This extensive discussion centers on Maulana Azad’s political foresight and predictions concerning the partition of India, specifically highlighting his belief that the division would ultimately harm Muslims and lead to ongoing internal and external conflicts for Pakistan. The speakers also examine the historical context of the partition, contrasting Azad’s views with those of other prominent figures like Jinnah and Gandhi, and evaluate the accuracy of Azad’s prophecies in the 76 years since. Key topics include the economic and social consequences of partition, the development of distinct national identities, and the persistent challenges of governance and inter-communal relations in both India and Pakistan, with a particular focus on the implications for minorities and the concept of an Islamic state.
Azad’s Prophecies: Partition’s Enduring Consequences for India and Pakistan
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, a progressive Islamic thinker and long-serving President of the Indian National Congress, made significant predictions about the consequences of the partition of India, which have been noted to have largely proven accurate.
Here are some of the key consequences of the Partition as discussed in the sources:
- Division and Harm to Muslims:
- Azad predicted that the division of Hindustan based on religion would primarily lead to significant losses for Muslims. It would divide Indian Muslims and diminish their collective power and influence. Their percentage in Hindustan would be greatly reduced, potentially forcing them to align with the Hindu majority.
- He believed that the partition would harm Islam itself because its universal appeal and principle of brotherhood would be undermined. Azad feared the spread of an “anti-philosophical” Islam characterized by “ignorance and the love of silver,” which he saw as detrimental to the civilization that once flourished.
- Rise of Hatred and Poor Relations between India and Pakistan:
- Azad specifically predicted that if the country was divided, “Such hatred will arise that will never result” in resolution or peace between India and Pakistan. This stands in contrast to initial hopes, such as Jinnah’s aspiration for Canada-like relations.
- The continuous propagation of the idea that Hindus and Muslims are enemies was seen as directly leading to this enduring hatred and its actions and reactions. Azad’s prediction that Pakistan would “never maintain good relations” with India is highlighted.
- Internal Divisions and Instability within Pakistan:
- Azad foresaw the emergence of “class struggle” in Pakistan once the initial post-independence enthusiasm subsided.
- He noted that feudalism was not abolished in Pakistan, unlike in India where land reforms strengthened the middle class. The Muslim League leadership and subsequent assemblies were characterized by an “over representation of the landlord,” tribal lords, and peers, which hindered democratic development and led to a lack of responsible governance.
- Azad also predicted the rise of “deadly differences between different sexes of Islam” within Pakistan. The debates over Pakistan’s constitution (e.g., the Objective Resolution of 1949 and subsequent constitutional drafts up to 1973) were dominated by disagreements over the role of Islam and who would interpret it, leading to internal quarrels. The speaker cites the example of Ahmadis being declared non-Muslims in the 1973 constitution and the increase in sectarian violence as evidence of these fault lines.
- He predicted that Pakistan would become corrupt.
- External Dependence and Artificial Economy:
- Azad prophesied that Pakistan would “Always with West and International players” remain under pressure, leading to Western and external powers dictating its policies.
- He observed that Pakistan lacked its own industrial and economic capabilities and would therefore depend on Western powers for support. Its economy would be “artificial,” sustained by “American dollars” (often linked to its role as a frontline state against communism) and remittances, rather than genuine economic production.
- Leadership and Governance Issues:
- Azad had insights into the leadership dynamics, noting that figures like Liaquat Ali Khan and Jinnah, despite their national standing, made decisions that contributed to Pakistan’s challenges, such as the imposition of Urdu as the state language (which contributed to East Pakistan’s separation) and resistance to land reforms due to feudal interests.
- He believed that Pakistan would struggle to establish a truly “civilian government” that genuinely serves the people and is accountable. The current situation in Pakistan is described as a consequence of “poor governance” rather than Islamic doctrine itself, with a critique of the constitution’s “theoretical floor” on sovereignty and its impact on human rights and democratic principles. Pakistan’s record on minority affairs is also described as “brutal”.
Azad’s Prophecies: The Foreseen Consequences of Partition
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, a prominent progressive Islamic thinker and long-serving President of the Indian National Congress, made significant predictions about the consequences of the partition of India, primarily in an interview given in April 1946. These predictions have been noted as largely proving accurate.
Here are Azad’s key predictions and their anticipated consequences:
- Division and Harm to Muslims in India:
- Azad predicted that the division of Hindustan on religious grounds would primarily lead to significant losses for Muslims.
