The Wisdom of Wise Iqbal

In the wake of the partition of the Indian subcontinent, attempting to distort historical facts by painting falsehoods and malevolence into real historical events to mislead the new generation and create disillusionment with Iqbal is as futile as spitting at the moon, only for it to fall back on one’s own face. Eight decades after the partition, why is it that Pandit Nehru’s baseless allegation against Iqbal is being reiterated—that “Iqbal, under the influence of socialism towards the end of his life, renounced the idea of Pakistan”? Can such accusations alter the reality on the ground to the extent of re-establishing an undivided India where atrocities like those in Kashmir and Gujarat are inflicted upon Muslims daily? Why is Iqbal, who envisioned a state like Pakistan, being implicated in such accusations? And why is this absurd tune being played simultaneously in both India and Pakistan? Let’s peer into the world of facts through the window of history.

Pandit Nehru, in his book The Discovery of India, which he wrote in 1944 while imprisoned in Ahmednagar Fort, praised Iqbal as a poet and philosopher. However, while paying tribute to Iqbal, he also remarked that Iqbal “was a poet, scholar, and philosopher, but was attached to the old feudal system.” Pandit Nehru further wrote:

“Iqbal was one of the early supporters of Pakistan, but it seems he later realized the absurdity and dangers inherent in this proposal. Edward Thompson wrote that during a meeting, Iqbal mentioned that while he had supported Pakistan as President of a Muslim League session, he was convinced that this proposal was harmful to India as a whole, particularly to Muslims.

Perhaps he changed his mind or had not thought deeply about the issue earlier because it had not gained much importance at that time. His general worldview was not in harmony with the idea of Pakistan or the partition of India that emerged later. Towards the end of his life, Iqbal’s inclination increasingly leaned towards socialism. The tremendous success of the Soviet Union greatly influenced him, and his poetry took a new direction.”

Pandit Nehru’s allegation is entirely baseless; it stems not from ignorance but from ill intent. Even those who have only a superficial understanding of Iqbal’s poetry, philosophy, and politics would testify that no greater enemy of the feudal system can be found than Iqbal. The most significant historical oversight made by Pandit Nehru was forgetting that three years before his book was published, letters from Iqbal to Quaid-e-Azam, accompanied by a preface from the latter, had already been published. This English book had surely crossed Pandit Nehru’s eyes. Among the letters included is a long one dated May 28, 1937, where Iqbal discusses Nehru’s “godless socialism” and explains that not only Muslims, but even Hindu society would never accept “godless socialism.” In rejecting Nehru’s socialism, Iqbal informed Quaid-e-Azam that if Islamic law were reinterpreted in light of modern economic theories, the issue of bread and employment for the Muslim masses could be better addressed. To relieve Muslims from the torment of poverty, it was also necessary to have a separate legislative assembly for Muslims, which could only be established in an independent state rather than a united India. The contents of this letter clearly articulate the following:

First: Iqbal prefers Islam’s economic system over Jawaharlal Nehru’s “godless socialism.”

Second: Establishing a separate Muslim state is essential to implement Islam’s economic system within the context of the modern age.

Third: Just a few months before his death, Iqbal was advising Quaid-e-Azam to make the creation of Pakistan the political program of the All-India Muslim League.

Fourth: At the end of the letter, Iqbal asks Quaid-e-Azam whether the time has come for them to openly declare the establishment of Pakistan as their goal.

Pandit Nehru, deliberately, did not find it appropriate to mention the pleasant memories of his meeting with Allama Iqbal at Javed Manzil three months before Iqbal’s death, where he was accompanied by Mian Iftikhar ud din. However, this meeting has been documented by Dr. Ashiq Hussain Batalvi in his book Iqbal Ke “A’akhri Do Saal” (last two years). Batalvi writes:

“Pandit Nehru was actively promoting socialism at that time. He had presided over two sessions of the Indian National Congress, and in both his presidential speeches, he had stated that socialism was the cure for all of India’s ills. However, none of the major Congress leaders shared Pandit Nehru’s belief; in fact, Sardar Patel, Rajagopalachari, and Satyamurti openly disagreed with his views. During the meeting, Dr. Iqbal asked Pandit Nehru how many people in the Congress shared his views on socialism. Pandit Nehru replied, ‘About half a dozen.’ Dr. Iqbal remarked, ‘It’s surprising that in your own party, only half a dozen people share your views, and yet you ask me to advise Muslims to join the Congress. Should I throw ten million Muslims into the fire for the sake of six people?’ Pandit Nehru remained silent.”

During this same meeting, another unpleasant incident occurred, which Pandit Ji also chose not to share with the public, though Batalvi Sahib did document it:

“While the conversation was still ongoing between these two esteemed individuals, Mian Iftikhar ud din suddenly interjected and said, ‘Doctor Sahib! Why don’t you become the leader of the Muslims? Muslims respect you more than Mr. Jinnah. If you negotiate with the Congress on behalf of the Muslims, the outcome will be better.’ Dr. Iqbal, who was lying down, immediately got up in anger upon hearing this and said in English, ‘So, this is the trick—you want to flatter me and pit me against Mr. Jinnah? Let me tell you, Mr. Jinnah is the true leader of the Muslims, and I am merely one of his humble soldiers.’ After this, Dr. Iqbal fell silent, and a tense silence filled the room. Pandit Nehru quickly realized that Mian Iftikhar ud din’s inappropriate interruption had angered Dr. Iqbal, and further conversation would be futile, so he asked for permission to leave and departed.

It is surprising that Pandit Nehru easily forgot these unforgettable memories but gave Edward Thompson’s gossip the status of undeniable historical truth. Edward Thompson was a professor of Bengali at Oxford University and had an academic interest in Indian history. He had also visited British India twice as a correspondent for the British newspaper, the Manchester Guardian. He had close friendships with Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Rajagopalachari, Sardar Patel, and Jawaharlal Nehru, and was always active in opposing the Muslim League while never missing an opportunity to passionately advocate for the Congress.

The narrative Pandit Nehru used to accuse Iqbal was based on a verbal conversation between Edward Thompson and Allama Iqbal. However, Thompson’s statement is proven false when compared with the documentary evidence of Iqbal’s letters to Quaid-e-Azam mentioned earlier, along with the details of the above-mentioned meeting between Iqbal and Nehru. Until the end of his life, Iqbal remained devoted to the idea of Pakistan and wished to see its realization. He remained an active and dedicated soldier of Quaid-e-Azam, advising Indian Muslims to pray not for his life but for the long life of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, as only Jinnah had the ability to steer the nation’s ship to the shore of success. It is unknown why these facts slipped from Pandit Ji’s mind, or why he found it inconvenient to record them in his book, perhaps considering them as unpleasant or contradicting his political ideology:

نگاہ  بلند،سخن دلنواز، جاں پرسوز

یہی ہے رختِ سفر میرِ کارواں کیلئے

High ambitions, pleasing speech, a soul filled with fervour,
This is the baggage of the journey for the leader of the caravan.

The reason for this was simply that Allama Iqbal always emphasized that the Holy Prophet ﷺ said that the best among you is the one with the best manners. Therefore, despite ideological differences, a mutual respect always existed between Allama Iqbal and Pandit Nehru. Pandit Nehru had criticized the Muslim delegates’ behaviour during the Round Table Conference in London in 1933. Iqbal, who attended the conference, was astonished at Nehru’s criticism in support of Gandhi’s stance because Nehru was not even present at the conference—Gandhi had represented the Congress. Upon returning, Gandhi claimed that he had personally accepted all of the Muslims’ demands but that Muslims had failed the conference due to their political conservatism. Nehru, influenced by Gandhi’s words, issued an extremely harsh political statement against the Muslim delegates. In response, Allama Iqbal wrote a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru refuting Gandhi’s allegations, where he demonstrated his own moral high ground:

“I have always valued Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s sincerity and candour. His recent statement in response to objections from the Hindu Mahasabha is full of sincerity, and this is a rare quality among modern-day Indians. However, it seems that Pandit Ji’s inquiry into the conduct of the delegates at the Round Table Conferences held in London over the past three years is based on a certain bias.” After expressing this optimism, Allama Iqbal revealed the actual circumstances, stating that “Gandhi Ji did indicate that he personally accepted the Muslims’ demands, but he also made it clear that he could not guarantee that the Congress Executive Committee would also accept them, nor could he assure that Congress would ever be willing to grant him full authority regarding these demands. In effect, Gandhi Ji rejected all the Muslims’ demands. Gandhi Ji’s other unfair condition was that the Muslims should withdraw their support for the untouchables’ specific demands, but the Muslims refused to abandon their support for the untouchables, which angered Gandhi Ji.”

In this letter, Iqbal raised the question: Given his publicly stated socialist beliefs, how could Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru support such an inhumane condition? At the very least, it did not befit him to accuse Muslims of political conservatism. In this context, those who understand the sectarian goals of the Hindus would be justified in concluding that Pandit Ji was an active participant in the Hindu Mahasabha’s campaign against sectarian decisions.”

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s second accusation against Muslims was that they were opposed to Indian nationalism. In response, Allama Iqbal remarked, “If by nationalism he means merging different religious communities into one in a biological sense, then I am indeed guilty of denying this concept of nationalism. I want to ask Pandit Nehru a simple question: how can the issue of India be resolved as long as the majority nation refuses to accept the minimum safeguards of ten crore Muslims, which they consider necessary for their survival, or does not accept the decision of an arbitrator, and instead keeps insisting on a singular nationality that only benefits themselves? There are only two possibilities: either the majority Indian nation must admit that they will remain forever agents of British imperialism in the East, or the country must be divided in such a way, considering its religious, historical, and cultural circumstances, that the question of elections and communal issues no longer arises in its present form.”

Allama Iqbal’s response to Pandit Nehru’s accusation must surely have caught Pandit Nehru’s attention, as it clearly reflects Iqbal’s progressive, broad-minded, and humane stance from beginning to end. This statement is not a negation of the idea of Pakistan but rather a confirmation of it. In this context, Pandit Nehru’s claim that Iqbal abandoned his idea of Pakistan after 1930 does not seem to be based on honesty but rather on an attempt to obscure historical truth with bias. Let us turn to some authentic historical references for further clarification.

When Pandit Nehru welcomed the rise of secularism and nationalism in the Islamic world in three articles published in “Modern Review (Calcutta),” Iqbal responded by addressing Pandit Nehru’s intellectual errors in the same journal. In the opening of his lengthy article, Iqbal candidly stated:

“I do not wish to conceal from Pandit Nehru or the readers that his articles have stirred a painful agitation within me. The way in which he has expressed his thoughts suggests a mentality that is difficult for me to attribute to Pandit Nehru. He harbours no goodwill towards the religious and political stability of the Muslims of India. Indian nationalists, whose political idealism has crushed their sense of reality, cannot tolerate the emergence of self-determination among the Muslims of Northwest India.”

Readers should take note of Iqbal’s analysis that “Pandit Nehru’s political idealism has crushed his sense of reality,” which was soon proven true when Pandit Nehru finally came to terms with the hard realities of the subcontinent’s life and advised Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to accept the reality of Pakistan’s creation. Maulana Azad mentioned this in his book “India Wins Freedom”:

“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 in wishful thinking but face reality. Ultimately, he came to the point and asked me to give up opposition to partition.”

The reality that the Muslims of India made clear to Pandit Nehru and Gandhi’s political idealists through their votes in the 1944 elections was something Iqbal had drawn Nehru’s attention to years earlier. Iqbal had said, “Political wisdom requires that instead of fleeing from the realities of life, we should face them head-on and grapple with them.” In his article, Iqbal also expressed his views on the question of separate Muslim nationality with great clarity.

Iqbal highlighted the political stance of the Muslims of India with these words: “Islam is confronted when it becomes a political concept and claims to be the fundamental principle of human unity, demanding that it be relegated to the background of personal belief and no longer remain a vital element in national life. The question of separate Muslim nationality arises only in countries where Muslims are in a minority and where nationality demands that they obliterate their identity. In countries where Muslims are in the majority, Islam aligns with nationality because, in reality, Islam and nationality are the same thing. I can say with absolute certainty that the Muslims of India will not fall prey to any political idealism that would destroy their cultural unity. If their cultural unity is preserved, we can trust that they will harmonize religion and patriotism.”

Iqbal’s absolute certainty proved correct, as the Muslims of India ultimately demonstrated the fallacy of the concept of united Indian nationality by establishing Pakistan through democratic means. Their cultural unity was preserved, and thus in Pakistan, there remained no contradiction between love for Islam and love for the homeland. Now, our religion is Islam, and our homeland is Dar-ul-Islam. On the other hand, one can gauge the truth of Pandit Nehru’s character by his written promise to grant the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, which he later reneged on, exposing the facade of his entire personality. Allama Iqbal’s couplet is apt for this situation:

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

Friends turned away, and foes were displeased as well,

I could never call deadly poison a sweet confection.”

In the end, all praise is due to my Lord, who is the ultimate truth!