Maulana Bhashani's formative phase in politics was shaped by his social roots not political ideology. It was embedded in the surge to search for the most effective alliance that could liberate the peasantry as a class and community.

Much of the analysis of Bhashani is made by those who are of the middle class whose values are shaped by the so-called "national" politics. That has effectively meant all Indian politics and inevitably the brand has belonged to the Indian Congress party. INC represented India so all variants were anti-national hence a form of political treason.

This format can also be applied to Bhashani as well but his party hopping shows that he didn't belong to the formal political imaginings but was ready to adjust, change and switch as he deemed fit. This political informality is the most significant trait as conventional political branding wouldn't apply to him. But Bhashani can be understood through his constituency better. It was largely rural economy based, poor driven, mostly Muslims, although in the majority but denied equal status. This set of equations remained largely the same for him till the end.

The "Nationalist" phase

He joined the Indian National Congress in 1917 and participated in the Non-Cooperation and the Khilafat movement, and was even briefly imprisoned. He belonged to the more conservative Muslim wing of the Khilafat movement which was more into the "restoration" issue and had enjoyed madrassa support. Subsequently when the movement collapsed as the fundamental economic conflict between two elites became prominent, many Bengali Muslim leaders including Suhrawardy and Bhashani went closer to Deshbandhu Chitta Ranjan Das and joined the Swarajya party.

The failure of the Bengal Pact sponsored by C.R.Das, which promised jobs and parliamentary power distribution as per demography would have gone against the entrenched Hindu middle class who resisted it en masse , further aggravating conflict in the region. It showed that the IN Congress slogan of one India was false as the conflict was based on economic interest. Thus the problems of economic division and greater power enjoyment by the minority was not resolved by the Bengal Pact which failed and ended whatever chances there were in the future formation of this alliance.

The Bengal Pact was largely an urban issue but it had major rural echoes and made the majority Muslim peasantry even more militant in the regional space. Given its long history of violence, it was only natural. It also exposed the limited future of anti-British politics without taking into account the internal conflict between the established privileged community and the aspirant community. It also meant that the middle class, while visible as the negotiating intermediary class, had less control over issues when the dominant historical pressure was being exerted by groups including the peasantry whose interest in a political settlement was not based on any all Indian or even all Bengal equation. The Partition of Bengal (1905) had given physicality to peasant aspirations.

Peasantry and East Bengali Muslims

Maulana Bhashani was involved in this so called national politics but his area of activism remained the rural areas. Even during the Khilafat movements, his area of work was in East Bengal - Mymensingh northern districts - of Bengal. had invariably played a role in his emergence as a charismatic peasant leader in Assam. As he faced pressure and bans working in these areas, Maulana Bhashani began to move towards Assam in 1926 where he was more rooted after 1928).

As noted by Amalendu Guha, "After his first political experience reportedly as a Khilafatist and Non-cooperator, he (Maulana Bhashani) discovered that the real interests of the Muslim peasantry of Bengal lay in a consistent struggle against the zamindars and moneylenders, who were mostly Hindus. He did not hesitate to exploit the religious sentiment to organize and unite the oppressed Muslim peasantry, who constituted the overwhelming bulk of the Bengal peasantry. (M. Waheeduzzaman Manik : Majloom Jononeta. Monthly Forum 2012)

https://archive.thedailystar.net/forum/2012/January/maulana.htm

It's this trajectory that led him to the Assam Muslim league in 1930 and as its member he finally found his constituency located in the poor, East Bengal dominantly Muslim peasantry class and community.

European Saviourism and Bhashani's path

The historical Bhashani was produced by the traditions of social and political contests of the ruling class and not colonial collaboration through education and profession. Colonialism was both executed with the assistance of both the established and aspirant elite. The education system which produced them continues even now and was largely based on European world views.

