 | ||
| ABDUL QAIYUM ANSARI (1 JULY 1905- 18 JANUARY 1973)
|
'Fakr-e-Quaum' Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was one of the bright stars of the freedom
struggle. He was born in an aristocratic family of Dehri-on-Sone on July 1,
1905. His education took place in Dehri and Sasaram. Later he joined Aligarh
Muslim University for higher education. When Mahatma Gandhi gave the call for
the Non-Cooperation Movement, he left studies to join the freedom struggle at
the age of sixteen. Abdul Qaiyum Ansari believed that the condition of Muslim
society could be improved only through spread of education. The Momins accounted
for half of the country's total Muslim population. Therefore, for the uplift of
the community, Abdul Qaiyum Ansari started the 'Momin Movement'. By
establishing the 'All India Momin Conference', he deflected the debate from
Hindu-Muslim enmity to social uplift. During these days he also founded two
nationalist newspapers - 'Al-Islah'-an Urdu weekly and 'Muswat'- a monthly
magazine in Urdu language.
Soon Abdul Qayyum Ansari Sahib emerged as the most influential
leader of the Momins. He was a staunch opponent of the British and Muslim
League's 'Divide and Rule' theory. The 'Momin Movement' that he started at the
national level emerged from the Pasmanda Movement (1920-1947). It became very
popular among the Muslim community. The radical Muslims who believed in the
communal ideology of the Muslim League felt threatened by his rising
popularity. Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was a proponent of secular ethos as a result of
which the leaders of the Muslim League were always apprehensive of him and
questioned his loyalty to Islam. But this did not reduce the popularity of
Abdul Qaiyum Ansari. It was this secular outlook that brought him closer to the
Congress and Krishna Ballabh Sahay. Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was on a par with
leaders such as 'Frontier Gandhi' Khudai Khidmatgar Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of
Pakhtoon, Allahbakhsh of Sindh and 'Baloch Gandhi' Abdul Samad Khan of
Balochistan who consistently opposed the communal politics and the ‘Two Nation
Theory’ of the Muslim League, but were let down when the Congress leadership accepted
partition - ‘जब पड़ा वक़्त गुलिस्ताँ पे तो खूं हमने
दिया, जब बहार आई तो कहते हैं, तेरा
काम नहीं’। ('We nurtured the garden with our blood, when spring came you found
us redundant')
At the dawn of independence, the Muslim League vigorously
pursued the ‘Two Nation Theory’ under the leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Saiyid Amin Ahmad, a zamindar and
a leader of the Muslim League, was annoyed with Abdul Qaiyum Ansari whose liberal
views contrasted with those of the Muslim League. One of the major objectives
of the Muslim League was to keep the emerging intelligentsia among Muslims from
joining the Congress. Its activities were directed against the Indian National
Congress and Hindus and not against the colonial regime. K. B. Sahay questioned
this attitude of the Muslim League and Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
At the same time, K. B. Sahay defended nationalist leader like Abdul Qaiyum Ansari and his reply was a befitting riposte to communal forces like Saiyid Amin Ahmad whose insinuation was doing tremendous damage to the unity and integrity of the nation. K. B. Sahay was quite harsh in his tone and tenor as he tore into opposition’s effort to communalise the society and vehemently defended the liberal Muslim leaders who were opposed to the two-nation theory of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. On 30th May 1946, during a debate on the floor of the House K. B. Sahay chastised Saiyid Amin Ahmed in no uncertain terms for calling Abdul Qaiyum Ansari a stone purportedly for remaining uninfluenced to the call of a separate nation for the Muslims- ‘Sir, I would like to refer to a remark made by my friend, Mr Saiyid Amin Ahmad. I would say that this is the language of the gutter. Reading Mr Amin Ahmad’s words I was reminded of Dryden. Dryden had referred about a certain person who had become a lawyer, statesman and buffoon all in the course of a single revolving moon. My friend Mr Amin Ahmad is not exactly so, but he has become a Civilian, a Moazzin and a Politician in the course of two or three years. Therefore, I pardon him for having called the Hon’ble Mr Ansari a stone. But, Sir, it is for a man who really can recognize pearl to assess the value of a stone, because diamonds are also stones, and I can assure you, Sir, that the Hon’ble Mr Abdul Qaiyum Ansari is not a stone, but he is a diamond in our crown. My friend Mr Amin Ahmad and others sitting opposite cannot appreciate his worth. Sir, the Muslim League is not a party in which the worth and value of my friend, the Hon’ble Mr Abdul Qaiyum Ansari, can be assessed.
In his speech, K. B.
Sahay highlighted some of the prominent features of communalism that helps a
communalist to divide society. A communalist (in the present case Saiyid Ahmad
Amin) never argues on logic and reasoning. They tend to pull down their
opponents, not through an enlightened discussion but rabid and crass character
assassination. The soberness of Abdul Qayium Ansari was berated by comparing
him with a stone- i.e. a person who is devoid of emotions in matters of
religion. In present times it is termed as ‘trolling’ which is often being practised
in reverse. The Communalist does not have any vision for the development and
uplift of their community and therefore he plays the communal card to deflect
the attention of the community from issues of greater importance- roti,
kapada aur makaan. This we have seen happening with the Muslim community in
the post-independence era. Finally the communalists use ‘mazhab
(religion) as a vehicle to control political power- ‘Mazhab ki siyasat
dukaandaari’- as it may be termed.
On another occasion, K. B. Sahay highlighted
the manner issues were communalised by leaders holding responsible positions
causing immense harm to the social fabric of the society. Drawing the attention
of the House towards the Tapkara Case in which 5 persons were allegedly killed,
K. B. Sahay informed the House that ‘even
though the matter was sub-judice yet eminent Muslim leaders like Huseyn Shaheed
Suhrawardy who held the
constitutional position of the Prime Minister of Bengal has been telling the
world that more than a hundred persons have been killed. Now I beg of you, Sir,
to tell us how we are to deal with such lies except by publishing contradictions
from time to time. Once I happened to be in Hazaribagh when the Muslim League
correspondent came to me and enquired about the personnel of the Ministry and
asked me how the Hon’ble Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was going to work with us. I said
he was our colleague and we would work together. Only a few days later there
appeared a note in the Press saying that the Hon’ble Mr Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was
going to vote according to Congress order. What I meant to say was that we
shall take a joint decision and every one of us will be bound by that decision
whether it is Hon’ble the Prime Minister or Hon’ble the Finance Minister or
Hon’ble Mr Abdul Qaiyum Ansari, who is not separate from us. But the
insinuation in the Press report was that though he would not be consulted he
was bound to carry out any orders that Congress gave. Sir, in the ‘Sentinel’
of the 29th April there appeared a report that every Congressman and every ‘Gandhicapwala’
considered him to be a part and parcel of the government and was issuing orders
to the District Magistrate and police officers. Could there be anything more
false than this?’ Compare
the dilemma faced by the Government in present times and it may not be
difficult to conclude that we have not learnt a lesson from our past.
At the dawn of independence when riots broke out in Bihar
despite its best efforts, Bapu asked Dr Rajendra Prasad to convey ‘his
desire to the State Government to entrust the responsibility of rehabilitation
with Dr Syed Mahmud who had approached him with his grievance’. The State
Government had entrusted this responsibility with Abdul Qaiyum Ansari. Sri
Krishna Sinha did not want to face Bapu to defend his Government’s decision. It
was left to Krishna Ballabh Babu who turned down the request albeit bluntly
when he informed the Government’s decision to Dr Rajendra Prasad in a letter dated
1st April 1947- ‘Our opinion is that if rehabilitation work is
entrusted to Dr Syed Mahmud it will lead to undesirable results. ….the work
that Dr Syed Mahmud is in charge of is sufficiently heavy. Sardar Vallabh Bhai
Patel said that Hon’ble Abdul Qaiyum Ansari should be given rehabilitation'.
Thus K. B. Sahay was able to protect the State from radical elements whose
hawkish attitude would have vitiated the atmosphere further instead of healing
the wounds that were the need of the hour.
In 1946, Shri Krishna Sinha made Abdul Qaiyum Ansari a minister
in his cabinet- a post he held for the next seventeen years. After
independence, he merged the Momin Conference with the Congress, which was very
disconcerting to the immediate leadership of the Muslim League. In 1948, he
prepared Muslims to fight the Razakars of Hyderabad. He was the first leader
who denounced Pakistan for occupying a portion of Kashmir i.e. the POK and
supported the Indian Government's efforts to liberate Pakistan Occupied Kashmir
in 1957 by gathering Muslim youth of Kashmir under the flag of 'Indian Muslim
Kashmir Youth Front'. In 1953, he became a member of the 'All India Backward
Classes Commission' constituted by the Government of India for the social and
economic uplift of the backward classes. Throughout his life, Abdul Qaiyum
Ansari worked for the economic and social uplift of the backward classes.
Abdul Qaiyum Ansari was the Minister for Health and Prisons in
K. B. Sahay’s cabinet. The communal forces were still at large even after sixteen
years of independence and K. B. Sahay was seen combating communalism. The
communal Muslim leaders often targeted liberal leaders like Abdul Qaiyum
Ansari. Mohammad Hussain Azad of Swatantrata Party from Kishanganj raised the
issue that the Congress was not paying adequate attention to the welfare of
Muslims and K. B. Sahay was concerned to the welfare of a handful of his friends and
he does not look towards Muslims like him (read appease) in the opposition. He
raised an accusing finger at Abdul Qaiyum Ansari who was K.B. Sahay’s trusted
aide. K. B. Sahay’s retort on this occasion forced these communal leaders into
silence ‘Muslims, in general, have faith in Congress because we controlled
riots in Bihar effectively even though disturbances were reported in Calcutta
and Pakistan. I assure my Muslim brethren that we look at them evenly and
justice will be done to them and my administration will extend them a fair
opportunity in all matters’. He summed up his statement by reciting an Urdu
couplet which hinted that his Government will treat the Muslims like any other
citizen of the province-‘Ishq ke gole banakar baaz par phenka karoon, tum
mujhe dekho na dekho, main tumhein dekha karoon’ (‘इश्क़ के गोले बनाकर बाज़ पर फेंका करूँ, तुम मुझे देखो न देखो मैं तुम्हें देखा करूँ’). The House appreciated the veiled message which was conveyed
poetically. K. B. Sahay thus used his wit and intelligence
to keep communal leaders at bay and never resorted to appeasement for political
gains.
Another incident is of 1965 when the
opposition questioned the integrity and commitment to the cause of nationalism of
two cabinet ministers namely Abdul Qaiyum Ansari and Jafar Imam. Krishna
Ballabh Babu loathed such unsubstantiated allegations. In his speech on the
floor of the House on 27th August 1965, Krishna Ballabh Babu warned the
communal elements that he would not tolerate such attempts at character assassination
attempt- 'Sir Speaker, I will not
tolerate such baseless allegations that there are Pakistanis in the cabinet. I
want to tell them that the Cabinet functions as a joint responsibility and it
is an institution that is headed by the Chief Minister. It is the duty of the
Chief Minister to keep an eye on every department and ensure that each
department works properly and there is better coordination between them. I have
worked with Mr. Abdul Qaiyum Ansari Sahib and questioning his integrity is
petty politics. I want to emphasize that if you are pointing towards Jafar Imam
Sahib, then it is absolutely wrong. Speaker Sir, when the Constitution of India
was being made, at that time there was talk of separate voting rights for
Muslims. Late Patel Sahib had called Jafar Imam Sahib and asked what do they want- a separate electorate or a joint electorate. Jafar Imam Sahib had said, we have to
live in India, so we do not want a separate franchise. I would say that it is
wrong to make such an allegation about a Muslim minister. If you are in
Hindustan, then everyone is Hindustani. If someone says that 90% of Muslims are Pakistanis, then it is not in the interest of the country. It is
wrong to say so’. 'When
in India, everyone is a Hindustani'- these words remind us of the slogan 'Sabka
Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas', though K. B. Sahay observed the essence of
the slogan in letter and spirit.
Abdul Qaiyum Ansari died on 18 January 1973 in
his village Amiyawar, while helping the residents of his town affected by the
damage caused by the Dehri-Ara canal. In the year 2005, on his birth
anniversary, the Postal Department of the Government of India issued a postage
stamp in memory of 'Fakr-e-Qaum' Abdul Qaiyum Ansari.
No comments:
Post a Comment