Tag Archives: Vice President Muhammad Hamid Ansari

A doctor and his legacy

NEW DELHI :

Taking up the challenging task of achieving unity and tolerance

M.H. Ansari viewing an exhibition on Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari at the M.F. Hussain Art Gallery, 2015
M.H. Ansari viewing an exhibition on Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari at the M.F. Hussain Art Gallery, 2015

Fifty-six is no age to die. Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, MD, MS, with a tall reputation in London’s Lock Hospital and Charing Cross Hospital, and ‘free Doctor’ to uncountable poor in Delhi, was on a train bringing him back to his hometown, Delhi, from Mussoorie where he had gone to treat the Nawab of Rampur when, on May 10, 1936, a heart attack – his first and fatal – took him away. He was four years short of sixty.

Doctors are human and death’s sudden grasp comes to medical luminaries just as it comes to ordinary mortals. Ansari must have been in some disbelief at his heart’s capitulation. But his death shocked a whole world beyond himself, a world of grateful and trusting patients, former patients, friends, families of patients, countless Congress and Muslim League leaders who were his patients, some of them, and fellow freedom fighters, all. For he had been more, incredibly more, than the ‘good Doctor sahib‘. He had been, for over two decades, a political guide and pathfinder to all those who believed in India’s plural integrity and in India’s destiny as a leader of progressive causes globally.

The Balkan War in 1912 saw 32-year-old Ansari lead a medical team from India to Turkey to help wounded Turkish forces in what was not just a humanitarian act but one that formed lasting bonds, as the medical mission of the doctor, Dwarkanath Kotnis, to China in 1938 during the Sino-Japanese war was to do. The Kotnis Mission has been the subject of a film, Dr. Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani by V. Shantaram, for which K.A. Abbas wrote the script. A film has to come on Dr. Ansari Ki Amar Kahani about that mission’s work. Mrinal Sen could well have made such a film a decade ago but perhaps Javed Akhtar or Shyam Benegal will yet do it, for it cries out, filmographically and civilizationally, to be done.

M.A. Ansari’s life as such needs to be known, not for his sake – he is beyond the reach of recognition or neglect – but ours. Being invited to play a constructive political role in the formulation of the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League in 1916 and to preside over the Muslim League’s sessions in 1918 and 1920, Ansari emerged as a sturdy champion of the Khilafat Movement and Hindu-Muslim unity.

His commitment to that cause soon steered away from League politics, the separate electorates idea and all that was to lead to the demand for Pakistan. This resulted in his becoming inevitably, a general secretary of the Indian National Congress in 1920, 1922, 1926, 1929, 1931 and 1932 and in 1927, its president. A former president of the Muslim League becoming president of the Indian National Congress? Incredible, but incredible things did happen in Gandhi’s and Nehru’s India.

Drawing close to the Mahatma’s eclectic nationalism, Ansari became Gandhi’s ‘Delhi host’ in his old Delhi manor called ‘Darussalam’ and physician to members of Gandhi’s family, including his grandson, Rasik, son of Harilal Gandhi, who contracted typhoid in 1929 while on a visit to Delhi (from eating roadside jalebis, as Rasik himself explained) and in spite of Ansari’s valiant efforts, could not be saved. Gandhi was touring the North West Frontier at the time. Ansari sent him a telegram conveying the news. Gandhi steeled himself. “I loved the boy,” he wrote, “I had placed high hopes on him…” The trauma brought the doctor and the Mahatma closer to one another.

Ansari was instrumental in the founding of the Jamia Millia Islamia, and bringing to it a whole host of nationalists, Muslim and Hindu, to learn and to teach. In return for learning Urdu, Gandhi’s youngest son, Devadas, was recruited to teach the Jamia spinning. Ansari was Jamia’s chancellor when he died.

Liberation from mutual animosity and mistrust among Hindus and Muslims was for him a passion. Ansari was, to use an old-fashioned phrase, a man of God. He was also a man of Science. His being a man of science doubtless had something to do with his harbouring his eminently rational goal of wanting Hindus and Muslims to live in civilized amity, not conflict.

As it happened, on the very day Ansari died, Gandhi was meeting in the Nandi Hills, near Mysore, India’s most famous man of science, Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman. If a man of god can be a man of science, a man of science can be a man of god.

Raman to Gandhi: “The growing discoveries in the science of astronomy and physics seem to me to be further and further revelations of God. (But) Mahatmaji, religions cannot unite. (Only) Science offers the best opportunity for a complete fellowship. All men of science are brothers.”

Gandhi to Raman: “What about the converse? All who are not men of science are not brothers?” ( The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 62, pages 387-9)

Within a few hours of this conversation, M.A. Ansari, man of science and of god, brother to all who came in contact with him personally, professionally or politically, lay dead in his railway coach.

Gandhi had gone to the Nandi Hills with Sardar Patel, among others, for a ‘health’ sojourn at Ansari’s behest. When the news reached him the next day, he was stunned. Penning a tribute for the Associate Press, he described him as “the poor man’s physician if he was also that of the Princes” and said, “His death will be mourned by thousands for whom he was their sole consolation and guide.” He added: “…He was my infallible guide on Hindu-Muslim questions. He and I were just planning an attack on the growing social evils.”

An attack on social evils. Strong words, scorching words. What was the biggest ‘social evil’ that Gandhi was exercised most about in 1936? Hindu-Muslim mistrust.

He needed a guide from among the Muslim community to tackle this. And, with Ansari, that guide was gone. At a loss to find a successor he turned first to Zakir Husain. “I ask, will you take Dr Ansari’s place?” On Zakir Sahib not agreeing, he turned then to Maulana Azad for that crucial assistance. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that had Ansari lived he would have played a defining role as a symbol, spokesman and strategist for Hindu-Muslim unity in the Constituent Assembly and then, very probably, in 1950, become president or vice-president of India. He would have been only 70, the age at which his grand-nephew, Mohammad Hamid Ansari, first became vice-president of India.

What was the main concern – ‘social evil’ – forcefully, passionately expressed in Vice-President Ansari’s farewell address to Rajya Sabha? The challenge to Hindu-Muslim unity, pluralism, not as mere ‘tolerance’ but in Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s words: cultural intimacy.

We know what Vice-President Ansari, descended from that great name in Indian pluralism – Dr M.A. Ansari – who rejected everything that led to Pakistan, has received by way of a ‘reward’.

Seventy five years after the Quit India Movement, 70 years after Independence, we the people of India, brothers and sisters in plural mutuality, must tell the shatterers of India’s unity, Hindu, Muslim and other: Quit, quit terrorizing India.

source: http://www.telegraphindia.com / The Telegraph, online editon / Home> Opinion / by Gopalkrishna Gandhi / August 22nd, 2017

A Look At the ‘Life and Times of a Nationalist Muslim’

Aligarh, UTTAR PRADESH :

M. Hashim Kidwai’s memoir recollects the student movements at Lucknow University, the role of Muslims in resisting Partition, and their participation in politics and academics after Independence.

Muslims hold pigeons during a march to celebrate India’s Independence Day in Ahmedabad, India, August 15, 2016. REUTERS/Amit Dave
Muslims hold pigeons during a march to celebrate India’s Independence Day in Ahmedabad, India, August 15, 2016. REUTERS/Amit Dave

There is a remarkable similarity in the rise and ascension of religious reactionaries between the majority and minority communities in the decade before Independence. During the period of 1938-47, the Muslim League’s communal separatism was in fierce contest with the majoritarian assertion of the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, while at the same time it also benefitted from the extremism of the other party. The colonial state abetted such reactionary forces.

Other than the presence of the colonial state during that era, the Congress was the most powerful political force in the country, and was led by the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad, even though the ideologies of many members of the provincial and district Congress leadership overlapped considerably with the Hindu Mahasabha.

Another reassuring difference is that today we do not have a Muslim political force comparable with Jinnah’s Muslim League, even though we do have the likes of Asaduddin Owaisi, Azam Khan and the sympathisers of the illiberal, non-plural, exclusionary traditions among Muslims and Hindus. If one may add, at the global scale as well, such forces seem to be on the rise today.

Born in 1921, Muhammad Hashim Kidwai saw all of this from close proximity. In his diary, he recollects the days of the late colonial India while living in today’s era. The title of the book itself is interesting. He describes himself as a ‘nationalist Muslim’.

In the late colonial period, the likes of Maulana Azad and Rafi Kidwai were banking upon the nationalist Muslims against the onslaught of the Muslim nationalists (or the votaries of the separate nationhood), just as the likes of Gandhi and Nehru were fighting with the Hindu nationalists, the rabid majoritarian reactionaries.

One should read the first volume of Kidwai’s reminiscence in the backdrop of these events. His account is rich in details pertaining to politics up to the Nehru era. His presence in Lucknow as a student till his late 20s and then his role as a teacher of political science at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) immediately after Independence and Partition enabled him to articulate significant narratives.

The fact that he was also an activist – both as a student and as a teacher – adds to the sharpness of his observations and insights. His long chapter on the student movement in Lucknow University provides vivid details of various little and big political organisations and fronts, literary associations and journalistic initiatives. The details captured in that chapter provide a valuable account of the political evolution of the Lucknow youth in the popular phase of the national movement.

In terms of academic explorations in India, we have an inadequate understanding of student movements as well the role of Muslims in resisting partition. This chapter invites us to make attempts towards filling the gap. The subsequent brief chapter on the consequences of Partition reflects on how Muslims adjusted thereafter.

Vice President Muhammad Hamid Ansari with Hashim Kidwai (C) at the launch of his book Life and Times of a Nationalist Muslim. Credit: Aligarh Movement
Vice President Muhammad Hamid Ansari with Hashim Kidwai (C) at the launch of his book Life and Times of a Nationalist Muslim. Credit: Aligarh Movement

It also hints at the relatively greater communalisation of the regional politics of Uttar Pradesh, which pushed Rafi Kidwai out of UP politics and then led to Nehru accommodating him in national politics.

There are a number of Urdu memoirs about the socio-political life on the huge AMU campus, but rather than offering informed criticism and reflections, most are essentially exaggerated eulogies. Kidwai’s memoir is not very critical either, but it does stand out for being able to relate campus life to the world outside. To him, the AMU campus was neither politically insulated nor did it suffer from an ‘isolation syndrome.’

Life and Times of a Nationalist Muslim M. Hashim Kidwai Universal Book House Aligarh, 2015
Life and Times of a Nationalist Muslim
M. Hashim Kidwai
Universal Book House Aligarh, 2015

Being a quintessential Congressman, his narrative about the stealth placing of an idol in the Babri Masjid in December 1949 is focussed more against socialists like Ram Manohar Lohia and Acharya Narendra Dev, who according to him, remained silent to this injustice. Kidwai, however, does show his reservations against G.B. Pant, the then chief minister of UP. He complains, “Both Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel urged Pandit Pant, the UP premier, to take strong action… But for reasons best known to him, Pantji did not take any action… Pantji’s policy of leaving everything to the district authorities was very much condemned and resented by a large number of Congressmen.”

Progressing strictly in chronological sequence and living up to its name as a diary, almost half of the memoir is devoted to AMU. Kidwai served there not only as a teacher but also as a writer of textbooks, a teacher activist and also contributed in academic governance.

In a huge residential university like AMU, which houses more than 30,000 students, “policing” students is a challenging task. Kidwai describes his roles as that of a provost of a residential hall as well as a proctor. While describing the role of the various vice chancellors, he, unfortunately, neglects their impact on establishing or encouraging academic rigour.

Kidwai is almost solely concerned with the socio-political life on the campus and the narrative gives the impression that the Youth Congress dominated the campus. Other accounts of post-Independence AMU inform us that Left activism had gained a significant presence at the university in the 1960s. Kidwai’s account ignores this and also does not dwell on the composition of the student body, that is, the regions the students came from or their socio-economic status.

The volume concludes with the death of Nehru in 1964.

A close reading of India’s comparative history that draws few parallels between the elections of 1946 and of 2014, and the consequences thereof, is still awaited. One hopes that the sequel volume of Kidwai’s memoir will delve deeper into such issues.

By his own admission in the preface, Kidwai, as a parliamentarian, stood behind the clergy, jarringly conservative on gender issues. He was also one of those that ill-advisedly encouraged Rajiv Gandhi to legislate against the Supreme Court verdict on the Shah Bano issue. Therefore, this first volume really sets up expectations for the next and about how he will recollect the days of 1985-86, especially at a time when the same gender issues have once again acquired significant political saliency. Equally important will be to read his views on the decline of the Congress post-1980s.

This is an important book, one which will become a resource for scholars interested in the participation of Muslims in both politics and in academics after Independence.

 

source:  http://www.thewire.in / The Wire / Home> Books / by Mohammad Sajjad / November 04th, 2016