Today is our topic of discussion Abul Husain .
Abul Husain
Abul Husain was one of leading progresive thinkers of the 1920’s and the 1930’s. He was the pioneer of a literary movement whose declared objective was the “emancipation of the intellect” (Buddhir mukti).
At the initiative of Abul Husain, a literary society named, the Muslim Sahitya Samaj was established in Dhaka in January, 1926. Its members were some of the young intellectuals associated with the Dhaka University (established in 1921). These enlightened and progressive-minded youths sought to bring about a renaissance among the Bengal Muslims.
Their aim was to shake off the age-old ideas of the Bengali Muslims which had kept them in a state of social and intellectual stagnation. They advocated the supremacy of reason and freedom of intellect so that the Muslim society could be regnerated.
Abul Husain felt the need to awaken the Muslims of Bengal who, compared to the Hindus, were economically backward and socially downtrodden. For two decades, in the 1920’s and the 1930’s Abul Husain wrote ceaselessly to evoke in the minds of Bengali Muslims the need for self- awareness, using the twin powers of reason and intellect rather than remaining blindly attached to age-old traditions and social taboos.
During his short life-span of forty-one years, he spent almost half of it trying to uplift the social condition of the Bengali Muslims. Abul Husain was born in January, 1897 at the village of Panisara in the district of Jessore, under Khulna Division. He obtained his Master’s degree in Economics from the University of Calcutta in 1920 and joined the department of Economics and Commerce as Assistant Lecturer at the University of Dhaka in 1921.
Meanwhile, he had passed the Bachelor of Law Examination. In 1927, he resigned from the Dhaka University and took up legal profession. In 1931 he obtained the Master of Law degree, which was a rare achievement in those days. He practised first at the Judge’s Court, Dhaka and later at the Calcutta High Court .
In his writings Abul Husain was strongly critical of social conservatism and religious orthodoxy of the Bengali Muslims. He opposed any sort of blind faith in religion and preached the need for rational thinking and intellectual analysis of religious scriptures for their use in practical life.
As a child, he saw his paternal grandfather, Moulvi Mohammad Hashim attempting to reform the Muslim community of his locality. He chastised any form of practice which were to him, un-Islamic. Abul Husain was strongly influenced by him.
By the time he was in his early twenties and still a student, he began writing 4 His articles were published in various journals and magazines of the time, such as Naoroze, Tarun Patra, Sikha, Saogat, Abhijan, Bangiya Muslim Sahitya Patrika, Jagaran, Jayoti and Bulbul, 5
Abul Husain was much concerned with the worsening of communal relations between the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal. In his article, “Atiter Moho” (Blind love for the Past), he analysed the reasons behind existing distrust between the two communities.6 According to him uncritical admiration for past glory had prevented them from understanding their real problems and had made them blind to their faults.
He pointed out that a sense of false pride had existed in both the communities. The Hindus had dreamt of establishing Aryan rule that had existed in India two thousand years earlier. The Muslims, on the other hand, had jealously hoped for a revival of Muslim rule. A great many Hindus seemed to believe that India was land of the Hindus and that the Muslims were aliens.
The Muslims, on the other hand, seemed to emphasise their Islamic religious identity rather than their Indian identity and this prevented them from collaborating with the Hindus in any major issue. Abul Husain held that the dream of the Hindus to establish Hindu rule in India led the Muslims to look upto Iran, Iraq and Turkey for support.
As a minority community in India, they felt insecured Abul Husain thought that it was not fair on the part of the Hindus to regard that the Muslims were unpatriotic just because they looked up to the Muslim countries outside India. He urged the Hindus to give up their chauvinistic attitude and also exhorted the Muslims to be patriotic and not waste their time seeking identity with the Muslim world outside India.
He criticised the Muslims for their carelessness and inertia towards any improvement of their distressing condition. Their economic backwardness had contributed initially to communal unrest. As the Muslims began to lag behind in education, they fell behind in jobs and professions. As a result, clash of interest gave vent to communalism. Regarding involvement in extremist politics, for instance,during the Swadeshi Movement (1905-1908).
