SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN:

HIS MASTER’S REBELLIOUS VOICE

by Syed Abu Ahmad Akif

The death centenary of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan is a very appropriate occasion to
begin an earnest study - both at collective and personal levels - of this man whose
stature is as great as has been a lack of his proper appreciation. This omission is more
significant in view of the fact that an immense treasure of Sir Syed’s own writings as
well as works on him exist. Thus it is all the more unfortunate that few men of
learning have been able to do justice with this towering figure of Muslim India. But, to
be fair to our scholars, so extraordinary was Sir Syed’s personality that it requires men
of no small calibre to fathom the depths of his intellect, vision, and revolutionary spirit.
This perhaps is tribute enough to Sir Syed:

In his own times, Sir Syed had the misfortune of having being doubly
misunderstood both by the ultra-conservative religious Indian Muslims and the equally
narrow-minded British rulers. Those were days when middle of the road intellectualism
was virtually absent. More unfortunately, the intellectual response to Sir Syed’s life
and works has been far less than adequate even in the century that has followed.

Thus, Sir Syed was not only misunderstood in his own times, but continues to
be a person, the full spectrum of whose life has not really been studied nor one whose
genius has been recognised in its entirety. A major reason for this has been the
intellectual laziness of our scholars. As a people we can hardly be called good readers
or honest writers. Living by clichés and false generalizations, even the best efforts of
our self-proclaimed researchers often leave a lot to be desired. For the most part we
work to prove previously held misconceptions rather than strive with open minds to
accept facts and opinions that may run contrary to our points of view.

.While Sir Syed finds honourable mention in every book of Indian Muslim
history, this is more of a stereotypic and less than full-to-life portrayal. Even though
the large majority considers Sir Syed to be the first of the three greatest benefactors of
modern Muslim India, there is nonetheless a significant group (consisting mostly of
anti-Western die-hards) which labels him as an agent, if not co-conspirator - of the
British and a loyal servant of Her Majesty’s Government. Indeed, Sir Syed was
accused of many a crime against his religion and people, which even included that of
being a heretic - the most cardinal amongst sins in the eyes of Muslims.

The main reason for this is, of course, the fact that Sir Syed served the British
establishment for a long time and in the aftermath of the “Indian Mutiny” apparently
seemed to be apologetic towards the alien rulers. To add to this was his vision of a new
Muslim nation equipped with the best traditions of their faith and intellectual prowess
of the ascendant Western civilization. This was more than his Muslim compatriots of
the time, seething with limitless bitterness towards the infidel Europeans could
swallow.
Fortunately, then as now, people with analytic capabilities and maturity of
thought did not agree with such an extreme point of view. In view of Sir Syed’s family
traditions, learning and other qualities, they have always been sure about his love for
his community, which Sir Syed changed into a nation. The aim of this article is show
that Sir Syed was far from being a toady of the British. He was certainly not a
“realist” in the sense the word is used in our own times - a sycophant, a hypocrite, or a
man of the world with few or no scruples - in fact he was quite the opposite: a
courageous critic of his paymasters - A rebel within the ranks of the British
officialdom.

Syed was a rebel with a cause. At no point in his life did his employment with
the colonial establishment bear upon his fierce independence of thought and action.
Indeed, working for the establishment was part of his grand design - to serve as a role
model for drawing millions of his Muslim brethren towards the future state of affairs
which was becoming obvious with every passing day. Unlike many of his co-
religionists of the time who were waiting helplessly for Messiah to bring forth a new
birth of Muslim regal power, Sir Syed was not a dreamer of the romantic school. He
brought together that rare combination of an idealist who had his feet firmly planted
on the ground.

Political acumen and breadth of vision was a part of Sir Syed’s family legacy.
When Ranjit Singh invited Sir Syed’s maternal grandfather, Khwaja Fareeduddin to
take up the position of his prime minister, Sir Syed’s mother asked him to decline the
offer, in view of the Sikhs’ long ad traditional anti-Muslim stance. Sir Syed’s father
was a member of the Mughal Court albeit one who seldom attended the very hollow
ceremonies of pomp and show. On important occasions - specially religious festivals
like Eid, Sir Syed also visited the Court with his father Very early on, Sir Syed had
realized that the days of the Mughals were over. Indeed, even from before his birth in
1817, a common saying of Shah Alam’s period (1759-1806)t was that the extent of
Mughal Empire was from Delhi to Palam (then a suburb, now site of Delhi’s airport).

Sultanat-e-Shah Alam - Az Dehli ta Palam

As a young man, Syed Ahmad did not need to seek paid employment; and so he
helped out in the newspaper business of his brother. When Sir Syed’s father passed
away in 1838, the monthly stipends to the family were stopped with the exception to
the one received by his mother. While the young man could have attempted to seek
membership of the Mughal Court, he chose to take up employment in order to avoid
the deep rooted conspiracies at the Red Fort.

Sir Syed’s maternal uncle (mother’s brother-in-law) Moulvi Khaleelullah was

Sadr Amin (a sub-judge) at Dehli. Sir Syed began his legal apprenticeship with him.
Moulvi Khaleelullah got him appointed as a Sareshtidar (court clerk) in his court.
During this period Mr. Robert Hamilton came to Delhi as a judge. Owing to the
prominence of Syed’s family, Mr. Hamilton and Sir Syed came into contact and the
young man was offered a chance to join the more prestigious criminal judicature as a
Court Clerk. Owing to his belief that he would be unable to fulfil the requirements of
that position, he declined the offer.

After some time Mr. Hamilton became the Commissioner of Agra. He once
again called Sir Syed and offered the position of naib munshi which was accepted.
Syed Ahmad re-organized the Commissioner’s Office and developed an efficient
working system. It was during this period, that the young Syed who aspired to rise to
the position of a civil judge, took up the study of law. This soon led to the writing of a
small book on the subject of civil laws as relating to the post of a civil judge, or
munsif. Mr. Hamilton presented the book to the Government and recommended
Syed’s appointment as a munsif. wherever such a vacant post became available. Such
was the standard of his book that the Governor also endorsed the recommendation for
his appointment as a munsif. But, before he could be appointed, new rules put into
place a qualifying examination for such appointments.

Accordingly, his mentor, the Commissioner, asked him to appear for the
examination. Given Syed’s desire that Muslims should come forward to join the
British Service, he not only appeared himself but also persuaded his elder brother Syed
Muhammad and cousin Hatim Ali Khan to sit with him. Sir Syed and his cousin
passed the examination. and entered the service of the British East India Company.
This was some time after the death of his father in 1838; the young Syed Ahmad was
just over 20.

On 24th Dec. 1841, Sir Syed took up the position of munsif at Manpuri. Less
then a month later (10th January. 1842) he was transferred to Fatehpur Sikri, the city
Akbar had built in the vicinity of Agra for his patron saint. Here in this historical town,
it was no coincidence that Sir Syed’s sleeping quarters were the same as those of the
former Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great. It was certainly by design that the British
rulers had instituted this practice to demonstrate to all and sundry that Mughal rule had
been eclipsed in all but name. Syed was deeply stirred by this fact, the painful
symbolism of which was a constant reminder of the changed times.. By his own
statements, he was to pass many a sleepless night pondering over the great past of
Muslim India and its present state of deterioration and decline.

Syed Ahmad was to live in Akbar’s former regal quarters for the next four
years. During this period his legal treatise became very popular and many Muslims
succeeded in passing the munsifi examination with the help of the book. More than
half a century later when the Anjuman-Islamia at Lahore was to present an address to
Sir Syed, this treatise was mentioned as one of the great favours of Syed towards the
Muslims of India.

During this period Sir Syed wrote three books including a biography of the
Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. As a consequence, in 1842 the Mughal Court which
was still holding on to its; largely fictitious glory under British tutelage, bestowed
upon Syed Ahmad the titles Jawadud Daula (the Bestower of the State) and Arif
Jung (Scholar Eminent). Incidentally his father had only enjoyed the first of these
titles.

On 18th February, 1846, Sir Syed was transferred to Delhi on his request as his
brother had passed away suddenly. Here he was to stay until 1854, the year when he
also became a permanent sub-judge. During his stay at Dehli, Sir Syed completed his
hitherto incomplete education in Islamic jurisprudence, Hadith and Arabic literature.

After a stay of about nine years at Dehli, on January 30, 1855, Sir Syed was
transferred to Bijnore as permanent Sadr Amin. It was during his stay here that the
Indian Revolt (as Sir Syed himself referred to it unlike his Indian comrades who called
it the War of Independence) began. Sir Syed saved the life of Mr. Shakespeare the
Collector of Bijnore, his family and many other Englishmen by personally staying
awake at night to guard the house.

After the British had regained power, they wanted to bestow upon Syed a jagir
(landed estate) exceeding in value Rs. 100,000 per year. But this was a period of great
hardship for the Indian Muslims who having been the former rulers were considered by
the British to be real leaders of the rebellion and consequently treated far more harshly
than the Hindus. Giving vent to the feelings of his fellow Muslims, Syed Ahmad said,
“I consider that no one would be more mean than myself if I were to accept this
imperial grant at the cost of the misery of Muslims.” Indeed, this period in which he
was so disillusioned with the events at home, that he seriously considered leaving the
service and even contemplated immigration to Egypt.

In April 1858 Sir Syed moved to nearby Muradabad, taking up the post of
Sadrus Sudoor (Senior Judge). Just after reaching Muradabad, Sir Syed began to
write what was to become the highly acclaimed Risala-i-Asbab-i-Baghawat-i-Hind
(Treatise on the Causes of the Indian Revolt). In this book he referred to the East
India Company as “Our Dear Government” which in the context of the arguments
presented therein was clearly a satirical reference, but unfortunately not so understood
by Indians. Syed Ahmad stated that mismanagement of resources and ill-treatment of
the people was the main cause of the revolt. He wrote that the people considered the
government as a “sweet knife” (a seemingly benign but nonetheless sharp cutting
implement).

Sir Syed went on to prove the innocence of the Indians in general and Muslims
in particular. While superficially seen to be appeasing the alien rulers, he skilfully
presented all the many opinions of the Indians with regard to the Revolt. In very plain
words, he drew the conclusion that the British were themselves responsible for the
Indian’s revolt as the Company’s haughty and unjust officers neither understood nor
made any attempt to understand the Indians viewpoint. Indirectly he also pointed the
finger of accusation at the European clergy who took unfair advantage of the Indians’
destitution and poverty - especially in times of famine and civil unrest - to convert the
hungry and sick to Christianity.

In 1859, 500 copies of this book were published by Sir Syed who decided to
send its copies to the Government without an accompanying translation - a clearly
symbolic gesture. This was indeed a very sensitive time: Martial Law had been
imposed and the word of the military officers meant summary execution by hanging
from the nearest available tree. Sir Syed’s confidante Rai Krishan Das specially
dissuaded him from sending copies to the British. But Sir Syed was no ordinary man.
He was firm believer in the correctness of his actions.

Keeping a few copies with himself, Sir Syed immediately dispatched the rest to
England. None were distributed in India. In England, several translations of the book
were undertaken by the India Office and individual members of the parliament. In
India, the Government had it translated separately. The publicly available translation
was to be undertaken by Sir Syed’s friend and later biographer Mr. Graham in 1873.

Lord Canning, the then Governor General was of the opinion that the book had
been written in the Government’s interest. But on the contrary the Secretary of State
for India Mr. Beaden opined that the work was a mutinous one which called for
obtaining an explanation from the author, which if found unacceptable should lead to
his punishment. Seen in present day context, it would bound on insanity for a civil
servant to even attempt such a work

When Sir Syed met Mr. Beaden, the Secretary attacked him bitterly saying that
he was not loyal to the government. In reply he said that he had only a few copies
with him in India which had not even been shown to British officers in India and almost
all had been sent to England. This was because, given the present state British
agitation and heightened tension, he did not expect the British to understand the
opinions expressed in the book in their proper perspective. He challenged the
Secretary to obtain a single copy of the book from the possession of an Indian
individual; for this he would give him a thousand rupees per copy.

During his service, Sir Syed was a member of the Viceroy’s Legislative
Council. Sir Syed always presented his very honest and candid opinions about Indian
affairs. It was during a debate about the future of Indian politics that he presented the
idea that democratic elections would not solve the Indian problem leading to home
government as there was a “permanent majority and a permanent minority in India.”
This was later to be called the “Two Nations Theory”

Sir Syed wanted the British to stay in India until the time that the rights of
Indian Muslims could be safeguarded from being usurped by the far more numerous
Hindu nation. From 1867 onwards when Hindus began opposing the Muslims even in
symbolic areas like the use of Urdu as an official language in courts and offices (by
calling it a “foreign language”) the feeling of separate nationhoods started becoming
obvious. This was in spite of the fact that both the communities shared the spoken
form of the language equally and also that there was no concept of quotas for the
Muslims and the Hindus.

The role the British bureaucracy was also quite biased against the Muslims -
and not unsurprisingly so: Having been the losers in the power struggle, the British still
suspected them of being less loyal than the Hindus and less likely allies in any future
political dispensation. While the former had lost even symbolic vestiges of power the
Hindus had perhaps gained by getting what they considered to be more benign if not
outrightly beneficial foreign rulers.

Textbooks, especially history books, taught in government schools - which

formed the great majority of educational institutions - were clearly biased against
Muslims. The Muslims rulers were presented as intolerant tyrants who had been
unkind towards Hindu subjects. Fictitious details were presented in support of these
untruths.

As early as the 1870’s Hali wrote, “The erstwhile spirit of friendship which had
existed between the Hindus and Muslims no longer exists and the fact can be felt
throughout India.” In 1867 the Hindus began the now well known Urdu-Hindi
controversy from the city of Benaras. About this period, Sir Syed says, “One day I
was talking to Mr. Shakespeare, Commissioner of Benaras, about the education of
Muslims when he looked towards me in astonishment and said ‘Syed this is the first
time that you talk about the welfare of Muslims alone. You had always talked of the
Indians as a whole.’ In reply I said that I am sure that from now on Hindus and
Muslims will not participate as one in any effort with sincerity.”
 Syed went on to say that with the passage of time this difference will widen
because of the relative differences in the numbers of educated people in the two
communities. The Hindus who did not have any ideological animosity towards
Western learning had taken up officially supported education very early on. By this
time, they enjoyed a clear edge over the more hostile Muslims, who still held on to a
false hope, an almost romantic dream, of a magical reversal of fortunes. “Whoever
lives will see the truth of my words.”
In reply, Mr. Shakespeare said, ”If your prophecy is correct, I would be very
sorry.” Syed replied, “I have more pain in my heart, but I am sure about my prophecy.”

During this controversial period, Mr. Anthony McDonald, Governor of Bihar

and Bengal, played a mischievous role by declaring Urdu a “foreign language”
(probably in view of its Arabic script). Indeed, he went on so far as declaring as illegal
the use of any language written in the Arabic script for official purposes. In areas later
to constitute UP, Lt. Governor Strachey was more favourable and there Urdu
continued to be used as a court and official language.

Sir Syed’s struggle for the cause of Urdu continued almost until his death.
Indeed, the last article Sir Syed ever wrote was in defence of this language. This was
nine days before his death when he was confined to his bed almost in a state of semi-
consciousness.

On another occasion dating from the same period, Sir Syed played a singularly
courageous role: this was the darbar being held as part of the Agra Exhibition of
1867. The Collector of Agra had arranged the darbar in a open field which had a
natural grade-separation of a slightly higher and lower areas. Over the high ground
was a covered tentage while the lower area had uncovered seating. As soon as this
arrangement emerged, some Indians expressed their apprehension of impending
discrimination between the seating of the rulers and the ruled to Sir Syed, who was a
member of the Managing Committee.

One evening before the darbar a respectable member of the Indian gentry
walked over to the site and sat down on one of the seats placed in the tent on the
higher ground. A babu (orderly) came and asked him not to sit there as this area was
reserved for the British. The gentleman came and narrated the story to Sir Syed. To
verify the complaint, Sir Syed reached the darbar ground and took one of the chairs in
the same raised enclosure. He too was summarily asked to vacate the chair.

Sir Syed immediately went to Sir James Simpson, a senior British officer and
expressed his displeasure at this discrimination. Sir Simpson asked Sir Syed to
communicate his complaint to the Collector. While Sir Syed was narrating his story to
the Collector, another senior British officer supervising the darbar arrangements Mr.
Thornhill was also present. He immediately began to shout at Sir Syed, “What
mischief you Indians did not perpetrate on us in the Mutiny. Now you wish to sit side
by side with our women.”

Very bitterly, Sir Syed replied, “This haughty attitude of yours was the
cause of the Revolt. You have always been insulting the Indians and continue to hold
this attitude. Upon this Mr. Thonrhill became even noisier. Sir Syed returned to his
quarters.
 When the Lt. Governor came to know about the controversial arrangements,
he too expressed his displeasure at the very obvious segregation and ordered that all
the British officers should sit next to their Indian counterparts and members of the
local gentry while the ladies could occupy the higher stand. Thus Sir Syed’s stand was
vindicated. But no soon had the news of the controversy became common knowledge
that all the British officers began showing extreme anger against Sir Syed. Coming to
meet him, individually and collectively, they vilified him over his raising of the issue.
Thus, even though the Governor had intervened in support Sir Syed’s stand, the rank
and file did not accept the spirit of equality. With his frustration rising, Sir Syed left
Agra for Aligarh on the same night (the one before the darbar) without seeking
permission to do so. This was naturally construed to be a boycott - especially in view
of the fact that Sir Syed was to be decorated with a medal in the darbar.

Owing to his sudden absence this could not be bestowed upon him.
Accordingly the Lt. Governor entrusted the medal to the Commissioner Meerut for
delivery to Sir Syed enroute to his station. The tow men met on the railway platform
at Aligarh. The Commissioner said, “You know I have not the least desire to present
you this medal and would not have done so were it not for the orders.” In reply Sir
Syed said, “I too have no wish to receive it from you; I am as equally constrained in
this action as you are.”

After a few days the Secretary Local Government wrote to Sir Syed seeking an
explanation for his absence. While Sir Syed defended his position ( in view of the
hostility demonstrated by the British officers), he did submit an apology for leaving the
station without permission.

At about the time that Sir Syed took his action at the Agra darbar, the
Government was in the process of considering an increase in the salaries of the Indian
judges. But such was the anger of the administration at what it considered to be the
insolent attitude of a native, that the decision was delayed for many years to come - as
a direct consequence.

Apart from his personal courage in the face of official unfairness Sir
Syed expressed very harsh comments against the brutal and unjust actions of British
officials in his periodicals Tehzibul Akhlaq and Akhbar Scientific Society, constantly
and continuously. Of course, it is worth noting that the British Imperial Government
was large hearted enough to allow government officials to express their views even
through the publication of their own periodicals, a facility which our post
independence democratic-era public officials no longer enjoy.

A British officer, Mr., Fuller, killed one of his Indian domestic servants.
Although justice was not expected, nor forthcoming, the Governor General Lord
Lytton did issue a warning to his British officers (as part of the proceedings of the
trial) to be just and show tolerance towards the Indians. But this warning did not have
much of an impact.

And so on 15th Sept. 1876 Sir Syed wrote in Akhbar Scientific Society, “Ever
since Lord Lytton issued his warning in the Fuller case, instead of experiencing a
decline in the number of Indians killed at the hand of Europeans, we have been
receiving news of further killings of natives by foreigners. This is quite akin to the
manner in which we are told of the exploits of hunters during the season: one deer
killed here, another animal shot there …In support of his argument Sir Syed gave the
list of six incidents over a short period in which all the victims were poor Indians and
all the killers British sahibs. He wrote that it was not clear what action had been taken
in these cases. In the last paragraph of the editorial, Sir Syed wrote that if the
Government did not act quickly, then the young British officers who had just arrived in
Indian would no doubt emulate the actions of their seniors and become equally
merciless in their murders of Indians. The result will be against all hopes of good
governance.

In the same issue of the Akhbar, Sir Syed drew the attention of readers to a
case in the Western town of Pune. There a European had bought a suit against the
Municipal Committee for payment of Rs. 40,000 (a princely sum in those days
considering that a salary of Rs. 10 per month was considered good) as compensation
against a broken foot. As reported the injury had taken place when the sahib’s horse
carriage overturned as a result of going over some gravel that was lying on a roadside.
The gentlemen had managed to collect Rs. 16,000. Syed argued that by the logic of
this case, in future well placed persons would collect large sums of money even from
the heirs of a person who were run over by the carriages of Europeans merely because
the poor people happened to be walking of the road on which Europeans’ carriages
were also plying.

In today’s popular legal parlance, Sir Syed committed contempt of court by

writing that he had been shocked to learn as to how the judge had even heard the case:
If there had been any case, then the defendant should have been the sahib’s own eyes
who failed to see the heap of gravel. If the eyes should submit the plea that they were
under command of the man’s brain, then the grey matter could also be joined as co-
accused. He also wrote that if the Municipality was to avoid any accumulation of
construction material on roadsides they it would be totally unable to carry out its
work.

A few months earlier, a very junior judicial officer of an Allahabad court had
made an Indian pleader put his shoes on his head (as punishment for the court which
was in session). Sir Syed wrote that all those who have any sense of justice and
national pride as well as the future destiny of the nation, would be very sad to hear this
news. But for those who have no such good sense, this may be a minor incident. The
court officer who did so is not a supporter of the British justice system and could not
be included among the more wise British officers. Perhaps the gentleman considered
his court to be the highest in the land as it was not against etiquette for lawyers and
others to have their shoes on while appearing before the High Court. Ending his
editorial., Sir Syed stated that while he was a great admirer of the justice which the
honourable High Court provided to the poor subjects, it was the duty of the High
Court to not only provide justice directly but also indirectly by maintaining a check on
the lower courts within its jurisdiction.

Sir Syed had a very refined and sharp sense of satire. In the May 1876 issue of
the Akhbar he commented on the very brutal murder of a new born illegitimate child
born out of a Parsi woman’s liaison with a European officer. After birth the baby was
butchered by the cook of the mother at her behest. Caustically referring to the
European’s claim of natural superiority over the blacks and other races, Sir Syed
commented ”We think if he would have lived long this child would naturally have
possessed a great mind and intellect. It is a matter of sorrow that not only a human
should was lost, but unfortunately a child of a European. If the child had lived, he
could have been named shaistigi - “well bred gentleness”. What a pity that such a well
bred symbol of cross-cultural interaction was lost in such an ill manner.”

These observations of Sir Syed are now a part of history which have,
unfortunately, not been preserved in formal history books. These speak volumes about
the attitude of the British rulers and an extraordinarily brave Indian’s courageous
response - in times that were certainly very difficult..

But Sir Syed was no ordinary mortal. He was a giant among men - both in the
literal and metaphorical senses. As a famous English writer said “Rarely, if ever, has it
so happened that a person who such great physical proportions has also been equally
well endowed with an immense intellect.” Sir Syed’s genius had been recognized
within his own lifetime even by Britishers like his biographer Mr. Graham. While
history should not generally be burdened with “if and but” statements, but one such
expression would certainly be, “If there had been no Sir Syed, there would have been
no Iqbal or Jinnah - and certainly not Indian independence at the time when it did
become a reality.”
 Syed Ahmad was also deeply interested in archaeology and began about this
time to write Asarus Sanadeed, a book about the historical monuments of Delhi. Many
of the past glories of Delhi were turning to ruin and even their plaques on which the
names of their builders had been engraved had become obliterated. In order to
recover the names of these architects Sir Syed went to research from at least 125
historical works. The extent of his immense involvement in this task was that he - a
fairly large man - would be hauled up to the great height of Qutub Minar by a lifting
contraption in order to copy the inlay of arabesque designs on the tower’s top. Below
his associate would pray for his safe return. This effort was only a reflection of his
lofty desires for the future of Indian Muslims: In the words of an Arabic poet “He
climbs with such immense that it seems that he has some work in the sky. The first
edition of the book was published in 1847.

Mr. Roberts, the Collector of Shahjahanabad took a copy of the book to

London and presented it to the Royal Asiatic Society. Garcon de Tasi translated it into
French in 1861. On the basis of this translation Sir Syed was made a Fellow of the
Society. Later the University of Edinburgh conferred an honourary degree of LLD for
the same work.