Maulana Azad and Congress: Youngest party chief, who steered it through turbulent times

However, it is not the first time that the Congress has faced charges of not giving his due to Azad, a journalist, freedom fighter, and one of the strongest voices of Hindu-Muslim unity, especially after the demand for Pakistan rose.

A weekly Urdu journal called Al-Hilal, which Azad started in 1912, led from the front in this, advocating harmony in the aftermath of the Morley-Minto Reforms passed by the British Parliament seeking a separate electorate for Muslims.

S Irfan Habib, historian and author of the recently released Maulana Azad: A Life, A Biography, who was among the first to draw attention to the leader’s photo missing from the Congress advertisement, points out that the journal known for “anti-imperialist views” was banned by the British in 1914.

In his autobiography India Wins Freedom, Azad writes of the journal: “The leadership of Muslim population at this time was in the hands of the Aligarh party. Its members regarded themselves as the trustees of Sir Syed Ahmed’s policies. Their basic tenet was that Muslims must be loyal to the British crown and remain aloof from the freedom movement… Al-Hilal raised a different slogan… We sold 26,000 copies per week.”

In 1915, Azad started a weekly called Al-Balagh, but its run was even more short-lived and it was banned in 1916. Four years later, Azad met Mahatma Gandhi and joined the Congress.

In 1923, aged just 35, Azad became the president of the Congress – till date, the youngest to hold the post in the party.

Says Habib: “Azad was chosen to head the Congress for the first time at a special session because there were differences in the party on issues of entering the Legislative Assembly. The party was divided into camps (between those who supported contesting the elections, and the supporters of Mahatma Gandhi who were opposed to it). Both the groups felt that Maulana Azad was the only one who could resolve this issue. Although he was the junior-most, people had confidence in him.”

Under Azad, the Congress, which was on the verge of splitting, “resolved the issue” and became stronger, Habib says.

Speaking of Azad’s first presidential address, in 1923, activist and writer Ashgar Ali Engineer wrote in the Economic and Political Weekly in 1988: “He devoted a considerable portion of his presidential address to the theme of Hindu-Muslim unity. He went on to say that Hindu-Muslim unity was dearer to him than the freedom of India… What Azad was saying was that freedom with certain qualities was preferable to freedom per se, though the former may require greater patience and much more time to be realised.”

This unity was something Azad would continue to emphasise for the rest of his life. “He remained steadfast in his position,” Habib says.

Azad’s second tenure as Congress president (1940-46) was also marked by several critical events. The Ramgarh Session where he took over deliberated at length over whether the Congress should support the British in the Second World War, and also discussed complete independence.

Azad then played a key role in 1942 in the negotiations with the Cripps Mission for complete transfer of power; and headed the party during the Quit India movement launched in 1942, and the Shimla conference of 1945 when Viceroy Lord Wavell met Indian leaders to discuss the Wavell plan of separate electorates on communal lines.

Between 1942 and 1945, he was imprisoned along with Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel at Ahmednagar fort.

Azad also led negotiations on behalf of the Congress with the British Cabinet Mission in 1946, leading to a Plan that opposed the Muslim League’s demand for a separate state and instead advocated an Indian Union consisting of British provinces and princely states.

On Partition, Azad wrote in his biography: “Partition was a tragedy for India and the only thing that could be said in its favour was that we had done our best to avoid division but we had failed. Now there was no alternative and if we wanted freedom here and now, we must submit to the demand for dividing India. We must not however forget that the nation is one and its cultural life is and will remain one. Politically we had failed and are therefore dividing the country. We should accept our defeat but we should at the same time try to ensure that our culture is not divided.”

He went on to add: “One may argue that the relations between Hindus and Muslims had become so estranged in India that there was no alternative to Partition. The view was held by most of the Muslim League, and after Partition, many of the Congress leaders have held similar views… However, if we think over the matter coolly, we will find that their analysis is not correct. I am convinced that the scheme I had framed on the occasion of the Cabinet Mission and which the Mission had largely accepted was a far better solution.”

Within the Congress, there were “differences” and “contrarian” views but it was a “big, cocktail of a party with many tall leaders”, Habib points out.

Talking of what he calls Azad’s “comparative approach” and “composite nationalism”, Habib says: “He inherited Islam from his father who was a puritan in his ideas, to which Maulana disagreed. Maulana went through a phase of redoing his faith. Maulana believed that you should not accept anything without critical thinking. It was not a supremacist position. He felt that all faiths have commonalities.”

The historian also talks about Azad’s tenure as Education Minister, from 1947 to 1958, during which the foundation was laid of several premium educational institutions, such as IITs and IIMs. “Azad was responsible for the increase in education expenditure from Rs 1 crore to Rs 30 crore by the end of his tenure. He considered adult literacy a serious issue,” says Habib.