Muslim youths generally kept away from participating in it. The Hindus had taken a leading part in the movement and had also formed terrorist organisations like the Anushilan and the Jugantar.8 Abul Husain discarded extremist politics. He disliked their association with Hindu religious symbols. This he considered to be the main reason which had kept the Muslims away from such politics. Because of their non-cooperation with the extremist politics of the Hindus, they were considered unpatriotic. It became a common belief among the Hindus that none but they loved India and that they were the only true Indians. This attitude contributed greatly to the growth of communal ill-feeling.
Abul Husain believed that all the diverse communities of India should form a united India. He pointed out that the Muslims had blindly adhered to their traditions and religious customs and had failed to realise their practical problems. They were little interested to learn English and accept western ideas of liberalism and rational thinking.
Abul Husain felt that India needed more enlightened thinkers and social reformers in order to change the attitude of both the Hindus and the Muslims. 10 He believed that mutual love and the principle of “Tawheed” (true relationship with God) could contribute greatly to unite the religious communities.
He wrote that the attempts of the Sufi saints of the earlier centuries like Kabir (1398-1448), Nanak (1469-1539), Hindu Vaishnava saint, Sri Chaitanya (1486-1534) were directed towards the unity of the two communities.
But, Abul Husain lamented that neither community had accepted their preachings.11 Abul Husain stresed the need for synthesis of the various cultures and religions as was evident in the life and work of Kazi Nazrul Islam (1899-1976). He felt the need for unity and harmony among the different communities living in India and was opposed to any kind of separatist movement. To achieve these two goals, he believed, education and rational thinking were the most essential pre-requisites. He wrote,
আল্লাহতায়ালা ভারতের উপর এক বড় Experiment এর ভার দিয়েছেন, সেটি হচ্ছে হিন্দু মুসলিম-প্রষ্ঠান প্রভৃতি জাতির সমন্বয় সাধন । সমস্ত জগতের কাজ এক ভারতের করতে হবে।
(God has entrusted India to undertake a great experiment, that is, to bring about unity and syn- thesis between Hindu, Muslim, Christian and other communities. India has to do the work of the entire world.)
Abul Husain was aware that cultural and religious barriers acted as practical obstacles to Indian unity. He, therefore, believed that only a synthesis of various cultures and religions could keep India united.
On the question of Muslim demand for reservation of seats in the Legislative Council and reservation of jobs Abul Husain held the view that such considerations had paralysed the Muslim community in Bengal.
He maintained that provisions for separate electorates, weightage and reservation of seats through Government Reform Acts contributed greatly to the backwardness of the Muslim community in their long-term effects, 13 Under the Montague-Chelmsford Reform Scheme of 1919, the Muslims of Bengal were given forty-five percent representation in the provincial legislative council.
The Muslims of the province demanded fifty percent seats as they comprised over fifty percent of the population. The political movement of the Muslims in Bengal in the 1920’s was centered around their demand for greater reservation of seats in the lelgislative council.
Abul Husain believed that Muslims in Bengal had been much backward in education and the provision for reservation of jobs and seats further made them devoid of all ambitions and had also made them selfish, narrow- minded and static.
Competition for jobs with the Hindu community, which had in the last century progressed in education and had been well placed in government jobs, was essential in order to make the Muslims hard- working, persevering and dynamic, Abul Husain believed, 16 He held the view that provisions for safeguards and separate representation on the basis of religion had acted as a paralyising force on the Muslims.
This was the only way, he believed, that the Muslim community should be brought to equal grounds of competition both in respects of profession and politics with their Hindu counterparts, 18 While advocating the benefits of English education, Abul Husain believed that Indians were lucky to have the British ruling over their country, 19 He meant to say that foreign rule was not always a misfortune for a particular country.
In this respect Abul Husain merely repeated what Ram Mohan Roy (1774-1833) and Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-1898) had advocated in the previous century,20 Syed Ahmed Khan, however, limited his attempts to spread English education to the Muslims of upper India only. Abul Husain also pointed out that both Ram Mohan Roy and Syed Ahmed Khan based their preachings on their respective religious faiths.
As a result, he said, Indians remained blindly faithful to religion even though they had learnt English and had accepted western dress, fashion and lifestyle 22 Because of their strict adherence to their respective religions, communal differences rather than communal harmony became more prominent 23 While interpreting the causes of communal conflict, Abul Husain analysed the intellectual trends and preachings of social reformers of India in the past.
He feared that indoctrination of any kind based on religion would surely lead to communalism and would lead to the development of a separatist movement in India Abul Husain also considered the demand for Swaraj (self-rule) unrealistic. He wrote,
লম্বা লম্বা গলায় বলা হচ্ছে- ” স্বরাজা হলেই কিল্লা ফতে। করব। ” কিন্তু বলি, একটি জাতির মুক্তি হাসিল করা কি এতই সহজ? আর কাগজে কলমে Constitution এ লিখে দিলেই কি মুক্তি ভোগ করতে পারা যায় ? আসহায় শিকে ভাড়াতাড়ি বড় করার জন্য অল্প অল্প দুধ না দিয়ে যদি মাংস খাওয়াবার ব্যবস্থা করা যায়, তাহলে সে শিশুর যে অবস্থা হয় তা আপনারা সহজেই অনুমান করতে পারেন।
( It is being declared loudly, after getting Swaraj, we will achieve everything.’ Is it so easy to make a nation free? And can freedom be enjoyed just by writing down the Constitution on paper ? One can easily understand the consequence if instead of giving milk at intervals to a small and helpless baby, it is given meat to eat for its fast growth.)
Abul Husain was critical of the nationalist leaders who encouraged boycott of foreign goods, giving up of government jobs, staying away from schools and colleges and used these as instruments of political agitation. He considered this a destructive means to achieve self-rule or Swaraj. He advocated for a constructive approach which included eradication of illiteracy, religious conservatism, social taboos and poverty.
Commenting on the politics in India in the 1930’s Abul Husain pointed out that provisions for separate electorates had negated the prospect for democracy and had heightened communal tension. He believed in secularism and the existence of a united India. In his opinion,
একই রাষ্ট্রের মধ্যে ভিন্ন ভিন্ন সমাজ গঠিত হতে পারে কিন্তু ভিন্ন ভিন্ন রাষ্ট্র হতে পারে কি না; এ ভাবনার বিষয়।
(there can be several societies formed in a state, but whether several states could exist in the frame- work of one single state, is a matter for serious tho- ught.)
Abul Husain defined state as a territory comprising different societies. Different communities in a country comprised a larger entity, which he called a nation.28 India, he said, could not be considered a fragmented state.
It comprised people of several religions, cultures, castes and creeds which could not be considered a divided state 29
Abul Husain felt concerned about the economic condition of Bengal and stressed the need for introducing technical know-how, particularly in the field of agriculture to solve the problem of scarcity of food.
At the same time, he stressed the need for industrialization at a faster speed. He pointed out the necessity for better marketing system, competition, monopoly of trade and effective tariff system. 31 He felt that India needed to participate in such economic activities in order to free herself from economic exploitation.
He also encouraged the need for production of home-manufactured goods at a cheaper rate so that the great majority of the population, comprising mostly poor peasants, could afford to buy such goods, 32 Unlike Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950), Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) and M.K. Gandhi (1869-1948) who were opposed to large-scale industrialization in India, Abul Husain felt the need for quick introduction of modern scientific knowledge and technology in the country.
He also stressed the need to restore indigenous crafts which were gradually getting extinct for lack of capital and sufficient patronage 34 He pointed out the need for expanding cottage industries which, he believed, would remove some of the distress of the peasantry in the country,
Abul Husain talked of the merits of socialism, collectivism and Bolshevism,36 He did not preach directly that Bolshevism was the best means to achieve economic emancipation but urged the workers that they should be conscious of their needs and, if necessary, should form associations like those in the industrialized countries of Europe in order to realize their demands.
