Maulana Azad, Dr Syed Mahmud, and the myth of thirty pages

History is, after all, nothing but a pack of tricks we play upon the dead. Voltaire

The 1988 publication of the complete text of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's autobiography, India Wins Freedom, presents a serious distortion of the historical record. Maulana Azad had explicitly instructed in his will that thirty highly critical pages of his manuscript be sealed and kept secret for thirty years within the vaults of the National Archives and the National Library. This deliberate delay created a unique situation in which allegations were made public only after the principal actors could no longer respond.

The postponement to a future revelation date compromised the core principles of historical accountability. When these thirty accusatory pages came to light in the late 1980s, every historical actor mentioned had long since passed away. Consequently, stalwarts of the freedom movement like Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr Syed Mahmud never got the opportunity to defend their actions, clarify their motives or offer their side of the story to succeeding generations. This orchestrated silence reflects a grave misrepresentation of history, delivering a monologue entirely unchallenged from beyond the grave.

A primary duty of historians who seek to write a definitive account of monumental events is to subject their narrative to the crucible of contemporary verification and debate. True integrity demands that an author stand firmly behind his testimony while witnesses to the events are still alive and able to respond.

Having concealed his sharpest allegations for three decades, Maulana Azad bypassed the essential scrutiny of lived experience. His unilateral declarations were shielded from any pushback by his contemporaries, allowing Maulana Azad's personal views to enter the historical record as untarnished truth. The targets were already gone, and his historical indictment was accepted by a nascent generation of readers without the necessary checks, balances and contextual contours.

Maulana Azad's most damaging and enduring allegation was directed at his associate and fellow political prisoner at Ahmednagar Fort Jail, Dr Syed Mahmud. In the concealed pages, Maulana Azad painted a scathing portrait of Dr Syed Mahmud's conduct during their shared internment, explicitly accusing him of writing a submissive, secret apology letter to the British Viceroy to secure an early release. For decades after the pages were unsealed, this narrative was widely accepted as fact, permanently tarnishing Dr Syed Mahmud's legacy.

However, credible historical documentation completely dismantles Maulana Azad's version of events. As compiled in the book A Nationalist Muslim and Indian Politics (edited by VN Datta and BE Cleghorn), Dr Syed Mahmud's letter, dated 19 August 1944, was not a plea for clemency. It was a response to an official notice of indictment issued by the British Raj. The government had levelled charges against Dr Syed Mahmud, asserting that he was an active party to the passing of the Congress Working Committee's Quit India Resolution on August 8, 1942, which, according to the government, was calculated to impede the successful prosecution of the war. Additionally, there was reason to suppose that, if not detained, he would take an active part in organising and conducting the movement i.e. Quit India.

In his response to the Viceroy's secretary, Dr Syed Mahmud systematically and legally refuted the government's assumptions. He affirmed that a mass movement was never formally sanctioned or launched; rather, Gandhi had merely been authorised to start it, if and when he deemed it necessary. Since no overt acts had been organised, the entire movement depended on future contingencies. Furthermore, Dr Syed Mahmud highlighted that the resolution itself explicitly stated the Congress Party's intention to wholeheartedly participate in the prosecution of the war.

Crucially, Dr Syed Mahmud outlined his dissent, a matter of official record. He stated that during the July 1942 Wardha meeting of the Working Committee, he had strongly opposed the proposal of launching a mass movement, viewing it as disastrous to the interests of the country. At the final meeting on August 8, 1942, he went so far as to tender his resignation and requested permission to oppose the resolution. Gandhi, despite Dr Syed Mahmud having resigned, permitted him to cast his dissenting vote. Therefore, Dr Syed Mahmud argued, the British government had no logical reason to suppose that, if released, he would take any active part in organising or conducting the Quit India movement. Dr Syed Mahmud repeatedly stated in his letter that seeking an early release was not the purpose of his response.

Maulana Azad's narrative is further shattered by Gandhi's letter written on October 14, 1944 to Dr Syed Mahmud. In his communication, Gandhi explicitly asked Dr Syed Mahmud to send a wire to the Government seeking permission to release the letter, stating further that Dr Syed Mahmud would have no objection to the Government releasing the letter. This indicates that the highest echelon of the Congress leadership was fully aware of Dr Syed Mahmud's stance and did not view his actions as a betrayal or a submissive apology.

Had Maulana Azad's intended no personal or partisan political gain, he should have taken a dignified recourse of publishing his criticism during his own lifetime. Concealing his complaints regarding Nehru's impulsiveness, Patel's early embrace of partition and Dr Syed Mahmud's alleged apology under confinement, Maulana Azad successfully manipulated the historical record. The reality of the thirty pages is not a triumph of historical transparency; it is a cautionary tale of how history can be distorted when an author chooses to speak only when the world can no longer talk back. In the end, one is reminded of Ghalib's devastating indictment of perfidious comradeship:

Yeh fitna aadmi ki khana weerani ko kya kam hai

Huwai tum dost jis kai, dushman us ka aasman kyon ho