Critically evaluate the role of Ittehadul Muslimeen

 Question: Critically evaluate the role of Ittehadul Muslimeen

Answer: Introduction to Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM)

The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM), founded in 1927 in Hyderabad, emerged as a significant force in the politics of the princely state under the Asaf Jahi dynasty. Initially established with the noble aim of promoting education and economic upliftment for Muslims, MIM transformed over time into a formidable political entity, navigating the turbulent socio-political landscape of colonial and post-colonial India. Hyderabad, under Nizam Mir Osman Ali Khan, was a diverse state with a Muslim ruling elite governing a predominantly Hindu population, creating a unique context for communal dynamics. MIM's evolution reflected the broader tensions of religious identity, nationalist movements, and the struggle for power in a state caught between British paramountcy and emerging Indian nationalism. Its role, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s, was marked by both constructive efforts to safeguard Muslim interests and controversial actions that fueled communal polarization, culminating in its alignment with the Nizam's resistance to integration with India.

Founding and Early Objectives.              www.osmanian.com

The genesis of MIM occurred in Lohita Mandi, Hyderabad, in 1927, driven by the vision of addressing socio-economic disparities faced by Muslims in a rapidly changing political environment. Nawab Sadr Yar Jung, also known as Abdul Qwaja Bahauddin, was the founding president and a key architect of the organization. A prominent noble in the Nizam's court, he sought to unite Muslims across class lines to counter perceived marginalization in education and employment, especially as British administrative reforms favored English-educated elites, often Hindus. The organization aimed to establish schools, promote Urdu-medium education, and secure economic opportunities for Muslims, who constituted about 12% of Hyderabad's population but held disproportionate administrative power.

MIM's early activities included setting up scholarships, vocational training centers, and advocacy for Muslim representation in the Nizam's bureaucracy. These efforts resonated with urban Muslim merchants and rural landowners, who felt sidelined by the growing influence of Hindu professionals. The organization's initial apolitical stance aligned with the Nizam's secular governance, which balanced Hindu and Muslim interests to maintain stability. However, the seeds of political ambition were sown as MIM began to see itself as a defender of Muslim identity in a state surrounded by British India, where nationalist movements were gaining traction.

Transformation into a Political Force

By 1938, under the leadership of Abdul Khadir Siddique, a respected scholar heading theological studies at Osmania University, MIM transitioned into a full-fledged political party. Siddique envisioned MIM as a platform to protect Muslim political interests against the rising tide of Indian nationalism and Hindu-majoritarian movements. This shift was catalyzed by the broader political climate of the 1930s, where communal organizations like the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were gaining prominence. Siddique introduced ideological elements, drawing from his theological writings, including his book Sarvar-e-Alam, which emphasized Muslim unity and self-reliance.

Nawab Sadr Yar Jung, returning as president in 1938, further politicized MIM by introducing the concepts of "Baith" (an oath of loyalty to the organization) and "Anal Malik" (I am the ruler), which resonated with young Muslims seeking empowerment. These slogans fostered a sense of collective identity and defiance, positioning MIM as a counterweight to Hindu-dominated reform movements like the Arya Samaj, which advocated for Hindu cultural revival in Hyderabad. The organization's membership grew, particularly among the urban Muslim youth and rural elites, who saw MIM as a bulwark against perceived threats to their cultural and political dominance.

Impact of Communal Politics in the 1930s

The late 1930s were a turning point for MIM as communal tensions escalated across India. The 1937 elections under the Government of India Act saw crushing defeats for fundamentalist parties like the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha, prompting both to intensify religious rhetoric. In 1940, V.D. Savarkar, president of the Hindu Mahasabha, proposed the concept of a "Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu Nation), galvanizing Hindu nationalist sentiments. In response, the Muslim League, at its Lahore session in 1940, adopted the demand for a separate Muslim state, later realized as Pakistan. These national developments reverberated in Hyderabad, where MIM positioned itself as the defender of Muslim interests in a princely state surrounded by Hindu-majority provinces. .              www.osmanian.com

The rise of the Arya Samaj and Hindu Mahasabha in Hyderabad fueled communal friction. Arya Samaj's aggressive shuddhi (reconversion) campaigns aimed at bringing Muslims and lower-caste Hindus into the Hindu fold alarmed the Muslim elite. This led to the first significant Hindu-Muslim riots in Dhoolpet, Hyderabad, in 1938, a stark departure from the state's relatively harmonious communal history. The riots, sparked by provocative speeches and economic rivalries, saw violence in markets and residential areas, with both communities suffering losses. MIM's leadership, particularly Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, who succeeded Sadr Yar Jung, sought to restore peace but also used the unrest to consolidate Muslim support by portraying the organization as a protector against Hindu aggression.

The Singh-Jung Discussions and Their Failure

In response to the Dhoolpet riots, peace talks known as the Singh-Jung Discussions were initiated between Mandumula Narsinga Rao, a prominent Hindu leader advocating for constitutional reforms, and Nawab Bahadur Yar Jung, MIM's influential president. These negotiations aimed to address communal tensions and restore harmony. Rao proposed a responsible government model, which would involve greater representation for Hindus, who formed the majority of Hyderabad's population. This demand was firmly rejected by Bahadur Yar Jung, who saw it as a threat to Muslim dominance in the Nizam's administration.

Rao also suggested inviting national leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad to mediate, leveraging their stature to pacify both communities. Bahadur Yar Jung dismissed this idea, wary of external interference and Gandhi's association with the Indian National Congress, which was increasingly critical of princely autocracy. The discussions collapsed without agreement, highlighting MIM's prioritization of Muslim political control over broader reconciliation. The failure of these talks deepened communal divides, as MIM rallied its base around the narrative of safeguarding Muslim sovereignty against Hindu demands for democratic reforms.

The Role of the Moin Nawaz Jung Committee

Following the riots, the Nizam's government appointed a committee led by Moin Nawaz Jung and Abul Hasan Sayyid to investigate causes and recommend solutions. The committee aimed to propose measures like economic aid for affected areas and interfaith dialogues. However, it faced widespread rejection from both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus, led by figures like Rao, saw it as biased toward the Muslim elite, while MIM supporters criticized its conciliatory tone as diluting their agenda. The committee's failure underscored the growing polarization and MIM's increasing assertiveness in rejecting compromises that might weaken its influence.

The Controversial Exchange of Population Theory

Amid rising tensions, Abdul Lateef, an English professor at Osmania University, proposed the radical "Exchange of Population" theory in 1939. He argued for relocating Hindus from Hyderabad to British India and Muslims from neighboring provinces to Hyderabad, aiming to create a homogenous Muslim state under the Nizam. This idea, though never implemented, gained traction among MIM's hardline factions, reflecting their growing alignment with the Muslim League's separatist ideology. It alarmed Hindu communities and the Indian National Congress, who saw it as a prelude to partition-like scenarios. The Nizam, wary of destabilizing his multi-religious state, distanced himself from the proposal, but it bolstered MIM's image as a militant defender of Muslim interests.

MIM's Role in the 1940s: The Razakar Movement

By the early 1940s, MIM's political role intensified under Bahadur Yar Jung's dynamic leadership. His untimely death in 1944 led to Qasim Razvi, a lawyer with extremist views, taking the helm. Under Razvi, MIM formed the Razakar militia, a paramilitary force that became notorious during Hyderabad's final years as an independent state. Numbering up to 200,000 at its peak, the Razakars were tasked with defending the Nizam's rule against growing demands for integration with India and the Telangana Peasant Rebellion (1946-1951), a communist-led uprising against feudal landlords.

The Razakars, drawn from MIM's youth wing and rural Muslim supporters, engaged in violent campaigns to suppress dissent, particularly targeting Hindu peasants and Congress activists. Their slogan "Anal Malik" became a battle cry, asserting Muslim supremacy in Hyderabad. Actions included raids on villages, forced conversions, and attacks on political rivals, which alienated much of the Hindu population and fueled communal violence. The Razakars' brutality, especially in 1947-1948, painted MIM as a divisive force, undermining its earlier socio-educational goals.

Relations with the Nizam and British

MIM enjoyed tacit support from Mir Osman Ali Khan, who saw it as a counterbalance to the Congress and communist movements. The Nizam provided funds and patronage, allowing MIM to expand its network through mosques and community centers. However, his pro-British stance during World War II, where he donated millions to the war effort, contrasted with MIM's anti-colonial rhetoric, creating tensions. The British, via the Resident, viewed MIM with suspicion but tolerated it as a stabilizing force against nationalist agitations, provided it did not challenge their paramountcy. .              www.osmanian.com

MIM's Stance During Hyderabad's Integration

As India approached independence in 1947, MIM under Razvi vehemently opposed Hyderabad's accession to the Indian Union, advocating for an independent Muslim state or alignment with Pakistan. The 1947 Standstill Agreement with India was a temporary measure, but MIM's Razakars escalated violence, targeting pro-India activists. This led to Operation Polo in September 1948, when Indian forces annexed Hyderabad in a five-day military campaign. Razvi was arrested, and MIM was banned, its leaders imprisoned or exiled.

Post-1948 Decline and Revival

Post-annexation, MIM was dormant until its revival in 1957 under Abdul Wahid Owaisi, who reoriented it as a democratic political party focusing on Muslim representation in secular India. Renamed All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), it regained prominence in Hyderabad's politics, winning seats in the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and later in Parliament. AIMIM's modern agenda emphasizes minority rights, education, and urban development, distancing itself from the Razakar era's militancy but retaining a strong Muslim identity.

Critical Evaluation of MIM's Role

MIM's role in Hyderabad's politics is a study in contrasts. Its early focus on Muslim welfare through education and economic empowerment was commendable, addressing genuine disparities in a Hindu-majority state. The establishment of schools and advocacy for Urdu preserved cultural identity during a time of colonial and nationalist pressures. However, its transformation into a political force with communal undertones had detrimental effects. The adoption of "Baith" and "Anal Malik" fostered exclusivity, alienating Hindus and moderate Muslims who sought inclusive governance.

The failure of the Singh-Jung Discussions and rejection of the Moin Nawaz Jung Committee highlighted MIM's reluctance to compromise, prioritizing Muslim dominance over state unity. The Razakar phase was particularly damaging, as their violence deepened communal rifts and justified India's military intervention. While MIM's resistance to integration reflected legitimate fears of losing autonomy, its methods—marked by extremism—undermined its legitimacy.

MIM's legacy is dual-edged: it empowered Muslims during a vulnerable period but contributed to Hyderabad's isolation and eventual annexation. Its revival as AIMIM shows adaptability, focusing on democratic representation, but its historical baggage of communalism remains a point of critique. The organization's journey reflects the challenges of balancing community interests with national integration in a pluralistic society