Today is our topic of discussion Syed Nausher Ali .
Syed Nausher Ali
Syed Nausher Ali was one of the leading nationalist Muslims in Bengal in the 1930’s and the 1940’s. He was one of the leaders who did not come from a zamindari background. He was born in the district of Jessore in Narail subdivision where majority of the population belonged to namasudra class who represented lower caste Hindus.
They were landless peasants. Nausher Ali’s father was a tenant farmer who knew Arabic and Persian and did clerical job in Narail during off season.2 Nausher Ali was a graduate in Sanskrit and later became a lawyer around 1915.3 He began to practice in 1921 at the Calcutta High Court.
He was in his mid-twenties when he started organizing Krishak movement in Jessore. He spent most of his time in Jessore running the Krishak Samiti offices all over Narail and Magura. He had close contact with members of the Scheduled Castes representing the peasantry and also had association with the communists.
Nausher Ali had gathered around him namasudras and the Muslim peasantry from the borders of Faridpur and Jessore and organized them against the Narail zamindar 6 It was during this time that he was called a communalist rather than a communist or a secularist by the Hindu press, particularly the Amrita Bazar Patrika because of his movement against the Hindu zamindar of Narail.
The upper class Hindus, i.e. the caste Hindus disliked Nausher Ali for his active participation in organizing the peasantly in Jessore, Narail and Magura regions.7 They projected him as a communalist.
Nausher Ali was supported by the Muslim peasants and the namasudras and also by the rising Muslim middle class.8 His power base was among the rural Muslims. He was elected chairman of the Jessore District Board in 1928 and continued in that office until 1937. The Krishak Proja Party faired better than the Muslim League in eastern Bengal.
The Muslim League was not much popular yet in Bengal in the 1920’s. Syed Nausher Ali won the Jessore Sadar Mohammedan Constituency as a Krishak Proja candidate. It was widely believed that Congressmen helped in his election.
Most Muslim League leaders believed that the Krishak Proja Party was an offshoot of the Congress. In the coalition ministry Nausher Ali was given the portfolio of Public Health and Local Self-government. He was one of the two Krishak Proja Party members in the ministerial rank.
The other being Fazlul Huq, the chief minister 10 The upper class Hindus and the Hindu press were a constant critique of Nausher Ali. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, for instance, expressed fear that Nausher Ali would exercise his power against the Hindus now that his department had frequent contacts with the actual life in matters of health, sanitation, village administration and medical and municipal affairs.
On the other hand, the Bengali Muslim politicians saw him as a Congress man. His associates in the Krishak Proja Party saw him as a hard core left-winger very close to the communists because of his dedication to the cause of the namasudras and the peasantry.
Nausher Ali was Krishak Proja leader all through his life. He had never joined the Muslim League for which he earned the displeasure of the Jinnah coterie in Bengal. Nausher Ali’s power base was mostly in the district and subdivision level and among the peasantry.
In the ensuing conflict between Fazlul Huq and Nausher Ali the former got the upper hand and succeeded in convincing the Bengali public and the press mainly because Nausher Ali came from a peasant family and whose political base was mainly in the mofussil.
Within a year of the formation of the coalition ministry in March- April 1937 Fazlul Huq and Nausher Ali came into conflict first, on the issue of salaries of ministers and second, on the issue of party representation in the coalition ministry. Controversy arose in the cabinet with the annouuncement of two different amounts as salaries for the ministers, “one set getting Rs. 2,500 and another set getting Rs. 2,000 a month” while the Chief Minister getting Rs. 3,000 plus allowance.
Nausher Ali protested against this proposal on the ground that two classes of ministers were being created Later, all ministers were given the same pay, 12 Nausher Ali and Fazlul Huq came into conflict again on the choice of members from the Krishak Proja Party which included only two in the ministry, one being Nausher Ali and the other, Fazlul Huq, the Chief Minister.
When the coalition was formed with the Muslim League it was declared that half the cabinet should be formed with ministers from the Krishak Proja Party. This did not, however, happen. In a cabinet of eleven members only two were from the Krishak Proja Party, four were from the Muslim League, three were nationalists and two from the Scheduled Caste Party.
Nausher Ali and other members of the Krishak Proja Party were furious at Fazlul Huq for his quick deviation from earlier decision and more so when Shamsuddin Ahmad was left out of the cabinet. It was believed that Fazlul Huq had to concede to the wishes of the Governor who did not want to see Shamsuddin Ahmad in the cabinet.
Besides, Huq had to please the MuslimLeague leaders at this time particularly because he had made a coalition with them after much effort. Huq’s choice of Nawab Musharraf Hossain,a zamindar from North Bengal seemed more acceptable at that time than the choice of Shamsuddin Ahmad, the General Secretary of the Krishak Proja Party, 14 As influence of the Muslim League over Fazlul Huq was increasing his relation with the left-wing of the Proja Party became strained.
Fresh conflict developed between Nausher Ali and Fazlul Huq on the assumption that Nausher Ali was intriguing with the left-wing of the Congress, particularly Sarat Chandra Bose (1889-1950), to form an alternative coalition, 15 Allegations were made against him by some cabinet members of disloyalty to the cabinet and of disclosing cabinet secrets to the Congress,16 Nausher Ali was asked to resign in May 1938 but he refused to do so explaining his reasons that his colleagues had conspired against him.
He wrote to the Chief Minister, A.K. Fazlul Huq that he believed the majority in the Assembly had confidence in him and he was prepared to take the responsibility of administration if called upon to do so, which implied that he would not resign even if the rest of the cabinet did.
Later he wrote an open letter to the Chief Minister in June 1938 that if he resigned he wanted the whole ministry to resign in order to form a more stable ministry, 18 Nausher Ali believed that he commanded the confidence of the majority in the House which actually turned out not to be so. Since Nausher Ali was delaying to take a decision the other ten ministers submitted their resignation forcing the Governor now, to disslove the cabinet.
Within a quarter of an hour Nausher Ali submitted his resignation separately on the night of 22nd. June, 1938. The next day a new cabinet was formed with all the ministers except Nausher Ali. 19 Difference between Nausher Ali and Fazlul Huq was mainly on the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Bill, besides other issues like appointment of a non-Indian as the chairman of the Land Revenue Commission.
Regarding the appointment of Sir Francis Floud the cabinet was unanimous.Nau.sher Ali did not like the idea of the appointment of a European but he accepted it “without great or uncompromising protest.”20 Nausher Ali was criticized for the appointment of two Indian medical men at the Calcutta Medical College in preference to Europeans.
Accusations against Nausher Ali were more inspired by propaganda than truth because there was not much disagreement over the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Bill between Nausher Ali and the cabinet. Nausher Ali’s differences of opinion with Fazlul Huq or other members of the cabinet were never such as to cause serious cabinet crisis. However, it is true that there existed a strong ideological difference between Na usher Ali and the other members of the cabinet.
The left-wing of the Krishak Proja Party had never desired a Proja- League coalition. The left-oriented Proja leaders were secular in attitude and had never reconciled to a coalition with the communally oriented Muslim League. They also criticized the composition of Fazlul Huq’s ministry which consisted mostly zamindars and wealthy merchants.
Syed Nausher Ali, who belonged to the left-wing of the Proja Party came to believe that Fazlul Huq’s coalition ministry was formed to safeguard the interests of “British imperialism and Bengal landlordism” and could not be expected to fulfil the demands of the peasantry or the people of Bengal at large,22 Main point of conflict between Nausher Ali and his opponents was on the ground that he always desired to have a Congress-Proja Party coalition which he had carlier mentioned in personal interviews with Fazlul Huq.
In spite of that Nausher Ali continued to harp on this idea and had been in touch with Sarat Chandra Bose (1889-1950), his brother Subhas Chandra Bose (1897-1945), J.C. Gupta ( ) and other Congress leaders.
He was, therefore, accused of being disloyal to the cabinet by always publicly declaring that he had been dissatisfied with the existing ministry 23 Inside the ministry Nausher Ali was suspected “of placating the left-wing and building up a following than in pulling his weight as a member of coalition.”
Besides this, he held a very strong view in favour of the tenant’s rights opposing any compromise on the Tenancy Act relating to the modification of landlord’s transfer fee. Controversy rested on the issue whether to introduce suspension of fees (salami) for ten years or to bring complete abolition.
The ministers in the cabinet were seeking a compromise with the Europeans on the question of the Tenancy Act by providing suspension instead of abolition of landlord’s fees.
They feared that it would be difficult to get the suspension proposals through in Nausher Ali’s presence. And even if the suspension proposals were accepted there was a great possibility that Nausher Ali would have resigned on that issue. The decision in the cabinet, therefore, was to make “every effort to get rid of Nausher Ali before he carried this threat into execution.”
