Politics and Aligarh Muslim University
On how the university got enmeshed in political battles with communal overtones
AG NOORANI
Part-II
Chagla and the BJP
None who knew Chagla was surprised to find him inaugurating the foundation session of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Bombay on April 5, 1980. He met the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Balasaheb Deoras and was seen merrily in his company. Both questioned Muslims loyalty to India; birds of the same feather. What is little known is his opposition to Dr Zakir Husains candidature for the presidency in 1967. He was so exercised as to approach the President, Dr S. Radhakrishnan, and urge him to continue in office. S. Gopals record is revealing for reasons more than one. M.C. Chagla, a member of the Cabinet and a secular-minded Muslim, urged him not to expose Zakir Husain to an election for, even if Husain won, it would strengthen communal feeling in the country with disastrous consequences (Gopal, Radhakrishnan: A Biography; Oxford University Press, 1989; p. 358). Chagla would have been only too willing if he were offered the job himself.
In 1967, Chaglas successor, Dr Triguna Sen, completely repudiated his stand. He was asked, Would you like that the Islamic character of the Aligarh Muslim University, as bequeathed by its founder, should be maintained and protected?
Answer: It is the fundamental, democratic right of the minorities guaranteed by the Constitution, to be provided with every opportunity and facility to maintain their own educational institutions at all levels. The basic Islamic character of the Aligarh Muslim University must be maintained and promoted at all costs and in all circumstances. It is obvious that the name of the Muslim University must also be kept unchanged.
Q. But how do you feel in this regard? As you know, he [Mr Chagla] left no stone unturned to demolish the minority character as well as the name of the Muslim University.
A. I personally feel that Mr Chagla was absolutely wrong in his approach. Rather he went beyond his limit (Radiance Weekly; May 7, 1967).
Chaglas autobiography published in 1973 reveals more than he suspected. On the Banaras Hindu University Bill, which sought to delete the word Hindu from the name, he wrote: Ultimately, the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha retaining the old name, and the Rajya Sabha too accepted the amendment passed by the Lok Sabha, although this happened only after a heated and acrimonious debate. Throughout the proceedings in Parliament I took the position that, although my personal views were clear and unambiguous, I would leave the matter to the free vote of Parliament. It seems to me that when an issue arises which arouses strong feelings and touches deep sentiments, it is unwise to decide the issue by a brute majority, the ruling party itself being forced to vote in accordance with the whip issued. The issue should be left to be decided by a vote which really reflects the true opinion of Parliament (Roses in December; pp. 371-2).
But he would not apply this principle to Muslim sentiment. In the whole of this controversy, what was most painful as well as revealing was the spectacle of the so-called Nationalist Muslims of the old days appearing in their true colours. I had always thought that the Congress in its anxiety to appease the minorities had supported many Muslims who were really communal at heart, and set them up as nationalist leaders before an unsuspecting public. In a sense I was glad that these so-called Nationalist Muslims had been fully exposed during this controversy. They had shed the nationalist garb, which they wore for the sole purpose of finding favour with the Congress, and were now appearing in their true communal clothes. Vituperation came naturally to Chagla for those who disagreed with him.
He was hopelessly isolated as noted. What surprises and pains me most is the almost complete silence on the part of the nationalist Muslims and the nationalist Muslim Press. I can understand the attitude of the people whose outlook has been reactionary and communal. But what has happened to those who have put themselves forward as nationalists and progressive Indians (The Hindustan Times; July 5, 1965). Senior Ministers such as Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Humayun Kabir were opposed to his stand. So were old nationalists like M.Y. Nurie and Dr Syed Mahmud, a close friend of Jawaharlal Nehru; men who had gone to prison as Congressmen, unlike Chagla who accepted judgeship during the British rule and held it against a detenu imprisoned by the British.
Even Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was sceptical. I remember when the Aligarh University Bill was being discussed in Parliament and Muslim feelings had been roused to a pitch of fanaticism (sic), he was very much worried about the action I was taking. He used constantly to ask me: Are you sure that you are doing the right thing? We must not alienate the minorities. We must carry them with us. And I would assure him that what I was fighting for was an important principle, and the nationalist section of the Muslims was wholly with me. One Friday morning there was a Cabinet meeting before Parliament assembled. On that day Parliament was to resume the debate on the Aligarh Bill which had commenced on the preceding Thursday.
When the Cabinet meeting was over, Shastri called me to his side. He said: I have had a request from several Muslim members that the debate should not continue today, as it was a Friday and the members wanted to go for their prayers. He asked me whether I would not consider this request and adjourn the debate. I told him that Parliament had never adjourned on any Friday that I knew of and that it would set a very bad precedent (pp 445-6).
So much for respect for feelings. The claim that the nationalist section of the Muslims was wholly with me, which he made to Shastri, was false to his knowledge. He asserted its direct opposite at page 380 quoted above. Chagla had no roots among Muslims, their culture and ethos. Sample this bit: At the end of the meetings of the Majlis we used to sing Iqbals Sare Jehanse Achhha, Hindustan Hamara. This was written by Iqbal in his nationalist days, and when he changed his politics and became an extreme communalist he altered the first line to suit his newly found faith in Pakistan. The Pakistan resolution was passed in 1940 after Iqbals death. It is a reckless, if hilarious, falsehood; for the two poems, which are wholly different in themes could not possibly pass off with any such change. Chagla knew no Urdu at all. It is this malevolence which produced the Aligarh crisis. Ali Yavar Jung took a line completely different from Chaglas in their correspondence (The Times of India; June 19, 1965). What is revealing is Chaglas total omission of any reference to his friend H.M. Seervais views on the AMU. It was an entirely solo performance by Chagla.
Soon Muslim Congressmen who had to face the people busied themselves trying to mend matters when another tragedy engulfed the community because of this one individual. Following the India-Pakistan war of 1965, during which G.L. Nanda was Home Minister, there were massive arrests of Muslims all over the country, from news vendors to writers. On October 20, 1967, came the Supreme Courts judgment in the Azeez Basha case.
A committee was set up in a meeting of selected Muslims from all over India. The meeting was called by Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, a Cabinet Minister who was authorised by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to deal with the AMU Bill, in Delhi on August 2, 1968, in Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Its members were (1) Basheer Saeed (ex-Judge, Madras High Court), (2) Professor Humayun Kabir (ex-Union Minister), (3) Khalil Ahmed (ex-Chief Justice, Orissa), (4) Syed Ali Zaheer (ex-Minister for Justice, Uttar Pradesh), (5) K.G. Saiyidain (ex-Education Adviser, Government of India), (6) Zafar Ahmed Sidiqi Vakil (a representative of Old Boys Convention Council), (7) Obaidur Rahman Khan Sherwani (Secretary, AMU Old Boys Association), and (8) M.M. Begg (Convener). Frontline
