Iqbal entered the Indian literary scene at the end of the 19th Century as
a glowing nationalist. But after his stay in Europe (1905-1908) he rejected
all kinds of nationalism. The failings of the over-emphasized nationalism
in Europe which many observers had started to realize was only partly responsible
for this change of mind. The main cause seems to have been his concern for
the Muslim world, especially for the Ottoman Empire, which was being threatened
both by hostile foreign powers as well as by the nationalist movements from
within. Iqbal saw seeds of atheism in nationalism. Islam, on the other hand,
created a more broad based unity by superseding the boundaries of race, colour
and states. Inclusion in this brotherhoad is by choice and out of free will.
In his opinion the Muslim world must unite if it is to survive. This Pan-Islamic
vein of his thought Stands somewhat in contrast to his opinion about religion
as a uniting force for humanity. For, at the same time, it divides mankind
into two conflicting camps of monotheists and polytheists. In this way religion
is reduced to a nation building force, no matter how many races find place
in its fold and how many countries subscribe to this creed.
The end of the Ottoman Empire is virtually a turning point in the history
of the Muslims also in India. The decision of the Turkish Parliament to abolish
the office of the Sultan as well as that of the Caliph greatly disturbed
Indian Muslims. India was at that time in the grip of the so-called Khilafat
Movement which was started with the aim of defending the territorial
integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and to establish a closer link with the
Caliphate. The Indian National Congress collaborated with the Muslims
in this movement but failed to win their confidence.
Iqbal was one o£ the first to realize the futility of all efforts to
create rapport between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority. A commission
was appointed by The All-Parties Conference with the exception of
the All-India Muslim League, which refrained from participation, to
determine the principles of the constitution of India. Its report in August
1928, which later on came to be known äs the Nehru Report, found
that separate electorates were detrimental to the growth of national spirit.
The Commission also rejected weightage, which had been agreed to under the
Lucknow Pact. "A minority must remain minority whether any seats are reserved
for it or not." The Commission also declined to accept the Muslims' fear
of being dominated by the Hindu majority, and termed it "illogical". This
was the parting of ways, as Jinnah called it.
In his presidential address to the annual Conference of the All-India
Muslim League in Allahabad in 1930, Iqbal suggested the establishment
of a separate Muslim state in North-Western India. It was only ten years
later that this idea was officially taken up by the Muslim League. In fact,
Jinnah was not certain even in 1946 about the prospects of partition of India
and the establishment of Pakistan. Jinnah who had been for decades a staunch
supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity, presented in 1938 his Two Nation Theory
which came to be regarded as the rationale for the partition of India.
In fact, it was Iqbal, who had very conclusively proved that Islam abhors
the idea of Muslims' belonging to a common nation with atheists and polytheists.
Jinnah's Two Nation Theory follows this principle closely but bases
its argument on sociological considerations rather than on religious grounds
as probably Iqbal would have done.
Jinnah and Iqbal had a marked identity of thinking, however, there were points
of disagreement between them. Whereas the former was a liberal politician
with a passion for democracy and for a complete separation of the church
and the state, the position of Iqbal in this regard was contrary to that.
Iqbal was of the opinion that Islam does not allow the separation of the
spiritual from the worldly sphere. He denounced western democracy as an Instrument
of suppression, to which it had turned due to the lack of moral and spiritual
guidance. This was his main charge against secularism and all that it Stands
for.
Iqbal did not reject democracy as such. He thought that the republican form
of government is thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam. What he
craved for was the establishment of a spiritual democracy, as against
the materialistic democracy of the West.
Iqbal forewarded the idea that a dynamic, creative and spiritual leadership
was required to lead the Umma. His Mard-i Mu'mim has a striking
similarity with the Übermensch of Nietzsche. Like the latter
Iqbal, too, has been accused of sowing seeds of fascism. But there is a marked
difference between them. Whereas Nietzsche abhorred plebeians setting his
hopes in the high-born for the creation and preservation of culture, Iqbal
holds everybody capable of reaching the highest stage through the right kind
of coaching. Islam, according to him, had once turned desert dwellers into
bearers of one of the highest cultures, and it could accomplish this feat
again.
Islam is by no means a private affair of the believer, for it regulates not
only the lives of the individuals, but also the affairs of the whole society.
It does not bifurcate the unity of man into an irreconcilable duality of
spirit and matter. God and the universe, spirit and matter, church and state
all belong together organically. In spite of his emphasis on this subject,
Iqbal did not want to establish Theocracy. In his words, "the essence
of Tauhid as a working idea is equality, solidarity and freedom. The
state, from the Islamic standpoint, is an endeavour to transform these ideal
principles into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite
human Organisation. It is in this sense alone that the state in Islam is
a theocracy, not in the sense that it is headed by a representative of God
an earth who can always screen his will behind his supposed infallibility.
It has been suggested that what Iqbal wanted to establish was Theodemocracy,
which adheres to democratic norms and institutions but at the same time accepts
revealed law (Schari'a) as the law of the country. This term originates
with the founder of the Jama'at-i Islami Maududi, who puts the head
of the state (Amir) above parliament. This Stands in sharp contrast to what
Iqbal had in mind, as according to him the caliphat can even be entrusted
to a parliament or some other collective body.
Iqbal showed deep concern for the workers and oppressed masses. He called
for vigorous action rather for revolution to change their plight, as is sufficiently
evident from his following verse:
"The Capitalist from the blood of workers' veins makes himself a clear ruby;
Landlord' oppression despoils the villagers' field; Revolution"
Iqbal has been criticized for heralding revolution without presenting a definite
programjne for solving the problems of our age. There is indeed some
justification in this criticism, but one should not overlook that according
to him Islam has the capability of solving all problems of the modern world.
Islam is a revolutionary religion, rather the revolution par excellence.
He even expects that the Russian revolution might in the course of time either
devour Islam or be devoured by it.
Iqbal was one of the first poets of Asia to welcome the Bolshevist revolution.
He praised Marx for borrowing the Islamic principle of equality of mankind
unconciously. Iqbal even went so far as to conclude that "Bolshevism plus
God is almost identical with Islam". This and a number of other such strident
remarks show a certain naivety of the poet, whose purpose probably was only
to show his sympathy for the revolution. His enthusiasm for Socialism was,
however, remarkable, despite the fact that he himself pointed out to its
atheistic materialism which was incongruous with Islam. Iqbal also criticised
the over-organisation of society by Socialism, as a result of which the individual
is crushed out of existence. "He gains the whole wealth of social thought
around him and loses his own soul". Islam on the other hand bases its economic
and spiritual System on the freedom of the individual. There are certain
capitalistic trends in Islam but the remedial measures in this religion successfully
prevent a tendency towards exploitation.
Beyond doubt, Iqbal, as well as other theoreticians of the Islamic state,
fail to impress as the arguments are scarcely solid enough. One cannot help
the Impression as if these theoreticians do not fully appreciate the intrinsic
problems of the modern state and economy. Iqbal was honest enough to confess
that he did not know the contours and dimensions of his cherished Islamic
state. In spite of this he was of the opinion that the Muslims of India must
venture to establish such a state.
Ever since the establishment of Pakistan the debate about the character of
the state never ceased. Religious groups are pressing hard for the conversion
of Pakistan into an Islamic polity. Advocates of a secularist state are losing
ground as the time passes. All Constitutions of Pakistan proclaim the sovereignty
of God but, interestingly enought, also that of the people. Iqbal stressed
time and again that Islam does not accept anybody besides God as absolute
sovereign of the Universe. It seems unlikely that the provisions in the Constitution
regarding the appointment of the Council of Islamic Ideology would
have met his approval. He had earlier criticized the appointment of such
a commission in the Constitution of Iran for the simple reason that nobody
should have a veto-power and stand above the parliament. Instead, religious
scholars should let themselves be elected into the parliament .
The Council of Islamic Ideology has been entrusted the task of watching
over the legislation lest any law be enacted which is repugnant to the injunctions
of Islam. The effectivity o£ the Council has been rather limited due
to a number of reasons. So far its sole achievement has been an amendment
of the Constitution through which the Ahmadiyya Movement was declared to
be non-Islamic. This measure would probably have found the approval of Iqbal,
because a move with the same intention in 1936 by the Majlis Ahrar-i Islam
was supported by him at that time. He might have gone so fax as to accept
the verdict of Parliament as Ijma (Consensus) .
In fact, he had suggested that the right of Ijma could be entrusted to the
parliament of the Muslim states. The state run Islamic Research Institute
has already been trying to propagate this very idea.
Iqbal's enthusiasm for Socialism, which he thought to be akin to Islam, definitely
played a role in the creation of the so-called Islamic Socialism.
Jinnah is on record as having spoken of it as the ultimate aim of the Pakistani
state. Liaquat Ali Khan and Ayub Khan also paid lip service to it but Bhutto
was the first to introduce this ideology as a party programme. Religious
groups of the country have categorically rejected it from the outset, despite
the fact that Iqbal whom they revere otherwise very much had spoken highly
of a union between Islam and Socialism. This shows quite clearly how far
religious groups are ready to follow Iqbal and where they disown him.
The deepest impression Iqbal has left on Muslims of the Sub-continent is
his passion for Pan-Islamism. All successive governments of Pakistan have
been trying hard for the realization of a unity of the Muslim world. It will
probably take very long before this dream of the Poet of Islam, as
Iqbal is also called, would be fulfilled. Iqbal demanded from his co-religionists
a complete break with the Indian nation. This has become a reality within
the short span of thirty years since independence. Pakistanis have now come
to regard themselves as part of the Middle East.
Published in "Muhammad Iqbal
und die drei Reiche des Geistes - Muhammad Iqbal and the three realms of
the spirit".Ed. by Wolfgang Koehler. Hamburg. Deutsch-Pakistanisches Forum.
1977. pp. 249-255.