This system produced many intellectuals but their roots were largely European ideas. But Bhashani's roots, including his education, are not linked to this matrix. He was directly linked to the resisting peasant society and its allies. And this occurred with the help of social traditions including religion. The social belief structures produced resistance and networks that were integrated into the other. Religion was not theological as most peasants had no access to faith texts and were followers of much older traditions which mixed with their new faith ideas. Islamic theologians also had no respect for the peasantry often considering them as "non-Muslims". They were socio-political, not theological allies.

This faith was a local variant of Arabian Islam which arrived with Mughal agriculture. They didn't even use the term Allah in many cases during that phase, calling the Creator as "Niranjon". Later under colonialism, the anti-colonial content of religious movements appealed to them. They never displayed any interest in theological issues, no peasants do. Hence the Islamic content of peasant resistances had only symbolic value for the participants-peasants- and the leaders had no option but to depend on them as they were the engine of rebellion. It was thus an alliance not a single identity.

Those finding the Maulana, a "Leftist/socialist" of sorts may be identifying social justice and reforms as an exclusive European concept. It was in fact a common justification of colonialism in India. That "reforms" were needed in backward India for social progress hence colonialism was "good" and would reform India. This was the position of Ram Mohon and his cohort. Ram Mohon was a paid collaborator of early colonialism and among other things faked theological texts and demonized Hindu religion. Local reformists of his kind did so to portray colonialism as a "savior" vehicle. These reformists' ideas ultimately ended up packaged as "Brahmoism".

European sourced ideas also enhanced the notion that social justice concepts were not native to India. This supremacist idea that the colonized "Brown natives" are unable to seek justice as such ideas are foreign to their culture is common in colonial theology expanded by its collaborators. Hence, this Saviour ideology concept may have influenced socialist thinking in India as well and tagging Maulana as a "socialist" could be a sincere but misguided attempt to Europeanize Mauala Bhashani.

But there is no evidence that Bhashani's ideas that produced his politics are located in European justice or ideological soil. His alignment with the migrant workers (Assam), dependence on religious symbolisms and language and semiotics of activism were all indigenous. His historical experience of colonialism produced his politics not ideas flowing from colonial thought.

Resistance and religious networks

Maulana's trajectory of politics went through several stages till he discovered his appropriate location in the fight against colonial structures. In the earlier phase he was involved with political groups who had links to elitism in the historical space. They were also advocates of the monolithic single identity one "India" framework. But he was a person who was barely above the land tilling peasant class segment with his main education in madrassas which were held as bastions of "separatism" traditions going by the One India narratives. So he was in direct conflict with these political constructs. His politics was based on resistance to poverty and not negotiations with colonialism.

This madrassa influence on politics has never gone down well in Indian politics as religion, particularly "Islam" was denied legitimacy in Raj/babu political eyes for practical reasons. It was the faith of the previous invader ruling class, the Turko-Afghans. Its members were also part of the elite aspirants who were in competition with the established Kolkata elite.

Demonizing religion is also an important part of the construction of liberalism and social ideas that are rooted in Europe as "modern' ideas challenged the Church in Europe as the dominant. These ideas became part of Bengal Renaissance and its luminaries, a tradition that continues till today through the academic and cultural scene. European value based 'Liberalism" is considered the only legitimate thought and it excludes all other world views.

Locating social politics of Bhashani

The value of "Non-communalism/ Secularism" allowed the colonial collaborators to occupy a critical space on the basis of this "humanism" and it made secularists moral and positive. This included the collaborators. By refusing to recognize the role of religious institutions in society and its anti-colonialism, and focusing on liberalism/humanism as a higher value structure and its followers socially superior, it legitimized collaboration and decriminalized it as most of them were the same.

This system of thinking marginalized the value structure of the peasant-poor who were/are seen as uneducated, unsophisticated, pre-lettered, militant and "communal". In essence, it externalized him from the world of value centricity and construction of social justice norms. Besides, "communal" only meant religious communalism while language communalism was recognized as a tool for secularism and placed on the altar of the elite narrative.