We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Hunter's Indian Musalmans was completed in mid-June and published in mid-August of 1871. It consists of four chapters of which the first three are devoted to the so-called Indian Wahhābī movement and its aftermath, with particular reference to Bengal. The last chapter analyzes the Muslims' grievances and suggests some modification in the state system of education in order to attract them to it and make them more suitable for official employment, thereby weaning them away from the path of disloyalty. It is principally because of this last chapter that the book has been invested with a new significance in the context of later political developments in British India. Hunter has been regarded as the progenitor of Muslim separatism and has even been linked with a deliberate official policy of divide and rule.
1 This is worked out on the basis of Hunter's statement on the last page of his book that at the moment he was writing those lines the “infamous” meat supplier, MuḤammad Shāf'ī, was giving evidence at the Patna Sessions Court against his former compatriots. Shāf'ī was 47th of 113 witnesses examined by the Sessions Court in the case Queen v. Ameer Khan and others and he gave his evidence on 13 June 1871 which was reported in detail in the Englishman, Calcutta,Google Scholar on the following day (see the “Englishman's” Overland Mail, 17 June 1871).Google Scholar The book was therefore completed in mid-June. Moreover, the dedication page at the beginning of the first edition of the book records that Hunter dedicated the work to Brian Houghton Hodgson, on 23 June 1871. This also shows that the book was completed before that date. Evidently Skrine's, F. statement (Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter, London, 1901, 199) that the book was completed on 29 June 1871 is not quite correct.Google Scholar
2 The book was published in London by Trubner and Co. It was brought to public notice by the Spectator on 19 August. Writing on 25 August the London correspondent of the Englishman stated: “I presume Mr. Hunter's important work on the Wahabee movement had made its way to India. It has been brought to notice by the Spectator in an article which is attracting much attention…” (See the Englishman, 20 September 1871).Google Scholar Till the beginning of October, however, the book did not reach India on any commercial scale. On 16 October the Englishman editorially observed that most of the Anglo-Indian newspapers had not seen the book but had based their comments on the “sensational” article of the Spectator. The Englishman further noted that a Calcutta book-seller, who had ordered 200 copies of the book before it came out at home, “could only get as a great favour 75. The truth is, that the success of the book in England proved altogether beyond what had been expected, and a large edition went off in a week, without the English papers apparently receiving copies…. Several copies have now reached the Indian press,…. We are glad to notice that a second and revised edition, it is stated in England of 1,500 copies, may be shortly expected in this country”.
3 See for instance Seal, Anil, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism, Cambridge, 1968, 300–320;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHardy, Peter, The Muslims of British India, Cambridge, 1972, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Hardy, , op. cit, p. 85;Google ScholarSeal, , op. cit., 307n.l. Seal writes: “The Indian Musalmans has had a curious history. Compiled in three weeks on Mayo's orders, it has been the source of many of the polemics launched on behalf of the two-nation theory;…”.Google Scholar
5 ibid., 300–320.
6 Bengal Criminal Judicial Proceedings,3 April 1832,Google Scholar No. 5; also Board's Collection, Vol. 15422, 399–442.Google Scholar
7 See for instance Lord Dalhousie's minute of 26 August 1852, in Parliamentary Papers, H/C, 1872, Vol. XLIV, 610.Google Scholar
8 The Friend of India, 12 November and 24 December 1863, editorials.Google Scholar
9 Panjab govt. to India govt, 1 Feb. 1864, paras 108–111, Parliamentary Papers, H/C, 1864, Vol. XLIII, Paper 158 (Papers Relating to the Late Disturbances in the North-West Frontier).Google Scholar
10 ibid.
11 ibid., 125.
12 ibid.
13 Skiine, F. H., Life of Sir William Wilson Hunter, London, 1901, 100.Google Scholar
14 The Calcutta Review, No. LXXIX, 1864, 124–137.Google Scholar The journal did not contain the name of the writer; but the article was subsequently incorporated by Hunter in his book, The Indian Musalmans, with the following comment: “Here, and in Chapter II, I have made use of an article which I put forth seven years ago in the Calcutta Quarterly Review”. (First edition, 29, note). The insertion of the word “Quarterly” in the name of the journal was evidently by mistake.
15 The Calcutta Review, No. LXXIX, 1864, 181–226.Google Scholar
16 Selections from the Records of the Government of Bengal, No. 43, 1865.Google Scholar
17 Bengal Judicial Proceedings,November 1868, No. 168.Google Scholar
18 When the evidence obtained on completion of the first phase of the investigations at Malda was forwarded to the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Rivers Thompson, for his opinion, he pointed out that much of the information gathered so far was already there in the Selections of records relating to AḤmadullāh's trial and recommended that copies of that publication should be furnished to the investigating officers, which was done. See Bengal Judicial Proceedings,November 1868, Nos. 171 and 179.Google Scholar
19 See for instance The Indian Daily News (Calcutta), 15 and 17 08, 3, 5, 6 and 10 September 1870.Google Scholar
20 The Times of India (Bombay), 9 08 1870.Google Scholar
21 ibid.
22 Macrae, C. C., Report of the proceedings in the cases of Amīr Khān and Hashmdad Khān, etc.,Calcutta, 1870;Google Scholar also Mendes, Lewis A., Report of the proceedings in the matters of Amīr Khān and Hashmdad Khān,Calcutta, 1870. A case on the charge of tyranny and oppression was also instituted in the Queen's Bench Division in London against Lord Mayo, the Viceroy; but this seems to have been dropped on account of the trial and conviction of the prisoners shortly afterwards. See Mayo Papers (Cambridge University Library), 7490, 28V.Google Scholar
23 The Englishman (Calcutta), 12 01 1871.Google Scholar
24 Nos. C, CI and CIII, 1870. As usual, the journal did not contain the name of the writer; but this was subsequently revealed by Hunter in his Indian Musalmans, first edition, 147, note.
25 p. 73–104, 177–92 and 381–99.
26 The Calcutta Review, No. CII, 1870, 385.Google Scholar
27 ibid.
28 ibid., 392.
29 The Indian Daily News (Calcutta), 30 September and 1 October 1870;Google ScholarThe Englishman (Calcutta), 1 and 3 10 1870, among others.Google Scholar
30 The Englishman, 1 October 1870, editorial.Google Scholar
31 ibid., 19 November 1870, editorial.
32 ibid.
33 Asiatic, reproduced in The Indian Daily News, 12 October 1870.Google Scholar
34 The Englishman, 29 November 1870, editorial.Google Scholar
35 al–Laṭīf, 'Abd, A short account of my humble efforts to promote education, especially among the Mahomedans, Calcutta, 1886,Google Scholar reproduced in Ali, M. M. (ed.), Autobiography and other writings of Nawab 'Abd al-Laṭīf Khān Bahadur, (Chittagong, 1968, 162;Google Scholar also Selections from the records of the Government of Bengal, No. XIV (Papers relating to the establishment of the Presidency College), Calcutta, 1854, Appendix.Google Scholar
36 Education Despatch, No. 19 of 1854, dated 19 July (Wood's Despatch), para 82.
37 Lees' Special Report on t he Calcutta Madrasa, 11 May 1858, Collections to Education Despatches to India, 1861, Vol. 9.Google Scholar The report was written in compliance with a requisition by the Lieutenant Governor, Sir F. J. Halliday. See Govt. of Bengal to D.P.I., No. 644, dated 3 April 1858, ibid.
38 Minute by the Lt. Governor, F. J. Halliday, 15 September 1858, in Collection to Education Despatches, op. cit.
39 See mainly D.P.I, to Principal, Calcutta Madrasa, 10 Feb. 1864, Bengal Education Proceedings,March 1864,Google Scholar No. 28. The controversy between the D.P.I, and t he principal is reflected in their lengthy correspondences of the time, contained in Collection to Education Despatches to India, 1870–1871, Vol. 13.Google Scholar
40 Between 1854 and 1861, 32 students of the Anglo-Persian Department passed the University Entrance Examination, 28 in t he First Division obtaining Junior Scholarships. Of these 28, 22 entered the Presidency College, 2 entered the Medical College and 1 entered the Civil Engineering College. By 1862, 5 of these students were employed as Deputy Magistrates. See Bengal Education Proceedings,March 1864,Google Scholar No. 26. The results between 1861 and 1864 were equally good, comparing even favourably with those of the Sanskrit College in respect of both the number and percentage of success. See Lees' Report on t he Calcutta Madrasa, 22 October 1864, in Collection to Education Despatches to India, 1870–1871, op. cit.Google Scholar
41 Memorial, dated 23 July 1860, Bengal Education Proceedings,August 1860,Google Scholar No. 73. The memorial was occasioned by the Hugli College Principal's suggestion for abolishing the Madrasa at that place on the ground that it was in a decadent state –ibid., July 1860, No. 14.
42 Bengal Education Proceedings,March 1864,Google Scholar Nos. 19–20. The Minute was also published in 1861 in the form of a tract – reproduced in Ali, M. M., op. cit, 61–82.Google Scholar
43 It was written in response to some suggestions regarding Muslim education made in an article which appeared in the Calcutta Review for August 1867. 'Abd a-Laṭīf read the “Paper” at a session of the Bengal Social Science Association on 30 January 1868 and published it in the same year in the form of a tract – reproduced in Ali, M. M., op. cit., 83–106.Google Scholar
43a [The former work is in fact that of Shams al-dīn MuḤammad al-Quhistānī of Bukhārā, who died c. 950/1534 (cf. Brocklemann, GAL I, 378/469), which Lees had himself edited (Calcutta, 1858). The latter is al-Hidāya fi 'l-furū', of Burhān al-dīn, 'Abdallāh b. 'Abd al-Jalīl al-Farghānī al-Marghinānī al-Rishtānī (died 593/1197), GAL I, 376, a commentary on the same author's Bidāyat al-mubtadī. The Persian translation by Ghulām YaḤyā Khān, Tāj al-dīn Bangālī, Mīr MuḤammad Ḥusayn and Shari'atullah Sanbhalī had been printed at Calcutta in 1807–8, and had also been translated into English from the Persian by Hamilton, Charles (London 1791; second edition, London 1870).]Google Scholar
44 Lees' Report on the Calcutta Madrasa, 1 September 1860, Bengal Education Proceedings,March 1864, No. 18.Google Scholar
45 Selections from the Records of the Government of India, No. 205 (Calcutta, 1886), p. 20.Google Scholar
46 Report of the Madrasa Enquiry Committee, ibid., paras 87, 114 and 115.
47 Appended to the Report of the Madrasa Enquiry Committe, ibid.
48 See Ali, M. M., “The Bengal Muslims' repudiation of the concept of British India as Dār-al-Ḥarb”, Dacca University Studies, Vol. XIX, 1971, Part A, 47–58.Google Scholar
49 Karāmat 'Alī's first important work on the subject, written in Urdu and entitled Taqwiyat al-Imān (Strengthening the Faith) was published in Calcutta in 1837.
50 'Alī, Karāmat, Ḥujjat-i qāti'a (Urdu text), Calcutta, 1344/1925–1926, introduction; earlier edition 1282/1865–1866.Google Scholar
51 The Englishman, 24 September 1870.Google Scholar
52 Abstract of Proceedings of the Mahomedan Literary Society of Calcutta at a meeting held at the residence of Moulvie 'Abd al-Laṭīf Khān Bahadoor on Wednesday, the 23rd November, 1870,Calcutta, 1871.Google Scholar
53 Indian Leglative Proceedings,November 1870, No. 113.Google Scholar It is also on record that Lord Mayo was “pleased” with the efforts of the Mahomedan Literary Society in this respect and thought that “those efforts were likely to prove useful” – E. C. Bayley (Secretary, Home Department) to 'Abd al-Laṭīf, 4 April 1878, quoted in 'al-Laṭīf, Abd, A short account of my public life, Calcutta, 1885,Google Scholar reproduced in Ali, M. M., Autobiography and other writings etc., op. cit., 19.Google Scholar
54 The Friend of India, 30 March 1871.Google Scholar
55 The Pioneer, 31 March 1871.Google Scholar
56 The Englishman, 17 February 1871.Google Scholar
57 ibid.
58 The Indian Daily News, 4 March 1871.Google Scholar
59 The Englishman, 10 March 1871.Google Scholar
60 These editorials were subsequently incorporated by Hunter, almost verbatim, in the third chapter of his book, The Indian Musalmans, with of course the acknowledgement in a footnote at p. 121 (first edition) which runs as follows: “Here and elsewhere throughout this chapter, I have made use of some articles which I lately put forth in the Calcutta Englishman…“. See also Skrine, F., op. cit., 100.Google Scholar
61 The Englishman, 24 April 1871.Google Scholar
62 The Indian Musalmans, first edition, p. 197.Google Scholar
63 The Englishman, 3 April 1871.Google Scholar
64 ibid.
65 ibid.
66 ibid., 17 April 1871.
67 ibid.
68 ibid.
69 ibid.; also of 20 April 1871.
70 ibid., 17 April 1871.
71 ibid., 24 April 1871.
72 ibid. The reference is to Act XXI of 1850 which enabled a native convert to Christianity to inherit his paternal property. This Act had produced great commotion in the Hindu community. See for details Ali, M. M., The Bengali reaction to Christian missionary activities, 1833–1857, Chittagong, 1965, 117–36.Google Scholar
73 The Englishman, 16 May 1871.Google Scholar
74 ibid.
75 The Indian Musalmans, first edition, 42–3, 105.Google Scholar
76 The Englishman, 6 April 1871.Google Scholar
77 ibid.
78 ibid., 16 May 1871.
79 ibid., 19 May 1871.
80 The Pioneer, 4 and 14 April 1871.Google Scholar
81 Allygurh Institute Gazette, 12 May 1871.Google Scholar
82 JRAS, V, New Series, 1871, 401–7.Google Scholar
83 ibid., 404–5, 406.
84 India Public Proceedings,July 1871, Nos. 105–7, 430–1.Google Scholar
85 Mentioned in Lord Mayo's Note on Muslim education, 26 June 1871, Mayo Papers, 12 III.
86 ibid.
87 ibid.
88 ibid., specially pp. 2 and 3 of the first proof copy.
89 Resolution No. 300 (Home Department, Education), dated 7 August 1871, paras 2–3, compared with Lord Mayo's Note, op. cit. 2 and 3.
90 The Indian Musalmans, first edition, 42–43.Google Scholar
91 ibid., 197.
92 ibid., 175, 197. In a footnote on the latter page Hunter specifically acknowledges his debt to Bayley in the following words: “Mr. E. C. Bayley, to whose notes I owe several of the ideas contained in this chapter”.
93 ibid., 197, note.
94 ibid., 164.
95 Skrine, , op. cit., 198; and following him others.Google Scholar
96 See Collection of Judicial Despatches to India, 1872, Vol. 45;Google Scholar also Judicial Despatch from India, No. 51, dated 10 October 1872,Google ScholarJudicial and Legislative Letters from India, 1872, Vol. 16, 255.Google Scholar
97 See Mayo Papers, Nos. 2, 29 and 40.
97a See for instance Public and Ecclesiastical Letters from India, 1871 (No. 4 of 1871, dated 20 December), Vol. 15, 396.Google Scholar
98 India Public Proceedings,July 1872, No. 458.Google Scholar
99 ibid., April 1872, Nos. 514–16.
100 The Indian Musalmans, first edition, 205.Google Scholar
101 ibid., 205–207.
102 ibid., 207.
103 ibid., 208.
104 See minute of the Lieutenant Governor (Sir Cecil Beadon) on the reform of the Calcutta Madrasa, 10 April 1867, Bengal Education Proceedings,April 1867, No. 14. Also the Madrasa Enquiry Committee Report, op. cit.Google Scholar
105 While borrowing from these persons, however, Hunter mistakes the one for the other and also confounds them. Thus, at page 197 he quotes, in commendation of Lees' efforts of reform, some remarks about the Calcutta Madrasa made by 'Abd al-Laṭīf which were in fact made in condemnation of the latter's suggestion for making the Arabic Department of that institution an “Arabic College” into which the students of the Anglo–Persian Department should pass. (See 'Abd al-Laṭīfs “A Paper On Mahomedan Education in Bengal”, op. cit. from which Hunter has taken the quotation.) Then again, on the same page at fn. 2 Hunter says that some of the proposals he was going to make “were urged” by Lees “many years ago”; Hunter's suggestion to make the Arabic Department a “well-amalgamated extension of the lower or Anglo-Persian branch” was not what Lees had suggested; and the other suggestions about Muslim education were not Lees' at all.
106 The Spectator (London), 19 08 1871.Google Scholar
107 The Indian Musalmans, second edition, London, 1872, preface.Google Scholar
108 The Friend of India, 5 October 1871.Google Scholar
