Maulana Azad’s Idea of Rabubiyat, Secularism, and Nationalism

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1888–1958) remains one of the most compelling figures in India’s intellectual and political history. An Islamic scholar of immense learning, a formidable freedom fighter, and India’s first Education Minister, Azad shaped the foundations of India’s pluralist identity. His legacy was not confined to his political achievements; it extended deeply into philosophical and theological realms. At the heart of Azad’s worldview was the Quranic concept of Rabubiyat, i.e., God’s lordship, sustenance, and care over all creation. For Azad, Rabubiyat was more than a theological proposition. it was a moral principle that shaped his understanding of justice, secularism, and nationalism. Grounding his politics in Islamic ethics, Azad articulated a vision of India as a united, inclusive nation.

The foundation of Azad’s political theology was the Quranic description of God as Rabb al-‘Alamin—“the Lord of all the worlds”—a title that opens the Quran itself in Surah Al-Fatiha (1:2): “Alhamdu lillahi Rabbil ‘alamin” (“All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds”). Azad understood this phrase not as a generic invocation but as an assertion of divine sustainment that embraces all of creation without partiality. In his commentary Tarjuman al-Quran, he emphasized that if God is the sustainer of all that exists, then the ethical implications are profound: no human being or community can claim superiority over another. The oneness of God (tawhid) necessarily implies the oneness of humanity and the indivisibility of its moral worth.

This theological vision found further grounding in Surah Al-Hujurat (49:13), which declares: “O mankind! We created you from a single pair of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Indeed, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware.” For Azad, this verse provided divine sanction for human diversity. It affirmed that distinctions of nation, tribe, or ethnicity were not causes for division but opportunities for mutual recognition and respect. From this scriptural basis, Azad argued that sectarianism, racism, and nationalism premised on exclusion were all violations of God’s intent. The divine order, or mizan, as he described it, demands a just balance among all people, and both colonial domination and religious communalism disrupted this balance.

Though Azad did not explicitly use the term Rabubiyat in a formalized doctrine, his interpretation was later echoed and crystallized by figures like Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani, who described it as the principle of “undivided equality of all people irrespective of caste, nationality, and religion.” Azad’s writings and speeches clearly anticipated this definition. In Al-Hilal, his groundbreaking political journal, he condemned British colonialism not just as a foreign occupation but as an affront to divine justice. Exploitation of India’s resources, economic subjugation, and cultural alienation were, in Azad’s view, contrary to the Quranic ethics of stewardship and human dignity.

Azad’s understanding of secularism flowed naturally from this moral universe. His secularism was not based on the European model that demands the exclusion of religion from politics. Rather, it was a spiritual secularism that allowed religious diversity to flourish under a shared ethical canopy. Azad found support for this view in Quranic verses such as Surah Al-Baqarah (2:62), which affirms: “Indeed, those who believed, and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabians— those [among them] who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteousness— will have their reward with their Lord. No fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” This verse, for Azad, was a theological affirmation of religious pluralism. It undercut any claims to exclusivist salvation and instead emphasized righteousness and ethical action as the true basis of divine reward.

Azad’s commitment to this pluralism was not theoretical; it had profound political implications. During the 1940 Ramgarh session of the Indian National Congress, he famously declared: “I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of that fact… But I am equally proud that I am an Indian.” This was no mere rhetorical flourish. It was a statement of his belief that religious identity and national identity were not contradictory but complementary. His opposition to the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan was grounded in this ethical framework. Azad warned that dividing India along religious lines would not heal communal tensions but deepen them, violating both the spirit of Islam and the cultural unity of the subcontinent.

After independence, Azad carried these principles into governance. As India’s first Education Minister, he laid the foundation for a modern, democratic, and inclusive educational infrastructure. He established institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) not merely to modernize India but to democratize knowledge. For him, education was a moral imperative and a way to create citizens who were both intellectually competent and spiritually aware. He championed linguistic unity between Hindi and Urdu, promoted scientific inquiry alongside cultural preservation, and encouraged a composite nationalism that drew from India’s pluralistic heritage.

Azad’s nationalism was inseparable from his Islamic ethics. He did not view the struggle for independence as a secular battle alone; it was a form of jihad in its truest sense—a spiritual and moral struggle against injustice. He invoked verses such as Surah Al-Hajj (22:39–40), which states: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory— [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right— only because they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned.” Azad interpreted this as a divine endorsement of resistance to oppression and a call to protect all places of worship, not just Islamic ones. This, he believed, was the true spirit of Islam: to stand against tyranny and to safeguard the dignity of all religious traditions.

His opposition to Partition was rooted in this profound theological and moral vision. He believed that India’s diverse religious and cultural landscape was a divine design, not a historical accident. “To divide India,” he wrote, “is to deny God’s wisdom in creating a land where multiple faiths coexist.” His 1946 speech in Delhi was a passionate plea for unity and a prophetic warning against the bloodshed and displacement that Partition would bring. Tragically, his fears were realized, but his vision of a united India has remained an enduring ideal.

For Azad, the cultural syncretism of India, its Sufi shrines, Bhakti poetry, shared festivals, and multilingual traditions, were not superficial symbols but deep manifestations of Rabubiyat in the Indian context. He saw in India a unique civilizational experiment where multiple truths could coexist, enriching rather than negating one another. His concept of composite nationalism was, therefore, both a political strategy and a spiritual commitment. While it shared some affinities with Gandhi’s idea of Ram Rajya, Azad’s vision was distinctly Islamic, rooted in Quranic ethics and a theology of justice and diversity.

Azad’s thought forms a coherent and compelling triad: Rabubiyat as the theological foundation of universal human dignity; secularism as the ethical mode of governance that protects religious plurality; and nationalism as the civic expression of a united, inclusive community. His educational reforms were an extension of this framework. They were not aimed merely at increasing literacy rates but at cultivating morally grounded citizens who embodied values of compassion (rahma), justice (adl), and moral responsibility (taqwa). The institutions he helped build—like the IITs—were, for him, symbols of how spiritual values and scientific advancement could coexist in a harmonious society.

In contemporary India, grappling with the resurgence of communal politics and majoritarian nationalism, Azad’s ideas remain profoundly relevant. His vision offers a powerful counter-narrative to exclusionary ideologies, reminding us that pluralism is not just a political arrangement but a spiritual truth. During the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) in 2020, many demonstrators carried posters with Azad’s quotes and verses he had often cited, invoking him as a moral compass in troubled times. While some critics argue that Azad underestimated the depth of communal divisions, his emphasis on education, justice, and ethical governance continues to offer a compelling path forward.

Maulana Azad’s Rabubiyat was never a mere abstraction. It was a revolutionary philosophy that infused his politics with a profound sense of moral purpose. His secularism did not seek to marginalize religion but to elevate shared values above sectarian interests. His nationalism did not aim for homogeneity but celebrated India’s diversity as a reflection of divine intent. At a time when the world seems increasingly divided by race, religion, and nationalism, Azad’s life and thought remind us that true sovereignty begins with recognizing the sanctity of human dignity. As he himself once said: “The essence of secularism is not the rejection of religion, but the rejection of any form of discrimination.” In that statement lies a vision as necessary today as it was in his time.