- He foresaw that it would divide Indian Muslims and greatly diminish their collective power and influence.
- The percentage of Muslims remaining in Hindustan would be significantly reduced, potentially forcing them to align with the Hindu majority.
- Harm to Islam Itself:
- Azad believed that the Partition would harm Islam because its universal appeal and principle of brotherhood would be undermined.
- He feared the spread of an “anti-philosophical” Islam characterized by “ignorance and the love of silver,” which he saw as detrimental to the civilization that once flourished in places like Spain and Baghdad. He contrasted this with a universal understanding of Islam.
- Rise of Enduring Hatred and Poor Relations between India and Pakistan:
- Azad specifically predicted that if the country was divided, “Such hatred will arise that will never result” in resolution or peace between India and Pakistan.
- He stated that Pakistan would “never maintain good relations” with India.
- This enduring hatred was seen as a direct consequence of continuously propagating the idea that Hindus and Muslims were enemies. This stood in contrast to initial hopes, such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s aspiration for Canada-like relations.
- Internal Divisions and Instability within Pakistan:
- Azad foresaw the emergence of “class struggle” in Pakistan once the initial post-independence enthusiasm subsided.
- He noted that feudalism was not abolished in Pakistan, unlike India where land reforms strengthened the middle class. He observed an “over representation of the landlord,” tribal lords, and peers in the Muslim League leadership and subsequent assemblies, which he believed would hinder democratic development and lead to a lack of responsible governance.
- He predicted the rise of “deadly differences between different sexes of Islam” within Pakistan. The debates over Pakistan’s constitution (e.g., the Objective Resolution of 1949 and subsequent drafts up to 1973) were indeed dominated by disagreements over the role of Islam and its interpretation, leading to internal quarrels. The declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims in the 1973 constitution and an increase in sectarian violence were cited as evidence of these fault lines.
- Azad also predicted that Pakistan would become corrupt.
- He believed Pakistan would struggle to establish a truly “civilian government” that genuinely serves the people and is accountable.
- External Dependence and Artificial Economy:
- Azad prophesied that Pakistan would “Always with West and International players” remain under pressure, leading to Western and external powers dictating its policies. This was linked to Pakistan’s role as a frontline state against communism.
- He observed that Pakistan lacked its own industrial and economic capabilities and would therefore depend on Western powers for support. Its economy would be “artificial,” sustained by “American dollars” (often linked to its role as a frontline state) and remittances, rather than genuine economic production.
- Leadership and Governance Issues:
- While not a direct “prediction” of an event, Azad had deep insights into the leadership dynamics of the Muslim League. He noted that decisions by figures like Liaquat Ali Khan and Jinnah, such as the imposition of Urdu as the state language, contributed to Pakistan’s internal challenges, specifically the separation of East Pakistan. He also highlighted their resistance to land reforms due to feudal interests.
- He suggested that Pakistan’s ongoing challenges stem from “poor governance” rather than Islamic doctrine itself, pointing to the constitution’s “theoretical floor” on sovereignty (dividing it between God and the people) and its impact on human rights and democratic principles. Pakistan’s record on minority affairs was also described as “brutal”.
Azad’s Warnings: Partition’s Impact on Muslim Identity
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, a progressive Islamic thinker, held a nuanced view of Muslim identity, seeing Islam as a universal religion embodying brotherhood. He believed in the “beauty of the Muslims in India” and saw the civilization as accommodating to various ethnic groups and languages, with Islam playing a significant role within this pluralistic society.
However, Azad made several key predictions about how the Partition would negatively impact Muslim identity and the Muslim community:
- Division and Weakening of Indian Muslims: Azad predicted that dividing Hindustan on religious grounds would lead to significant losses for Muslims. He foresaw that it would divide Indian Muslims and greatly diminish their collective power and influence. The percentage of Muslims remaining in Hindustan would be substantially reduced, potentially forcing them to align with the Hindu majority.
- Harm to Islam’s Universal Appeal: Azad believed the Partition would harm Islam itself because its universal appeal and principle of brotherhood would be undermined. He feared the spread of an “anti-philosophical” Islam characterized by “ignorance and the love of silver,” which he saw as detrimental to the flourishing civilization Islam once represented. This contrasted sharply with his own universal understanding of Islam.
- Internal Divisions within Pakistan: Azad foresaw the emergence of “deadly differences between different sexes of Islam” within Pakistan. Debates over Pakistan’s constitution, particularly the Objective Resolution of 1949 and subsequent drafts up to 1973, were indeed dominated by disagreements over the role and interpretation of Islam. This led to internal quarrels, exemplified by the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims in the 1973 constitution and an increase in sectarian violence. The source highlights that these were historical fault lines within Muslims that were exacerbated by the creation of a state specifically for Muslims.
- Constitutional and Governance Issues in Pakistan: Pakistan’s constitution states that “Sovereignty over the Thy Universe Belongs you almighty god”. This creates a “theoretical floor” where sovereignty is divided between God and the elected representatives of the people. This framework has been noted to impact human rights and democratic principles within Pakistan, as the interpretation of Islamic law can take precedence, making Sharia sovereignty supreme in an “Islamic state”. This influences how Muslim identity is defined and enforced within the state.
- Brutal Treatment of Minorities: As a consequence of these internal dynamics and interpretations of identity, Pakistan’s record on minority affairs, including those deemed non-Muslim by the state (like Ahmadis), is described as “brutal”. Examples of violence and persecution based on blasphemy accusations further illustrate the complex and often oppressive outcomes of the state’s specific definition of Muslim identity.
In essence, Azad’s predictions highlighted how a politically driven division based on religion, ostensibly to protect Muslim identity, would paradoxically lead to a fragmented and internally conflicted Muslim community, ultimately harming both the universal spirit of Islam and the well-being of Muslims in the subcontinent.
Azad’s Prophecies: Pakistan’s Political Economy and Governance
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad’s predictions extended significantly into the realm of political economy, particularly concerning the nascent state of Pakistan and its economic trajectory post-Partition. He foresaw a number of challenges and structural issues that would define its economic and governance landscape, contrasting it with India’s potential path.
Here are the key aspects of Azad’s predictions and observations regarding political economy:
- Persistence of Feudalism and its Impact on Governance:
- Azad predicted that feudalism would not be abolished in Pakistan, unlike in India where land reforms were undertaken. He noted an “over representation of the landlord,” tribal lords, and peers in the Muslim League leadership and subsequent assemblies, which he believed would hinder democratic development and responsible governance.
- This feudal structure in Pakistan was seen as resistant to reforms. For instance, a 1937 bill concerning Sharia-compliant property on agricultural land was argued as a provincial matter by a Muslim League member from Punjab, limiting central interference in land reform. Later, Liaquat Ali Khan reportedly resisted land reforms, even taking a fatwa from Ulema claiming “Islam has no scope for land reform inside”.
- In contrast, the Indian National Congress had a progressive program to end feudalism (“responsibility”) and strengthen rights, aiming for a “socialist India”. This led to India’s middle class growing significantly, reaching the size of the American middle class, which Azad viewed as a “very big achievement”.
- Ultimately, Azad believed that due to such factors, Pakistan would struggle to establish a truly “civilian government” that genuinely serves the people and is accountable.
- External Economic Dependence and an “Artificial Economy”:
- Azad prophesied that Pakistan would “always with West and International players” remain under pressure, leading to Western and external powers dictating its policies. He linked this to Pakistan’s role as a “frontline state” against communism, particularly serving Western oil interests in the Middle East. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in a 1946 address to Americans, explicitly positioned Pakistan as a Muslim nation to help stop communism in South Asia.
- He observed that Pakistan lacked its own industrial and economic capabilities. Consequently, its economy would be “artificial,” sustained primarily by “American dollars” (often linked to its strategic geopolitical role) and remittances, rather than genuine economic production.
- Azad contrasted this with India, where industrialists (like Tatas and Birlas) supported the Congress, fostering an independent industrial base post-independence.
- Corruption and Internal Divisions:
- Azad believed Pakistan would become corrupt.
- He also foresaw “deadly differences between different sexes of Islam” within Pakistan. The constitutional debates in Pakistan (e.g., the Objective Resolution of 1949 and subsequent drafts) were indeed dominated by disagreements over the role and interpretation of Islam, leading to internal quarrels. The declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims in the 1973 constitution and an increase in sectarian violence were cited as exacerbations of these fault lines, which could also influence the political economy by directing state resources and power based on specific religious interpretations. The concept of “Sharia sovereignty” in Pakistan’s constitution was noted to potentially impact human rights and democratic principles, influencing how rights and economic participation are defined.
In essence, Azad’s insights into political economy highlighted how the foundational choices and existing social structures, particularly feudalism and the alignment of political leadership with landowning interests, would intertwine with external geopolitical pressures to shape Pakistan’s economic underpinnings, leading to an “artificial economy,” corruption, and persistent challenges in establishing robust democratic governance.
Azad’s Prophecies: Pakistan’s Democratic Challenges
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and the discussions surrounding his predictions shed significant light on various challenges to democracy, particularly concerning Pakistan’s post-Partition trajectory and, by contrast, India’s path.
Here are the key democracy challenges discussed:
- Persistence of Feudalism: Azad predicted that feudalism would not be abolished in Pakistan, unlike in India where land reforms were undertaken. He noted an “over representation of the landlord,” tribal lords, and peers in the Muslim League leadership and subsequent assemblies. This entrenched feudal structure was seen as resistant to reforms and a major impediment to democratic development and responsible governance. For example, a 1937 bill concerning Sharia-compliant property on agricultural land was argued as a provincial matter by a Muslim League member from Punjab, limiting central interference in land reform. Liaquat Ali Khan reportedly even resisted land reforms, taking a fatwa from Ulema claiming “Islam has no scope for land reform inside”.
- Lack of a Strong Middle Class: In contrast to India, where the Indian National Congress’s progressive program aimed to end feudalism and strengthen rights, fostering a significant middle class (reaching the size of the American middle class, which Azad considered a “very big achievement”), Pakistan’s persistent feudalism hindered the growth of such a class. A strong middle class is seen as essential for democracy.
- Absence of “Civilian Government” and Accountability: Azad believed that due to the persistence of feudal structures and the nature of its leadership, Pakistan would struggle to establish a truly “civilian government” that genuinely serves the people and is accountable. He saw the army as holding power based on strength, rather than serving the people.
- External Economic Dependence and Compromised Sovereignty: Azad foresaw that Pakistan would “always with West and International players” remain under pressure, leading to Western and external powers dictating its policies. Its economy would be “artificial,” sustained primarily by “American dollars” (often linked to its strategic geopolitical role as a “frontline state” against communism) and remittances, rather than genuine economic production. This external dependence could compromise its democratic sovereignty.
- Corruption: Azad explicitly believed Pakistan would become corrupt.
- Internal Divisions and Sectarianism: Azad predicted “deadly differences between different sexes of Islam” within Pakistan. The constitutional debates in Pakistan, particularly concerning the Objective Resolution of 1949 and subsequent drafts up to 1973, were dominated by disagreements over the role and interpretation of Islam. This led to internal quarrels, exemplified by the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims in the 1973 constitution and an increase in sectarian violence. These historical fault lines were exacerbated by the creation of a state specifically for Muslims, impacting governance and social cohesion.
- Constitutional Framework and “Sharia Sovereignty”: Pakistan’s constitution states that “Sovereignty over the Thy Universe Belongs to almighty god”. This creates a “theoretical floor” where sovereignty is divided between God and the elected representatives of the people. This framework is seen as problematic for democratic principles, as the interpretation of Islamic law can take precedence, making “Sharia sovereignty” supreme in an “Islamic state”. Article 19B of the constitution, which subjects human rights to “the glory of Islam,” is highlighted as a point where the democratic point of view is “losing”.
- Lack of Constitutionalism: The sources indicate that Pakistan struggles with “constitutionalism,” meaning the strict adherence to the rule of law as defined by the constitution, which is considered a different thing from merely having a constitution.
- Brutal Treatment of Minorities: As a consequence of these internal dynamics and interpretations of identity, Pakistan’s record on minority affairs, including those deemed non-Muslim by the state (like Ahmadis), is described as “brutal”. Examples of violence and persecution based on blasphemy accusations, even against professors, further illustrate the complex and often oppressive outcomes of the state’s specific definition of Muslim identity, which directly impacts democratic principles of equality and human rights.
- Politics of Confrontation and Lack of Democratic Temperament: The Muslim League, particularly its leaders like Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, were criticized for their confrontational politics and for not having the “habit of doing combinations” or engaging in proper democratic negotiation, instead resorting to “hooliganism”. This approach to politics, based on hatred and doubt, was seen as detrimental to the possibility of a functional democracy and peaceful coexistence.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog
Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!






