Introduction
The Political Thought of Abul Kalam Azad took shape within a context in which movements known as religious intellectualism sought to establish a connection between theological teachings and elements of modern rationality. However, this effort faces a fundamental contradiction: commandments based on divine issuance rest on principles that are, by nature, defined as being beyond the measurability of human reason; whereas intellectualism is a priori grounded in criticizability, the possibility of revision, and the independence of reason. The juxtaposition of these two domains, both theoretically and practically, has produced consequences whose study is of particular importance.
In many religious societies, this very contradiction has laid the groundwork for the emergence of a form of epistemic authority—where certain religious interpreters, due to blending religious scholarship with claims to rationality, assume a dual role for themselves. On the one hand, they present themselves as intellectuals who intend to explain complex social issues, yet on the other hand, because they rely on a particular interpretation of the sacred text, they ascribe a quasi-sacred status to their own judgment. This situation opens the way for the formation of structures in which the boundary between criticizability and absolute authority becomes blurred, and this carries direct consequences for political life.
This problem is not confined to a particular language or a single intellectual domain; globally, religiously oriented discourses that entered the public sphere under the slogan of compatibility with modern rationality have often faced the same challenge. Thus, the analytical critique of such an approach is a necessity in the study of political thought on an international scale—one that becomes even more significant in analyzing figures like Abul Kalam Azad, because he was one of the most important individuals who attempted to derive a framework for Muslim political participation from within this very contradiction.
With this introduction, the analysis of his political thought is not merely a re-reading of the life of a leader of independence, but an examination of an attempt to fuse religion with modern politics—an attempt whose achievements and shortcomings require careful, critical, and step-by-step study. In what follows, the historical context of the emergence of his thought, the theoretical foundations, and finally the practical implications of his views will be examined.
-
The Historical and Intellectual Context of the Emergence of the Political Thought of Abul Kalam Azad
The Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad emerged during a period when the Islamic world was confronted with profound political, intellectual, and social transformations. During this era, European colonialism was exerting pressure on the traditional structures of Muslim societies, while reformist and modernist movements sought to reconcile new concepts such as the rule of law, civil liberties, and representative government with the religious tradition. Azad grew up within these developments, and many of his intellectual positions can only be understood in connection with this background.
In the early years of his life, classical religious education played a crucial role in shaping his worldview. He became acquainted with hadith, exegesis, jurisprudence, and traditional theology, and these teachings formed the initial framework from which he never fully departed. However, this apparent strength—mastery of the traditional heritage—gradually turned into an epistemic limitation; for as a religious intellectual, instead of taking a critical distance from traditional presuppositions, he sought to reinterpret them in a new form—and this task is inherently fraught with difficulties.
On the other hand, his encounter with the ideas of Muslim reformers such as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh opened up new horizons for him. These ideas emphasized the necessity of renewing religious understanding and returning to the original principles of Islam. Nevertheless, from a critical perspective, these currents also suffered from the same fundamental contradiction: the attempt to reconstruct tradition within a modern framework without accepting the epistemic consequences of modernity. Azad inherited this challenge as well. He called for transformation, but sought that transformation in something that is, by nature, not criticizable or open to revision.
His entry into journalism marked an important turning point in the politicization of his thought. Journalistic activity not only exposed him to new questions but also gave him an opportunity to comment on the position of Muslims in India and on the relationship between religion and politics. Yet this stage also produced new contradictions, for he wanted to speak the language of political rationality while grounding his theoretical framework in religious interpretation. As a result, his writings often oscillated between realistic analysis and moral-religious exhortation.
Another factor that shaped his thought was his direct experience living in a complex, multi-religious society like India. He encountered a reality in which religious diversity was an inseparable part—one that could not easily be explained through traditional Islamic political jurisprudence. Therefore, his attempt to propose a model of national coexistence was admirable, yet at the theoretical level, he was never fully successful in resolving the tension between religious identity and national identity.
In sum, Azad’s historical and intellectual context shows that he operated within a terrain simultaneously pressured by colonialism and the need for reform, while also constrained by traditional frameworks that could not be fundamentally critiqued. This complex combination turned the formation of his political thought into a process full of internal tension—a process that will be examined in greater detail in the following sections.
2. The Theoretical Foundations and Fundamental Assumptions in the Political Thought of Abul Kalam Azad
The Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad rests on a set of theoretical assumptions that, on the surface, attempt to build a bridge between religious values and modern political concepts, yet at their core confront serious challenges. To understand these foundations, one must pay attention to the main elements of his intellectual framework: religious ethics, the interpretability of the Sharia, social unity, and the role of religion in organizing political life. Together, these elements form a structure that—despite its apparent coherence—carries contradictions that, from a critical perspective, cast a shadow over his entire intellectual project.
