized that we should not indulge into wishful thinking, but face reality. Ultimately he came to the point and asked me to give up opposition to partition.”

 Through their votes in the 1946 elections, the Muslims of India made the political dreamers of Pandit Nehru and Gandhi realize the realities of life. The demand is that instead of running away from the facts of life, we should look them in the eyes and try our claws on them. In his article under review, Allama Iqbal had expressed his opinion on the question of separate Muslim nationality in a ambivalent manner. Iqbal shed light on the political creed of the Muslims of India in these words:

Islam is confronted when it becomes a political concept and claims to be the fundamental principle of human unity and demands that Islam recede into the background of personal belief and become a vital element in national life. The question of a separate Muslim nationality arises only in countries where Muslims are in the minority and where nationality requires them to erase their identity. In the countries where Muslims are the majority, Islam becomes compatible with nationalism because here Islam and nationalism are practically one and the same thing. I can say with full confidence that the Muslims of India will not become victims of any political ideology that will destroy their cultural unity. We will create harmony in patriotism”.

Allama Iqbal’s belief turned out to be absolutely correct, the Islamic of India eventually proved wrong the political concept of united Indian nationality and established Pakistan through the democratic process. Their cultural unity was secured and thus there was no contradiction between love for Islam and love for the country in Pakistan. Now our religion is Islam and our country is Dar es Salaam and on the other hand you can judge the authenticity of Pandit ji from the fact that in front of the whole world he admitted in writing that he will give the right of self-determination to Kashmiris but himself. He deviated from his writing and this breach of promise has destroyed the illusion of his whole personality. How appropriate is this poem of Allama.

اپنے بھی خفا مجھ سے بیگانے بھی ناخوش
میں زہرِ ہلاہل کو کبھی کہہ نہ سکا قند

He is also unwilling to alienate himself from me

I could never call the poison of the crescent moon sugar

May the name of my Lord be true!