The right-wing ministers could not risk putting Nausher Ali on such “strong” ground because that would have made him popular among the masses. Nausher Ali also demanded abolition of zamindari without compensation which the landlords as well as the European group in the cabinet opposed. They were anxious to bring the bill into operation as early as possible and therefore, they insisted Nausher Ali to resign.
Fazlul Huq was eager to hold his ministry together. After joining the Muslim League he faced an embarrassing situatioin with Nausher Ali the only K.P.P. representative in the cabinet and other hard core members of the Krishak Proja Party. By removing Nausher Ali from the cabinet Fazlul Huq made his position easier to pass the Tenancy bill without criticism. The bill had to be passed because of the pressure put by the other Krishak Proja members inside the ministry and outside.
It had been alleged that the demand for resignation of Nausher Ali was intended to prove to the people that he had no contribution to the passing of the bill 28 There was obvious conflict over the bill between the left-wing represented by Nausher Ali and the right-wing by Fazlul Huq on the question whether to abolish zamindari without compensation or not. The Tenancy Act completely abolished the landlord’s fee on transfer. The lands could now be transferred without the payment of salami.
The law abolished landlord’s right to pre-emption when occupancy holdings were sold. The occupancy ryot could sell his holding to any person he liked, thereby obtain a better price. The law also reduced the rate of interest on arrears of rent from 12 to 6% %. The Act also suspended for ten years the enhancements of rents by landlords of tenure holders and ryots.
It is essential to note in this context that the Congress had always been against the Bengal Tenancy Bill. Why would then Nausher Ali seek alliance with the Congress? The Congress in its attempt to create problems for the Proja- League ministry had encouraged the radical elements to defect on the ground of agrarian reform. There was doubt as to whether the left-wing of the Congress was actually progressive in respect of land reform or had used Nausher Ali to weaken Huq’s ministry.
Nausher Ali’s contact with the Congress leaders was used as a propaganda to oust him from the cabinet to prove to the people that he was betraying the proja interest by seeking alliance with the Congress 30 In fact, the Congress at this stage was hostile to the coalition ministry.
Both the Congress and the Krishak Proja Party were secular political parties and had similar programmes in respect of agrarian reforms. The Congress had even announced to abolish zamindari system as its future plan, although most of its leaders supported the interests of the landlords. This the Congress did to encourage the left-wing of the Krishak Proja Party and to lure the peasants.
Syed Nausher Ali was more left leaning compared to Fazlul Huq, who in October 1937 had alreadly joined the Muslim League. Huq had wanted to strengthen his government in the face of constant opposition from the Congress and attempted to make a strong alliance with the Muslim League.
Huq had, however, claimed that he had never left the Krishak Proja Party and was both a Muslim League and a Proja Party man and hoped to remain so till the end of his life 32 Most of the Krishak Proja Party members disliked Huq’s rightist leanings and criticized him.
Tamizuddin Khan and Shamsuddin Ahmad had already defected from the cabinet, which, however, came as a relief to Huq and gave him opportunity to act without opposition. Presence of a strongly pro-peasant Nausher Ali in the cabinet was an obvious embarrassment for Huq.
Personal bias against Nausher Ali also acted as a great factor behind removing him from the cabinet 33 Personal bias against Nausher Ali was also present in Suhrawardy and Khwaja Nazimuddin who did not like the attacks made on them by Nausher Ali on the ground that the cabinet was “reactionary” and bourgeois.34 Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy started propaganda alleging that the members of the left-wing of the Krishak Proja Party were pro- Congress and against Muslim unity.
Nausher Ali was closely associated with the non-communal and nationalist politicians of the time like Moniruzzaman Islamabadi (1875- 1950), Shamsuddin Ahmad (1889-1969), Humayun Kabir (1906-1969), Sarat Chandra Bose (1889-1950) and Subhas Chandra Bose (1897-19457).
He was also associated with the members of the Communist Party of India 36 Nausher Ali had contested for the Speaker’s post during the Progressive Coalition Ministry of Fazlul Huq between December 11, 1941 and March 29, 1943.
He got elected in spite of the opposition from Huq Nazimuddin and other members of the right-wing of the Muslim League. He was supported by the Congress and the Krishak Proja Party members. The Progressive Coalition Party formed on November 28, 1941 was non- communal and nationalist 37 Nausher Ali had worked sincerely to form the party and the ministry. In the 1940’s Nausher Ali was, in fact, not in any particular party.
He remained a supporter of the Krishak Proja Party, the Congress left-wing, the Communist Party of India and also the Indian National Army formed by Subhas Chandra Bose in 1943. He was a secularist Muslim and believed in keeping India united. He had all along opposed the demand for separate electorates by the Muslims and their demand for Pakistan.
Nausher Ali was also an ardent supporter of the cause of the poor peasants.
He gave leadership to Krishak movement in Narail subdivision in Jessore district. He was present at the Krishak Sabha Conference held on 8-9th. June, 1940 at Pajia in Kesabpur, Jessore where those present demanded immediate abolition of zamindari 38 Nausher Ali also got involved in the ‘Quit India’ Movement led by Congress in 1942.
He got arrested on February 2, 1943 on “Jute Day” when thousands of peasants particularly the jute cultivators assembled at Krishak Sabha at Netrokona to demand Rs. 10 as the lowest price for jute. This type of meetings and demonstrations was banned in various districts during war.
Nausher Ali had disregarded the ban and got arrested 39 Being released from prison after a few days Nausher Ali continued to act as the Speaker of the Bengal Provincial Assembly until the election of 1946 when Nurul Amin became the Speaker. In the Assembly he got support from few. Both the Chief Ministers, Fazlul Huq and Khwaja Nazimuddin, and also the Governors and the members of the European group all disliked him very much.
In the elections of 1946 Nausher Ali insisted that Congress should give him nominatioin to contest the election. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), the Congress president at this time, advised Nausher Ali to contest the election as an independent candidate and the Bengal Provincial Congress did not as well want that Nausher Ali should be given nomination.
Almost all the Congress leaders wanted Nausher Ali should contest as an independent candidate, apprehending that he would lose.41 Nausher Ali, at this stage was not much associated with the Krishak Proja Party, which was, in fact, a non-entity outside the Bengal Legislative Assembly, neither was he a supporter of the Muslim League.
He was very much against the idea of creating a separate homeland for the Muslims of India and wanted to contest the elections as a Congress candidate to prove his belief in secularism. Sarat Chandra Bose gave his support to Nausher Ali 42 Muslim League supporters opposed Nausher Ali and there was large- scale rowdyism. There were incidents of rioting, arson, looting and houses being burnt.
During the election campaign there were charges and counter charges of violence and hooliganism from various constituencies where prominent Krishak Proja Party or independent candidates were contesting the Muslim League,43 Actually the 1946 elections was “not an ordinary one” as Suhrawardy said.
It was to “decide the political destiny of Muslim India” and the Muslims could not “afford to lose a single seat” 45 Only a few nationalist Muslims contested. The Congress helped the nationalist Muslim candidates with money and volunteers to fight the League.46 However, Nausher Ali lost the election very badly.
The Muslim League candidates won an overwhelming majority against the nationalist candidates. Nausher Ali was criticized severely by the Congress leaders particularly by Maulana Azad, who said that he had lowered the prestige of the Congress 47 Nevertheless, Nausher Ali remained a member of the All India Congress Committee 48 In 1946, he, along with Sarat Chandra Bose, J.C. Gupta and Suhrawardy joined the movement for united Bengal.
After partition, however, like most nationalist Muslims he remained in Calcutta and worked with the Congress and the Communist Party. But, he never went well with the Congress High Command.
Main point of conflict which bothered him, like most nationalist Muslims at this stage was whether Muslims should remain nationalists and that whether it had been a mistake for them to join the Congress. Neither Gandhi nor Nehru or Patel or other members of the Congress High Command gave importance to Nausher Ali. He was disillusioned with the Congress. He realized that the Congress leaders never understood the problem of the Muslims.
He seemed to realize that it was a mistake for him to join the Congress.49 Nevertheless, being a firm believer in secular politics he remained in the Congress and was elected to the Rajya Sabha by the Bengal Provincial Assembly. In 1956 he had an open conflict with Maulana Azad and Humayun Kabir.
Nausher Ali was then totally disenchanted with the Congress and had began to develop relations with the Communists which Maulana Azad could not approve of Nausher Ali resigned from the Congress on that issue but he did not he formally join the Communist party. 50However/maintained good relations with the communists till his death in 1972.
It was very ironic that Nausher Ali, who had all along been a nationalist Muslim, who had believed in secular politics and had worked with the Congress had to put on dhoti and his wife had to put on vermillion (shidur) for saving their lives during the communal riot of 1964,51 He was so shocked to see the communal frenzy even in what was considered to be secular India, that he told his children to go to Pakistan.
See more: