Today is our topic of discussion Abul Mansur Ahmad .
Abul Mansur Ahmad
Abul Mansur Ahmad was born in 1898 in the village of Dhanikhola in Mymensingh district. His ancestors were poor peasants who accepted Islam when Maulana Enayet Ali (1800-1872) had come to Dhanikhola around 1827-28,1 Some of the members of his family had joined the fundamentalist movement around the second quarter of the nineteenth century but they were not the followers of Hazi Shariatullah (1781-1840) or his son Dudu Miah (1819-1862).
Although they had participated in the religious reform movement, they hated to be called Wahhabis or Faraizis because they belonged to none of these groups.3 Abul Mansur Ahmad’s ancestors got the title Farazi, as they claimed, by their conversion to Islam through which they had accepted the Farz, ie, the rules of the Quran 4 Like his ancestors, Abul Mansur Ahmad was a believer of reformist Islam.
He was a follower of the Ahl-i-Hadith sect.5 Like the reformist Muslims he disliked the non-Islamic practices so prevalent among Muslims in rural Bengal. Owing to influence of Sufi-ism and the Bhakti movement, Islam, in rural Bengal, could not retain its pristine quality.
Syncretism of Islamic mysticism and indigenous cultural and religious elements among the Muslim masses in Bengal was, therefore, a prominent phenomenon since the medieval period. Muslims in urban Bengal, who were very few in number and who claimed to be of foreign descent, considered themselves ashrafs, i.e. the nobility or the upper castes.
Caste distinction is prohibited in Islam but in practice the Muslim society was divided into two broad categories, the ashraf – and the atrap. The atraps were rural Muslims, who spoke Bengali and were originally converted from Hinduism. The ashrafs guarded against the intrusion of un-Islamic or indigenous elements in their culture.
They prided in speaking Persian and Urdu and shunned Bengali, while the so-called atra ps spoke Bengali and practiced a culture which was folk in every respect. These were strong features of the Muslim society in Bengal in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Abul Mansur Ahmad was brought up in this atmosphere.Family links with the Islamic reformist movements had strongly implanted in him a hatred for syncretism.
Folk culture in Bengal was characteristically syncretic of Hindu rituals, pagan practices and Sufi and Bhakti mysticism. Abul Mansur Ahmad was vehemently against such practices in Islam. At the same time a very strong awareness of being a Muslim worked in him. He, therefore, progressed quite naturally, towards his belief of Muslims as a separate identity.
His political ideology was guided by this particular feeling. He believed Muslims had separate culture and a distinctive linguistic identity. But, it must be pointed out that Abul Mansur Ahmad was not free from contradictions or inconsistencies.
The very first inconsistency can be evidenced from the fact that he received both Islamic and English education.
Born in a family of fundamentalists who were essentially anti-British, it was unusual for Abul Mansur Ahmad to receive English education.6 In his childhood he experienced cultural segregation and a clear expression of exclusiveness from the Hindus.7 He passed the Matriculation in 1917 and got admitted to Jagannath College in Dhaka. In 1919 he passed the Intermediate Examinations and studied Philosophy at Dhaka College.
Only a few months before his Bachelors examination he got involved in the Khilafat and the non-co-operation movement and decided to give up college. However, he took the Bachelors examination and studied Law at Ripon College, Calcutta from 1926 to 1929.8 He stayed in Mymensingh from 1929 to 1938 and practised as a lawyer. But, soon he gave up his practice and began to work as a journalist. Abul Mansur Ahmad was known as a journalist and as a politician.
From 1938 until 1950 he stayed in Calcutta and worked as a journalist 10 During these years he worked in the Krishak, the Navajoog12 and the Ittehad. 13 Earlier, he had worked in the Soltan14 and the Mohammadi. 15 At the same time he was whole-heartedly involved in politics.
He had joined the Khilafat movement in 1919 but not without doubts about the practicality of the movement in India. He also questioned whehter Swaraj could be obtained through non-co-operation or whether the Caliphate could be protected by the Khilafat movement.
He was unhappy about Gandhi’s idea of Swaraj and his strategy of non-co-operation. At this stage Swaraj meant similar to a state of Dominion Status for India. Abul Mansur Ahmad was not happy either about dyarchy which was introduced by the Government of India Act of 1919. The years between 1915 and 1920 was the formative period of Abul Mansur Ahmad’s social and political ideas.
He had read Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore’s writings and had also read Bankimchandra Chatterjee, Michael Madhushudan Dutt, Saratchandra Chatterjee, Thomas Hardy, George Eliot, Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, Turganov, Dostoevosky and others 18 He disliked the writings of Bankimchandra Chatterjee for being anti-Muslim 19 and criticized Rabindranath Tagore for not being very didactic 20 By 1922 he formed his own opinion that art should not be just for art’s sake.
After the end of the Khilafat fervour around 1923, Abul Mansur Ahmad got involved in Congress politics. Further inconsistency can be noticed from the fact that ideologically he supported the so-called “no- Changers” but in practice he supported C.R. Das (1870-1925) and the Swarjists, as he himself admitted, only because he was then working in the Soltan in association with Moniruzzaman Islamabadi (1875-1950) who was a staunch supporter of C.R. Das 22 Abul Mansur Ahmad, however,
supported the provisions of the Bengal Pact, 1923 and criticized the Congress leaders who opposed C.R. Das in his attempt to forge a Hindu- Muslim unity through the Pact.
By the end of 1928 most Muslim members had left the Congress on the controversy over Nehru Report (September, 1928) which had rejected separate electorates and discarded reservation of seats in Muslim majority provinces. Abul Mansur Ahmad joined the All-Bengal Proja Samiti in 1929 and concentrated on organizing the branch of the Samiti in Mymensingh but did not leave Congress.
He was Vice-President of the Mymensingh district Congress around 1932-33.24 He was credited as an efficient organizer of the Proja Samiti. Since he did not leave Congress it was suspected that he was an agent of the left-wing in the Congress and was acting behind disturbances which took place between the peasants and the zamindars.
But he denied such allegations and admitted that the Kishan Sabhas and Kishan Samitis organized by the left-wing in the Congress were ultra-leftists and were inappropriate in respect of the peasants’ demands in Bengal.
While the Congress left-wingers criticized the Proja Samiti of being a jotedar (petty landlord or a kulak) movement, the Proja Samiti criticized the leaders of the Kishan Sabhas and Kishan Samitis of obstructing the anti-zamindar movement. During these years Abul Mansur Ahmad was in the Congress, in the Bengal Provincial Muslim League and in the Proja Samiti.
When in 1935 Jinnah came to Bengal to revive the Muslim League Party, the Bengal Provincial Muslim League was under the leadership of the Congress Muslims.27 The Proja Samiti had gained popularity in Bengal and Fazlul Huq (1873-1962) had exploited it’s popularity for his victory in the elections of 1937. Fazlul Huq had changed the name of Proja Samiti to Krishak Proja Party in 1936.
Abul Mansur Ahmad was serious about Krishak Proja Party victory in the 1937 elections. It was when the Congress declined to form coalition with the Krishak Proja Party in 1937 on the question of the release of political prisoners and as a result coalition had to be formed with the Muslim League that Abul Mansur Ahmad broke up with the Congress.
By 1940, Muslim League had passed a resolution at Lahore in March, 1940 which put up the demand for the creation of Pakistan. The Muslim League government had already become popular among Muslims in Bengal by passing the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act (1938), The Agricultural Debtor’s Act (1938) and the Money Lender’s Act (1940).
The peasants were more or less happy with the abolition of landlord’s transfer fee, the right of pre-emption, the right to realize rent by certificate procedure and the realization of abwabs (illegal exactions) on tenants. The rate of interest on arrears of rent was reduced from 12% % to 6% % and the enhancement of rents of tenure holders and ryots by the landlords was also suspended for ten years. Debt Settlement Boards were set up throughout the province under the Agricultural Debtors’ Act.
The Money Lenders Bill (1940) had made it obligatory for all mahajans (money lenders) to obtain trade licences. The Act also fixed the rate of interest 28 It seemed now that these demands were met, there remained little justification for the existence of the Krishak Proja Party. Muslim League became popular in Bengal since the Huq ministry had in reality become a Muslim League ministry.29 This was the period of groping for Abul Mansur Ahmad.30 He could not agree completely either with the Muslim League or the Congress ideology.
He had worked for the Krishak Proja Party but now that the party had lost its former popularity Abul Mansur Ahmad had only one trump card left to renew its lost credibility and that was to demand for the abolition of zamindari without compensation. 31 He, therefore, began to maintain liaison in this respect with the Congress Socialists, the Kishan Sabha and the Communists.32 It must be mentioned here that Abul Mansur Ahmad did not believe in communist ideologically.
Besides, he was himself much aware of his identity as a Muslim. This awareness of a separate Muslim identity had always worked strongly in him. He gradually got inclined to Muslim League,33 But, he was still a nationalist Muslim at this stage,34 Soon he was convinced with the proposals of the Lahore Resolution (March, 1940) and by 1943 he had started to support the demand for Pakistan.35 He joined the East Pakistan Renaissance Society in 1942 and advocated in favour of the creation of Pakistan.
At the conference of the society in May 1944 he said that Pakistan was a demand for cultural autonomy and stressed that cultural autonomy was far more essential than national independence. The demand for Pakistan was not just a communal demand of the Muslims but also a demand of a cultural minority of India 36 He stressed that the Muslims of India were definitely a separate nation from the Hindus.
But, he pointed out at the same time, that the Muslims of Bengal were a separate nation from the Muslims of the North western provinces of India and that religion could not be the bais for nationalist movement 37 This idea justified the name of their society. The East Pakistan Renaissance Society viewed Pakistan as two independent Muslim states on the basis of the Lahore Resolution.
Until 1944 Abul Mansur Ahmad believed that Congress was the only ally of the Krishak Proja Party but under the persuasion of H.S. Suhrawardy (1892-1963) he agreed to organize a united front of the Muslim League and the Krishak Proja Party on condition that the interests of the Krishak Proja Party would be safeguarded.
This marked the formal joining of Abul Mansur Ahmad with the Muslim League by 1945,39 In May 1946, when the Cabinet Mission Plan was declared he rejoiced at the news because the provisions of the Plan matched with those of the Lahore Resolution (March, 1940).
The Lahore Resolution had proposed federation of eleven provinces of India having autonomous and residuary powers. Of the eleven provinces five were Muslim majority and if three of those five provinces chose to secede from the Indian federation they could do so.
What the Cabinet Mission Plan proposed was a three-tier federation of the provinces grouped in three sections of which each of the two sections including Muslim majority provinces would have the opportunity to frame a group constitution. Opportunity was also given for each group to frame constitution for its member provinces 42 Abul Mansur Ahmad saw a possibility of the realization of Lahore Resolution if the Cabinet Mission Plan was accepted. The Plan was rejected by the Congress.
The Muslim League withdrew its acceptance of the Plan and retaliated by taking recourse to “Direct Action” to achieve Pakistan. The Great Calcutta Killing on August 16, 1946 and the massacre on the next few days left no scope for any arrangement other than partition. During 1946-1947 Abul Mansur Ahmad supported H.S. Suhrawardy, first in his move for a united independent Bengal and later, in his demand for including Calcutta in the territory of Eastern Bengal.
After partition in June 1947, Khwaja Nazimuddin (1894-1961) defeated H.S. Suhrawardy and became the leader of the Muslim League and the Chief Minister of East Pakistan. Abul Mansur Ahmad stayed out of politics from 1947 to 1950.
During these years he worked in the Daily Ittehad.44 He was closer to A.K. Fazlul Huq in the 1930’s and in the early 1940’s and later to H.S. Suhrawardy. He was one of the founding leaders with H.S. Suhrawardy of the Awami League in 1949.
In 1954 he was minister of Health under United Front ministry formed by A.K. Fazlul Huq from the Krishak Proja Party, H.S. Suhrawardy and Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani (1880-1976), both from the Awami League.
He was minister for Education in 1956 under the ministry of Awami League and minister for Commerce and trade in 1956-1957. Martial law was declared and he was in prison between the years 1958 and 1962. After getting released he gave up politics but was vocal against martial law government and the disparity between the two wings of Pakistan.
Abul Mansur Ahmad’s political ideology matched with his fundamentalist upbringing. Although he had inconsistencies in his opinions and stands on various issues, the basis of his belief in Islamic fundamentalism remained firm.
He held this belief to the last that the Muslims of India were a separate nation. Although around the mid-1940’s he pointed out that the Muslims of Bengal were different culturally from those of North Western India, he was one of those who believed that Bengali was the language of the Hindus.
Abundance of Sanskrit words in Bengali was the primary reason behind his dislike for Bengali. He preferred to accept a Bengali language which contained Persian and Arabic (words) rather than Sanskrit words. 45 He even advocated in the 1940’s in favour of introducing alphabets which would create a distinctive linguistic identity for the Muslims in Bengal.
By the 1960’s however, the language movement and the demand for autonomy for East Pakistan had taken a stronger shape. Abul Mansur Ahmad no longer demanded different set of alphabets for Bengali language to be used by the Muslims of the then East Pakistan but maintained that there could be such introduction only for phonetic needs.
In the 1960’s he wrote that cultural identity could not be negated for the sake or religious identity 47 In his opinion religion could ‘strengthen’ national unity but could never “create” such unity and that language-based nationalism was far more practical than religion-based nationalism.
There had been a great transformation in the ideas of Abul Mansur Ahmad but he remained fundamentalist and non-secular in his approach to religion and politics. However, he was not openly communal or intolerant to other religious.
In the 1940’s he had supported the demand for Pakistan which was to be a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. But, in the 1960’s he expressed his dislike for religion-based nationalism 49 He admitted that he could never accept the then East Pakistan as a part of Pakistan or a part of India.
To him Eastern Bengal was different from the both in respect of culture, language and literature 50 He preferred to name such geographical unit “Pak-Bangla”, associating the word “Pak” with Pakistan which also indicated an Islamic feeling and “Bangla” with Bengal 51 This “Pak-Bangla” was to be autonomous and a homeland for the Muslims of Bengal.
Regionalism was prominent in his views in respect of religion, culture and language. He viewed himself as a Bengali and a Muslim but a Muslim who did not belong to West Pakistan 53 Such a view was then considered as a mark of inconsistency and “splitmindedness” in him.
After Bangladesh came into being in 1971 Abul Mansur Ahmad began to shift from his former views. He stated that the Bengali nation included both the Muslims and the non-Muslims but, at the same time he maintained that the state should be Islamic with provisions for minority rights. 54 This view, however, originated in him from his belief that Bangladesh was the outcome of the Lahore Resolution of 1940 which had recommended the creation of independent Muslim states.
The idea of creating two independent Muslim majority states was conceived, in Abul Mansur Ahmad’s words, from the “political potentiality, geographical possibility, territorial feasibility and economic viability of those two zones. 55 The Lahore Resolution had indicated the creation of independent states and the Cabinet Mission Plan had strengthened the idea.
Major works of Abul Mansur Ahmad include his satiric writings like the Aina (Mirror), 1936-1937, Food Conference, 1944, his novels, Satya Mithya (Truth and Falsehood), 1953, Jiban Khuda (Thirst for Life), 1955, Ab-e-Hayat (water of Heaven), 1968, his essays, Pak-Banglar Culture (Culture of Pak-Bangla), 1964, Amar Dekha Rajnitir Panchash Bachar (Fifty Years of Politics As I Saw It), 1969, She r-e-Bangla hoite Bangabandhu (From Sher-e-Bangla to Bangabandhu), 1972, and his autobiography, Atmakatha, 1978.
Abul Mansur Ahmad earned fame in his days as a satirist. His Aina, published in 1936-1937 and the Food Conference, 1944 reflect the corruptions and pretensions existing in various levels of people, the dogmatism of the mullahs and maulvis (Muslim priests), the ignorance of the masses and the shortsightedness and hypocrisy of the politicians.
Both Aina and Food Conference are satiric expositions of the contemporary Muslim society in Bengal. Aina is more a criticism of the social vices while Food Conference exposes the role of the politicians, traders and the bureaucracy during the famine in Bengal in 1942-43.
The Aina includes satiric pieces of stories criticizing particularly the mullahs, maulvis and the Pirs (religious sage or a mystic). In the first story. “Huzur Kebla” (Sacred Lord) Abul Mansur Ahmad criticized the leaders of the Khilafat movement, 1919-1924, He came to realize after the failure of the Khilafat and the non-co-operation movement that it had been unrealistic and a futile attempt on the part of the leaders to fight for a cause which was extra-territional.
He believed that boycott of British goods, jobs and educational institutions were impractical having negative results particularly for the Muslims. In the story, Emdad, a Muslim youth who had been studying Philosophy at B.A. Honours and had joined the Khilafat and non- co-operation movement, left college and at the same time gave up the use of foreign goods. As a mark of protest against the British this youth burnt all his possessions made in Britain.
The author narrated humourously how Emdad burnt his silk shirts, cut his shoes into pieces, broke his wrist watch and glasses, throw his razor, shaving stick and brush into the river.
Then he started wearing Khadi (hand-spun cotton cloth) and put on long Kurta (full-sleeved, under knee-length shirt) and lungi (ankle-length loincloth) and tupi (cap made of cloth). After the end of the Khilafat movement in 1924, Emdad got inclined to religion. As a student of Philosophy in the past he had studied Hume, Mill, Spencer and Comte and had little faith in religion.
He even denied the existence of God. But, after joining the Khilafat movement he had developed a faith in God and religion. He went to a Pir Shaheb to be his murid (follower). He attempted to attain the ascetic quality of Pirs and Sufis (mystics). But to his surprise, he observed that the Pir Shaheb led a sensous life and exploited the illiterate and ignorant rural people.
The Pir Shaheb made the villagers believe that he could do miracles but what he did were mere pretensions which the ignorant villagers did not dare to doubt. Emdad protested against the false practices of the Pir but the result was, the villagers assaulted Emdad and drove him out of the village.
Abul Mansur Ahmad attempted to point out three main issues through the above story. First, he was critical of the educated youths who left college in the early 1920’s to join the Khilafat movement. The author, himself a student of Bachelors, had left college and joined the Khilafat movement in 1920.57 Most Muslim students had given up education and joined the Khilafat movement.
After about a decade the author realized that it was foolish of the youths, particularly of the educated youths, to join a movement which was extra-territorial and had no connection with the practical interests of the Muslims in India. The idea of Pan-Islamism which infused enthusiasm among Muslims proved impractical in the context of the Khilafat movement in India.
Secondly, the author indirectly criticized the shortsightedness of the leaders who called for such a movement. Although the non-co-operation movement had brought the Hindus and the Muslims of India together for a brief period and had speeded up the process of mass participation in politics, the declared purpose to save the Caliphate could not be achieved.
Besides, the Muslim leaders had by 1920, began to feel half-hearted about continuing non-co-operation programme of Gandhi,58 The Muslims in India no longer felt by 1920 that it was wise to follow Gandhi’s programme. The apparent harmonious relation between the Hindus and Muslims during the Khilafat movement also died out by 1923-1924.
Thirdly, the author criticized the so- called Pirs who played a dominant role in moulding the minds of the rural Muslims in Bengal and creating fundamentalism. In the story “Nayeb-e-Nabi (Servant of the Prophet) Abul Mansur Ahmad criticized the dogmatism of the mullahs and the maulvis. The mullahs and maulvis had contributed to the conservatism of the illiterate rural Muslims.
The educated Muslim youths were critical of the mullahs. Anti-mallah feeling was strong among them. The youths of the Muslim Sahitya Shamaj (Muslim Literary Society) in the 1920’s and the early 1930’s were particularly critical of the mullahs. Religious bigotism was so strong among the mullahs that they introduced intolerance and fanaticism among Muslims particularly in rural Bengal. The mullahs and maulvis held debates which exposed their ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
Abul Mansur Ahmad was brought up in an atmosphere where conflict between the Ahl-i-Hadith (or the Mohammadi sect as they preferred to be called) and the Hanafl sect was strong 59 A follower of the Ahl-l-Hadith sect, he had come across incidents of verbal and physical assaults between these rival religious sects 60 In Bengal, conflict between the Hanaf and the Ahl- i-Hadith sect was the most serious example of religious bigotism. Debates took place between them over minor religious issues and over the authenticity of interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Mohammad).
The maulvis of the Ahl-l-Hadith sect stressed that the Quran and the Hadith be strictly followed but unfortunately they themselves lacked knowledge of the same. As a result they took resort to petty quarrels and vile languages against the rival group.
The maulvis of the Hanaff sect on the other hand, believed in ijma (consensus of scholars about the lawfulness of certain religious rites) which was strongly opposed by the Ahl-l-Hadith followers. Abul Mansur Ahmad was critical of the religious debates known as the bahas which took place in rural Bengal from the late nineteenth century and continued frequently till the 1930’s.
These rival religious groups, both of the Sunni sect of Islam confronted each other in debates on such insignificant issues like should the maulvis stand to offer janaza (prayer at burials) at the shoulder or at the head of the dead body or whether two burial services could be held of the same dead body, should Eid prayers be held in India which was considered by them a Dar-ul-Harb (land of the infidels)62 Often the debates turned out violent as rival groups attempted to out-manouvre each other.
In “Leader-e-Kawm” (Leader of the Community) Abul Mansur Ahmad exposed the hypocrisy of the so-called nationalist leaders who instead of being anti-British contributed inter-communal and to intra- communal feuds.
The author was critical of those politicians who claimed to be nationalist leaders but in fact made anti-Hinda and anti-Hanafi propaganda and contributed to religious dogmatism and sectarian feuds,
In the story, “Mujahidin” (Warrior of Islam) Abul Mansur Ahmad exposed the rivalry between the Mohammadi or the Ahl-i-Hadith and the Hanafi sects. The author has drawn attention to the spread of religious intolerance and dogmatism by the mullahs and the maulvis through bahas in the villages 63
In the “Bidrohi Shanga” (Association of the Rebels) Abul Mansur Ahmad was critical of the so-called radicals who felt proud of doing something out of the way but, in fact, lacked a revolutionary spirit.
A group of educated Muslim youths in Bengal in the 1930’s were aquainted with the radical and progressive ideas but lacked the courage and initiative to make any practical effort to materialize those.
The author is of opinion that these youths had a lot of potential in them to bring changes in society but they were timid and had preferred an unhazardous life. Bidrohi Shanga depicts an image of those youths who were educated but made little or no contribution either to the nationalist movement or to the Bengali Muslim society,
The Dharma-Rajya (Religious State) is a critical exposition of the communalists. The author held that the Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs and even the British contributed to communal ill-feeling. The author was more critical of those who incited the riots. He was particularly critical of the editors of newspapers like the Daily Azad 64 or the Ananda Bazar Patrika 65 which acted as protectors of the Muslims and the Hindu community respectively.
The author is tongue-in-cheek when he made the narrator in the story say that he was happy to see the Muslims of Calcutta so inspired to protect the sanctity of Islam 66. The author also indicated the inertia of the policemen during communal riots which proved the indifferent attitude of the British Government in dealing with the communal riots in India.
The author considered this attitude an indirect support of the British government to communal riots and thus materialize their policy of “divide and rule”. The author’s purpose behind writing this satiric piece was to make the British Government and the politicians of both the Hindu and the Muslim communities aware that communal riots could have been prevented through proper handling of the issue.
In another satiric piece, “Go-Dewta Kl-Desh” (Land of the Sacred cow) Abul Mansur Ahmad pointed out a major problem in the society and that was the annual conflict over cow-slaughter. Hindu-Muslim riots took place almost every year until partition in 1947 during Qurbani (Islamic festival of animal sacrifice during Bakr-Elds). Communal riots over cow-killing are also heard of occasionally in India.
Conflict over this issue took an aggressive shape since the last quarter of the nineteenth century when tensions increased between a rising Muslim middle class and the Hindus who had already been firmly placed in the society,
Cow is a sacred animal to the Hindus and cow-slaughter is considered a sin by them. It was from about the fourth century A.D. that sanctity of the cow became a “firmly fixed dogma” and cow slaughter was strictly prohibited.
During Muslim rule in India since the thirteenth century, cow became a political symbol both of harmony and hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims During the Mughal rule Akbar (1556-1605) had prohibited slaughter of cows in order to make conciliation with the Hindus whereas Aurangzeb (1618-1707) disregarded Hindu feeling about cow.
The Arya Shamaj (1875) and the Cow Protection Society (1882) were formed by the Hindus to prevent cow slaughter by the Muslims. Shivaji (1627-1680) was among the first to use cow as a political symbol. From his time protection of cows became a synonym for protection of the Hindu community. Cow symbol was closely associated with Hindu nationalism. Dayananda (1824-1883) and Tilak (1856-1920) had stressed on cow protection.
They had evoked Hindu nationalism by using the symbol of the cow. The cow protection movement turned into an aggressive one as nationalistic feeling got stronger in the respective communities. Nationalism in India developed on communal lines and religion, therefore, was an integral part of it. To the Hindus protection of the cow meant protection of their religion. To the Muslims cow-killing was a sacred part of their religion. Both the communities were unwilling to compromise on this issue.
Gandhi (1869-1948) had sought a compromise over cow-killing in order to maintain communal harmony during the Khilafat movement (1919- 1924),68 He told the Hindus to save Khilafat if they wanted to save cows and he tried to persuade the Muslim leaders to accept the cow-Khilafat formula which meant that in return for Hindu support for the Khilafat movement, the Muslims would stop killing cows 69 However, Gandhi’s attempt to use the cow symbol for Hindu-Muslim unity backfired; it increased communal separatism.
Gandhi needed a more neutral and secular foundation to his approach 70 Besides, Gandhi had himself sounded uncompromising on the issue of cow-killing 71 But, he had, no doubt, attempted to soften the conflict by forming the Go Seva Sangh (1924) because he felt that the Gorakshini Sabha,
(Cow Protection Society) founded in 1882, sounded too aggressive. 72 The Muslims, however, were not prepared to give up cow-killing. They criticized the Gorakshini Sabhas as anti-Muslim and a threat to their religion.
In the story Co-Dewta Ki-Desh, Abul Mansur Ahmad imagined that he was in a dreamland which was flooded by cow-milk. The author could see no human being there. The cows spoke to him in Hindi.
One of the cows asked him whether he was from the land of Ananda Bazar, ie. Bengal 73 The cows reminded him that the Ananda Bazar Patrika had campaigned hard to save the lives of the cows in Bengal 74 The cows were shocked to see a non-Aryan, a Mleccha (derogatory term used by the Hindus to refer to a Muslim) in their midst.
The author came to know from the cows that during not over cow-killing the Arya Samaj took the cows to a safer place and in this case, to the Benaras Hindu University boarding and Kashi, which were flooded with cow’s milk because except the Arya Samaj there was none to drink the milk.
Abul Mansur Ahmad’s Food Conference is another satiric work on the situation in Bengal during the famine of 1942-43. He exposed the negligence and indifference of the politicians to procure and distribute food to the famine-striken people.
When millions went hungry the political leaders in Bengal were busy strengthening the coalition that was formed between A.K. Fazlul Hug of the Krishak Proja Party, the Subhus Bose (1897-1945 ?) faction of the Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha from December 1941 to March 1943. The political leaders concentrated on their gains for the present and the future. Neither Fazlul Huq nor Khwaja Nazimuddin (1894-1961) did genuinely try to solve food problem during the famine.
According to the government report 1.5 million people died during famine in 1943 but according to contemporary estimate 3.5 million people died and out of 60 million people in Bengal 20 million were severely affected,
79 In the famine-striken area 10% of the people ie an estimated 1.2 million to 1.5 million people (men, women and children) became beggars 80 Besides, 6 million people, including 2.7 million land-labourers, 1.5 million poor peasants, 1.5 million country-industrial workers and 25,000 poor school teachers were reduced to a very distressed condition.81 The 1942-1943 harvest was not so bad.
The aush and aman rice production was 6,900,000 tons while the need was 7,821,000 tons a year 82 The 1941- 1942 harvest was a good one and a good deal of it was exported 83 Compared to the need, production was not so bad in 1943.
Food shortage of rice in 1943 was 5 crore maunds which was not such a big shortfall as to cause a famine of such disastrous effect 84 Neither the Fazlul Huq ministry during the Progressive Coalition nor the Muslim League ministry under Khwaja Nazimuddin created the conditions for famine but each held the other responsible.
Reports from the Viceroy to the Secretary of State said that loss of the “Burma Ukraine”, bad harvest, cyclone and flood, boat denial policy of the army, pressure on railways for military traffic, greed of the traders, panic hoarding by cultivators, failure to control prices, lack of accurate knowledge of what the real shortage was, were mainly the causes of famine 85 Wartime removal of rice from the coastal areas and stocking for military were other major causes
Some big Muslim merchants had been involved in hoarding grains 87 Appointment of M.A.H. Ispahani as the sole purchasing agent during the ministry of Khwaja Nazimuddin gave opportunity for making trouble.
Cases of forged permits for drawing wheat and atta (grinded wheat) from Government stocks by Muslim officials appointed by Fazlul Huq were also reported 89 Requisition of grain was also insufficient 90 Grain trade was largely in the hands of the Hindus and the big cultivators who would have surplus grain stocks were also Hindus who did not co-operate with the Muslim League ministry, 91 Mismanagement of the government, weak and over-burdened ministry and the corrupt officials and local people worsened the situation of food shortage.
It was the Shyama Prasad Mukherjee (1901-1953) and Fazlul Huq ministry in Bengal until March 1943. Fazlul Huq was forced to resign and Muslim League ministry was installed under Nazimuddin in April 1943. 11.S. Subrawardy was the Mininster for Civil Supplies in the Nazimuddin ministry.
The famine was used as political pawn. When Nazimuddin accepted office in April 1943 he had a secured position compared to the previous ministry of Fazlul Hug and Shyama Prasad. Both the Governor of Bengal and the European members in the ministry supported Nazimuddin but he could not meet the situation properly. In November 1943, an opinion was put forward that considering “the crucial realities of the Bengal famine” it was not practical to divide “India into two or more nations.
Nazimuddin, however, contradicted this view and said that Bengal could solve its problem by only being independent 93 He alleged that the severity of the famine was caused by the central government failing to “induce autonomous provinces to part with surplus foodstuffs for Bengal 4 He argued that an independent Bengal would have full control over its economy and transport and would be free from the central authority thereby giving him the necessary conditions to solve such a problem.95 HS.
Mukherjee noted that the Civil Supplies Department under HS. Sahrawardy was responsible for the famine 96 While Fazlul Huq held the opinion that the method of procuring grain through monopolists by the Nazimuddin ministry was responsible for famine. One group alleged the other for causing the severity of the famine But, both Fazlul Huq and Nazimuddin ministry were responsable due to their negligence and lack of proper vigilance over lower officials.
