IDEAS OF SELF-REFORM F0R THE MUSLIM NATION - History of Khaksar Movement in India (1931-1947) by Prof. Amalendu De.

After the publication of the Tazkira Inayatullah remained silent for about seven years purposely, as he himself noted, in order to assess the impact of this work on its readers as well as the extent of the capacity of the educated sections of the Muslims in accepting the truth. Of course, the period of seven years was too short for such an assessment. Yet his silence was not without any cause and not at all useless. During this period he was told by many men of experience that there was no necessity of publishing the second volume ‘for centuries’. So he kept quiet. He was of opinion that the Muslims should not be compelled to accept any fact. The fact should be placed before them for their consideration. At least, after the silence of seven years, Inayatullah came to the conclusion that the Muslims had full capacity to accept the truth. Accordingly he wrote a treatise in L entitled ‘Isharat’ (lit. ‘signals’) in 1931. This contains an analysis of the ideas of self-reform for the ‘Muslim nation’.
Inayatullah held that it was wrong to hold that the ‘Muslims are a dead nation’, that Christians and Hindus had never given any bad picture about the Muslims, although they were always afraid of the dynamic capacity of the Muslims for work. After the downfall of the Mughal Empire, especially at the time of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, there was a general feeling in a section of Muslims that ‘Muslims are a dead nation’ Everyone wanted to recite Mar Siyah or mourning song and thus by abusing the nation they weakened it. But Sir Syed and his companions were not in favour of reciting only Mar Siyah for the nation. They wanted to change the present situation and to bring the nation on a new line to adopted itself with the present situation Inayatullah pointed out that the acceptance of the Quranic directions by the Arabs was a great proof that the Arabs were not dead. This was a fact that no one could occupy any place among the Muslims without being truthful, unselfish and really great.
            Inayatullah stated that he was asked by several persons whether he had changed his views embodied in the Tazkira after its publication. He replied in the negative. After a period of long study and useful experiences gathered by him during the period 1920-1930, and after travelling to Europe and several Islamic countries he did not consider any change in the Tazkira was called for. In fact he was unable to budge an inch from the stand he had taken ten years before, i.e., even three years before the completion of the Tazkira. He was grateful to God for showing him the eternal truth which, as he said, “is right today and right tomorrow”?

            Inayatullah approvingly quoted a philosopher: “If you want to measure the ethical standard of a nation and portray it accurately, then look at the architecture of that nation”. If this is true, then, according to Inayatullah, up to the reign of Shahjahan the Muslims, as a nation, achieved signal success and that in their kingdom flourished education, wealth, peace, labour, strength, high thought, justice, honour and self respect-_qualities which made the building of the Taj Mahal possible by them. ‘While discussing this point he bitterly criticised those English authors for distorting facts:
            As the Englishmen are dishonest in many matters, especially in writing their own arid Islamic       histories, they have claimed that the tomb of Taj Mahal was built by the Europeans. Because at that time some Italian Stone. cutters went out of their country. So the Englishmen claimed that the Taj Mahal was built by the same Italians. This ‘Satanic lie of a Satanic nation’ has got some  place in history. They are also saying that the tomb of Jahangir was also built by the Italian architects.’°
            Thus they have developed ‘a new historical theory’. Again, in order to flatter and please the Englishmen a section of Indians often observed that they learnt self-respect from the English people and they had to suffer humiliation before them. Inayatullah attributed such an attitude to a false notion of history. History books which inculcated such wrong ideas in our schools should be burnt. It was the English who had the Muslim architectural designs copied in the buildings at New Delhi.”
            He, of course, regretted that the real builders of Taj Mahal remained unknown and they got no due rewards. Similarly, the Hindus have not shown due respect to the builders of the Ashoka Pillars and the magnificent caves and temples of Ajanta and Ellora. Both the Hindus and the Muslims, in his opinion, deserve praise for their works of art and architecture, which constitute a positive testimony to their skill and high morality. Of course, the Hindu and Muslim architects built these for their Emperors and rulers. True, these have shown the way to the Englishmen. But it must be said to the credit of the English that they have got the names of builders inscribed on all constructions.
Analysing the characteristic features of the psychological make-up of the Muslim population, Inayatullah stated that they would accept only those who are true, unselfish and pious, but not those who want to make the nation a stooge of others. As honest and unselfish people are few, the Muslims have to be very strict in selecting their leaders. They always criticised them for their faults and strictly examined their activities. It is, however, an old habit of the Muslims. But it is a good sign.’ Inayatullah did not consider the principles of earning money, enjoying life, gathering experience and acquiring high position to be un-Islamic, because a Muslim can maintain a direct touch with God by calling Him during prayer. Moreover, it is not necessary to keep any intermediary between God and man. Hence when the Muslim nation rose to prominence it rose by its own action, hard labour, and strength, not through the instrumentality of others. The beauty of Islam is this that it offers an open field for everyone as well as scope for individual enterprise. It is a matter of glory for one to be a slave of God and not to be an avatar (incarnation) of God. Naturally there is no question of any person being a prophet. All Muslims are equal workers and servants of God and Islam.
            Inayatullah observed that the leader of a nation does not come from heaven. He is in fact the product of nation. He claimed that he has the capacity to lead the nation to its goal. It is, therefore, necessary that he should possess the following qualities, viz., power to face trouble, determination, sacrifice, the capacity to command obedience from his followers, hard work and discipline. Similarly, the leader also wants his followers to possess these qualities.’ But a leader, who is not prepared to face these troubles and do not possess these qualities, cannot take his followers to the destination. Good leaders cannot be produced unless these qualities are developed among the Muslims. A nation which lacks capacity for work cannot produce a good leader. Thus the nation itself produces a good leader and the leader makes the nation great. In support of this statement Inayatullah referred to the Hindu nation. So long these qualities were not clearly visible among the Hindus they could not produce a leader. The emergence of M.K. Gandhi indicated that the Hindu nation now possesses that capacity’ Inayatullah was confident that the Muslims would again become a great nation. They have that capacity. A good atmosphere for reform still prevails here. The only way to produce a real leader is this that everyone of the Muslim nation should take the initiative to introduce self-reform.’
True, the Muslims are now divided between different groups, each under a leader. Nevertheless groupism is not sanctioned by Islam and its prolongation would cause a reaction against it. Lacking a concrete programme the Muslims followed willy-nilly the same old path of groupism. Inayatullah stated that those who have addressed letters to him during the last seven years (1924-1931) were not of any Political party though they spoke of politics in their letters. In his opinion among the eight crores of Muslims there would be some hundreds or thousands who would not leave their old group. But this is a very insignificant number and therefore, there is no necessity to bother about it. He was confident that when this movement of self-reform will start people will join it in overwhelming numbers and it will be an interesting and an imposing affair.’
            Inayatullah asserted that the Muslims, whether poor or rich, were ready to do something. What was lacking was a good leader. He had received news from Lahore that modern young men were in search of a leader and they were ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of God. The prevailing general consciousness of their own downfall among the Muslims is a positive testimony to their longing for their rise and for their kingdom. Even the pardanashin Muslim women were asking questions on the rise and fall of the Muslim nation. In this connection Inayatullah gave a detailed account of the reaction of his wife, who was a pardanashin lady. She wore Saris and did attend modern parties. She was so much attached to the system of Parda that even in cars she used it. Sometimes Inayatullah cut jokes with her saying that it was out of fashion. But this left her unmoved. Though always busy with her children and household works, she found time to read books and newspapers. During her early evening respite from household works specially when the babies went to bed she used to take part in political discussion with her husband. She wanted to know the causes of the downfall of the Muslims. She was very much pained to see that the Muslims were going downwards. They did not feel any shame for the quarrels in which they are immersed and for the activities of their newspapers. She also asked him to throw light on the British attack upon Egypt and the surrender of Tripoli. Inayatullah’ short replies could not satisfy her and she continued her questions. Inayatullah told. her that in 1928 Amir Amanullah of Afghanistan was dethroned by a Tajik freebooter named Habibullah known as Bacha-i-Saqao. Amanullah had taken shelter in India and from there he had sailed for Europe. Having received this news she became restless, lay down on the bedstead and began to weep. She remained in that position for a long time. Though much frightened Inayatullah tried to console her: ‘Keep courage, God will help’. She flared up saying that it was useless to talk with an idle man like him. Then taking off her ornaments she discarded them for ever. She also began to wear ordinary cotton garments. In those days the nationalist movement was arousing great interest in the Punjab. The leaders called upon Pardanashin women to come out and join the picketing. Inayatullah’s wife became a staunch supporter of picketing and expressed her intense desire to join it. But he told her that she has three grown up and three very small children, and asked her: ‘How would it be possible for her to join the movement with the babies in arms? Moreover, she would have to say something there’. She replied that she would pick up all children in her arms and she was confident that people would help her.
            Drawing a lesson from this incident Inayatullah wrote that in spite of comfortable life in his house his wife was prepared to face troubles and that he confidently expected that this feeling was shared in every Muslim household and by every individual Muslim. Thus all Muslims seemed to have risen from their age-long slumber. In such circumstances, it would be quite incorrect to say that the Muslims could not be united or would not join in any movement. That all Muslims were, in fact, equal Sepahis possessing some qualities like real spirit of fighting, sacrifice and desire for victory. in short, the nucleus of an army was present. What was lacking was a supreme commander. There was no plan and none to lead them towards the right goal. It was quite natural that every Sephai would move under the guidance of a petty leader of the group to which he belonged. As they were moving in their own way it actually became an aimless journey. On the other hand the Hindu nation worked quietly and became successful. Inayatullah felt that if there was the same spirit of work and silence among the Muslims as among the Hindus then every individual Muslim would be a better leader than the leaders of other nations.
            True, many Muslims had taken much trouble, courted imprisonment and sacrificed their lives and properties for the cause of the nation. And yet matters did not improve. Inayatullah was suprised that on the basis of only one or two instances, it was generally believed that every leader was after personal gain and serving his self interest. This was not correct For there were still many honest, hardworking and true Muslims. Even though they had no experiences they were ready to work. They were Sepahis and if they could select a Sardar and follow him, they might have been successful without losing anything. So that nation should not be condemned as unfortunate and bad which had so many Sincere workers and pious people. They were lacking only in se1f Inayatullah called upon the Muslim leaders to come down from their Olympian heights and advised them : Be polite, unite and, leaving the status of a Sardar, be a common Sepahi and Mujahid. For this was a very critical time for Islam. You will survive, if only you can realize the danger. You are so strong that you can do everything Remember, Islam was not helpless any time. But you could not bear the responsibility during these thirteen hundred years. So, join the self-reform movement. No such self-reform, however, would emanate from the lottery or from groupism or even from a general election. You would become leader if only you can work. At present, no group or party was on the right way.
            Attempts were being made to create nationalism by divesting it of religious aspects. But this was not a good proposal. Inayatullah said:
            We cannot be successful by opposing the Hindus and we cannot get every thing by joining the Hindus. The Muslims shall have to stand on their own legs. A weak man is no match for the strong. Similarly, it is shameful to beg from the strong. Lacking strength you cannot expect to get any thing and everything from the English people and the Hindus. So, unite, reform yourself and be strong.
The result would be that everything would be alright. Unfortunately, at present, none of you could claim that “I am the leader of the Muslim nation” The Maulavis have already divided the Muslim nation into a thousand groups on the basis of religion. However, we must not divide and dismember the Muslim nation on the basis of politics. We must unite the Muslims on the issue that religion, politics and power meant the same thing. Unity of the nation would show the programme of strength. Mere Sardari is nothing. The Sardari is only to make the nation strong. So gather strength. Strength gives rise to’ independence and independence brings the rule of the nation.
Now, the question is : How to realize the objects of self-reform? Inayatullah himself answered: the first thing is that the Muslims should not only keep themselves aloof from politics but openly renounce it. Dissolving their parties they should join the movement of self-reform and public service. This would enable them to gather strength within a short period. What could be acquired in a thousand years through pamphlets and lectures or meetings, could be achieved within a thousand hours. The person who would evince keen moral courage in making the nation strong should be the Sardar of the nation. Fifty persons in fifty places ready for this work would be able to solve not only the problems of eight crore Muslims, but even the problems of the entire Muslim world. No one would listen to the arm-chair leaders. But everyone would listen to the person who helped the poor and he would be summoned and obeyed as a leader. Analysing this point Inayatullah stated that once, while engaged in writing the Tazkira, he gathered such an experience in a train journey which greatly inspired him to follow the path of service. Inayatullah wrote that the Quran and God were always before him when he was writing the Tazkira.
            This world was nothing to him and he himself was nothing. In such a mental state he was travelling by train from Peshawar to Karachi in the month of June for some domestic work. There was a heat wave in the deserts of Bhawalpur and Sind. The passengers in the train were taking their heads out of the windows and loudly crying for water. Thanks to the foresight of his wise maid servant—there was plenty of water with him. Getting down from the cushioned seat of his first class compartment and holding the water pot Inayatullah distributed water at different stations for six hours. Men, women, children—Hindus, Muslims, Parsees, Christians—all who this service also got down, came to him, expressed good wishes, blessed him and looked at his dress with great admiration. Learning from his old maid servant that he had very recently come back from England after six years and that he was getting Rs. 1,000/- as his monthly salary they were greatly surprised. Some women even touched his feet with veneration. This service in that train journey won for him permanent friendship of many.
            Inayatullah referred to this outburst of love as ‘a scene of paradise’ commenting:
            Seeing this I sometime thought that it is not very difficult for me to be come a Pir”. Thus the        medicines which Inayatullah prescribed for the diseased Muslim-nation were these: The Muslims should be aloof from politics. Their leaders should free the nation from the complications of politics and receive quietly what the British Government and the Hindus were giving to the Muslims. For, to take the leaderless and weak nations, torn by their domestic quarrels, to politics was just like leading a heart patient to the top of a hill. Politics was another name of strength. Politics and acquisition of right from power are synonymous.
            The strong nations would automatically become political in a day. So it was real politics to make the nation united and strong. Further, the leaders of different parties should dissolve their parties which were the root cause of all differences. No construction was possible without destruction. The sign of a nation’s health was to follow the middle path. A leader must watch the health of the nation and ensure its unity:
This prescription, Inayatullah said, was the result of ten years’ deep thinking on his part.
During the course of the discussion the Hamdard wanted to know the views of Inayatullah about those Muslims who were completely swayed by Western civilization, who were even shy of keeping the Quran in their houses and of calling Allah, who, in fact, could even sell Makka4 for the sake of high posts from the British Government. These people, he commented, had become the leaders of national movement and parties, .d were virtually tools and stooges in the hands of Government.
            They earned money for their own benefit. If at any time the Government was on the verge of collapse they would come forward to its rescue and advise their fellow-brethren to maintain peace with the Government and yet kindle mutual quarrel among themselves. If it was necessary to serve their own in:. rests r they would not hesitate to
openly declare that they had learned self-respect from Englishmen and that they were uncivilized before. The Hamdard believed:
            The movement of self-reform is a purely religious movement. It is the only remedy of our evils.     It is our first and last politics. It is an instrument of our strength.
            They had no doubt that Inayatullah aimed at creating a political atmosphere through religion, at equating religion with politics and thereby taking the people nearer to God. They held it to be a right ways essential for this period. However, ,an essential pre-requisite of the diffusion of the movement of self-reform was to work among the common people and to develop interest about them.
By way of reply to the observations of the Hamdard, Inayatullah stated that a section of Muslims who were annoyed with religious or who were admirers of the English probably lived in towns and big places. But they were in a microscopic minority—as he said, ‘one anna in a rupee’ —and the vast majority (the remaining fifteen annas) were those ordinary Muslims who formed the backbone of the nation, and constituted the basis of all movements. In fact, he held that they possessed that capacity These are the people who were hard labourers and earned their livelihood by legal means. Referring to the attitude of the ordinary Muslims Inayatullah observed:
            They would loudly broadcast any expression of sympathy you may show for them, while words             of appreciation would evoke from them prompt obedience. If any honourable man show    equality to them they become happy to see this Islamic spirit.
            In this connection Inayatullah strongly condemned the British rule in India which he considered to be the root cause of the poverty of Indian people: He observed thus:
            The English people have squeezed the last drop of blood of the Indian people and taken it away to their country. We do not get sufficient food. We have not a single ring of silver in our    houses.
In spite of so many difficulties, it was the illiterate poorer sections of Muslims, not the educated richer ones who were upholding the banner of Islam. He wrote:
            In short, these poor and working people are the pillars who hold the roof of Islam. If it      depended on the educated people it would have been collapsed long ago. I have seen this type of Muslims in large numbers among the Afridis, Muhammaudis, Waziris, and even in the Egyptians, Arabs and Palestinians.
            Nevertheless, Inayatullah could not agree with those who held that Prophet Muhammad had desired his followers to remain poor. In fact, he never said that he loved poverty. This is known to all that the Prophet passed away after making his followers masters of the world and they remained in that position for hundreds of years. Inayatullah believed that the common Muslims have a lot of capacity. Generally they are labourers. They do hard work and the work of bravery All the artisans who are engaged in production of various kinds of goods ranging from hand-woven cloth to manufacture of engines are Muslims. In short, there are many professions created by civilization, which are in the hands of Muslims—men and women. The people of other nations who are taking part in these are less in number.
Inayatullah wrote that a Shahukar (capitalist or wealthy merchant) sitting in his own shop comfortably and without doing any manual labour makes three times profit by purchasing the handiworks of the poor labourers and foreign goods. It is only by virtue of his wealth that he earns a good name and occupies a high position in the city or town. He owns magnificent buildings, motor cars, horses, etc. In the evening the poor labourer comes before the Shahukar with the goods made by him in his small cottage and says Salam to Shahukar. But the Shahukar is so busy that he has no time to acknowledge his Salam. Giving a vivid picture of the relation between a Shahukar and a labourer, and showing his respect to the poor labourers, Inayatullah boldly asserted:
            If we look at the hands of the labourer we will see the miracle of prophecy divine power and        the great creative capacity in it. Such hands are worthy to be kissed. Do not flinch from the dirt      and rough skin of a labourer.
            The poor labourers are producing necessary goods. They have creative faculties and divine power in their hands. As they give comfort to men they should be loved and respected by all. According to Inayatullah the Hindu, the Parsee and other business communities of India are generally capitalists. They are making money out of money. Through purchase and sale of goods they easily make money. They lend money on interest, they erect big f they purchase lands, they realize rents, and thus they make money without any labour. But the Muslims had only their handiworks and they are fond of these. They purely depend on their courage and strength. In a way the Muslims are very few in number in the profession of making money through purchase and sale of goods as the capitalists do. Under pressure of circumstances the Muslims have not acquired this profession after the downfall of their kingdom. But their attachment to this technical manual skill is very old. It has been crested by the teachings of Islam. Even Prophet Muhammad had to work like a labourer and to take part in business. During the Golden Age of Islamic rule there were many skilled workers among the Muslims who were proud of their professions. Even several kings were engaged in handiwork, such as, writing of the Quran and making caps. They were not ashamed of it.
            According to Inayatullah the profession of Shahukari did not prevail among the Hindus in ancient days. At the time of Asoka and Bikramjit they were not purely Shahukars, they were Shahukars-cum-artisans. During the Muslim rule they practically became capitalists, banians and shopkeepers. They gave up handicrafts, or they were enjoying high posts under the Muslim rulers. The educational profession was also in their hands. Even now the condition is the same, although the Hindus could not be capitalists, labourers and handicraftsmen like the English and other ruling nations. In their long history of one thousand years there is none among the Hindus who has invented new things and become famous as artisans.
On the other hand the Muslims, following the footsteps of their Prophet, stuck to these professions and developed them further, without considering them as ordinary leaving them to be followed by the zimmis or their subjects. Even today, when the Muslims have lost their kingdom and wealth, the real source of their strength lies in the fact that they are efficient Karigars (artisans). This is an index to their capacity and political power.
            There is a hard competitive struggles in the fields of trade and commerce among different nations of the West. There is keen competition between England and Germany for the expansion of their spheres of influence. England owes her pride and prestige to her workers. Through their labours England has become a great nation. Thus the capacity to produce goods constituted the real strength in the life of a nation. Unfortunately, the Hindu brothers give up this job and become capitalists. If the Muslims, too, abandoned their professions as Karigars or artisans then today Hindusthan would never have become great, the small engineering industries would not have survived, and it would even have been impossible to launch the Civil Disobedience Movement. In fact the movement of boycott of foreign goods was possible because of the existence of small factories and of the Karigars. Inayatullah quoted Mahatma Gandhi as saying categorically that people who were making cotton-threads from Charkha and who were weaving Khaddar, were mostly Muslims.
            Again, Inayatullah observed that among them the percentage of Muslim women was high, and if we keep this fact in mind then it would be proved that the participation of Muslims in the Khaddar Movement was seven times more than that of the Hindus. In addition to that they have made other sacrifices along with their Hindu brethren. Thus the Muslims-men and women have played a glorious part in India political struggle during the last twelve years. Some people who do not know the reality of anything will not appreciate it, they will see it in a negative way. They will say that the Congress propaganda and its great influence all over the country made Khaddar an important thing and the country became ready for Khaddar. Thus the poor weavers were able to earn their livelihood. Otherwise who was caring for them? They had no capacity to shake the foundations of the Governmental machinery. Inayatullah asserted that the wealthy members of the Congress as well as its four anna (members) contributors could not spin the scheduled 200 yards cotton thread a day.
            But the Muslims, who are not members of the Congress, produced more cotton-threads than what was made jointly by lakhs of Congress members, who are politicians and wise men and who know the condition of country well. Thus the poor illiterate non-Congress Muslims greatly contributed to the cause of the Charkha. If anyone has used Charkha as a cannon they are these weavers, not any other else. They are actually producing Khaddar. It was not only due to the Congress propaganda alone. It is a fact that this profession existed in India for a long time, and the people who were not shy of it, were in large numbers engaged in this industry. As a result of it the Indian National Congress could effectively conduct the boycott movement and thereby harm its enemy, the British Government. If that industry and profession did not exist in India then it would not have been possible to harm the Government only by the order of making 200 yards of cotton-thread and merely by the verbal propaganda of the Congress.
            In this connection Inayatullah drew our attention to the fact that from early times the Muslim weavers of Bengal are called Mumin. But to a Muslim this word has got a special meaning. The faithful in Islam are called Mumin. They are the true Muslims. So, Inayatullah was surprised to note the use of this term in Bengal. He tried to find out the reason for which they received the title Mumin. To trace it Inayatullah delved into the early history of Islam and pointed out that Umar, the second Khalifah, ordered his soldiers to wear Khaddar. At that time the rich people of Arabia used to wear silk-cloth. Umar advised the people to wear coarse cloth and to take simple food. He felt that otherwise they would be foppish.
            Thus Inayatullah realized the real strength of these people and their help to the Congress. He was not ready to accept the theory that the Muslims are ignorant of the politics of their nation and of the world. According to him they are simple, they have active faith and knowledge in a surprising degree which do not exist in other nations.
Then Inayatullah turned to the Khilafat movement. According to him the Muslims contributed Rupees Eighty lakhs within a few months and gave it to their leaders for this movement. They were so much moved to see the sad plight of the Khalifah that with the object of restoring his position the Indian Muslim women offered their bangles and rings, men, gave their turbans and kurtas, and even the small children offered their money accumulated by them for purchasing sweets. Though the Khilafat issue originated four thousand miles away from India, yet it greatly affected the sentiments of Muslims all over the world.
            The participation of the Indian Muslims in this movement was no doubt an important event. Side by side with it the non-cooperation movement also played a vital part in galvanizing the minds of the people. The massacre of Jallianwala Bagh, in April 1919, fired the country from one corner to another, and everywhere there was a cry for Swaraj. The Hindus and Muslims were united. There was a call for subscriptions to the cause of the country. A great Hindu leader was the President of the movement. In spite of that the wealthy and capitalist Hindu brothers contributed only one crore and twenty-five lakhs of rupees though their number was three times more than that of the Muslim population. The Muslims have, of course, a share in the contribution.
            Thus, according to Inayatullah this amount was collected for the independence of the country. Elaborately discussing these points Inayatullah observed:
            It is a fact that the Muslims have not become dead physically and mentally. They have still           some signs of life. They would lose their individuality when they would be saturated with the English education and modern civilization, and when they would cease to labour hard after  seeing the wealth and luxuries of other people. No doubt they suffer from some very serious maladies and look like a corpse.
            Discussing the nature of the Khilafat and Hijrat movements Inayatullah commented thus:
            It seems that the Khilafat and Hijrat movements were mainly influenced by religious                     factors. But I can proclaim it loudly that there was fifty percent religion and fifty percent politics in it.
            He opined that it was religion which made the general body of the Muslims politically conscious. Naturally, there is no need to teach them politics separately. They are not backward in participating in political movements. Gifted with the power of foresight they see politics in every religious movement.
Besides their participation in the Khaddar movement the Muslims also played a vital part in the civil disobedience movement which was purely political. But a big section of Muslim leaders was hesitating to join it and they were telling the Muslims that it is the personal movement of the Hindus, and, therefore, it will be harmful to the Muslims. Almost all the big Muslim Papers were against the civil disobedience movement. The influential Muslim leaders and the dalals (agents) of the Government were busy in vilifying this movement in different ways . The result was the Hindus and the Muslims clashed with each other and communal riots broke out. In short, everything has been done to keep the Muslims away from this movement. Nevertheless, the Muslims have made a great sacrifice for this movement and disregarded the advice of those who tried to dissuade them from it. The historians, who do not know the pulse of the Muslim nation, are surprised to see that though half of the eight crores of Muslims were pardanashin ladies, 12,000 of them had courted imprisonment raising the slogan Alla-ho-Akbar. But the Hindu brothers only offered 40,000 prisoners out of twenty-two crates. Inayatullah stated that it is an open estimate made by the Hindus and published in the papers.
            In this connection Inayatullah analysed the role of the people of North-western parts of India. Beyond the frontiers there was a territory named Azad Kabael (free zone) lying between British India and Afghanistan inhabited by rowdy tribes. The Pathans of the region and adjacent areas were greatly influenced by the Congress. They took part in the civil disobedience movement. Several Pathans were killed by the police at Qissakhani Bazaar in April, 1930. After this massacre the Afridis launched two attacks on Peshawar without the consent of the Amir of Kabul. The Muhammaudi tribes formed a morcha at Shabeqader and the Waziris, another tribe also made a separate morcha in different places to oppose the British. Thus these people have fomented an atmosphere of war on the frontier to give moral support to the liberation movement of India. In some places the frontier leaders gave red dress to their supporters and the British were alarmed to see it. Thus they put the real red danger towards the British. Inayatullah wrote that it was due to the sacrifices of the frontier people that this civil disobedience movement became famous. The Government scented real danger in it. Now, what the Muslims have received for their participation in the national struggle or brotherly service? It is a fact that if the Muslims, especially the tribes of Azad Kabael, did not participate in this movement with all their resources, the results of the politics of the Hindus would have been different The British would not have endeavoured to settle the matter with the leaders by sending their own representatives to jails. Had there been no such pressure on the British they could have given a blow to the unarmed political movement (i.e., non-violent C.D. Movement) of India and could have protracted this conflict. Inayatullah observed that the politics of the Charkha was so weak and ineffective that no one in military, police and government services went against the government. In spite of raising the slogans ‘Inqilab Zindabad’ the government machinery was least affected. The government was really frightened to see the support of the people of the frontier and they came forward to settle the matter. Inayatullah remarked:
            I have no quarrel with the Hindus and the Muslims. I have expressed what was true in my             opinion. It goes without saying that to snatch away independence from an organized and well-           informed enemy is beyond the power of the Charkha.
Analysing the points stated above Inayatullah boldly asserted that the capacities of the Muslims are clear as day light and they possessed all potentialities to constitute a big nation. There is no need to argue with it. It is also clear that there is a religious feeling in a large section of the Muslims. In spite of their poverty they are brave, ready to sacrifice wealth, accustomed to hard labour and possess the qualities of a Karigar.
            When required they are ready to sacrifice themselves, to perform hijrat for the glory of religion, to take interest in politics and to participate in the liberation struggle Unfortunately all these efforts failed for want of self-reform within the Muslim nation. There were no religion, no hijrat, no jihad, no politics, no workers, no leaders and no unity generated by previous self-reform movements. These did not inculcate any sense of obedience to an Amir, had no connection with a proper centre, no unity on the basis of a common programme, discipline and cohesion. Moreover, the leaders were not clean-hearted, the generals were bad and the Sepahis ill-motivated. All were engaged in mutual quarrels. They cherished hatred against the Hindus and the English people. As a result the Muslims gained nothing though they sacrificed enough for the causes of Khilafat, hijrat and civil disobedience movements. Other nations profited from these. Thus the Muslim nation became a loser and grew weak In these circumstances, the main object of the Muslim nation should be to direct religion and politics along the proper path.
Referring to the politics of his Hindu brethren in this connection Inayatullah held that for a long time nothing had been done for the Hindu community on the basis of religion and there was nothing left in their religion which could stimulate the hearts of the people. What they are doing today depends on the strength of politics. Only a slight mixture of self-reform to their politics had made it so strong that even the Lalaji who was generally sitting the whole day in his shop and was busy in counting every paisa is now telling his companions ‘Maharaj, close the shops, it is the order of Mahatmaji’. Thus it is the result of true politics. Inayatullah observed thus: “I cannot visualize what will happen when true religion and true politics will be amalgamated”.
As the Muslims possess the spirit of sacrifice and the capacity to bear trouble, there will be nothing new for them in the proposed self-reform movement. ‘When the Muslims will understand the logic of real religion they will be sure of pleasing God and doing beneficial works for the world. At the same time they will be in a position to raise the slogan Alla-ho-Akbar. A nation capable of sacrificing life and property and bearing trouble has no need to go anywhere in search of interesting things. True, the leaders are a part and parcel of a nation. They should know the pulse of the nation and bear trouble along with it. In spite of these qualities if the nation fails to keep faith on him then it would reveal the fact that there is lack of real propaganda among the Muslims.
Inayatullah observed that the newspaper men do not know the real politics of making a nation great. The owners of newspapers are busy in increasing the circulation of their papers, whereas the editors receive petty salaries with no security of their jobs. They are purely dependent on the mercy of the owners. If, however, the owners accept the editors as the makers of the glory of the nation, real politics, real propaganda and national goodness will emerge. It will generate the spirit of real forgiveness among the individuals and remove the evils of the nation.
            According to Inayatullah the editors occupy the same respectable position as a Prime Minister, although their fields of activity are different and they are against each other. Both of them are responsible to the people. The growth of a nation is purely dependent on their activities. An editor can really guide the nation by exposing and correcting the shortcomings in national life. For this reason in European countries many editors became Prime Ministers. Inayatullah observed that it is very dangerous especially among the weak and backward nations, to use the newspapers for business purposes. It is, no doubt, the cause of political weakness of those nations. It should be noted that only the reformers of big nations took the first initiative in publishing papers in their countries. They had passion for reform and thereby tried to make the nation great. They were not guided by narrow commercial interests. If, at presents the owners and editors realize this point then a good and congenial atmosphere may be created for the entire nation. Inayatullah considered that the best way to correct the policy of the paper is this that no Muslim should purchase any paper abusing any other Muslim rightly or wrongly. They should buy Hindu or semi-official papers. This will also help them to know what other peoples are doing. Thus it will serve their purpose.
Inayatullah was convinced that peace, belief and faith are identical, and these lie at the root of all movements. No one can progress without counting on these things. As long as the Muslims kept faith in God and the Quranic teachings, they moved along the right way and they were successful. ‘When they ignored these, they became inactive. Now, what they are doing without the knowledge of real spirit of religion is more wastage of their time and energy Both in his previous work Tazkira and in the present, Isharat, he reminded the Muslims of the orders of God and called upon them to march forward in order to establish their superiority all over the world under the guidance of an Amir (Commander). Following the order of God the Arabs boldly challenged the non-believers and conquered thirty-six thousand forts and cities within a short period of twelve years. When with the blessings of God the Muslims became the ruling power, most of them came to hold that they would enjoy God’s grace for ever and that they are the only beloved people of God. As a result, they gradually forgot the principles of Islam and began to misinterpret them for their own self-interest.
            Within a few centuries the Maulavis misinterpreted and changed the laws of God and of Islam in their writings. However, as the fortunes of the Muslims began to wane the Maulavis preached that this world was not a worthy place to live, that it should be hated and that no one should look at it from any other point of view. Unfortunately the common Muslims fell a victim to this propaganda. Soon they forgot both religion and politics. Losing their strength in this way they forgot God. They began to worship stone-idols and revere religious heads as the shadow of God. They also thought that religion is private matter and it is of no significance for the materialistic world. Inayatullah stated that although divine rules does not practically exist among the Muslims, nevertheless the idea of God, religion, ruling authority and the aims of strength and politics on the basis of religion are still alive among them. Even today their cardinal belief in monotheism constitute, the main source of strength and pride. So there is no difficulty in creating the real sense of prayer among them with courage and belief as the nation is still loved by God.
Inayatullah next posed this question : How would the Muslims be powerful again? According to him they will not get the blessings of God by merely retaining their Muslim names and declaring themselves Muslims. But to be a real believer and slave of God they must break the idol of self-interest which was always interfering with the orders of God. A true Muslim should not think about his health, wealth, children, property, wife, land and money as being more valuable than God. Moreover, he started that a few years back the Muslims made every kind of sacrifice in different movements. Yet they were not successful, for they were not united and organised under the command of an Amir. They also lacked determination for work. Inayatullah observed that idol worship by the Hindus or the worship of Jesus Christ by the Christians are not so ruinous as the worship of the idol of self interest by the Muslims. The latter is always pre-occupied with his own interests. He devotes his whole time to personal engagements and never cares about his nation or organisation. Inayatullah considered the Hindus to be blessed by God, and more obedient to Him than even the Muslims. They are united under one leader and ever ready to sacrifice everything for the cause of independence. In fact, they sacrificed crores of rupees during the hartals. They have self-control and do not waste money. So they are wealthy people.
            They do not abuse each other and they always fulfill their promises. They are kind to each other, but hard to the enemies. According to Inayatullah they actually adhere to the Quranic injunctions. Though the Hindus worship thirty crores of idols, they are united in their action. They have no groupism in the name of Pandits and Mohants. They are not divided in thought and action. Their newspapers do not quarrel with each other. They have the capacity to form a united front because they are not selfish, and their only aim is the victory of their nation. In fact they believe in one supreme God. It would have been impossible for them to preserve unity if they believed in different Gods. And it is God’ who leads them towards truth. Mentioning this Inayatullah asserted:
            Such a nation is really the follower of Islam and real believer in one God. They should not be       called idol worshippers or non-believers. If, we say so, this is due to our ignorance, and nothing more than that.
            For this reason Inayatullah did not accept the generally accepted definition of the term mushrik. Those who do not believe in one God are called mushrik.
            According to this definition the Hindus are called mushrik by the Muslims. But Inayatullah was not willing to call the Hindus mushrik or idol-worshipper. He observed thus : “They are mushrik who make differences in their Jamaat (party). So I shall forgive all excepting the mushrik.” According to him other nations have reached the apogee of development by taking the idea of oneness of God. Unfortunately, the Muslims who were actually the torch-bearers of divine monotheism, have forgotten the principles of strength due to their ignorance and dishonesty.
            Forgetting the qualities of Prophet Muhammad they are now organized in different sects or groups centering round different Pirs or Fakirs. Inayatullah believed that without leaving the worldly affairs the Muslims should work and earn money in an honest way. He could not understand the arguments of those who characterised the removal of 360 stone-idols from the Kaabah in Makka as the greatest work of Prophet Muhammad and as the greatest service to God. If that is so Inayatullah argued, then why is it not mentioned in the Quran? The removal of stone-idols was not the only big work done by Prophet Muhammad. He had done so many noble things. Inayatullah wrote that God has taught the Muslims to stand in a line in a military way to observe the namaz, to obey an amir, to pay zakat for the welfare of the nation, to keep rozah to suppress the evil and to go on hajj, and not bend their heads to anyone excepting God. But alas ! other nations have adopted these qualities. They are obedient to an Amir. They take part in parade) sacrifice their wealth, go to jails and face the gallows merrily. Their men, women, children and even the old people have shown such obedience to their leader that even the policy of British Government failed to produce any tangible result. The British could not suppress them.
            In support of this statement Inayatullah referred to the hunger-strike observed by Jatin Das. He wrote thus:
            Seventy days continuous fasting during the burning summer of a great man of the great Hindu     nation, not habituated to keeping fast, has made such a tremendous achievement for his nation          that it shook the very foundation of the British Government. But no one came out from the          unfortunate Muslim community who could really compete with this non-religious fast. So, in        my opinion, all our namaz and fasts of several hundred years have proved fruitless, because these could not unite the hearts, did not create a common center, could not make an Amir and thus our evil pro pensities could not be suppressed. But our self-interest has swollen ten times and the nation became desperate. And the results were their defeat, destruction and hell at the end.
            To overcome these difficulties, Inayatullah suggested that the Muslim nation should introduce self-reform within its body-politic and thus set its house in order scrupulously. By this process the Muslims would gain strength and realize the significance of the early days of Islam. The Mujahids of Islam would come out in an humble and polite manner to serve the cause of God and they will be seen active in fields wearing badges with the monograms of God’s name. Thus the divine rule of the poor and oppressed people will be re-established on earth.
Then, Inayatullah analysed the programme of self-reform on which the Khaksar movement is based. In real sense the movement of self-reform is an ordinary part of the principle of belief in one God. So in the primary stages of the movement those who have full faith in Oneness of God should join it. The political weapon of non-violence which the Indian National Congress is using against the British Government for a long time is a minor element compared to the programme of self-reform. Its principal objective is to suppress evil human propensities and to obey God and to offer services to Him in accordance with the order of the Quran.
            Therefore, those who are following this path will get reward according to their work from God. But as the Congress has adopted the course of resistance to take revenge against the British and to disturb their administration, and as it has no idea of service of God, there is no programme of self-reform before the followers of this path and self- reform cannot be achieved by it at all. It is God who determined the life of man here on earth and after death. A clear idea about the benefit of organization in this world and the reward of individual after death makes man able to do his work ten times more than the usual load. Keeping in mind the blessings of God it is better to do good things without taking any revenge against anyone. But this object cannot be realized merely by the idea of politics and of nationality The work which is not founded on God and His blessings even after death will not be permanent. For this reason the non-cooperation movement of the Congress could not last longer although it brought some political benefit to the nation. But the main idea behind this movement was to harm the British in trade and commerce. It was not guided by the idea of self-reform or service to God.
            Explaining these points Inayatullah observed that in. the primary stages of the movement of self-reform as envisaged by him, the leadership should be in the hands of people with full faith in the services of God but not motivated by feelings of revenge. Inayatullah observed thus:
            It should be declared openly that we have no touch with politics. We are neither going to oppose the government nor taking part in the non cooperation and civil disobedience movements. These things are not in our programme. We are engaged in the service of God. Our efforts are directed to introduce self-reform. Our policy will be non-violence, i.e., to forgive and forget. But we will use our right of ‘self-defence’ if we are compelled to do so. We will not oppose the government until it will be necessary to protect our religious rights. We are following the Islamic principles of ‘love and humanity’. So we cannot entertain the spirit of enmity against anyone. Our programme is quite different and no dispute will arise with any party, nation or with the government until their decisions are imposed on us against our wish. We have no ill-will against any human being and even against the government. It is against our spiritual policy which teaches us not to nurse ill-will. We make no distinction between caste and creed. We are for God. We want our rewards from God. We want to make everyone obedient to God through service and modesty. We have no power derived from sword and cannon. This is our ideal of conducting this movement.
Next Inayatullah pointed out that under the present political circumstances the greatest problem in India was the relations between the Hindus and the Muslims. He was of opinion that the British have created this problem and have taken recourse to ‘divide and rule’ policy. The British thought that when the Hindus .and the Muslims would fight each other it would be easier for them to keep their dominion in India intact. They have taught little children through history books prescribed for the schools that the Muslims were very bad, that they had suppressed the Hindus, cut their tuft and torn their sacred thread.
            Thus the Hindus were the victims of religious fanaticism. There was no peace and civilized atmosphere under the Muslim rulers. Moreover, canals, roads, bridges and schools were not constructed for the benefit of the common people. In short, the rule of the Muslims was a reign of terror. So, it was not worthwhile to stay even for a moment. In these circumstances, the Englishmen appeared and released the people from this intolerable condition. Exposing the unsoundness of this line of argument Inayatullah stated that the Hindus have come to know the truth and have become conscious of this false propaganda They have realized that it was the British who have destroyed the roots of religion in India within fifty years of the acquisition of political power for their own benefit. But under the Muslim rulers, which lasted over eight hundred years in India, the Hindus lost nothing. The British have interfered in their social and domestic affairs for which they have cut tufts and torn sacred threads by their own hands. It is a fact that the British are mainly concerned with earning money, i.e., through trade and commerce. Where as the Muslim rulers ruled this country keeping always in mind the welfare of their subjects. Naturally, there was no complaint against them. But the Hindus and the Congress bitterly resent the British rule. This reveals that “the Muslim rule was excellent”. Inayatullah also pointed out that the long period of Muslim rule in India was not disturbed by any movement like the Mutiny of 1857 and the present unrest. At that time the Muslims had full faith on the Hindus and the Hindus were equally faithful to the Muslims. Instances of real love and affection among each other are still available in the true history books.
            In this connection Inayatullah referred to a book written on Indian history by a teacher from Ambala, published in 1867. The author of that book clearly exposed and condemned the ‘divide and rule policy of the British’ and commented that a time would come when both the Hindus and the Muslims would be treated as enemies by the British. Thus for pursuing this policy the government would be involved in such a complicated position that it would be very difficult for the government to come out of it. Inayatullah was surprised to note that long after sixty-four years of publication of that work the arguments of the author proved correct. Anyway, Inayatullah felt that the present Hindu-Muslim dispute, which has taken a complex form along with the growing strength of the Congress, is the most important and dangerous problem of Indian politics. ‘Unfortunately, the Charkha has failed to solve this problem. Inayatullah, of course, admitted that the Charkha has exposed the British economic policy which completely ruined India by draining out her wealth to England. It is also true that had it been possible to restrain the Hindu capitalists from purchasing foreign goods, India would not have been converted into a beggar country So, at first the Hindus committed crime.
            Now through the Charkha movement they are performing penance. But this movement has generated ill-will against the British. It is a kind of economic weapon in the hands of a capitalist nation (the Hindus) against another capitalist nation (the British). It is an offensive arm in the hands of those who have taken part in the civil disobedience movement, in picketing and in courting arrests. In a sense this is a policy of wreaking vengeance.’
            Naturally, under the influence of Charkha movement no one has resigned from his service, no title holders have relinquished their titles, no pleaders have given up their professions, the police and military personnel have not been affected at all, the law courts which are uprooting the moral character of the nation are working normally and the schools and colleges are functioning normally. Anyway, the Charkha movement could not weaken the governmental machinery and could not attract common people to cultivate Charkha seriously.
            According to Inayatullah Charkha was a woman’s instrument and generally they used it. Men felt shy to ply it and it was always hidden in the houses. On account of its being ugly and heavy it could not be the symbol of the nation.
            The Charkha movement solely depended on true faith and on one man. Explaining his opinion on the Charkha movement Inayatullah observed:
            The Charkha has no capacity to liberate the country. It is impossible for a helpless and     unarmed nation to achieve freedom by the instrument of revenge.’
            Inayatullah clearly stated in the Isharat that in his programme of self-reform movement there would be no civil disobedience movement against the government, no jail yatra (going to jails) and no Khaddar wearing as instruments of revenge. He stood for self-reform, i.e., service of God, removal of the disunity of Muslims through impressive prayer in a military way and taming the hearts of proud people. And this cannot be done merely by lectures, meetings, parties, newspapers, advertisements and religious controversies, as uptil now these have produced only bad and negative effects.’