Muhammad Iqbal was not against democracy or casteist. don’t misinterpret his work

Form of words:
a-
A+

a recent Article These columns on the poet Muhammad Iqbal by Fayyaz Ahmad Faizi are the ideal prototype of two common misconceptions – the ignoring of epistemology, and the non-critical acceptance of the West. Faizi assumes that Ashraf exists, but does not reveal who he is. Even if the discrepancy is ignored, the author infers that Pasmanda, in its entirety, does not hail Iqbal.

Iqbal is not just a Pakistani icon, he is recognized worldwide as the ‘Poet of the East’, due to his reply Payam-e-Mashriq (East Message) to Goethe West-Ostlicher Diwan, and is a world famous symbol of philosophy. Celebrating his birthday as Urdu Day in India may be debatable, but Iqbal is certainly a hero, a fact that Fazi himself acknowledged when he referred to him as ‘Allama’, which has its roots in Arabic. The meaning is ‘learned hero’. If, for a moment, the author’s argument – ​​which is believed to be a defiance of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb by Iqbal – is accepted, then all the patrons of unique cultures around the world would also be villains. Again, the author calls Iqbal a Muslim League supporter and an anti-Congress party, as the former was a fanatical zealot organization and the latter a symbol of justice.

---

Read also: Allama Iqbal: National Poet of Pakistan and the person who gave ‘Saare Jahan Se Achcha’ to India

---

Iqbal on Nationalism

The most interesting part is the author’s quote from Iqbal’s couplets, where the poet is misunderstood enough to be misrepresented.

In the first couplet, which the author mentions, where the symbolic metaphor of the Prophet’s migration is used, Fiji explains that Iqbal is indicating the mass migration that would result from the partition of India. However, Fizzy’s interpretation is a historical misfit and a philosophical misunderstanding. This is because neither partition nor migration was conceived during Iqbal’s lifetime.

What Iqbal is concerned about is abandoning nationalism – as a political concept – which is also reflected in the title of his poem. Nationalism across the world has caused much bloodshed among communities, a fact recognized by many philosophers of his age, including Ambedkar and Tagore. Also, the creation of nation-states has been a very violent process in history, resulting in excessive bloodshed. Thus, according to Iqbal, “Humanity has been divided into many nations by nationalism.” ,Bang-e-Dara, 102,

The author comes across as contradictory when he states that Iqbal rejected the idea of ​​nationalism. I say this because one can either give the two-nation theory (resulting in support of nationalism) or reject the idea of ​​nationalism.

The author’s lack of depth in his philosophical understanding best manifests itself in this section: ‘democratic thought’.

He says that Iqbal renounced democracy because it jeopardizes the personal reputation of the people and neglects the socioeconomic status. The truth, however, is that Iqbal abandoned democracy because of its populist tyrannical characteristic, which restricts freedom – an idea shared by philosophers of his era, and a major concern of liberalism in the contemporary world. Thus, Iqbal said:

Found in Dev-e-Istabdad Jamhuri Kaba

You are a compromise, this is a sapphire of freedom

,The devil of tyranny has transformed himself into a democracy for a living.

You think it’s the angel of freedom!,

(Bang-e-Dara, 162 .),

---

Read also: The ‘biggest messenger’ of Hindu-Muslim unity who later ensured a separate Muslim nation

---

and his views on caste, democracy

Faizi calls Iqbal a master of casteist ideas because he feels that the poet shows his Brahmin ancestry when he calls himself ‘Somanti, brahminjad’ and his ancestors ‘Lati O Manati’, But Iqbal had always used ‘Somnath’ As a metaphor for the idols of injustice and oppression. For example, he writes:

What not and in Ghaznavi Kargah-e-Hayat

Since when is the Somnath of Muntazir Ahle Haram sitting?

,Is there no Ghaznavi in ​​the womb of the universe?

Mecca statues waiting to be broken,

,Bal-e-Jibril, 132,

Thus, when Iqbal calls himself ‘Somnati’ and ‘Brahminjadi’‘ and their ancestors ‘Lati O Manati’It is meant to show his journey from injustice and oppression to the rule of justice, which according to him is rooted in Islam. Faizi correctly admits that Iqbal ‘flaunts’, but misunderstands what exactly. He has mistranslated the couplet from Persian, taking ‘Rum and Tabrez’ as ‘Rumi and Shams Tabrez’. The nouns mentioned are the two historical centers of learning of two different civilizations: Rome of Western learning and Tabriz of Islamic. Iqbal introduces his intellectual diversity of knowing Hindu philosophy, Western philosophy and Islamic philosophy. In fact, he denies casteism among Muslims even in a couplet, which the author quotes in support of his statement of declaring Iqbal a casteist:

Firka is captive somewhere, and goes somewhere

Are these things to get in the era?

,You divide yourself into sects and castes

Are these signs of progress in the world?,

(Bang-e-Dara, 120)

Fiji’s article considers modernity to be essentially a good thing. This is problematic because it led to one of the most brutal events in history – colonialism. Colonists of the world including India gave the reason that they came here to make ‘barbarians’ ‘civilized’.culture) by replacing the existing (knowledge) systems with the white man’s system. Iqbal refusednew tehzeeb‘ in this exact sense (Zarb-e-Kaleem, 175) Furthermore, there have been currents against modernity in the West: Romanticism, phenomenology and, of course, postmodernism.

In the last part of his article, the author has called Iqbal anti-women citing a poem woman’s protection, word protection Refers to the protection of something valuable under attack. However, security should not be understood in the sense of control over women but as protection of women, which is the responsibility of men. This is not in the sense of a protective appendage, but as a duty of men to women as equal beings in society (whose protection is not a veil or education but a duty), because the word ‘eyes’ Means ‘a person responsible for duty towards someone’ in the poem. However, Iqbal treats the essence of men and women differently, thus the loss of the female essence is interpreted as death for women. Now, is this a matter of criticism? Actually Iqbal praises women in his own way:

Asr-e-Hayat gets opened with this fire

This fire is hotter than Mark-e-Bood o Nabood

,Woman is the fire that opens the secrets of life,

It is the fire that heats up the struggle between ‘being’ or ‘not being’,

,Zarb-e-Kaleem, 107,

Shahzar Raza Khan is pursuing his Masters in Political Science from Hyderabad Central University. Thoughts are personal.

(Edited by Anurag Choubey)

subscribe our channel youtube And Wire