2–1. Religious Ethics as the Axis of Politics
One of the central points in Azad’s thought is the emphasis on Islamic ethics as the foundation of politics. He repeatedly stresses that politics, without ethics, turns into unrestrained power, and that only religious values can guide it.
However, from an analytical perspective, this view faces a fundamental question:
Which interpretation of religious ethics, and which authority determines it?
If political ethics is entrusted to texts that are open to multiple interpretations, the epistemic authority of a group of interpreters becomes unavoidable. This limits freedom of criticism and ultimately exposes politics to a form of selective moralism—a phenomenon observed in various religious traditions, contributing to the broader crisis of religious politics.
2–2. The Attempt to Interpret the Sharia Fluidly
Azad was among those who did not consider the Sharia a closed and unchangeable system. He emphasized the “spirit of the Sharia” and believed that its rulings should be reinterpreted according to the requirements of the time. This view reflects his reformist inclination.
But from a critical perspective, this approach also suffers from a duality:
If divine rulings are to change according to time, such change must be carried out by human reason, and in that case, the authority of the divine command is weakened. But if change occurs only within a limited framework supervised by interpreters, fluidity becomes practically meaningless.
Thus, his attempt to harmonize the Sharia with modernity—without a clear redefinition of authority and the source of legitimacy—cannot lead to genuine tension-resolution.
2–3. Social Unity and the Question of Identity
Azad emphasized cooperation and coexistence between Muslims and Hindus, regarding national unity as essential for resisting colonialism. Historically, this idea is understandable and has played an important role in preserving social stability.
Nevertheless, the main critique lies in the fact that he sought to explain national unity based on a religious-ethical identity, not on modern legal and political structures. When national identity is tied to religious ethics, social plurality is not genuinely recognized but merely tolerated. In practice, this led some Indian Muslims to view his project as insufficient, while segments of the non-Muslim population also distrusted it.
2–4. Politics as a Religious Responsibility
Azad regarded politics as part of a religious duty. In his view, participation in the administration of society was considered a form of righteous action.
However, this perspective transforms politics from a rational and criticizable domain into a moral-religious one. In such an environment, political disagreement quickly becomes a disagreement over sacred values—something that has repeatedly produced costly consequences throughout the history of religious societies.
In sum, Azad’s theoretical foundations represent a set of valuable efforts to link religion with modern politics, yet each of these efforts faces limitations originating from the very nature of religious intellectualism. Rather than resolving contradictions, these foundations tend to conceal them, making the theoretical space of his project fragile. This fragility would later manifest itself in the realm of practical politics as well.
-
The Practical Implications and Political Challenges in the Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad
The Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad reveals its real significance when it enters the sphere of political practice. Ideas that may seem workable within the theoretical framework of religious intellectualism encounter far harsher realities in the field of politics: power competition, group interests, identity conflicts, and institutional constraints. Examining his political performance provides an opportunity to measure the ability—or inability—of his theories to address political issues.
3–1. The Tension Between Religious Moralism and Political Pragmatism
In his writings and speeches, Azad presented politics as a moral endeavor and tied it to religious responsibility. However, in practice, politics in colonial India was full of tactical compromises and decisions based on national interest. This obvious tension between moralism and pragmatism sometimes made his positions seem unstable or ambiguous.
For example, he emphasized national unity between Muslims and Hindus while also trying to represent the religious concerns of Muslims. This constant balancing act—without a coherent theory outlining the limits and priorities of religion in politics—often placed him in situations where he could satisfy neither community fully.
3–2. Failure to Establish an Institutional Mechanism for Coexistence
Azad emphasized socio-religious cooperation between Hindus and Muslims and saw it as a condition for achieving independence. Despite its positive intention, this idea faced serious challenges at the institutional level. Social unity in pluralistic societies requires legal structures, power distribution, and systems of representation—not merely moral recommendation.
Azad did not succeed in offering a concrete institutional model for resolving disputes between the two religious communities. He spoke of coexistence but did not propose tools for managing conflicts. As a result, when identity-based tensions escalated, his theoretical framework lacked the resilience needed to serve as a viable political solution.
3–3. The Problem of Religious Authority in Political Participation
As discussed earlier, religious intellectualism is vulnerable to the danger of establishing epistemic authority. Azad’s political presence showed that this danger is not merely theoretical but has practical consequences.
On the one hand, he spoke as a religious thinker, deriving much of the legitimacy of his political recommendations from religious sources. On the other hand, the political arena depends on openness to criticism and freedom of inquiry. This duality led some of his opponents to regard him as a representative of a particular religious group, while some Muslims expected his positions to be derived entirely from the Sharia.
In such an environment, neither his intellectual status nor his political role could be fully preserved.
3–4. Inability to Resolve the Problem of National Identity Versus Religious Identity
One of Azad’s main political challenges was the attempt to formulate an identity that was both religious and national. He wanted Indian Muslims to remain faithful to their Islamic identity while also fully participating in the Indian nation.
But the issue is that religious identity is defined by theological boundaries and transnational teachings, while national identity is shaped by territory, shared historical experience, and civic structures. Reconciling these two realms requires a deep theory regarding priorities, mutual limitations, and the distribution of power. Azad never offered such a theory, and this gap later became evident in the political developments of the subcontinent.
3–5. The Contradiction Between the Ideal of Unity and the Political Realities of the Time
Azad consistently defended the idea of unity between Muslims and Hindus, but the social and political reality of India at that time was moving in a different direction. Increasing religious polarization, the rise of identity-based movements, and intensifying political competition created an environment in which Azad’s message of unity held little practical appeal for many groups.
In fact, his ideal of a shared society remained an ethical recommendation rather than a political solution, lacking a deep understanding of power structures and mechanisms for ensuring justice among different groups.
The political practice of Abul Kalam Azad demonstrated that attempts to link religion with modern politics—without clearly defining boundaries, priorities, and sources of legitimacy—lead to contradictions that strain both the theoretical framework and the political path. His challenges reflect the broader crisis of religious intellectualism: the crisis of reconciling the concept of the sacred with a domain structurally built on criticism, change, and competition.
-
A Critical and Comparative Evaluation of Abul Kalam Azad’s Intellectual Project
Evaluating the Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad is not sufficient merely through an analysis of its theoretical and practical elements; rather, it must be examined within a broader context that includes the tradition of religious intellectualism, reformist movements in the Islamic world, and the political experience of multi-religious societies. This evaluation reveals that Azad’s intellectual project is part of a larger issue: the attempt to reconcile supra-religious concepts with the requirements of modern politics, without redefining the epistemological foundations.
4–1. Azad’s Position within the Tradition of Religious Intellectualism
Azad must be placed among those thinkers who attempted to incorporate “modern rationality” within the framework of “religious authority.” This effort was not unique to the Indian subcontinent; it occurred throughout the Islamic world. The central claim of this current is that religious teachings can be compatible with modern political values.
However, classical religious intellectualism—of which Azad is also a representative—has clear limitations:
- The rationality employed is not independent; rather, it is a rationality guided by the sacred text.
• The ultimate authority is not scientific method but religious interpretation.
• Critical inquiry is permitted only within limits that do not create a fundamental conflict with religious teachings.
This model restricts the production of political knowledge and political legitimacy, creating a structure in which both the claim of critical openness and the claim of fidelity to the sacred coexist—yet in practice undermine each other.
4–2. Comparing Azad with Other Muslim Reformers
Compared with figures such as Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, or Na’ini, Azad had a more explicit inclination toward political activism. Nevertheless, important theoretical similarities exist between him and these reformist currents:
- All attempted to reinterpret tradition through concepts such as the “spirit of religion,” “maqāṣid al-sharī‘a,” or “religious rationality.”
• All approached modernity from a standpoint short of full acceptance, seeking a compromise between tradition and the new world.
• None were willing to fully critique the authority of tradition; thus, they failed to produce a stable theoretical framework for modern politics.
In this respect, Abul Kalam Azad does not appear as an exception; rather, he reflects the same shared crisis.
4–3. The Crisis of Legitimacy in Azad’s Project
The essential question is:
On what source of legitimacy is Azad’s political project based?
On the one hand, he links politics to religious ethics; on the other hand, he uses the language of nationalism to articulate political positions. These two sources of legitimacy may be complementary under certain conditions, but in the long term, they come into tension.
When politics is framed as a religious duty, acceptance of political decisions becomes tied to “faith.” But when a political project rests on “national identity” and “collective will,” its source of legitimacy becomes more secular and participatory. These two bases quietly undermine each other, and in Azad’s thought, this rift was never seriously resolved.
4–4. The Issue of “Controlled Flexibility” in Religious Interpretation
One of the important critical aspects is that Azad, on the one hand, calls for adapting the sharī‘a to the conditions of the time, yet on the other hand limits this adaptation within the framework of traditional authority. As a result, the fluidity he advocates ultimately becomes a form of “controlled flexibility.”
In such a model:
- Change is possible, but only within boundaries set by the religious interpreter.
• Intellectual innovation becomes dependent on loyalty to the text rather than on analysis of social reality.
• Modern politics remains merely an added layer on a traditional structure.
This characteristic is found not only in Azad’s work but also in many religious reform projects, and is one of the reasons for their theoretical ineffectiveness.
4–5. Epistemological and Political Consequences of Religious Intellectualism
Azad’s project is built, epistemologically, upon a paradigm that does not allow departure from traditional authority, while politically, it unfolds within a context that requires full acceptance of the demands of modernity. These two layers conflict.
The result is that religious intellectualism, including in Azad’s thought, neither can present a fully religious theory for modern politics nor the capacity to fully embrace the modern political model.
For this reason, his project—like many similar ones—remains suspended at the boundary between two worlds.
A critical evaluation shows that Abul Kalam Azad’s intellectual project is part of a broader effort attempting to reconcile religion with modern political structures, yet without a fundamental critique of traditional authority. The result is a framework in which epistemological contradictions are concealed but not eliminated. These contradictions later manifested in the political realm as well, leading to significant limitations on the real impact of his project.
-
Final Synthesis and Theoretical Implications
An analysis of the Political thought of Abul Kalam Azad reveals that his project is part of a broader effort seen in many Muslim societies—and even beyond them—to link religious heritage with the structures of modern politics. This effort is not limited to the Indian subcontinent; it has parallels in the Middle East, North Africa, and even Muslim communities in the West. Thus, studying Azad provides a case study that allows for the formulation of larger questions.
5–1. The Problem of Compatibility Between the Sacred and Modern Politics
One of the key lessons of this analysis is that any project of religious intellectualism—regardless of the thinker, geography, or intellectual tradition—faces a fundamental question:
Can modern politics be built upon a knowledge system that is itself based on revelation, sacredness, and fixed authority?
The experience of Azad and those like him shows that while this combination may appear attractive at the theoretical level, it encounters significant contradictions in practice. These contradictions often remain hidden but become apparent at pivotal political moments. A clear example of such a contradiction can be seen in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is influenced by the same religious intellectualism articulated by figures such as Ali Shariati—a dictatorship unparalleled in its kind, producing complexities so profound that resolving them will require many years. This complexity undoubtedly stems from the same dual and hybrid approach characteristic of religious intellectualism.
5–2. The Problem of Duality in Sources of Legitimacy
The analysis of the previous sections showed that Azad operated between two sources of legitimacy:
Religious ethics and the collective will of the nation.
These two sources may complement each other in the short term, but in the long term they create a duality that drains political energy. This situation is not limited to Azad; it characterizes a large portion of contemporary religious reform movements.
The modern political system requires legitimacy based on participation, rationality, and institutional decision-making, whereas religiously grounded intellectual systems tend to rely on interpretation, authority, and spiritual hierarchy. These two logics are not fully compatible.
5–3. Epistemological Consequences
Projects of religious intellectualism, including Azad’s thought, generally do not cross the boundary of epistemological critique. They attempt to “interpret” the modern world, but are less willing to place tradition itself as the “object of critique.” This leads to:
- Intellectual transformation remaining superficial;
• Key concepts of modern politics (freedom, rights, participation) being placed within a framework with a fundamentally different philosophical foundation;
• The resulting political theory lacking internal coherence and long-term explanatory power.
These consequences affect not only religious interpretation but the entire system of political understanding.
5–4. Practical Implications for Political Action
Azad attempted to play an intermediary role between tradition and modernity; however, the result is political projects that are neither fully traditional nor fully modern. Such projects often lead to:
- Politics becoming an arena of religious interpretation;
• Social diversity being accommodated within restrictive conceptual frameworks;
• Political decision-making relying on personal authority rather than institutional mechanisms.
This phenomenon has been repeated in many contemporary societies (including Iran) and has produced similar limitations.
5–5. The Importance of Academic and Public Critique
The lack of critical approaches to religious intellectualism is not merely a problem of one language or region; it is a global issue. The existing literature in many languages, including English, often oscillates between admiration, praise, or cultural analysis, and rarely addresses the epistemological and theoretical gaps of these projects.
In such a context:
- Constructive critique enables a redefinition of the debate;
• Scholarly analysis prevents falling into ideological narratives;
• And reconsideration of the role of religion in politics is elevated to a more rational level.
Opening this critical space is one of the necessities of contemporary political and religious studies.
5–6. Final Conclusion
An analysis of Abul Kalam Azad’s thought shows that although he sought to present an ethical and participatory vision of politics, his project remained confined within the structural limitations of religious intellectualism—limitations arising from the combination of two incompatible logics: sacredness and political rationality.
Ultimately, Azad’s place should be understood not as that of a coherent political theorist, but as an instance of a broader crisis that emerges from attempts to reconcile religious traditions with the demands of modern politics.
