Asiatic Confederation proposal by Obaidullah Sindhi

[R2D2]

Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is among those very few political thinkers
and activists of the twentieth-century India who were initially
associated with the traditional theological seminaries but their
political vision was marked by liberalism and openmindedness.
He established a non-communal political party—
Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in 1924 in order to translate his
political ideals into practice. The Party Constitution envisaged
the idea of a unique form of confederal form of government for
the country. It also presented an outline of a socio-economic
order which was derived from a reconciliation of Socialist
ideals with the Quran and Shah Wali-Allahi thought. However,
he is among one of the least understood and often
misinterpreted Muslim thinkers of India. Thus, there is a need
to appreciate and reevaluate the political modernism in his
thought and vision.
Key-words: Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, The Constitution
of the Federated Republics of India, Confederalism, Socialism
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (1872-1944) of Deoband School is among those very few
political thinkers and activists who were trained in traditional madrassahs or
theological seminaries, but had a thorough understanding of their
contemporary political and economic ideologies, and were endowed with a
deep vision and tremendous political foresight. Unlike most of his fellow ulama
or scholars and political leaders of Deoband School, he was receptive to
modernism, though in a selective manner. It is for this very reason that he has
been hailed as ‘the most broad-minded Muslim scholar of South Asia after
Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi’ by Said Ahmad Akbarabadi, an illustrious pupil of
Sindhi and a renowned scholar of Islam (see introduction in Aslam, n.d., p.
10). He was not only an exponent of the religious and political thought of Shah
Wali-Allah of Delhi (1703-1762), Sindhi was himself a profound thinker, an
activist and a revolutionary. Amid the reactionary environment of madrassahs
where he was trained, he was the first religious and political thinker of the
twentieth century who was able to break away from traditionalism, and
embraced the various aspects of modernity, including political modernity.
♣ Author is Assistant Professor Department of History, Quaid-i-Azam niversity,
Islamabad - Pakistan
Tanvir Anjum
160
Unlike his contemporary ulama, he believed that the political system of the
Pious Caliphate could not be revived in modern times, since the Caliphate was
suitable for its coeval social and political environment. Therefore, for solving
the political problems of India, he suggested a modern political system.
In order to translate his political ideals in reality, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
established a political party with the name Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in
1924, in which he envisaged the idea of a unique form of confederal form of
government for the country. Nevertheless, he is among one of the least
understood and often misinterpreted Muslim scholars of India. His political
ideas and schemes have been evaluated and interpreted by the Muslim
nationalist historians in an unsympathetic manner. In fact, the Muslim
nationalist historiographical tradition tends to eulogize the efforts of only those
Muslim leaders who struggled for the creation of Pakistan, while ignoring
those who held political views opposed to the ideology of All India Muslim
League. In the Muslim nationalist historiographical tradition, which forms a
dominant discourse in the country, at least in the textbooks of history and
Pakistan Studies, Sindhi’s political modernism has not been adequately
appreciated. Such a treatment of Sindhi’s political philosophy and vision calls
for a reevaluation of his political ideals.
1. Political Biography of Ubaid-Allah Sindhi: A Brief Overview
Born in a Sikh family in District Sialkot in 1872, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (also
spelled as Ubayd Allah or Ubaidullah) got converted to Islam from Sikhism by
his own choice during his schooldays in Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. He
spent some time in the madrassahs of Bharchundi Sharif (three kilometers
from the city of Daharki, District Ghotki, Sindh) and Dinpur Sharif (District
Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab). He became a disciple of Saiyyid al-Arifin Hafiz
Muhammad Siddiq of Bharchundi Sharif in District Sukkur, though later he
received spiritual guidance and training from others as well. (Moizuddin, 1988,
pp. 199-201). He joined the renowned theological seminary of Dar al-Ulum at
Deoband (a town in northwestern UP) in 1889, and became a pupil of eminent
scholars such as Mahmud Hasan (d. 1920), popularly known as Shaykh alHind,
and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1905). There he acquired profound
knowledge of Arabic language, tafsir (exegesis of the Quran), hadith
(traditions of the Holy Prophet, PBUH), fiqh (Muslim law or jurisprudence),
falsafah (philosophy) and mantaq (logic). In addition, he also got acquainted
with the writings of the renowned Sufi-scholar of Delhi, Shah Wali-Allah, and
Muhammad Qasim Nanawtavi (d. 1880), one of the founders of the Deoband
School, which had a lasting impression on his thought.
Deoband was started in 1867 as an apolitical religious institution, but later
under the leadership of Mahmud Hasan, its graduates started political
activism, and some of them played a very important role in Muslim politics.
A Voice from the Margins
161
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi started his political career in 1908 when he was made the
secretary of an association of Deoband graduates—Jamiat al-Ansar (Society
of Helpers) in Deoband founded by Mahmud Hasan. (Minault, 1982, pp. 28-
29). However, Peter Hardy is of the view that Sindhi himself founded Jamiat
al-Ansar in 1910 which aimed at a greater fraternity between the alumni of
Deoband and Aligarh Schools. (Hardy, 1972, p. 181). It had an apolitical
character. Soon, Sindhi’s views generated controversy in some circles of
Deoband. As circumstances grew unfavorable for him due to his consequent
opposition, he decided to leave Deoband in 1913. Mahmud Hasan sent him to
Delhi where he founded another institution named Nazarat al-Ma’arif alQuraniyya
with the aim of equipping the Western-educated Muslims with
religious knowledge. Its patrons were Nawab Viqar al-Mulk (1841-1917),
Hakim Ajmal Khan (1864-1927) and Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari (1880-1936).
Soon it became a platform for political debates. Here Sindhi was introduced to
Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931) and Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) by Dr.
Ansari. So it was during 1913-15 that Sindhi became politically active and
came in contact with the Muslim political leaders. (Minault, 1982, p. 30).
In coming years, Sindhi developed a very close relationship with Mahmud
Hasan, and that was why, in some circles of Deoband, the former came to be
known as ‘the brain of Shaykh al-Hind’. When during the World War I, the
British Indian forces left India to fight on the Middle Eastern and European
fronts, the leading scholars of Deoband deemed the time ripe for liberating
India from the imperial yoke. Mahmud Hasan planned to persuade the frontier
tribes to wage war against the British. For this reason, Sindhi was sent to
Kabul by him in 1915 in order to muster the support of the Afghan government
and urge the ruler of Afghanistan to attack India to keep the British Army
occupied on the frontier. The British government, on the other hand,
pressurized the Afghan government to prevent him from political activities. The
attempt, nonetheless, could not become successful, and it is remembered in
history as ‘Silk Letter Movement’ of 1916. (Qureshi, 1999, pp. 78-80; and
Mian, 1975). Consequently, Sindhi got imprisoned, and remained in the fort of
Badakhshan for some time.
The failure of the Silk Letter Movement forced Sindhi to lead a life of exile for
more than two decades, which proved very enlightening for him as he
travelled far and wide, and got acquainted with the international politics as well
as his contemporary political ideologies and economic orders. He spent the
next seven years (1915-22) in Afghanistan (Leghari, 1980), and later during
his stay in Makkah, he recorded the experiences he had in Afghanistan in his
partial biography title Kabul Mein Sāt Sāl (Seven Years in Kabul), (Sindhi,
1955). During these seven years, he closely worked with the Afghan
government, which was under considerable influence of the British. He
exchanged views with many influential people and political leaders.
Tanvir Anjum
162
During World War I, Kabul had become the ‘Switzerland of Asia’ where the
politicians of various countries had assembled, making the city a hotbed of
international politics. It was here owing to his interaction with the Afghan
politicians that his sentiments of Muslim brotherhood had begun to shake. He
realized that the existence of quam (nation) in geographical or territorial
context was an objective reality. He soon became aware of the fact that the
Afghans and the Indian Muslims constitute two separate nations, since each of
them preferred not to work with the other as subordinate (Sarwar, 1967, p.
30). Before leaving India, Sindhi had a heightened vigour for Muslim unity, but
his pan-Islamic dream began to fade when he was in Kabul where he realized
that the Arabs, Turks and Afghans have their own interests and specific needs
(Ansari, 1986, p. 517).
Convinced of the futility of communal politics, Sindhi along with some
associates of the Ghadar Movement (Faruqi, 1963, pp. 59-60) and IndoGerman-Turkish
Mission, formed the Provisional Government of India in Kabul
in December 1915. (The Hindi Association of the Pacific Coast, popularly
known as Ghadar Party, was founded in California (USA) in April 1913, and
organized by a Hindu activist named Hardayal. Its spokesman was a
newspaper named Ghadar, literally meaning treason, which began publishing
in 1913. The Party had its branches all over the world, and its aim was to
liberate India from the colonial yoke). Raja Mahendra Pratap (d. 1979) was
made life president of the Provisional Government of India, Muhammad
Barkat-Allah Bhopali (d. 1975) was appointed the Prime Minister, while UbaidAllah
Sindhi was entrusted with the portfolio of the Home Ministry (Pratap,
1947, p. 51). This Provisional Government dealt directly with the Afghan
Government, and also sent missions to the governments of Russia, Turkey
and Japan to seek their help for the freedom of India, but the missions failed to
achieve the desired results (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 48-62). Sindhi’s collaboration
with a Hindu and the non-Muslim foreign governments bear ample testimony
to his liberal and non-communal outlook in political affairs. In fact, the Arab
Revolt of 1916 against the Ottoman Empire had also given, in the words of
Faruqi, a “rude shock to Sindhi’s Islamism” (Faruqi, 1963, p. 57).
In 1919, he established a para-military organization with the name of Jund
Allah or Junud-i Rabbaniyya (The Army/Armies of God; also translated as
‘Muslim Salvation Army’). (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 47-48; see organizational
structure in appendix A in Mian, 1975, pp. 363-66). He mustered support of
the people, including the pirs who were enlisted and given high ranks in the
army. Eventually, he became successful in raising an army of 100,000 against
the British (Ansari, 1992, p. 81). However, the Afghan ruler, Amir Habib-Allah
Khan (r. 1901-1919) urged him to seek the support of the Hindus for the
liberation of India from the colonial yoke. Thus Sindhi joined Indian National
Congress in 1919, and established an independent Congress Committee of
Kabul in 1922, and himself became its president. Later, he got it affiliated with
A Voice from the Margins
163
the Indian National Congress in the same year in its Gaya (Bihar) session
through the efforts of Dr. Ansari (Moizuddin, 1988, pp. 203-4.) Thus, it became
the first branch of the Congress to work outside India.
From Kabul, he went to Moscow in 1922 and stayed there for eight months. In
the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, in South Asia he was “the only political thinker of
any considerable caliber to come directly in contact with Russian communism
at an early stage.” (Ahmad, 1967, p. 195). During this period, he closely
observed the emergence of Soviet Russia from the ruins of Tsardom. He also
observed the revolutionary changes introduced by the Bolsheviks from close
quarters. Moreover, he also studied the fundamental tenets of socialism.
Sindhi later admitted that his study of socialism “enabled him to defend his
religious movement, which was a branch of the philosophy of Shah Wali-Allah,
against the onslaught of atheism and anti-religious trend of the time.” (Shaikh,
1986, p. 127). He held discussions regarding Islam, socialism, and their
compatibility. He also met Chechren, the Russian Foreign Minister, and
sought the assistance of Russia to oust the British from India.
From Russia Sindhi went to Turkey in 1923 and stayed there for three years.
During his stay in Istanbul, he carefully observed the emergence of modern
secular Turkey under the dynamic leadership of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk (1881-
1938). He met a number of political leaders including Ismat Pasha, the Prime
Minister of Turkey. Sindhi shaped his political ideology during his eventful stay
in Istanbul. There he founded Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in 1924. He himself
became its president, whereas his close associate, Zafar Hasan Aibak was
made its Secretary General. The present work is an analytical study of this
political party and its Constitution.
In 1926, Sindhi left Turkey for Arabia, and spent the next thirteen years of his
life there. He spent these years in Makkah, studying and interpreting the
teachings of the Quran in the light of Shah Wali-Allah’s works, particularly his
monumental book Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah. He delivered lectures on the
Quran and its exegesis, the Prophetic traditions or ahadith, and the teachings
of Shah Wali-Allah. Moreover, he also wrote some books and articles as well
(ibid., pp. 193-95). He also reviewed the history of the Muslims, particularly of
India, with a critical look. Though his biographer Hajjan Shaikh claims that
during these years, he remained aloof from politics, and did not take part in
any political activity (ibid., p. 187), yet he formed another political party named
Jamna Narbada Sind Sagar Party in 1939 (See the program of the party in
Appendix I in ibid., pp. 265-71). He ultimately got convinced that Islamic
renaissance could only be brought by following the teachings of the great Sufischolar
of Delhi.
In 1939, he returned to India when the British Government permitted him to do
so. In the words of Faruqi, during his sojourn abroad his ‘Islamist’ approach to
Tanvir Anjum
164
Indian politics was transformed into ‘nationalist-secularist’. He had left India as
a firebrand agitator and an organizer of revolutionary activities; he came back
as a thinker (ibid., p. 187). He spent the rest of his life in austerity and
simplicity, propagating the teachings of Shah Wali-Allah till his death in August
1944 in Sindh. (For details see his autobiographical sketch, Sindhi, 1969, pp.
403-9; and Sarwar, 1967, pp. 23-39). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi has been hailed as
Imam-i Inqalab or the ‘Leader of Revolution’ since his whole political
philosophy revolves around the ideas of change and revolution. In fact,
wherever he went from Kabul, he witnessed revolutionary changes which he
deeply observed and analyzed with an open mind.
Outside India, the revolutionary socialist ideas in the USSR, the liberal and
progressive views of Ataturk in Turkey, and the puritan revolution by Wahabis
in Arabia helped him in shaping his philosophy of revolution. But above all, the
Shah Wali-Allahi thought served as a beacon and guiding light for him. In
short, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s travels outside India greatly facilitated him in
comprehending the changes and challenges all over the globe, and eventually
reaching at a solution of the Indian problems. He came back to his country
with a heightened vigour and force of argument, a deepened vision and insight
and a fresh clarity of ideas. That is why, he is considered to be one of “the
most interesting and romantic personalities of the group of early Indian
revolutionaries.” (See the views of G. S. Kalyanpur in Bombay Chronicle, June
22, 1941, as quoted in Hajan, 1974, pp. 117-18).
2. Establishment of Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party
In order to translate his political ideals into reality, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi founded
a political party under the aegis of Congress Committee of Kabul in 1924 at
Istanbul, which was known as Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, also spelled as
Swarajya Party (Aibak, n.d., p. 102). Its name may be translated as All India
People’s Republican Party. The Hindi term sarvrāj or swarāj has generally
been translated as home-rule or self-government. Though the term was used
and popularized by M K Gandhi, it referred to a ‘disciplined rule from within’ in
Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi argued that the English terms independence
and freedom do not convey the meaning enshrined in the concept of swaraj,
which means freedom with responsibility (Hardiman, 2003, p. 26). In fact,
swaraj is a sacred term, derived from the Vedic literature, which refers to selfrule
or self-restraint. It is a multi-dimensional concept with personal, national,
political, social and economic connotations. In political sense, it means selfrule,
a condition or a state where people are superior to political institutions,
and power or authority is decentralized in society, which is not politically
dominated by any single group (Bharathi, 1995, p. 99).
As far as the Hindi or Sanskrit nomenclature of Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party is
concerned, it reflects its non-communal character. As pointed out earlier,
A Voice from the Margins
165
Sindhi’s pan-Islamic ideals and the dreams of Muslim brotherhood were
shattered when he travelled outside India, which led him to modify his sociopolitical
vision. The political vision he envisaged and political party he founded
promised the Indians a rule with power shared by all classes, strata and
sections of society irrespective of their caste, class, colour or creed.
3. Proclamation of The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi drafted the Party’s constitution titled The Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India, which envisaged his political and socioeconomic
vision. It was initially drafted in Urdu and published from Istanbul in
1924. (In the opinion of Hajan, it was published in 1922, whereas the correct
date seems to be 1924, mentioned by Razvi, when the Party was founded).
(Hajan, 1974, p. 121; and Razvi, 1995, p. 112). When it was sent to India, its
copies were confiscated by the British Government. It was later translated in
English and Turkish languages in 1926. To avoid censorship, the English and
Turkish translation was somewhat modified so that it might not be called an
exact translation in juridical phraseology (Shaikh, 1986, p. 181, n. 36).
According to this Constitution, the aims and objectives of Sindhi’s broader
program, as enunciated by his associate, Zafar Hasan Aibak, a retired Captain
of Turkish Army, in his autobiography titled Ap Biti, were as follows (Aibak,
n.d., pp. 101-2):
1. Winning of complete independence for India;
2. Establishment of a confederal form of government in liberated India;
3. Safeguarding of Islam, the Muslims and other minorities living in
India;
4. Formation of a government in India dominated by the working class
(peasantry, labour, and intelligentsia);
5. Abolition of feudalism and capitalism from the country so that the
people could not be deceived by the lures of Communism; and
6. Establishment of an Asiatic Federation to counter imperialism and
colonialism.
4. Main Clauses of the Constitution
The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India presents a clear picture
of the political and socio-economic ideals of Ubaid-Allah Sindhi. He rejected
the idea of India as an indivisible single entity and the notion of creating a
single nationhood, which was advocated by the Indian nationalists. (See the
Tanvir Anjum
166
views of Sindhi in The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India, Eng.
trans. Zafar Hasan Aibak, Istanbul, 1926, pp. 10-11 as quoted in Shaikh,
1986, pp. 159-60). According to him, the Indian Sub-continent was,
geographically speaking, quite naturally divided into three distinct zones:
north-western, eastern and southern zones. He promulgated the idea of
dividing India into three such zones along linguistic and cultural lines. All three
zones were thus to be declared as republics or democracies. The Northwestern
Indian Republic was to comprise of East Punjab, West Punjab, the
Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan and Gujarat. Similarly, the
Eastern and Southern Indian Republics were also to form two separate
republics or democratic states. These three Republics were then to join a
‘Central Government of the Federated Republics of India’. (Aibak, n.d., p.
105). Thus, Sindhi’s Constitution envisaged a unique form of confederalism for
the country. But initially, he planned to limit the sphere of his political party to
the Indo-Gangetic plains. He selected the North-western India for his program
and worked on it in greater detail (Hajan, 1974, pp. 122-23). The rest of the
two Republics were to be divided along cultural and linguistic lines in the same
manner.
In these Republics, the electoral system was to base on universal adult
franchise, i.e. all adult men and women were to be granted suffrage. But what
is interesting to note is that every social strata was to elect its own
representatives for the Parliament according to its population. In this way, the
Parliaments or the Legislative Assemblies of the three Republics were to be
dominated by peasantry, labour/manual workers and intelligentsia (those
involved in mental labour), constituting the majority of the country’s population.
Only such a form of government based on proportional representation could,
in his opinion, safeguard the interests of working classes adequately (Aibak,
n.d., p. 106).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi also laid down some cardinal economic and socio-political
principles for the conduct of these Republics. These can be briefly summed up
in the following (ibid., pp. 106-8):
1. All public utilities were to be nationalized, i.e. to be taken over by
the state.
2. Private ownership of movable and immovable property was to be
restricted and property exceeding a prescribed limit was also to
be taken over by the state.
3. Wealthy and affluent persons were to be excessively taxed which
could go as high as 60% of their income.
A Voice from the Margins
167
4. All big landholdings were to be nationalized and the feudal
system was to be abolished. However, in Republics having a
clear Muslim majority, landlords were to be forced to renounce
the ownership of their lands according to the decision taken by
the second Pious Caliph, Hazrat Omar (r. 634-44), and according
to another verdict by Imam Abu Hanifah (699-767), absentee
landlordism or rent-farming was also to be abolished by force.
These landlords would be permitted to work as agents of the
government.
5. Every agriculturist family could retain that much land which it
could directly cultivate by itself.
6. Usury or interest was to be completely abolished, and all old
debts of workers were to be written off. Arrangements would be
made for granting interest-free loans to the people in future.
7. Labour unions were to run the nationalized industries, and the
workers were to be granted share from the profit.
8. Free accommodation and medical facilities were to be provided
to the workers.
9. Education till middle standard was to be free and obligatory for
every child.
10. International trade and commerce was to be placed in the hands
of the Central Government, while the domestic commercial
activities were to fall in the jurisdiction of co-operative societies.
However, the merchants and traders could become members of
these societies.
11. Every Republic was to declare its state religion which was
necessarily to be the religion professed by its majority. But the
religion should not contradict the cardinal economic and social
principles of the party program mentioned above.
12. The three Republics were not to be responsible for their foreign
affairs, defense and international trade and commerce which
were to be controlled by the Central Government of the
Federated Republics of India.
13. It also envisioned the formation of an Asiatic Federation in future
to counter imperialism. Governments were to be established in
Tanvir Anjum
168
Asia along the lines of the above-mentioned principles. Moreover,
Russia was also to be included in the Federation.
Regarding the membership of the Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, Sindhi
maintained that anyone irrespective of caste, creed, colour, or gender could
become member of the party. However, what was mandatory for the members
was to keep down their needs and comforts of life to the standard of an
average cultivator in the country. Therefore, any property exceeding one’s
needs was to be transferred to the party (Hajan, 1974, p. 124). In the words of
Sindhi: “Under our government, capitalist system may have no possibility of
revival and out party programme may not be considered a vain display, or a
political weapon.” (The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India, pp.
10-11 as quoted in Shaikh, 1986, p. 161). It shows that he believed in creating
a certain level of economic equality among the people in the country, and
those who had active interest in politics and wished to be party members were
required to sacrifice their possessions. Moreover, it was not merely equality in
economic terms which Sindhi intended to create; it was social equality as well
which he idealized. For this reason, the Hindu volunteers of the Party were
required to extend fraternal treatment to all Indians including the
untouchables, and consider them as equals (Hajan, 1974, p. 125).
Sindhi also proposed the formation of six executive and legislative bodies: (1)
The Volunteer Corps; (2) The Sarvrajia Conference; (3) The Sarvrajia Working
Committee; (4) The Mahabharat Sarvrajia Congress; (5) The Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Central Committee; and (6) The Panchayats (invested with all the
legislative, financial and judicial powers). (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 174-75; and
Hajan, 1974, pp. 125-27). Since India had a multi-religious population and the
Hindus were in an over-whelming majority, he was particularly conscious of
the Hindu sensitivities. Therefore, he proposed that cow slaughter should be
banned in areas having mixed population of Hindus and Muslims (Hajan,
1974, p. 125) so that the people having multi-religious backgrounds could live
side by side in harmony and peace.
6. Analysis of the Constitution in the Light of Sindhi’s Political Vision
The impact of the writings of Shah Wali-Allah on the political vision of UbaidAllah
Sindhi was tremendous. During the final phase of his life, he tried to
philosophize his theory of nationalism in terms of a special Muslim social
theory derived from the writings of Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi (Faruqi, 1963, p.
57). In his works, particularly Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah, Shah Wali-Allah had
enunciated some socio-economic and political principles at length. To him, the
basis of capital generation should be effort and hard work, i.e. capital should
not be allowed to generate further capital without being effectively utilized. He
emphasized safeguarding the rights of peasantry, labour and intelligentsia.
These people, according to Shah Wali-Allah, deserve prosperity and welfare.
A Voice from the Margins
169
They should not be heavily taxed and their hours of work should also be
restricted so that they could pay heed to their ethical and spiritual uplift.
Wealth should not be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a section of
society. Gambling should be stopped. The capitalists who unduly tax and
burden the peasantry and workers should be eliminated. The peasantry and
workers should be paid according to their labour, and their contract with the
employers should be bilaterally agreed upon. The terms of reference and
conditions should not be dictated by the employers. Luxurious life style should
be eliminated, so that equality could reign supreme in the society (Mian, 1975,
pp. 78-80). Regarding political structures, Shah Wali-Allah proposed the
formation of an international bloc with autonomous but strong units (ibid., pp.
81-82). In addition, according to him, it was the same fundamental truth which
underlies all the world religions. Their religious leaders deserve esteem
because they all shared some basic principles, and the ultimate goal of their
social principles was the same (ibid., p. 82).
After going through the details of the socio-economic principles enunciated by
Shah Wali-Allah, one can conclude that Ubaid-Allah Sindhi borrowed heavily
from them. In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, much of the “basis of Sindhi’s
concept of an Islamic socialist theocracy is…derived piecemeal from WaliAllah”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198). Sindhi elaborated the views of Shah Wali-Allah
and translated them into a modern language in order to address the
contemporary problems. He attempted to present a unique blend of
nationalism and internationalism in his political philosophy. Moreover, it was
Sindhi who first talked about an alternative system of parliamentary form of
government, and envisaged a plan of the Federated Republics for India. His
idea of creating a Federation of Indian Republics propounded in 1924 was an
appropriate solution of the Indian problems keeping in view the contemporary
political realities. At that time, the Khilafat Movement had come to a close,
shattering the hope of the Hindu-Muslim unity in political arena.
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s real accomplishment lies in his novel alternative scheme
for the composition of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly. To him, the
representation in the Assembly was not to be based upon territorial electoral
constituencies. The masses, on the contrary, were to be professionally
represented, creating a majority of working class in the proposed Assembly. In
fact, he advocated a system of proportional representation in the Legislative
Assemblies so that the peasantry, labour and intelligentsia could be
represented and have a say in the decision-making. However, unlike the
Marxist ideology, which idealizes ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, Sindhi was
ready to give proportional representation to the landlords and capitalist as
well, but since they were few in numbers, the Legislative Assemblies he
envisaged was to be dominated by the peasantry, labour and intelligentsia,
and not the landlords and capitalists. In fact, he wanted a “permanent system
of economy to be established which could save the masses (peasants,
Tanvir Anjum
170
workers and the intelligentsia) from falling in debt and poverty and save the
country also from foreign loans that could be detrimental to political
independence of the country.” (Zafar Hasan, The Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party,
Istanbul, September 25, 1924, p. 29, as quoted in Razvi, 1995, p. 113). In fact,
he believed in human dignity and equality, and opposed to any form of human
servitude. On one occasion, he argued that a human being could not be a
servant of another; though one could help others (Moizuddin, 1988, p. 208).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s idea of socialized production in nationalized lands and
industries was sagaciously devised from the history of Muslim jurisprudence,
though his critics maintain that it was inspired by the Communist ideology. His
Constitution essentially differs in character from the Manifesto of the
Communist Party. The latter envisaged the dictatorship of the proletariat
excluding all other sections and classes of society from power. Sindhi’s plan,
however, gave due consideration to the moneyed classes—the landlords,
industrialists and capitalists who constitute only a fraction of the society. He
proposed their representation in the government as well. Moreover, unlike the
socialist state, the profit earned from the production units (industries, etc.) was
not to be taken up by the state, but to be shared by the whole working class.
In the words of Aziz Ahmad (Ahmad, 1967 pp. 200-1):
“The main difference between the communist and Islamic economic
philosophies, according to Sindhi, is that while both agree that the
process of the distribution of wealth should be ‘from each according to
his ability’, Islam would prefer it to be ‘to each according to his need’
rather than to ‘each according to his work’. In other words Sindhi would
like to see Islamic socialism on the lines of a western welfare state.”
Regarding the question of Indian nationalism, Sindhi believed that India was
not a single country having one single nation as maintained by the leaders of
the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha. He attacked the myth of Indian unity and
maintained that India was the home of many nationalities. He considered the
cultural and linguistic affinities to be the basis of a nation. Owing to these two
unifying symbols, his concept of nationalism was essentially space-bound. He
was mindful of the geographical realities defining the concept of a nation in the
Western thought.
He believed that within the Muslim community, there were distinct groups
having ethnic, cultural and linguistic differentiation. Thus, the Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party was the “first political organization which declared India a
multi-national country…” (ibid., p. 114). As far as these cultural diversities
were concerned, India resembled Europe where the English, French,
Germans and Italians, etc. were considered different nations. He defined
nation as a collectivity of men united by ties of language and culture. But India
could not be divided into many petty states like the Balkan States (Sarwar,
A Voice from the Margins
171
1967, p. 425). The only solution, according to him, was that every unit should
be granted freedom and autonomy, and the centre should bind them together.
He asserted the fact that nations speaking different languages are forced to
create a commonality by ideological unity which is sometimes provided by
religion and sometimes by an economic ideology, such as in Communism.
Therefore, unity created by such a hegemonic ideological commonality cannot
be termed national; rather it is international in nature (ibid., p. 426). The
universality of Islam does not prevent splitting of states into national units but
at the same time, every nation should consider itself a component of a wider
community of human race (ibid., p. 436). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi also presented a
model for an Asiatic Federation, a secular regional bloc of like-minded
countries agreeing to his proposed program. In fact, countering imperialism
had been one of the major goals of Sindhi’s political vision. He perceived it as
a common threat to many weak countries of the world. The proposed
formation of the Asiatic Federation was aimed at countering the imperialistic
designs of the World powers, and it also reflects his belief in a supranationalist
ideology.
In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, Sindhi’s acceptance of composite nationalism
as a political solution for the Indian problems was ‘far more restricted’ than
other Deoband leaders (Ahmad, 1967, p. 196). Sindhi’s approach was
altogether different from the Indian Muslim nationalists like Abul Kalam Azad
and Husain Ahmad Madani (d. 1957). To him, separate nation-states could not
be formed since the Indians were ethnically and linguistically very rich and
diverse. Therefore, to him, the only solution was the formation of an Indian
Federation of autonomous Republics. The teachings of Islam, according to
him, do not stand in contradiction to the establishment of Muslim nation-states
all over the globe. Thus, he presented a blend of the communal and nationalist
stances represented by the All India Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress respectively. His program envisaged the formation of an
autonomous Muslim state in North-western India within the Indian Federation.
Sindhi also professed internationalism since he wished other countries to join
the regional bloc after becoming autonomous units or federated republics
professing his socio-economic and political principles.
According to Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the central government was to be secular in
nature. The federating units or republics were allowed to declare their state
religions, but the Centre was not to be concerned with the matters of faith. The
Centre was not to interfere in the religious policies of the units, unless and
until they contradict the cardinal socio-economic and political principles laid
down by the Sarvrajia Party. He was a broadminded and liberal Muslim thinker
who was an ardent advocate of religious tolerance and co-existence. In his
writings, he appreciated the religious policy of Mughal Emperor Akbar (b.
1542-d. 1605). In Akbar’s era, he says, a bloody Shia-Sunni sectarian strife
was going on between the Persians and the Turks in the Middle East, which
Tanvir Anjum
172
had even led to violent conflict and wars. Similarly, the contemporary Europe
had become a war theatre where the Protestants and the Catholics were at
daggers drawn, fighting in the name of Christianity. However, on the contrary,
the sixteenth-century India presented a peaceful picture. The secular
government of India under Akbar was not dominated by any religious group
(Sarwar, 1967, pp. 436, 339-40); rather it presented a diverse religious mosaic
with different communities sharing power with the ruling house. Such views of
Sindhi generated a lot of controversy (Akbarabadi, 1989, pp. 176-86).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi was a realist political thinker, and his pragmatic approach
can be best illustrated by his insistence that his fellow countrymen should
admit their defeat at the hands of the British, and acknowledge the fact that
their way of living, cultural traditions and legal system had been undermined
by the ideological onslaughts and the policies of the West. The old order, in
his opinion, could not be revived in the same form. One had to work for the
establishment of a new system. However, the spirit of the old order was to be
captured, which was the crux of the Quran and Islam, but the new order could
appear only in a new garb altogether (ibid., pp. 196-97). Thus, he held an
innovative and progressive approach towards the modern day problems of
compatibility of the old and the new, or the tradition and modernity. Moreover,
he believed that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe would one
day inevitably culminate in the mental and spiritual progress of the West.
Recognition and adoption of their material advancement by the Indians is the
only course open to them for their progressive march in human history (ibid.,
pp. 69-70).
In the first quarter of twentieth century, Syed Ameer Ali (d. 1928) and Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) stood as the champions of intellectual modernism
in India. However, it was Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the only religious thinker
associated with a theological seminary or the traditional centre of Muslim
learning, who held a liberal and progressive approach towards the
contemporary political, social and religious problems. Although he was
brought up and trained in a reactionary environment, he was successful in
manifesting a clear divergence from the traditional conservative path trodden
by the South Asian ulama. Unmindful of the socio-political and economic
onslaughts of the West, the ulama had focused all their energies against the
British missionary activities. Sindhi exhorted the ulama retired in shells of their
hackneyed traditions to shun their hermit-like attitude which was characterized
by escapism. Sindhi urged them to courageously face the challenges of
rapidly changing modes of time and respond accordingly. As a true follower of
Shah Wali-Allah, he tried his utmost to bridge the yawning gulf of differences
among the people and reconcile the old and the new, the conventional and the
modern. W.C. Smith considers him among those liberal Muslim leaders who
provoked much ‘excitement and action’ among the people (Smith, 1957, p.
64).
A Voice from the Margins
173
Sindhi was a true follower of the intellectual modernism of Shah Wali-Allah. He
criticized his contemporary ulama who insisted on reviving the Caliphate.
Sindhi maintained that the political system of the Pious Caliphate could not be
revived in contemporary times. The Pious Caliphate, suitable for its coeval
social and political environment, could not necessarily be viable for the
subsequent ages. It was only in the light of the basic principles of the Pious
Caliphate that new forms of ‘Quranic Governments’ could be evolved in future
(Sarwar, 1967, p. 55). Sindhi also believed that the decision unanimously
taken by majority of a party can be termed as Ijma (consensus of a majority of
religious scholars) which can take place at all times. However, it should be
taken on the condition that the party should uphold goodness and virtue, and
be working for the establishment of the Quranic rule (Sarwar, 1982, pp. 91-
92).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s party program declared its dissociation with all panIslamic
movements. The party clearly proclaimed its inability to recognize any
international religious convention or any religio-political institution like
Caliphate or Khilafat (Sarwar, 1972, pp. 51-52). His views on the issue can be
compared to those of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who argued that the Caliphate
had ended after the abdication of Imam Hasan (AS) in 660 after ruling for a
period of less than six months, and the subsequent rulers of the Umayyad,
Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties were mere kings, and not Caliphs (Amir,
2000, p. 29), though they adopted high-sounding titles for themselves.
Moreover, being an Islamic modernist, Sindhi did not despise the ideology of
Marxism unlike his contemporary ulama. He considered it as a commendable
effort aiming at the amelioration of humanity but he deemed Islam higher than
Marxism in many degrees (Sarwar, 1972, p. 196; see details on pp. 185-307).
He was opposed to communalism and professed internationalism. For this
very reason, he first wanted the Indian Muslims to resolve their differences
and then wished to see all Indians belonging to diverse creeds working
together hand in hand. He tried to evolve a synthesis by reconciling the two
rival strands of Deoband and Aligarh, which represented traditionalism and
modernism respectively. He wanted the religious sections of the Muslim
community to work with the Western educated Muslims for solving their
common problems. Similarly, he wished to see the Hindus and the Muslims
working together in an atmosphere of harmony and peace. That was why he
was not ideologically opposed to the Indian National Congress which
professed non-communalism. However, he was critical of the Congress
leadership and ‘Gandhism’, since Gandhi claimed both political and religious
leadership (Sarwar, 1967, p. 420; and Faruqi, 1963, p. 7). As mentioned
earlier, Sindhi was the founder president of ‘Congress Committee Kabul’
established in Kabul in 1922. Later, with the efforts of Dr. M. A. Ansari it got
affiliated with the Indian National Congress. Thus, it became the first branch of
Congress founded outside India. However, after Sindhi’s return to India in
Tanvir Anjum
174
1939, he practically withdrew from the Congress politics, albeit he retained its
ordinary membership (Sindhi, 1969, pp. 407-9; and Moizuddin, 1988, p. 207).
His party program also embraced the ethical principle of non-violence, which
he had admittedly borrowed from the Gandhian philosophy with profound
gratitude (Sindhi, 1969, p. 408), though he also promoted the doctrine of jihad,
defining it as “[d]ynamic action aimed at a social and revolutionary end.”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198).
Sindhi himself claimed that he was the first Indian to present the idea to
dividing India in Kabul in 1916 (Aslam, n.d., pp. 60-61), but it has been
asserted that Sindhi’s Party program was not taken seriously by his
contemporary political leaders, particularly those of Indian National Congress.
The only exception was perhaps Lala Lajpat Rai (d. 1928), one of the founders
of Hindu Mahasaba, who after having inspiration from Sindhi’s plan, presented
his own scheme of partition. Some of the Muslim leaders such as Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal, and the Unionist leader, Sir Fazl-i-Husain (d. 1936) also
appreciated Sindhi’s party program (see introduction in ibid., p. 11; and
Ghulam Mustafa Qasmi’s editorial of Al-Wali, Hyderabad, Sindh, October
1970, p. 14, as cited in Razvi, 1995, pp. 118-19). Razvi argues that Sindhi was
the first political leader to clearly present the idea of dividing India into several
states or zones, and all the Muslim political thinkers who came after him
directly or indirectly took inspiration from his Party’s Constitution. Razvi goes
on to argue that the schemes for solving the political problems of India
presented by Hasrat Mohani (d. 1951) and the Cabinet Mission Plan had
some features which bore resemblance with Sindhi’s Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India (Razvi, 1995, pp. 120-21). The scheme of
creating three zones in India presented by the Cabinet Mission in 1946 can be
well compared to his idea of creating federal units in the country. The three
British Cabinet members proposed the formation of an All-India Union
Government consisting of a three-section federation.
As pointed out above, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is one of the marginalized voices in
South Asian political thought, as his political ideas and vision have not been
adequately understood and interpreted, particularly in the Muslim nationalist
historiographical tradition. He has generally failed to find a favourable mention
in the writings of Muslim nationalist historians in Pakistan. For instance,
according to I. H. Qureshi, he was “a total convert to the ideas of nationalism
and socialism”, as his Constitution “bears the unmistakable stamp of the
philosophy of Moscow communism.” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 315). Qureshi soon
contradicts his own statement when he asserts that Sindhi “rejected
communism”. (Ibid., p. 316). As a matter of fact, to people like Sindhi,
socialism was an effective tool that could be used in the nationalist struggle
against the British. Like many other early Muslim socialists, he did not reject
Islam in favour of socialism; in fact, he tried to bring socialism within the
framework of Islam, and make the two ideologies compatible to each other
A Voice from the Margins
175
(Ansari, 1986, p. 537; for details of other Indian Muslim socialists, see pp. 509-
37). Moreover, he tried to reinterpret socialism in the light of the teachings of
Shah Wali-Allah. His variant of socialism was not atheistic; it was theistic
socialism.
Again, in the opinion of Qureshi, his scheme was “an outline for some kind of
Utopia in the Subcontinent…” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 316). Qureshi further asserts
that Sindhi was not a ‘revolutionary’, and he did not find any support from the
masses as well (ibid., p. 318). He further states: “He was not taken seriously
by any significant political group in the Subcontinent; he found neither
acceptance, nor did he provoke any opposition…[he was ] an eccentric
visionary” (ibid.) According to Said Ahmad Akbarabadi (d. 1985), one of the
renowned pupils of Sindhi, his ideas and efforts could not produce desired
results owing to two major reasons: (i) Sindhi’s speech and writings did not
match his political and religious ideals; his writings were not very coherent and
well-argued; and (ii) the rigidity in his thought often led to harshness during
heated discussions with his fellows, which prevented the wider dissemination
of his views (cited in Moizuddin, 1988, p. 209). In the opinion of Ayesha Jalal,
he remained a voice on the margins, and he himself knew that very few
people understood his mission and philosophy. He remained outside the
mainstream politics in India represented by the two major political parties,
Indian National Congress and All India Muslim League (Jalal, 2008, p. 225). In
the words of another scholar, he was
“much ahead of his time…. He ploughed a lonely furrow in the country
of his birth…. He combined too much and harmonized too much. He
was drawn and attracted by widely diverse movements of thought. But
he seems to have had a highly integrating faculty and a deep sense of
history.” (Khan, 2000, pp. 160-61).
Sindhi is often accused of intellectual oscillation by his critics. They forget that
thinkers may have political ideas which evolve and develop over time, and
there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal’s political
thought was, for instance, also evolutionary. He was initially a champion of
Indian Nationalism, but then he became a Muslim Nationalist. In other words,
he rejected territorial nationalism to embrace Muslim nationalism, which he
rejected to promote pan-Islamism. Soon he was convinced of the
impracticality of pan-Islamic ideals, and he started asserting that “Bolshevism
plus God is almost identical with Islam”. It was only in the final phase of Iqbal’s
life that his political thought was matured, when he rejected all the ‘isms’
including democracy, capitalism, fascism, nationalism and socialism.
Therefore, it will be erroneous to present Iqbal as an Indian nationalist, or panIslamist
or Communist. Similarly, Sindhi cannot be termed as a Communist or
a pan-Islamist. His political thought was evolutionary, like many other political
thinkers, and it should be understood as such.

Asiatic Federation

asiaticfederation.blogspot.com

@jamahir Something of interest

 

[jamahir]

Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is among those very few political thinkers
and activists of the twentieth-century India who were initially
associated with the traditional theological seminaries but their
political vision was marked by liberalism and openmindedness.
He established a non-communal political party—
Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in 1924 in order to translate his
political ideals into practice. The Party Constitution envisaged
the idea of a unique form of confederal form of government for
the country. It also presented an outline of a socio-economic
order which was derived from a reconciliation of Socialist
ideals with the Quran and Shah Wali-Allahi thought. However,
he is among one of the least understood and often
misinterpreted Muslim thinkers of India. Thus, there is a need
to appreciate and reevaluate the political modernism in his
thought and vision.
Key-words: Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, The Constitution
of the Federated Republics of India, Confederalism, Socialism
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (1872-1944) of Deoband School is among those very few
political thinkers and activists who were trained in traditional madrassahs or
theological seminaries, but had a thorough understanding of their
contemporary political and economic ideologies, and were endowed with a
deep vision and tremendous political foresight. Unlike most of his fellow ulama
or scholars and political leaders of Deoband School, he was receptive to
modernism, though in a selective manner. It is for this very reason that he has
been hailed as ‘the most broad-minded Muslim scholar of South Asia after
Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi’ by Said Ahmad Akbarabadi, an illustrious pupil of
Sindhi and a renowned scholar of Islam (see introduction in Aslam, n.d., p.
10). He was not only an exponent of the religious and political thought of Shah
Wali-Allah of Delhi (1703-1762), Sindhi was himself a profound thinker, an
activist and a revolutionary. Amid the reactionary environment of madrassahs
where he was trained, he was the first religious and political thinker of the
twentieth century who was able to break away from traditionalism, and
embraced the various aspects of modernity, including political modernity.
♣ Author is Assistant Professor Department of History, Quaid-i-Azam niversity,
Islamabad - Pakistan
Tanvir Anjum
160
Unlike his contemporary ulama, he believed that the political system of the
Pious Caliphate could not be revived in modern times, since the Caliphate was
suitable for its coeval social and political environment. Therefore, for solving
the political problems of India, he suggested a modern political system.
In order to translate his political ideals in reality, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi
established a political party with the name Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in
1924, in which he envisaged the idea of a unique form of confederal form of
government for the country. Nevertheless, he is among one of the least
understood and often misinterpreted Muslim scholars of India. His political
ideas and schemes have been evaluated and interpreted by the Muslim
nationalist historians in an unsympathetic manner. In fact, the Muslim
nationalist historiographical tradition tends to eulogize the efforts of only those
Muslim leaders who struggled for the creation of Pakistan, while ignoring
those who held political views opposed to the ideology of All India Muslim
League. In the Muslim nationalist historiographical tradition, which forms a
dominant discourse in the country, at least in the textbooks of history and
Pakistan Studies, Sindhi’s political modernism has not been adequately
appreciated. Such a treatment of Sindhi’s political philosophy and vision calls
for a reevaluation of his political ideals.
1. Political Biography of Ubaid-Allah Sindhi: A Brief Overview
Born in a Sikh family in District Sialkot in 1872, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi (also
spelled as Ubayd Allah or Ubaidullah) got converted to Islam from Sikhism by
his own choice during his schooldays in Jampur, District Dera Ghazi Khan. He
spent some time in the madrassahs of Bharchundi Sharif (three kilometers
from the city of Daharki, District Ghotki, Sindh) and Dinpur Sharif (District
Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab). He became a disciple of Saiyyid al-Arifin Hafiz
Muhammad Siddiq of Bharchundi Sharif in District Sukkur, though later he
received spiritual guidance and training from others as well. (Moizuddin, 1988,
pp. 199-201). He joined the renowned theological seminary of Dar al-Ulum at
Deoband (a town in northwestern UP) in 1889, and became a pupil of eminent
scholars such as Mahmud Hasan (d. 1920), popularly known as Shaykh alHind,
and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1905). There he acquired profound
knowledge of Arabic language, tafsir (exegesis of the Quran), hadith
(traditions of the Holy Prophet, PBUH), fiqh (Muslim law or jurisprudence),
falsafah (philosophy) and mantaq (logic). In addition, he also got acquainted
with the writings of the renowned Sufi-scholar of Delhi, Shah Wali-Allah, and
Muhammad Qasim Nanawtavi (d. 1880), one of the founders of the Deoband
School, which had a lasting impression on his thought.
Deoband was started in 1867 as an apolitical religious institution, but later
under the leadership of Mahmud Hasan, its graduates started political
activism, and some of them played a very important role in Muslim politics.
A Voice from the Margins
161
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi started his political career in 1908 when he was made the
secretary of an association of Deoband graduates—Jamiat al-Ansar (Society
of Helpers) in Deoband founded by Mahmud Hasan. (Minault, 1982, pp. 28-
29). However, Peter Hardy is of the view that Sindhi himself founded Jamiat
al-Ansar in 1910 which aimed at a greater fraternity between the alumni of
Deoband and Aligarh Schools. (Hardy, 1972, p. 181). It had an apolitical
character. Soon, Sindhi’s views generated controversy in some circles of
Deoband. As circumstances grew unfavorable for him due to his consequent
opposition, he decided to leave Deoband in 1913. Mahmud Hasan sent him to
Delhi where he founded another institution named Nazarat al-Ma’arif alQuraniyya
with the aim of equipping the Western-educated Muslims with
religious knowledge. Its patrons were Nawab Viqar al-Mulk (1841-1917),
Hakim Ajmal Khan (1864-1927) and Dr. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari (1880-1936).
Soon it became a platform for political debates. Here Sindhi was introduced to
Muhammad Ali Jauhar (1878-1931) and Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958) by Dr.
Ansari. So it was during 1913-15 that Sindhi became politically active and
came in contact with the Muslim political leaders. (Minault, 1982, p. 30).
In coming years, Sindhi developed a very close relationship with Mahmud
Hasan, and that was why, in some circles of Deoband, the former came to be
known as ‘the brain of Shaykh al-Hind’. When during the World War I, the
British Indian forces left India to fight on the Middle Eastern and European
fronts, the leading scholars of Deoband deemed the time ripe for liberating
India from the imperial yoke. Mahmud Hasan planned to persuade the frontier
tribes to wage war against the British. For this reason, Sindhi was sent to
Kabul by him in 1915 in order to muster the support of the Afghan government
and urge the ruler of Afghanistan to attack India to keep the British Army
occupied on the frontier. The British government, on the other hand,
pressurized the Afghan government to prevent him from political activities. The
attempt, nonetheless, could not become successful, and it is remembered in
history as ‘Silk Letter Movement’ of 1916. (Qureshi, 1999, pp. 78-80; and
Mian, 1975). Consequently, Sindhi got imprisoned, and remained in the fort of
Badakhshan for some time.
The failure of the Silk Letter Movement forced Sindhi to lead a life of exile for
more than two decades, which proved very enlightening for him as he
travelled far and wide, and got acquainted with the international politics as well
as his contemporary political ideologies and economic orders. He spent the
next seven years (1915-22) in Afghanistan (Leghari, 1980), and later during
his stay in Makkah, he recorded the experiences he had in Afghanistan in his
partial biography title Kabul Mein Sāt Sāl (Seven Years in Kabul), (Sindhi,
1955). During these seven years, he closely worked with the Afghan
government, which was under considerable influence of the British. He
exchanged views with many influential people and political leaders.
Tanvir Anjum
162
During World War I, Kabul had become the ‘Switzerland of Asia’ where the
politicians of various countries had assembled, making the city a hotbed of
international politics. It was here owing to his interaction with the Afghan
politicians that his sentiments of Muslim brotherhood had begun to shake. He
realized that the existence of quam (nation) in geographical or territorial
context was an objective reality. He soon became aware of the fact that the
Afghans and the Indian Muslims constitute two separate nations, since each of
them preferred not to work with the other as subordinate (Sarwar, 1967, p.
30). Before leaving India, Sindhi had a heightened vigour for Muslim unity, but
his pan-Islamic dream began to fade when he was in Kabul where he realized
that the Arabs, Turks and Afghans have their own interests and specific needs
(Ansari, 1986, p. 517).
Convinced of the futility of communal politics, Sindhi along with some
associates of the Ghadar Movement (Faruqi, 1963, pp. 59-60) and IndoGerman-Turkish
Mission, formed the Provisional Government of India in Kabul
in December 1915. (The Hindi Association of the Pacific Coast, popularly
known as Ghadar Party, was founded in California (USA) in April 1913, and
organized by a Hindu activist named Hardayal. Its spokesman was a
newspaper named Ghadar, literally meaning treason, which began publishing
in 1913. The Party had its branches all over the world, and its aim was to
liberate India from the colonial yoke). Raja Mahendra Pratap (d. 1979) was
made life president of the Provisional Government of India, Muhammad
Barkat-Allah Bhopali (d. 1975) was appointed the Prime Minister, while UbaidAllah
Sindhi was entrusted with the portfolio of the Home Ministry (Pratap,
1947, p. 51). This Provisional Government dealt directly with the Afghan
Government, and also sent missions to the governments of Russia, Turkey
and Japan to seek their help for the freedom of India, but the missions failed to
achieve the desired results (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 48-62). Sindhi’s collaboration
with a Hindu and the non-Muslim foreign governments bear ample testimony
to his liberal and non-communal outlook in political affairs. In fact, the Arab
Revolt of 1916 against the Ottoman Empire had also given, in the words of
Faruqi, a “rude shock to Sindhi’s Islamism” (Faruqi, 1963, p. 57).
In 1919, he established a para-military organization with the name of Jund
Allah or Junud-i Rabbaniyya (The Army/Armies of God; also translated as
‘Muslim Salvation Army’). (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 47-48; see organizational
structure in appendix A in Mian, 1975, pp. 363-66). He mustered support of
the people, including the pirs who were enlisted and given high ranks in the
army. Eventually, he became successful in raising an army of 100,000 against
the British (Ansari, 1992, p. 81). However, the Afghan ruler, Amir Habib-Allah
Khan (r. 1901-1919) urged him to seek the support of the Hindus for the
liberation of India from the colonial yoke. Thus Sindhi joined Indian National
Congress in 1919, and established an independent Congress Committee of
Kabul in 1922, and himself became its president. Later, he got it affiliated with
A Voice from the Margins
163
the Indian National Congress in the same year in its Gaya (Bihar) session
through the efforts of Dr. Ansari (Moizuddin, 1988, pp. 203-4.) Thus, it became
the first branch of the Congress to work outside India.
From Kabul, he went to Moscow in 1922 and stayed there for eight months. In
the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, in South Asia he was “the only political thinker of
any considerable caliber to come directly in contact with Russian communism
at an early stage.” (Ahmad, 1967, p. 195). During this period, he closely
observed the emergence of Soviet Russia from the ruins of Tsardom. He also
observed the revolutionary changes introduced by the Bolsheviks from close
quarters. Moreover, he also studied the fundamental tenets of socialism.
Sindhi later admitted that his study of socialism “enabled him to defend his
religious movement, which was a branch of the philosophy of Shah Wali-Allah,
against the onslaught of atheism and anti-religious trend of the time.” (Shaikh,
1986, p. 127). He held discussions regarding Islam, socialism, and their
compatibility. He also met Chechren, the Russian Foreign Minister, and
sought the assistance of Russia to oust the British from India.
From Russia Sindhi went to Turkey in 1923 and stayed there for three years.
During his stay in Istanbul, he carefully observed the emergence of modern
secular Turkey under the dynamic leadership of Mustafa Kamal Ataturk (1881-
1938). He met a number of political leaders including Ismat Pasha, the Prime
Minister of Turkey. Sindhi shaped his political ideology during his eventful stay
in Istanbul. There he founded Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party in 1924. He himself
became its president, whereas his close associate, Zafar Hasan Aibak was
made its Secretary General. The present work is an analytical study of this
political party and its Constitution.
In 1926, Sindhi left Turkey for Arabia, and spent the next thirteen years of his
life there. He spent these years in Makkah, studying and interpreting the
teachings of the Quran in the light of Shah Wali-Allah’s works, particularly his
monumental book Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah. He delivered lectures on the
Quran and its exegesis, the Prophetic traditions or ahadith, and the teachings
of Shah Wali-Allah. Moreover, he also wrote some books and articles as well
(ibid., pp. 193-95). He also reviewed the history of the Muslims, particularly of
India, with a critical look. Though his biographer Hajjan Shaikh claims that
during these years, he remained aloof from politics, and did not take part in
any political activity (ibid., p. 187), yet he formed another political party named
Jamna Narbada Sind Sagar Party in 1939 (See the program of the party in
Appendix I in ibid., pp. 265-71). He ultimately got convinced that Islamic
renaissance could only be brought by following the teachings of the great Sufischolar
of Delhi.
In 1939, he returned to India when the British Government permitted him to do
so. In the words of Faruqi, during his sojourn abroad his ‘Islamist’ approach to
Tanvir Anjum
164
Indian politics was transformed into ‘nationalist-secularist’. He had left India as
a firebrand agitator and an organizer of revolutionary activities; he came back
as a thinker (ibid., p. 187). He spent the rest of his life in austerity and
simplicity, propagating the teachings of Shah Wali-Allah till his death in August
1944 in Sindh. (For details see his autobiographical sketch, Sindhi, 1969, pp.
403-9; and Sarwar, 1967, pp. 23-39). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi has been hailed as
Imam-i Inqalab or the ‘Leader of Revolution’ since his whole political
philosophy revolves around the ideas of change and revolution. In fact,
wherever he went from Kabul, he witnessed revolutionary changes which he
deeply observed and analyzed with an open mind.
Outside India, the revolutionary socialist ideas in the USSR, the liberal and
progressive views of Ataturk in Turkey, and the puritan revolution by Wahabis
in Arabia helped him in shaping his philosophy of revolution. But above all, the
Shah Wali-Allahi thought served as a beacon and guiding light for him. In
short, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s travels outside India greatly facilitated him in
comprehending the changes and challenges all over the globe, and eventually
reaching at a solution of the Indian problems. He came back to his country
with a heightened vigour and force of argument, a deepened vision and insight
and a fresh clarity of ideas. That is why, he is considered to be one of “the
most interesting and romantic personalities of the group of early Indian
revolutionaries.” (See the views of G. S. Kalyanpur in Bombay Chronicle, June
22, 1941, as quoted in Hajan, 1974, pp. 117-18).
2. Establishment of Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party
In order to translate his political ideals into reality, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi founded
a political party under the aegis of Congress Committee of Kabul in 1924 at
Istanbul, which was known as Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, also spelled as
Swarajya Party (Aibak, n.d., p. 102). Its name may be translated as All India
People’s Republican Party. The Hindi term sarvrāj or swarāj has generally
been translated as home-rule or self-government. Though the term was used
and popularized by M K Gandhi, it referred to a ‘disciplined rule from within’ in
Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi argued that the English terms independence
and freedom do not convey the meaning enshrined in the concept of swaraj,
which means freedom with responsibility (Hardiman, 2003, p. 26). In fact,
swaraj is a sacred term, derived from the Vedic literature, which refers to selfrule
or self-restraint. It is a multi-dimensional concept with personal, national,
political, social and economic connotations. In political sense, it means selfrule,
a condition or a state where people are superior to political institutions,
and power or authority is decentralized in society, which is not politically
dominated by any single group (Bharathi, 1995, p. 99).
As far as the Hindi or Sanskrit nomenclature of Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party is
concerned, it reflects its non-communal character. As pointed out earlier,
A Voice from the Margins
165
Sindhi’s pan-Islamic ideals and the dreams of Muslim brotherhood were
shattered when he travelled outside India, which led him to modify his sociopolitical
vision. The political vision he envisaged and political party he founded
promised the Indians a rule with power shared by all classes, strata and
sections of society irrespective of their caste, class, colour or creed.
3. Proclamation of The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi drafted the Party’s constitution titled The Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India, which envisaged his political and socioeconomic
vision. It was initially drafted in Urdu and published from Istanbul in
1924. (In the opinion of Hajan, it was published in 1922, whereas the correct
date seems to be 1924, mentioned by Razvi, when the Party was founded).
(Hajan, 1974, p. 121; and Razvi, 1995, p. 112). When it was sent to India, its
copies were confiscated by the British Government. It was later translated in
English and Turkish languages in 1926. To avoid censorship, the English and
Turkish translation was somewhat modified so that it might not be called an
exact translation in juridical phraseology (Shaikh, 1986, p. 181, n. 36).
According to this Constitution, the aims and objectives of Sindhi’s broader
program, as enunciated by his associate, Zafar Hasan Aibak, a retired Captain
of Turkish Army, in his autobiography titled Ap Biti, were as follows (Aibak,
n.d., pp. 101-2):
1. Winning of complete independence for India;
2. Establishment of a confederal form of government in liberated India;
3. Safeguarding of Islam, the Muslims and other minorities living in
India;
4. Formation of a government in India dominated by the working class
(peasantry, labour, and intelligentsia);
5. Abolition of feudalism and capitalism from the country so that the
people could not be deceived by the lures of Communism; and
6. Establishment of an Asiatic Federation to counter imperialism and
colonialism.
4. Main Clauses of the Constitution
The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India presents a clear picture
of the political and socio-economic ideals of Ubaid-Allah Sindhi. He rejected
the idea of India as an indivisible single entity and the notion of creating a
single nationhood, which was advocated by the Indian nationalists. (See the
Tanvir Anjum
166
views of Sindhi in The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India, Eng.
trans. Zafar Hasan Aibak, Istanbul, 1926, pp. 10-11 as quoted in Shaikh,
1986, pp. 159-60). According to him, the Indian Sub-continent was,
geographically speaking, quite naturally divided into three distinct zones:
north-western, eastern and southern zones. He promulgated the idea of
dividing India into three such zones along linguistic and cultural lines. All three
zones were thus to be declared as republics or democracies. The Northwestern
Indian Republic was to comprise of East Punjab, West Punjab, the
Frontier Province, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan and Gujarat. Similarly, the
Eastern and Southern Indian Republics were also to form two separate
republics or democratic states. These three Republics were then to join a
‘Central Government of the Federated Republics of India’. (Aibak, n.d., p.
105). Thus, Sindhi’s Constitution envisaged a unique form of confederalism for
the country. But initially, he planned to limit the sphere of his political party to
the Indo-Gangetic plains. He selected the North-western India for his program
and worked on it in greater detail (Hajan, 1974, pp. 122-23). The rest of the
two Republics were to be divided along cultural and linguistic lines in the same
manner.
In these Republics, the electoral system was to base on universal adult
franchise, i.e. all adult men and women were to be granted suffrage. But what
is interesting to note is that every social strata was to elect its own
representatives for the Parliament according to its population. In this way, the
Parliaments or the Legislative Assemblies of the three Republics were to be
dominated by peasantry, labour/manual workers and intelligentsia (those
involved in mental labour), constituting the majority of the country’s population.
Only such a form of government based on proportional representation could,
in his opinion, safeguard the interests of working classes adequately (Aibak,
n.d., p. 106).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi also laid down some cardinal economic and socio-political
principles for the conduct of these Republics. These can be briefly summed up
in the following (ibid., pp. 106-8):
1. All public utilities were to be nationalized, i.e. to be taken over by
the state.
2. Private ownership of movable and immovable property was to be
restricted and property exceeding a prescribed limit was also to
be taken over by the state.
3. Wealthy and affluent persons were to be excessively taxed which
could go as high as 60% of their income.
A Voice from the Margins
167
4. All big landholdings were to be nationalized and the feudal
system was to be abolished. However, in Republics having a
clear Muslim majority, landlords were to be forced to renounce
the ownership of their lands according to the decision taken by
the second Pious Caliph, Hazrat Omar (r. 634-44), and according
to another verdict by Imam Abu Hanifah (699-767), absentee
landlordism or rent-farming was also to be abolished by force.
These landlords would be permitted to work as agents of the
government.
5. Every agriculturist family could retain that much land which it
could directly cultivate by itself.
6. Usury or interest was to be completely abolished, and all old
debts of workers were to be written off. Arrangements would be
made for granting interest-free loans to the people in future.
7. Labour unions were to run the nationalized industries, and the
workers were to be granted share from the profit.
8. Free accommodation and medical facilities were to be provided
to the workers.
9. Education till middle standard was to be free and obligatory for
every child.
10. International trade and commerce was to be placed in the hands
of the Central Government, while the domestic commercial
activities were to fall in the jurisdiction of co-operative societies.
However, the merchants and traders could become members of
these societies.
11. Every Republic was to declare its state religion which was
necessarily to be the religion professed by its majority. But the
religion should not contradict the cardinal economic and social
principles of the party program mentioned above.
12. The three Republics were not to be responsible for their foreign
affairs, defense and international trade and commerce which
were to be controlled by the Central Government of the
Federated Republics of India.
13. It also envisioned the formation of an Asiatic Federation in future
to counter imperialism. Governments were to be established in
Tanvir Anjum
168
Asia along the lines of the above-mentioned principles. Moreover,
Russia was also to be included in the Federation.
Regarding the membership of the Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party, Sindhi
maintained that anyone irrespective of caste, creed, colour, or gender could
become member of the party. However, what was mandatory for the members
was to keep down their needs and comforts of life to the standard of an
average cultivator in the country. Therefore, any property exceeding one’s
needs was to be transferred to the party (Hajan, 1974, p. 124). In the words of
Sindhi: “Under our government, capitalist system may have no possibility of
revival and out party programme may not be considered a vain display, or a
political weapon.” (The Constitution of the Federated Republics of India, pp.
10-11 as quoted in Shaikh, 1986, p. 161). It shows that he believed in creating
a certain level of economic equality among the people in the country, and
those who had active interest in politics and wished to be party members were
required to sacrifice their possessions. Moreover, it was not merely equality in
economic terms which Sindhi intended to create; it was social equality as well
which he idealized. For this reason, the Hindu volunteers of the Party were
required to extend fraternal treatment to all Indians including the
untouchables, and consider them as equals (Hajan, 1974, p. 125).
Sindhi also proposed the formation of six executive and legislative bodies: (1)
The Volunteer Corps; (2) The Sarvrajia Conference; (3) The Sarvrajia Working
Committee; (4) The Mahabharat Sarvrajia Congress; (5) The Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Central Committee; and (6) The Panchayats (invested with all the
legislative, financial and judicial powers). (Shaikh, 1986, pp. 174-75; and
Hajan, 1974, pp. 125-27). Since India had a multi-religious population and the
Hindus were in an over-whelming majority, he was particularly conscious of
the Hindu sensitivities. Therefore, he proposed that cow slaughter should be
banned in areas having mixed population of Hindus and Muslims (Hajan,
1974, p. 125) so that the people having multi-religious backgrounds could live
side by side in harmony and peace.
6. Analysis of the Constitution in the Light of Sindhi’s Political Vision
The impact of the writings of Shah Wali-Allah on the political vision of UbaidAllah
Sindhi was tremendous. During the final phase of his life, he tried to
philosophize his theory of nationalism in terms of a special Muslim social
theory derived from the writings of Shah Wali-Allah of Delhi (Faruqi, 1963, p.
57). In his works, particularly Hujjat al-Allah al-Balighah, Shah Wali-Allah had
enunciated some socio-economic and political principles at length. To him, the
basis of capital generation should be effort and hard work, i.e. capital should
not be allowed to generate further capital without being effectively utilized. He
emphasized safeguarding the rights of peasantry, labour and intelligentsia.
These people, according to Shah Wali-Allah, deserve prosperity and welfare.
A Voice from the Margins
169
They should not be heavily taxed and their hours of work should also be
restricted so that they could pay heed to their ethical and spiritual uplift.
Wealth should not be allowed to accumulate in the hands of a section of
society. Gambling should be stopped. The capitalists who unduly tax and
burden the peasantry and workers should be eliminated. The peasantry and
workers should be paid according to their labour, and their contract with the
employers should be bilaterally agreed upon. The terms of reference and
conditions should not be dictated by the employers. Luxurious life style should
be eliminated, so that equality could reign supreme in the society (Mian, 1975,
pp. 78-80). Regarding political structures, Shah Wali-Allah proposed the
formation of an international bloc with autonomous but strong units (ibid., pp.
81-82). In addition, according to him, it was the same fundamental truth which
underlies all the world religions. Their religious leaders deserve esteem
because they all shared some basic principles, and the ultimate goal of their
social principles was the same (ibid., p. 82).
After going through the details of the socio-economic principles enunciated by
Shah Wali-Allah, one can conclude that Ubaid-Allah Sindhi borrowed heavily
from them. In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, much of the “basis of Sindhi’s
concept of an Islamic socialist theocracy is…derived piecemeal from WaliAllah”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198). Sindhi elaborated the views of Shah Wali-Allah
and translated them into a modern language in order to address the
contemporary problems. He attempted to present a unique blend of
nationalism and internationalism in his political philosophy. Moreover, it was
Sindhi who first talked about an alternative system of parliamentary form of
government, and envisaged a plan of the Federated Republics for India. His
idea of creating a Federation of Indian Republics propounded in 1924 was an
appropriate solution of the Indian problems keeping in view the contemporary
political realities. At that time, the Khilafat Movement had come to a close,
shattering the hope of the Hindu-Muslim unity in political arena.
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s real accomplishment lies in his novel alternative scheme
for the composition of the Parliament or Legislative Assembly. To him, the
representation in the Assembly was not to be based upon territorial electoral
constituencies. The masses, on the contrary, were to be professionally
represented, creating a majority of working class in the proposed Assembly. In
fact, he advocated a system of proportional representation in the Legislative
Assemblies so that the peasantry, labour and intelligentsia could be
represented and have a say in the decision-making. However, unlike the
Marxist ideology, which idealizes ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, Sindhi was
ready to give proportional representation to the landlords and capitalist as
well, but since they were few in numbers, the Legislative Assemblies he
envisaged was to be dominated by the peasantry, labour and intelligentsia,
and not the landlords and capitalists. In fact, he wanted a “permanent system
of economy to be established which could save the masses (peasants,
Tanvir Anjum
170
workers and the intelligentsia) from falling in debt and poverty and save the
country also from foreign loans that could be detrimental to political
independence of the country.” (Zafar Hasan, The Mahabharat Sarvrajia Party,
Istanbul, September 25, 1924, p. 29, as quoted in Razvi, 1995, p. 113). In fact,
he believed in human dignity and equality, and opposed to any form of human
servitude. On one occasion, he argued that a human being could not be a
servant of another; though one could help others (Moizuddin, 1988, p. 208).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s idea of socialized production in nationalized lands and
industries was sagaciously devised from the history of Muslim jurisprudence,
though his critics maintain that it was inspired by the Communist ideology. His
Constitution essentially differs in character from the Manifesto of the
Communist Party. The latter envisaged the dictatorship of the proletariat
excluding all other sections and classes of society from power. Sindhi’s plan,
however, gave due consideration to the moneyed classes—the landlords,
industrialists and capitalists who constitute only a fraction of the society. He
proposed their representation in the government as well. Moreover, unlike the
socialist state, the profit earned from the production units (industries, etc.) was
not to be taken up by the state, but to be shared by the whole working class.
In the words of Aziz Ahmad (Ahmad, 1967 pp. 200-1):
“The main difference between the communist and Islamic economic
philosophies, according to Sindhi, is that while both agree that the
process of the distribution of wealth should be ‘from each according to
his ability’, Islam would prefer it to be ‘to each according to his need’
rather than to ‘each according to his work’. In other words Sindhi would
like to see Islamic socialism on the lines of a western welfare state.”
Regarding the question of Indian nationalism, Sindhi believed that India was
not a single country having one single nation as maintained by the leaders of
the Congress and Hindu Mahasabha. He attacked the myth of Indian unity and
maintained that India was the home of many nationalities. He considered the
cultural and linguistic affinities to be the basis of a nation. Owing to these two
unifying symbols, his concept of nationalism was essentially space-bound. He
was mindful of the geographical realities defining the concept of a nation in the
Western thought.
He believed that within the Muslim community, there were distinct groups
having ethnic, cultural and linguistic differentiation. Thus, the Mahabharat
Sarvrajia Party was the “first political organization which declared India a
multi-national country…” (ibid., p. 114). As far as these cultural diversities
were concerned, India resembled Europe where the English, French,
Germans and Italians, etc. were considered different nations. He defined
nation as a collectivity of men united by ties of language and culture. But India
could not be divided into many petty states like the Balkan States (Sarwar,
A Voice from the Margins
171
1967, p. 425). The only solution, according to him, was that every unit should
be granted freedom and autonomy, and the centre should bind them together.
He asserted the fact that nations speaking different languages are forced to
create a commonality by ideological unity which is sometimes provided by
religion and sometimes by an economic ideology, such as in Communism.
Therefore, unity created by such a hegemonic ideological commonality cannot
be termed national; rather it is international in nature (ibid., p. 426). The
universality of Islam does not prevent splitting of states into national units but
at the same time, every nation should consider itself a component of a wider
community of human race (ibid., p. 436). Ubaid-Allah Sindhi also presented a
model for an Asiatic Federation, a secular regional bloc of like-minded
countries agreeing to his proposed program. In fact, countering imperialism
had been one of the major goals of Sindhi’s political vision. He perceived it as
a common threat to many weak countries of the world. The proposed
formation of the Asiatic Federation was aimed at countering the imperialistic
designs of the World powers, and it also reflects his belief in a supranationalist
ideology.
In the opinion of Aziz Ahmad, Sindhi’s acceptance of composite nationalism
as a political solution for the Indian problems was ‘far more restricted’ than
other Deoband leaders (Ahmad, 1967, p. 196). Sindhi’s approach was
altogether different from the Indian Muslim nationalists like Abul Kalam Azad
and Husain Ahmad Madani (d. 1957). To him, separate nation-states could not
be formed since the Indians were ethnically and linguistically very rich and
diverse. Therefore, to him, the only solution was the formation of an Indian
Federation of autonomous Republics. The teachings of Islam, according to
him, do not stand in contradiction to the establishment of Muslim nation-states
all over the globe. Thus, he presented a blend of the communal and nationalist
stances represented by the All India Muslim League and the Indian National
Congress respectively. His program envisaged the formation of an
autonomous Muslim state in North-western India within the Indian Federation.
Sindhi also professed internationalism since he wished other countries to join
the regional bloc after becoming autonomous units or federated republics
professing his socio-economic and political principles.
According to Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the central government was to be secular in
nature. The federating units or republics were allowed to declare their state
religions, but the Centre was not to be concerned with the matters of faith. The
Centre was not to interfere in the religious policies of the units, unless and
until they contradict the cardinal socio-economic and political principles laid
down by the Sarvrajia Party. He was a broadminded and liberal Muslim thinker
who was an ardent advocate of religious tolerance and co-existence. In his
writings, he appreciated the religious policy of Mughal Emperor Akbar (b.
1542-d. 1605). In Akbar’s era, he says, a bloody Shia-Sunni sectarian strife
was going on between the Persians and the Turks in the Middle East, which
Tanvir Anjum
172
had even led to violent conflict and wars. Similarly, the contemporary Europe
had become a war theatre where the Protestants and the Catholics were at
daggers drawn, fighting in the name of Christianity. However, on the contrary,
the sixteenth-century India presented a peaceful picture. The secular
government of India under Akbar was not dominated by any religious group
(Sarwar, 1967, pp. 436, 339-40); rather it presented a diverse religious mosaic
with different communities sharing power with the ruling house. Such views of
Sindhi generated a lot of controversy (Akbarabadi, 1989, pp. 176-86).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi was a realist political thinker, and his pragmatic approach
can be best illustrated by his insistence that his fellow countrymen should
admit their defeat at the hands of the British, and acknowledge the fact that
their way of living, cultural traditions and legal system had been undermined
by the ideological onslaughts and the policies of the West. The old order, in
his opinion, could not be revived in the same form. One had to work for the
establishment of a new system. However, the spirit of the old order was to be
captured, which was the crux of the Quran and Islam, but the new order could
appear only in a new garb altogether (ibid., pp. 196-97). Thus, he held an
innovative and progressive approach towards the modern day problems of
compatibility of the old and the new, or the tradition and modernity. Moreover,
he believed that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions in Europe would one
day inevitably culminate in the mental and spiritual progress of the West.
Recognition and adoption of their material advancement by the Indians is the
only course open to them for their progressive march in human history (ibid.,
pp. 69-70).
In the first quarter of twentieth century, Syed Ameer Ali (d. 1928) and Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) stood as the champions of intellectual modernism
in India. However, it was Ubaid-Allah Sindhi, the only religious thinker
associated with a theological seminary or the traditional centre of Muslim
learning, who held a liberal and progressive approach towards the
contemporary political, social and religious problems. Although he was
brought up and trained in a reactionary environment, he was successful in
manifesting a clear divergence from the traditional conservative path trodden
by the South Asian ulama. Unmindful of the socio-political and economic
onslaughts of the West, the ulama had focused all their energies against the
British missionary activities. Sindhi exhorted the ulama retired in shells of their
hackneyed traditions to shun their hermit-like attitude which was characterized
by escapism. Sindhi urged them to courageously face the challenges of
rapidly changing modes of time and respond accordingly. As a true follower of
Shah Wali-Allah, he tried his utmost to bridge the yawning gulf of differences
among the people and reconcile the old and the new, the conventional and the
modern. W.C. Smith considers him among those liberal Muslim leaders who
provoked much ‘excitement and action’ among the people (Smith, 1957, p.
64).
A Voice from the Margins
173
Sindhi was a true follower of the intellectual modernism of Shah Wali-Allah. He
criticized his contemporary ulama who insisted on reviving the Caliphate.
Sindhi maintained that the political system of the Pious Caliphate could not be
revived in contemporary times. The Pious Caliphate, suitable for its coeval
social and political environment, could not necessarily be viable for the
subsequent ages. It was only in the light of the basic principles of the Pious
Caliphate that new forms of ‘Quranic Governments’ could be evolved in future
(Sarwar, 1967, p. 55). Sindhi also believed that the decision unanimously
taken by majority of a party can be termed as Ijma (consensus of a majority of
religious scholars) which can take place at all times. However, it should be
taken on the condition that the party should uphold goodness and virtue, and
be working for the establishment of the Quranic rule (Sarwar, 1982, pp. 91-
92).
Ubaid-Allah Sindhi’s party program declared its dissociation with all panIslamic
movements. The party clearly proclaimed its inability to recognize any
international religious convention or any religio-political institution like
Caliphate or Khilafat (Sarwar, 1972, pp. 51-52). His views on the issue can be
compared to those of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, who argued that the Caliphate
had ended after the abdication of Imam Hasan (AS) in 660 after ruling for a
period of less than six months, and the subsequent rulers of the Umayyad,
Abbasid and Ottoman dynasties were mere kings, and not Caliphs (Amir,
2000, p. 29), though they adopted high-sounding titles for themselves.
Moreover, being an Islamic modernist, Sindhi did not despise the ideology of
Marxism unlike his contemporary ulama. He considered it as a commendable
effort aiming at the amelioration of humanity but he deemed Islam higher than
Marxism in many degrees (Sarwar, 1972, p. 196; see details on pp. 185-307).
He was opposed to communalism and professed internationalism. For this
very reason, he first wanted the Indian Muslims to resolve their differences
and then wished to see all Indians belonging to diverse creeds working
together hand in hand. He tried to evolve a synthesis by reconciling the two
rival strands of Deoband and Aligarh, which represented traditionalism and
modernism respectively. He wanted the religious sections of the Muslim
community to work with the Western educated Muslims for solving their
common problems. Similarly, he wished to see the Hindus and the Muslims
working together in an atmosphere of harmony and peace. That was why he
was not ideologically opposed to the Indian National Congress which
professed non-communalism. However, he was critical of the Congress
leadership and ‘Gandhism’, since Gandhi claimed both political and religious
leadership (Sarwar, 1967, p. 420; and Faruqi, 1963, p. 7). As mentioned
earlier, Sindhi was the founder president of ‘Congress Committee Kabul’
established in Kabul in 1922. Later, with the efforts of Dr. M. A. Ansari it got
affiliated with the Indian National Congress. Thus, it became the first branch of
Congress founded outside India. However, after Sindhi’s return to India in
Tanvir Anjum
174
1939, he practically withdrew from the Congress politics, albeit he retained its
ordinary membership (Sindhi, 1969, pp. 407-9; and Moizuddin, 1988, p. 207).
His party program also embraced the ethical principle of non-violence, which
he had admittedly borrowed from the Gandhian philosophy with profound
gratitude (Sindhi, 1969, p. 408), though he also promoted the doctrine of jihad,
defining it as “[d]ynamic action aimed at a social and revolutionary end.”
(Ahmad, 1967, p. 198).
Sindhi himself claimed that he was the first Indian to present the idea to
dividing India in Kabul in 1916 (Aslam, n.d., pp. 60-61), but it has been
asserted that Sindhi’s Party program was not taken seriously by his
contemporary political leaders, particularly those of Indian National Congress.
The only exception was perhaps Lala Lajpat Rai (d. 1928), one of the founders
of Hindu Mahasaba, who after having inspiration from Sindhi’s plan, presented
his own scheme of partition. Some of the Muslim leaders such as Dr.
Muhammad Iqbal, and the Unionist leader, Sir Fazl-i-Husain (d. 1936) also
appreciated Sindhi’s party program (see introduction in ibid., p. 11; and
Ghulam Mustafa Qasmi’s editorial of Al-Wali, Hyderabad, Sindh, October
1970, p. 14, as cited in Razvi, 1995, pp. 118-19). Razvi argues that Sindhi was
the first political leader to clearly present the idea of dividing India into several
states or zones, and all the Muslim political thinkers who came after him
directly or indirectly took inspiration from his Party’s Constitution. Razvi goes
on to argue that the schemes for solving the political problems of India
presented by Hasrat Mohani (d. 1951) and the Cabinet Mission Plan had
some features which bore resemblance with Sindhi’s Constitution of the
Federated Republics of India (Razvi, 1995, pp. 120-21). The scheme of
creating three zones in India presented by the Cabinet Mission in 1946 can be
well compared to his idea of creating federal units in the country. The three
British Cabinet members proposed the formation of an All-India Union
Government consisting of a three-section federation.
As pointed out above, Ubaid-Allah Sindhi is one of the marginalized voices in
South Asian political thought, as his political ideas and vision have not been
adequately understood and interpreted, particularly in the Muslim nationalist
historiographical tradition. He has generally failed to find a favourable mention
in the writings of Muslim nationalist historians in Pakistan. For instance,
according to I. H. Qureshi, he was “a total convert to the ideas of nationalism
and socialism”, as his Constitution “bears the unmistakable stamp of the
philosophy of Moscow communism.” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 315). Qureshi soon
contradicts his own statement when he asserts that Sindhi “rejected
communism”. (Ibid., p. 316). As a matter of fact, to people like Sindhi,
socialism was an effective tool that could be used in the nationalist struggle
against the British. Like many other early Muslim socialists, he did not reject
Islam in favour of socialism; in fact, he tried to bring socialism within the
framework of Islam, and make the two ideologies compatible to each other
A Voice from the Margins
175
(Ansari, 1986, p. 537; for details of other Indian Muslim socialists, see pp. 509-
37). Moreover, he tried to reinterpret socialism in the light of the teachings of
Shah Wali-Allah. His variant of socialism was not atheistic; it was theistic
socialism.
Again, in the opinion of Qureshi, his scheme was “an outline for some kind of
Utopia in the Subcontinent…” (Qureshi, 1972, p. 316). Qureshi further asserts
that Sindhi was not a ‘revolutionary’, and he did not find any support from the
masses as well (ibid., p. 318). He further states: “He was not taken seriously
by any significant political group in the Subcontinent; he found neither
acceptance, nor did he provoke any opposition…[he was ] an eccentric
visionary” (ibid.) According to Said Ahmad Akbarabadi (d. 1985), one of the
renowned pupils of Sindhi, his ideas and efforts could not produce desired
results owing to two major reasons: (i) Sindhi’s speech and writings did not
match his political and religious ideals; his writings were not very coherent and
well-argued; and (ii) the rigidity in his thought often led to harshness during
heated discussions with his fellows, which prevented the wider dissemination
of his views (cited in Moizuddin, 1988, p. 209). In the opinion of Ayesha Jalal,
he remained a voice on the margins, and he himself knew that very few
people understood his mission and philosophy. He remained outside the
mainstream politics in India represented by the two major political parties,
Indian National Congress and All India Muslim League (Jalal, 2008, p. 225). In
the words of another scholar, he was
“much ahead of his time…. He ploughed a lonely furrow in the country
of his birth…. He combined too much and harmonized too much. He
was drawn and attracted by widely diverse movements of thought. But
he seems to have had a highly integrating faculty and a deep sense of
history.” (Khan, 2000, pp. 160-61).
Sindhi is often accused of intellectual oscillation by his critics. They forget that
thinkers may have political ideas which evolve and develop over time, and
there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal’s political
thought was, for instance, also evolutionary. He was initially a champion of
Indian Nationalism, but then he became a Muslim Nationalist. In other words,
he rejected territorial nationalism to embrace Muslim nationalism, which he
rejected to promote pan-Islamism. Soon he was convinced of the
impracticality of pan-Islamic ideals, and he started asserting that “Bolshevism
plus God is almost identical with Islam”. It was only in the final phase of Iqbal’s
life that his political thought was matured, when he rejected all the ‘isms’
including democracy, capitalism, fascism, nationalism and socialism.
Therefore, it will be erroneous to present Iqbal as an Indian nationalist, or panIslamist
or Communist. Similarly, Sindhi cannot be termed as a Communist or
a pan-Islamist. His political thought was evolutionary, like many other political
thinkers, and it should be understood as such.

Asiatic Federation

asiaticfederation.blogspot.com

@jamahir Something of interest

I am breaking my self-exile from PDF to thank you much for posting this great article which is of much use to me. I did not login to find your thread but happened to see it in the side list on the pages. Although I am a full Communist I see here that I share a lot with Ubaidullah Sindhi including nationalizing of industry; the workers to run the industries and share profits from the income ( IMO for the interim until money itself is abolished ); abolition of interest-based economics; abolition of feudalism and Capitalism; free housing and healthcare for the workers; internationalism.

I also like that he proposed three important things : (a). Although India the conferation would consist of republics where a religion might be dominant because of population that republic should not use that religion to drown out the collective principles of the confedaration which are about socio-economic and social justice as understood by any human, (b). In future the pan-Asiatic confedaration will include the USSR too, (c). His Swarajya Party would include members of any caste, creed, colour or gender.

I will tag @Umair Nawaz because he had posted about Ubaidullah in another thread some months ago. He will find much more info about the man and his philosophy and movement just like I did.

R2D2, again I thank you for this wonderful find and you should write to me on simple.person2035@gmail.com so that we can exchange and collaborate. You should leave your reply to me here too for the benefit of others but you must forgive me for not replying here again because I will go back to my self-exile but you should contact me on Gmail.

@Nergal, tagging for your info too and do contact me on the Gmail.

 

[R2D2]

@jamahir
Hi Jamahir,
This year Pakistan has come out with a new defence strategy of Geo-Economics, meaning giving more importance to peace and trade. So, in this context, I think that Obaidullah Sindhi's ideas can provide some guidance and basis for an Asiatic Confederation. However, the rights of minorities needs to be safe-guarded for it to be practical. Given our economic condition, war is no longer a feasible option for us. If we can trade with China, then we can also trade with India and other neighbors. We have lived together for more than a thousand years and are of the same racial stock and speak the same common language. So, we can work on common grounds and do economic cooperation leading to political cooperation. In this way we can negate the old Colonial strategy of Divide and Rule.

 

[R2D2]

Message from Jamahir!

While I sincerely agree with your humane and very educated assessment and very nice that Pakistan wants to give importance to peace and trade with India, given the current political and social situation in India that came through BJP fascist rule 2014 there is no way the Indian establishment wants peace with anyone really except with the Western governments bloc because of the Hindutvadi hate against Muslims and Communists - the two eternal enemies of the Hindutvadis other than Christians. When the BJP has people wanting to genocide 2 million Muslims at the earliest ( read about the 2021 Dharam Sansad in Haridwar ) and then of Christians and Communists it is not possible that your peace offer will find a single taker in the BJP-ruled Indian establishment and among the 500 million Indians who support BJP. Just check out majority of the Indian membership on PDF.

The situation here is such that progressive Muslims like me and the non-Muslim progressives will have to do hijrat to countries comfortable according to situation. We here live in a fascist dictatorship.