He pointed out to the workers and labourers the need to have better education, housing, medical treatment and sanitation.38
As a social reformist, Abul Husain felt concerned at the extreme stagnation in the Bengali Muslim community because of its total dependence on religious orthodoxy and social conservatism.
Bengali Muslims had disregarded scientific and rational approach to religious and social issues and had felt alarmed at the introduction of reforms. In the eyes of the mullahs (orthodox Muslim priests), those who did not strictly adhere to the shariah (Scriptures of the Quran) were not good Muslims.
They criticized the English-educated and liberal-minded Muslims for abandoning the ways of the shariah. To them those who learnt English and had accepted western ideas, rational thought and the spirit of enlightenment were kafirs or infidels 40 Abul Husain believed that Islam, as a religion, was based on a rationalistic and humanistic approach to life which taught one to accept new ideas through reason and logic.
In this respect, he was a follower of the Mutazillites of the ninth century A.D. who believed in freeing Islam from all dogmas. He stressed the need for the Muslims to give up religious fanaticism and advised the youths not to be indoctrinated by the orthodox teachings of the older generation.
He wanted the younger generation to take full advantage of modern education and ideas. He noted that madrassah education had started in the 1780’s for the Muslims in Bengal but the system was so impractical that not a single scholar of repute had come out of these institutions since then 42 The reason, of course, was that the mullahs and the maulvis had taught them to learn Arabic alphabets and the Quran by heart even without knowing the meaning of the verses.
Abul Husain stressed that madrassah education needed to include subjects like science, philosophy, art and literature, which would introduce young Muslims to modern thought.
Abul Husain and a group of progressive-minded Bengali Muslims like Kazi Anwarul Kadir (1887-1948), Kazi Abdul Wadud (1894-1970), Kazi Motahar Hossain (1897-1981), Abul Fazl (1903-1983), Motahar Hossain Chowdhury (1903-1956) and Abdul Qadir (1906-1984) who formed the Muslim Shahitya Shamaj (The Muslim Literary Society) in Dhaka in 1926, came to be known as the “Neo-Mutazillites” because of the rational approach they took to every aspect of life.
They preached economic, political and intellectual emancipation. Their motto was “emanicipation of the intellect” 46 They were against all kinds of fanaticism and conservatism.
They formed the “Anti-Purdah League” in Dhaka around 1927 as a protest against the use of veil (purdah) by Muslim women. Abul Husain urged the Muslim women to give up purdah and to receive both Bengali and English education
. He wrote that purdah had made them narrow-minded, dull- headed, illiterate and ignorant in all matters 48 In contrast, contemporary women of the Hindu community in Bengal had been receiving education of all kinds, learning music, arts and crafts since the last quarter of the previous century.
Abul Husain and the members of the Muslim Shahitya Shamaj strongly and outspokenly criticized the vices existing in the Bengali Muslim society which, they observed, was more interested to follow the rituals of Islam rather than analysing the sayings in the Quran or the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad).
This group of social reformers pointed out that the Muslim society had sunk to the lowest stage of moral degradation being disrespectful to womenfolk, practising polygamy and living unchaste lives and being lazy and extravagant.50 Abul Husain suggested that the Muslims should stop the practice of going to mosques for offering prayers.
Because they were so much in sin it was pointless to go to mosques for offering prayers, The mullahs reacted strongly to Abul Husain’s criticisms that such comments were meant to discredit them in the eyes of the Muslim community 52 Abul Husain was denounced by them as an infidel and an enemy of Islam.
The orthodox section of the Muslim community in Bengal was such a reactionary force that the attempts of the Muslim Shahitya Shamaj to preach the “emanicpation of the intellect” were frustrated.
Although this society was short-lived (1926-1936) it made a tremendous impact on the Bengali Muslim intellectuals in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s. Abul Husain is credited as the dauntless working force behind the movement. He believed in secular nationalism and was a strong supporter of communal harmony.
See more: