Iqbal’s legacy: controversies and claims -by Saad Ahmed Javed
Sir Dr. Muhammad Iqbal is perhaps the most quoted Urdu poet of South Asia. He holds such a weighty stature in Urdu literature that few others even dream of attaining. As I said earlier in one of my articles, “Great people leave behind great legacies and the greater is the legacy, the greater are its claimants.” Thus, opportunists, progressives and conformists all equally claim his legacy.
As Iqbal died before the partition of Indian Sub-Continent, India and Pakistan both claim his legacy. However Pakistan has hijacked Iqbal by its huge industry on ‘Iqbal,’ so much so that nothing is left of his legacy for its alleged foe. Despite this wrestling match, it is an astounding ‘fact’ to learn that the ‘National Song’ of India was written by the ‘National Poet’ of Pakistan!
Since the ‘nationalization’ of Iqbal’s legacy during President Zia’s era, ‘Hazrat Allama’ Iqbal has become a holy cow in Pakistan. Being a wise poet-philosopher, Iqbal was the bridge ‘between progressive writers and Ghalib’. However Zia’s ‘Islamic Republic’ tried its best to transform him into being a bridge between Islam and Pakistan. The Zia dictatorship popularized this identification by popularizing terms like ‘Shayer-e-Mashiq’ (The Poet of East), ‘Qaomi Shayer’ (The National Poet), ‘Hakeem-ul-Umat’ (The Genius of Muslim Community), ‘Allama’ (Muslim Scholar), ‘Musawir-e-Pakistan’ (The Artist of Pakistan), ‘Mufaqir-e-Pakistan’ (Ideological Founder of Pakistan).
As a holy icon of patriotism in Pakistan ‘Iqbal’ has become a beautifully framed picture to which we bow once or twice a year. In fact guards installed by the government to keep watch on Iqbal’s mausoleum function to keep him beyond the reach of common person!
Other than Pakistan and India, Iqbal’s legacy is equally popular in Iran. In Iran, ‘Iqbal Lahori’ is a household name. According to Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iranian people were “the first foreign addressees of Iqbal”. A person from Lahore went to Iran and stayed there as a part of his job. In his letter to Daily Times, he wrote, “I was surprised to discover that our national poet, Dr Allama Iqbal, is very popular and well known in every strata of Iranian society. Almost everyone, from children to adults, from a taxi driver to an executive in an office, all know some verses by Allama Iqbal in Farsi.”
Many leftists also claim his legacy, particularly citing masterpieces like ‘Karl Marx Ki Awaz’, ‘Bolshevik Roos’, ‘Saqi Nama’, ‘Iblees Ki Majlis-e-Shoora’, ‘Sarmaya o Mehnat’, ‘Lenin Khuda Ke Huzoor Maen’, ‘Farishtay Khuda Se’and ‘Khuda Farishton Se’. Thus if at one side, Junaid Jamshed is singing Iqbal’s verses to stimulate the political unconsciousness of masses then on the other side Taimur Rahman is stirring the political consciousness of the masses while singing the verses of the very ‘Iqbal’!
However the most curious claimants of Iqbal’s legacy are the ‘mullah community’ and the orthodox Muslims. In fact no other Urdu poet of British India had such controversial relations
with them as Iqbal had. (Prior to Iqbal it was mostly the Punjabi Sufis, notably the celebrated poet Bulleh Shah, who took the orthodoxy of Islam with cold hands.)
Urdu poetry was famous for its serenity, romanticism and aesthetics but Iqbal attacked the beliefs of orthodox Muslims with vehemence and yet in so gallant a fashion. Isn’t it Iqbal himself who proclaimed, “Na abla e masjid hoon na tehzeeb ka farzand”! Whether it was the writing of ‘Shikwah’ (Complaint) of ‘Bang-e-Dara,’ the attack on the Persian sage Hafiz in his musanwi ‘Israr-e-Khudi,’ the reception of knighthood from British Empire or support for Ibn-e-Saud, the grave digger of the Ottoman Empire, Iqbal wrote completely contrary to the general viewpoint of the Muslim community. Thus some mullahs (clergies) didn’t hesitate to declare him an “apostate”, “heretic” and “infidel”. Despite all this, many mullahs frequently quote him in their commentaries and speeches, today.
Even among mullahs, the self-proclaimed proponents of ‘one Ummah’, one can find some very conflicting claims regarding Iqbal. To mainstream Muslims, he was a non-Ahmadi Muslim but to Lahore’s Ahmadi clergies ‘Iqbal held the Ahmadiyya Movement in the highest admiration and praised it openly’, his ‘religious views derived from Ahmadiyya thought’ and he ‘took the pledge of Mirza sahib’. What could be more ironical that for some, he was the follower of Islamic revisionist Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, for some he was a supporter of fascist Mussolini of Italy, for some he was the fan of imperialist Queen Victoria of Britain and for some he was the advocate of communist Lenin of Bolshevik Russia. Isn’t all this depicting him a ‘confused poet’? Certainly not, if I’m asked! He was wise enough to leave a rational response to all such queries. “Slavery is a great curse. It causes one to say things, deliberately as well as unintentionally, which one does not want to”, Iqbal writes. Here by slavery he meant poverty, that is, economic slavery.
Seeing so many people from different, sometimes even opposing, schools of thought all claiming his legacy, it can be said that Faiz was quite right when he said, “there is no poet who is more mazloom (subjugated) than Iqbal”.
Who can win this “tug-of-war”? If the denationalization of Iqbal doesn’t begin soon, all but Iqbal!
Mullas were inspired by
اقبال کی مللائیوں سے الفات کی شا ایری
داغ ے سجود تعری جبیں پر ہوا تو کییا
کوئی ایسا سجدہ کر کے زمیں پر نشان راہے Daagh e Zajood Teri Jabeen Per Hoaa Tuo Kyya ? Koie Aysa Sajda Kar Kay Zamee Per Nishan Rahay.
Very interesting article. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, as I understood it was a Punjabi, who undoubtedly inspired the Pakistan Movement. I would think anyone could make a convincing argument that his legacy could only truely be claimed with pride by Pakistan.
And, perhaps with Quaid-i-Azam, the ideological founder of Pakistan and definitely a Poet of Pakistan, regardless of living during British India times.
Even as an American, I very much enjoy reading his inspiring Poems and writings.
One of the greatest misfortunes of Pakistan has been the planned intention of distorting history and indoctrinate the generations to come with lies and more lies. The most ludicrous thing attached to Muhammed Iqbal is that he ‘dreamed’ of Pakistan and he laid down the idea of a separate homeland for Muslims of Indian Subcontinent in his Allahbad address. Utter bullshit! No one has ever produced records or exact quoted words from Iqbal where he mentioned in unambiguous words the creation of Pakistan or ant separate homeland. Bitter truth is that Punjab of Pakistan didn’t produce one single leader who could proclaim an iota of contribution in Pakistan movement, since all the Pakistan Movement leaders came from current day India. So they hunted down Iqbal as one and propped him as someone who initially emerged with the idea of current day Pakistan.
May Lord give the people of Pakistan brains to dig down history, talk to elders who’re still alive and witnessed Pakistan movement to understand the truth.
For a moment keeping our religion Islam aside, distorted history of Pakistan is best explained in a single line from one of the versions of Bible: ‘And ye shall know the truth. And the truth will make you free.’
We might never be free!
This is very painful that our enemy is destroying us in a planned way. To make our ideology and leaders controversial is bigger attack than attack on borders. It is doing nothing but helping our enemy to make confused generation who start fighting with each other and destroy within ourselves. Stupid are those who become tool to create such confusion.
In Pakistan History is created. I totally agree with the write of Kaka. Forwarding his input, I quote a few documentary proofs:
“You call me protagonist of the scheme called Pakistan. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim province, a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims – in the Northwest of India,” the book says, quoting an Iqbal letter of March 4, 1934, and written to Professor Edward John Thompson of Oxford University.
Iqbal had not presented the idea of an autonomous Muslim State; rather he wanted a large Muslim province by amalgamating Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Baluchistan into a big North-Western province within India.[4] They argued that “Iqbal never pleaded for any kind of partition of the country. Rather he was an ardent proponent of a ‘true’ federal setup for India…. And wanted a consolidated Muslim majority within the Indian Federation”.[5] “Sir Muammad Iqbal did not use the word “Pakistan” in his address. According to some scholars, that…”
-Wikipedia (irony of the matter is PTCL has blocked this page of Wikipedia). If what is written therein is untrue the fathers of Iqbal’s being equal status with Quaid-e-Azam should file a billion dollar defamation case in the International Court of Justice. Blocking the page so that new generation should be “misguided” is like accepting the turth in there.
As a poet we adore Allama Iqbal, but to give him the same status like Quaid-e-Azam is a villianeous step. In this free world every person has a right to own their personal opinion, but doing so one should not taint the history, a history that has documents.
Very informative reply, Mr. khalid humayun.
I would love to hear more from you on the topic.
Kind Regards,
Allama Iqbal is a popular icon in Pakistan but he is a greater and more popular icon in India. The first Indian astronaut when in space sang “Saray Jehan say achcha Hindustan hamara:: Hum bulblen hain iski, yey gulstan hamara”. Kudos to Allama Iqbal, he is national hero in two countries that are arch enemy to each other. Poor Quaid-e-Azam doesn’t have this mileage.
Excerpt from Allam Iqbal address in Muslim League Convention 1930, Allahabad:
7b]] However, in federated India, as I understand federation, the problem will have only one aspect, i.e. external defence. Apart from provincial armies necessary for maintaining internal peace, the Indian Federal Congress can maintain, on the north-west frontier, a strong Indian Frontier Army, composed of units recruited from all provinces and officered by efficient and experienced military men taken from all communities. I know that India is not in possession of efficient military officers, and this fact is exploited by the Royal Commissioners in the interest of an argument for Imperial administration. On this point I cannot but quote another passage from the Report which, to my mind, furnishes the best argument against the position taken up by the Commissioners. “At the present moment,” says the Report, “no Indian holding the King’s Commission is of higher army rank than a captain. There are, we believe, 39 captains of whom 25 are in ordinary regimental employ. Some of them are of an age which would prevent their attaining much higher rank, even if they passed the necessary examination before retirement. Most of these have not been through Sandhurst, but got their Commissions during the Great War.” Now, however genuine may be the desire, and however earnest the endeavour to work for this transformation, overriding conditions have been so forcibly expressed by the Skeen Committee (whose members, apart from the Chairman and the Army Secretary, were Indian gentlemen) in these words: Progress…must be contingent upon success being secured at each stage and upon military efficiency being maintained, though it must in any case render such development measured and slow. A higher command cannot be evolved at short notice out of existing cadres of Indian officers, all of junior rank and limited experience. Not until the slender trickle of suitable Indian recruits for the officer class – and we earnestly desire an increase in their numbers – flows in much greater volume, not until sufficient Indians have attained the experience and training requisite to provide all the officers for, at any rate, some Indian regiments, not until such units have stood the only test which can possibly determine their efficiency, and not until Indian officers have qualified by a successful army career for the high command, will it be possible to develop the policy of Indianisation to a point which will bring a completely Indianised army within sight. Even then years must elapse before the process could be completed.”
Does it need any comment from me?
Can you message me with any tips about how you made this blog site look this good , Id be appreciative!