Saquib Salim

The years 1870-72 can be termed as one of the most turbulent times, after the revolt of 1857, during the Indian Freedom Struggle. These years mark the trial of several Indian Muslims, especially of Amir Khan for waging a war against the British Empire. This is s supposed to be the reason behind the assassinations a Chief Justice and Viceroy in India by the Indian revolutionaries. The trials called Wahabi trials also inspired a generation of Indian revolutionaries.

A Slice Of History

His trials called Wahabi trials also inspired a generation of Indian revolutionaries.

Prominent Indian Freedom fighter, Bipin Chandra Pal wrote, “Amir Khan, was arrested, and detained under Regulation III of 1818. An application was made for a writ of habeas corpus to the Calcutta High Court which was heard by Chief Justice Norman. That application was rejected: Mr. Annesty of the Bombay High Court Bar was engaged on behalf of Amir Khan. Mr. Annesty speech in which he hauled Lord Mayo over the coals for what was described as his tyranny over the helpless subjects of Her Majesty in India was published in pamphlet forms along with the proceedings of this case. These pamphlets were for many years something like the scripture of our new patriotism.”

The British called Amir Khan and other allies Wahabi and blamed Wahabi doctrine for their ‘fanatic views’. However, Amir Khan and his associated denied it. Amir Khan told the court that he and his friends were Sunni Muslims and not associated with the Wahabi sect.

Interestingly, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of the AMU, spoke in defence of Wahabism at that time. He told the court that people who were waging the war against the crown were not Wahabis. In an article in the Pioneer on 31 March 1871, he refuted the allegations against Wahabis.

Sir Syed called himself a friend of Wahabis. In fact, one of the allegations against him leveled by Sunni scholars was his association with Wahabism.

Sir Syed wrote, “As a staunch well-wisher of the British Government, and at the same time as a well-wisher to true Wahabeeism, I venture to claim the indulgence of space for these few lines in your next issue. It may shock some of my worthy friends to see me standing forth as the friend of Wahabeeism, but I trust they will acquit me from the imputation of being a Wahabee in the sense of being a Wahabee conspirator. Wahabeeism as exemplified by certain misguided men in India, is not Wahabeeism at all; and those who are really guilty of conspiring against Government are not acting up to the principles of their religious tenets. I say "really guilty" advisedly, as I have no doubt in my own mind that some persons, whose names I do not like to mention, were falsely imputed with such charges through the enmity and spite of certain parties.”

It must be noted that for Sir Syed, true Wahabis were not fighting against the British.

It was also argued that the fatwa, which was at the centre of these trials and allegedly asked Indian Muslims to fight against the British, was misunderstood by the Europeans.

The article by Sir Syed argued, “As regards the portion of the Futwa above alluded to, as having been misinterpreted by the Englishman and other journals, I will now say a few words. The learned Moulavis, under whose authority the Futwa has been given out, declare Jehad against Government to be unlawful and unwarranted by the Mohammedan religion…”

It was further said, “The Mohammedans in India are, as shown in the Futwa, in no way justified in engaging in any project having for its object the subversion of the English Government. They have perfect freedom of speech, and no one interferes with their religion; and even were their religion interfered with, their proper course, according to the Mohammedan religion, would be to leave the country and not to rebel against Government.”  

To prove his point further, Sir Syed argued that during the First War of Independence in 1857 the Wahabi ulema remained loyal to the British and did not join the Indian revolutionaries. He said, “In 1857 when Bakht Khan was in Delhi, and endeavoured to compel the Moulavis of that city to issue a Futwa, declaring a Jehad against the British Government lawful, two persons, both Wahabees, boldly opposed him, backed up though he was by the bayonets of his soldiery. One of these was a famous Moulavi holding an influential position in Delhi. Again, only one Wahabee joined the rebels during the Mutiny, and he was forced to do so. I dare say I shall not be believed in my statement that true Wahabeeism is not inimical to our Government, and I have no doubt that many people will abuse me for my Wahabee proclivities. By the English I shall be suspected as an intriguer, and by many of my ignorant fellow-countrymen, I shall be condemned as a well-wisher to the Government, as one who lends his name and authority towards checking all unlawful (though in their eyes lawful) and ambitious schemes.”

Sir Syed, like modern day Wahabis, used the word Bidati (innovator) for the Sunnis. He was of the opinion that it might be a conspiracy of Bidatis to implicate Wahabis in such cases.

The article ended with a suggestion to the government that Sunnis might testify wrongly against Wahabis to implicate them. Sir Syed wrote, “ I trust the Patna trial will be closely watched both by the Government and by the public. If the prisoners are really guilty of the offence with which they are charged, they have been guilty of a great crime against society and against the true principles of their religion. Let their punishment be sharp and severe. Government, however, must bear in mind that the sects called Wahabees and Bidaties are bitter enemies, that their feelings towards one another are as bitter as were those of the Roman Catholics towards the Protestants in the days of the Reformation; and that it is therefore not at all improbable in this land of intrigue that false charges have been laid against innocent men, and that hundreds of false witnesses will testify to their guilt.”

ALSO READ: Durga Puja must reawaken the spirit of feminine power

The trials resulted in sentences against the Wahabis. Later, the judge and Viceroy were assassinated in a year. Though, any direct link could never be found but a large section of people and officials believed that Abdullah, assassin of the judge, and Sher Ali, assassin of the Viceroy, undertook the murders to avenge the sentences against Wahabi leaders. It is also interesting that, like Sir Syed had also argued, most of these Wahabis claimed to be Sunnis.