In the satiric pieces like “Langarkhana” (Free Gruel Kitchen) and “Relief Work Abal Mansur Ahmad exposed how the rice dealers, volunteers, village headmen and the local politicians got involved in profitable dealings during famine. Free gruel kitchens were opened in 1943 for the hungry as an attempt to tackle the famine.
H.S. Sahrawardy had served during famine by running gruel kitchens 97 But traders were involved in blackmarketing of rice and they did so with the privilege of their allegiance to the ministers and politicians. Businessmen and politicians manipulated famine conditions for their respective gains. During relief work volunteers and village headmen kept a major share of relief goods for their own consumption or for sale in the blackmarket. The inspectors of police were blind to such fuds.
Government’s negligence to control the mishandling of relief goods and at the same time it’s inadequate supply were pointed out in “Relief Work” In “Grow More Food” the author pointed out the half-hearted attempts of the bureaucracy to materialize the campaign for growing more food. India was a fertile country but her people suffered from food shortage. Besides natural calamities and population problem, blackmarketing and mal- distribution of grains were clearly the other main reasons behind food shortage.
The author pointed out that the government was given the responsibility to teach the ignorant cultivators how to grow more food by taking proper steps like cultivating the right type of crops in the right type of soil, about the proper use of fertilizer and about intensive cultivation. But the government officials deliberately managed to delay the process by not employing experts on this subject.
Instead, they wanted that grain imports should continue so that they could make money through permits and licenses for trading. Blackmarketing and trading through illegal permits were rampant. Government spent huge sum of money on campaigning but the officials limited their attempts to printing of leaflets and advertisements in few newspapers circulated mostly in cities which was no place for cultivators.
Besides the language of those leaflets and advertisements was English which the peasants could not read. The author’s opinion was that the government officials lacked genuine wish to improve the condition of agriculture and made no attempt to solve the food problem.
Another satiric piece, “Scientific Business” is a criticism of the system of education in Bengal where youths were never specialized in a particular subject. Even after getting Bachelors and Masters degrees they were glad to do clerical jobs.
They were not inclined to go for trade and commerce and if they did so, their only object was to make profit. Abul Mansur Ahmad also pointed out a phenomenon in Bengali society that the Bengalees had a tendency to mix up patriotism and religion with business. The author, of course, meant here the boycott of British goods and the enforced sale of swadeshi (home-made) during the Swadeshi movement particularly in the first two decades of the present century.
Khadi (hand-woven coarse cloth) and the Charka (spinning wheel) were made popular signs of patriotism but, in fact, those were a camouflage, real interest behind those was business and profit, the author believed 98 The real motive behind the proaching of Swadeshi goods was to augment the sale of textile products of India which actually benefited the industrialists.
The satiric piece, “A.I.C.C.” by Abul Mansur Ahmad was a criticism of educated youths who went to politics because they were unemployed. In Bengal, the field of politics was the one area open to them where those unemployed youths could get involved without any sort of training.
The author’s point in this story was that in Bengal very few went to politics out of a belief in certain ideology. Most university graduates, unable to get suitable jobs, went into politics and aspired to achieve the highest rank of a minister or leader of a party. In most cases, they were quick to create factions in the party and often formed their own party with a handful of supporters.
In the story “AI.CC which meant “All India Condolence Committee was the party formed by Shahid, an educated but unemployed youth, who being disappointed to see the shortcomings of both the Muslim League and the Congress formed his own party. But the reason why he formed a Condolence Committee was that all the issues like nationalism, communalism, demand for Pakistan and also demand for a united India had already been taken up by the existing political parties.
The author was satiric and wanted to point out that Shahid’s real intention was to form a party of his own rather than join a party to establish his own idealogy. The point made by the author was Shahid lacked belief in any particular ideology. With the title of the story the author puns the All India Congress Committee for which the abbreviation “AT.C.C.” was used.
The purpose behind discussing the satiric works of Abul Mansur Ahmad is to highlight his observation on the social vices existing in the Bengali Muslim society in the 1930’s and the 1940’s. His Aina and Food Conference remain unique works of satire written by a Bengali Muslim and particularly by one who lived in the midst of such conditions.
Some permanent features of the Bengali Muslim society like the influence of degenerated Pirs and mullahs, who in most cases dominated rural life and politics, illiteracy and ignorance of the masses, lack ideological beliefs among Bengali Muslim youths, the hypocrisy of the politicians, corruption of the officials etc. are also depicted in these works. Abul Mansur Ahmad was a didactic writer. He attempted to point out the shortcomings of the Bengali Muslims and make them aware of their faults.
See more: