From: akgoel@plg.waterloo.edu (anil k goel)
Subject: Maulana Maudoodi and Pakistan Movement 
Organization: University of Waterloo
	<1840@transfer.stratus.com> <ktnimhINNo8r@crewcut.cs.utexas.edu>
	<AKGOEL.92Apr3120517@plg.waterloo.edu>
	<92097.05203832JMVQG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 04:57:15 GMT

Here are some excerpts from Syed's book. As always, my only motivation in
posting the excerpts is to learn more about these matters.

Further on in Syed's book can be found references for Maududi's subsequent
migration to Pakistan after its creation and his political views there.

-anil
----------

Ref: Pakistan: Islam, politics and National Solidarity, Anwar Hussain Syed

References quoted in the excerpts from Syed's book are:

(44) Maududi's argument that Indian nationhood and nationalism are not
     right for Muslims, and his rejoinders to those who invited the Muslims
     to adopt Indian nationalism, were presented repeatedly, and in great
     detail, in "Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash", vol. II,
     (Pathankot: Maktaba-e-Jamat-e-Islami, 1938). Also see Maududi,
     "Tehrik-e-Azadi-e-Hind aur Musalman", pp. 325-26.
(47) Maududi, Tehrik-e-Azadi-e-Hind aur Musalman, pp. 365-66. 
(49) Maududi, Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash, vol II, pp. 206-19
(50) Ibid., pp. 220-21
(51) Abulala Maududi, Musalman aur Maujuda Siyasi Kashmakash, vol III
     (Pathankot: Tarjuman al-Quran, n.d., c. 1942), pp. 12-15 
(54) Ibid., pp 107-09, 137.
(55) Ibid., pp 30, 64-65, 80
(56) Ibid., pp 105-07 
(57) Ibid., pp 108-10
(58) Ibid., pp 123

All typos and emphasis are probably mine....


Chapter 2: Muslim Nationhood in Theory

p27:   MAULANA ABULALA MAUDUDI: THE PRE-PAKISTAN PHASE

       We now turn to the pre-independence (1937-47) positions of Maulana
       Abulala Maududi on issues of nationhood and nationalism. The Maulana
       was a recognized scholar of Islam, a prolific and influential
       publicist, and head of an important political party, the
       Jamat-e-Islami. His writings over a span of more than 40 years won
       numerous adherents among Pakistani bureaucrats, ...

p29:   Maududi maintains that Islam, while supportive of nationalities, as
       cultural groupings, is wholly opposed to modern territorial
       nationalism....

p30:   Maududi advised Indian Muslims to reject Indian nationalism
       (commended to them by the Congress Party leadership and by some
       ulema, such as Ubaidallah Sindhi and Hussain Ahmad Madani, head of
       the famous seminary at Deoband) because Islam opposed it....
       
       Muslims could cooperate with an Indian National government only if
       it agreed not to encroach upon the jurisdiction that Islam had
       appropriated, and then only in spheres in which Islam permitted
       cooperation with non-muslims. (44)

p31:   If the Muslims' adherence to Indian nationalism was un-Islamic, so
       would be their adherence to Muslim nationalism advocated by the
       Muslim League. Muslim nationalists, said Maududi, posed as the
       standard-bearers of Islam in India, but in reality they had no
       commitment to Islamic principles and goals. ... The proponents of
       Muslim nationalism were no different from the promoter of Hindu
       nationalism: Each preferred his "nation" because he was born in it,
       and neither proceeded from any position of principle or ethical
       purpose. ...., and there was no likelyhood that any government these
       Muslims might establish would be Islamic, or that, as rulers, they
       would behave any differently from non-Muslim rulers. (47)

p32:   It is remarkable that in the late 1930s, Maulana Maududi thought
       that the Indian Muslims, despite their many and serious failings,
       deserved to be saved from Hindu domination. His specific proposals
       in this regard deserve careful attention. [details of Maududi's
       proposal of an "international federation" of Muslims and Hindus]
       (49), (50)

p33:   Maududi formulated these analyses and proposals during the last
       quarter of 1938 and much of 1939. On March 23, 1940, the Muslim
       League, under the leadership of M. A. Jinnah, passed a resolution at
       its historic meating in Lahore, demanding India's partition and the
       establishment of independent Muslim states in the subcontinent. This
       came to be known as the DEMAND FOR PAKISTAN. It was not much
       different from Maududi's third option, except that the Muslim League
       resolution did not call for a federal or confederal relationship
       with the rest of India.

       We should note here that Maududi had not been the original author of
       the idea of independent Muslim states in the subcontinent. As we
       will see later, Iqbal had proposed it as far as 1930, and numerous
       other individuals had published plans along the same lines. In any
       case, one might have expected that Maududi would be gratified that
       the Muslim League, which was the largest of the Muslim parties in
       India, had adopted a plan that closely paralleled his own. Instead, he
       became a STAUNCH OPPONENT of both the plan and its sponsor, the
       Muslim League.

       During the following months and years, Maududi argued that being a
       real Muslim - one who had accepted Islam not merely because he had
       been born into it, but because he had studied it for many years,
       compared it with other faiths, and found it to be the most perfectly
       capable of assuring man's material and spiritual advancement - it
       was his duty to invite all Indians, and then the whole world, to
       embrace Islam. It made sense to focus his mission first on "OUR OWN
       COUNTRY", where he would address himself to non-muslims as well as
       the nominal Muslims in India. (51)

p34:   The Maulana OPPOSED THE CAMPAIGN FOR PAKISTAN because he believed
       that it would NOT BECOME an Islamic state. He maintained that 99.9
       percent of the Indian Muslims were thoroughly unregenerate. They had
       little or no knowledge of Islam, their moral and intellectual
       orientations were un-Islamic, and in many cases, they could not tell
       right from wrong. ... The elected representatives of such Muslims
       would be just as iniquitous. Maududi pointed out that Muslims were
       politically dominant in Afganistan, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt, but in
       none of these countries had the Muslims government endeavored to
       bring about an Islamic state. (54)

       Maududi alleged that MOST OF THE MUSLIM LEADERS in India were
       unfaithful to Islam and did not want God's government. ... But above
       all, the leaders of Muslim League, FROM M. A. JINNAH DOWNWARD, were
       ignorant of Islam's goals and missions, and NOT ONE OF THEM CAPABLE
       OF LOOKING AT ISSUES FROM AN ISLAMIC POINT OF VIEW. ... The Quran
       and the Prophet's traditions were not mentioned in their discourse.
       (55) 

p35:   Jinnah and his associates were western in their thinking, the
       Maulana observed. ... Their ideas were western, but they
       interspersed their speech with the Islamic idiom, terms, and
       phrases. "This made Islam appear as a party to their conflict with
       the Hindus," who might then view Islam as a political and economic
       threat. The "PAKISTANIS" were thus CREATING AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE
       SPREAD OF ISLAM IN INDIA. (56)  

       Maududi noted that some minor functionaries in the Muslim League
       hoped that once Pakistan had been established, efforts would be made
       to Islamize it. But in fact, none of the party's top leaders had
       ever asserted that they intended to build an Islamic state in
       Pakistan. On the other hand, they had repeatedly and unequivocally
       stated that Pakistan would be a democratic polity in which
       non-Muslims would have equal rights. ... , both India and Pakistan
       were likely to be nonreligious democratic states. Pakistan would
       have a 'kafirana'(infidel) government run by Muslims. So far as he
       was concerned, Muslims WOULD DO NO WORSE BY MERGING THEMSELVES INTO
       A NON RELIGIOUS INDIAN NATION-STATE. A secular Muslim state would be
       less inhibited, and more ruthless, in suppressing Islamic
       revolutionary measures. (57)

       Maududi declared in 1942 that, IF THE INDIAN MUSLIMS WISHED TO
       PERSIST IN THEIR NATIONALISM and related goals, HE WOULD HAVE
       NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM, and THEY COULD "GO TO HELL". (58)


       How do we come to grips with Maulana Maududi's apparent turnabout in
       the early 1940s? Indeed, he himself was aware that his advocacy in
       1941 and 1942 would be seen as a contradiction of what he had been
       arguing in 1938 and 1939. His own explanation should be noted.....