SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN Raja Ram Mohun Roy, the illustrious founder of the Brahma Samaj, did for the moral and intel lectual rejuvenation of the Hindus, Sir Syed Ahmad has achieved for the social and educational better ment of the Muslims of India. There would be no educated Muhammadan community existing and flourishing to-day but for the heroic pioneer efforts and far-sighted vision of this great man, who did not see in the utter collapse of the Moghul Empire an argument for racial estrangement and enmity, nor yet a sign and symptom of the permanent moral decay of his community, only a fresh inspiration to summon courage, to accept the challenge, on behalf of his community, thrown by the arduous competitive spirit of the West, to serve as a pathfinder for his countrymen, to prepare them for that relentless competition through education and social reform, so that they may thus be equipped for the struggle which the introduction of Western civilisation had rendered inevitable. This would not have been possible save for the Syed's recognition that there were elements of progress and vitality in the fuller, richer culture from the West, whatever the failings of its commercial exponents and that the assimilation of these elements would greatly enrich and amplify the old-fashioned notions of progress.
The overthrow of the Muhammadan Empire in India was complete when the Syed was born on 17th October, 1817, at the Imperial capital where the nominal suzerainty and shadow of the " great Moghul " still lingered. He bestowed titles and honours ; was the centre of attraction in brilliant state-pageants ; even received ceremonial courtesy and homage from the English Governor-General. But the sceptre had passed on to the East India Company. To the large bulk of Muhammadans the political catastrophe which resulted in the trans ference of authority to British rulers betokened the downfall of Islam itself. It meant to them, perhaps, an eternal depreciation of Oriental values, a great humbling of national pride and vassalage to an alien civilisation not founded on the sanctions of Muhammadan law. No longer would the exclusive avenue to lucrative employment be the traditional religious and classical training at the historic University of Patna—so many must have argued. The Infidel—according to them—had not only defiled the sanctuary, but demanded a strange and strenuous discipline in novel methods of government, in profane learning of a dubious nature. They had lost their kingdom. But it was still open to them not to sell their souls to the new learning. So they sulked, and refrained from deriving the benefits of western education.
Syed Ahmad saw with the flash of genius, that this mentality generated by the regrettable circum stances would seriously handicap his co-religionists in the keen competition for employment under the John Company. We do not suggest that he did not rise above the mere commercial aspects of the situation. In fact, he clearly perceived that the sullen attitude of the Muslims towards English education threatened the community with intellectual retrogression and narrowness of vision. But he also saw that the keen intellectual Hindus, whose fathers did likewise wield the sceptre of empire once, were capturing many of the subordinate appointments in the gift of the government, if so the regime of the East India Company may be called. Whatever to him personally, or to others, might be the merits or demerits of English education, his practical instincts made it clear to him that under the new conditions, his community must either accept the fresh ordeal or perish. But there was yet another side to the question. Western civilisa tion, whatever its failings, had embedded in it the discoveries of science, the triumphs of reason, and traditions of a practical, efficient business life.
On the ethical and religious side, there were not after all, according to him, fundamental differences between the two rival faiths, one professed by his countrymen and the other professed by the people into whose hands were delivered the reins of government. If rightly interpreted, Christianity and Islam had much in common, and rested on the common foundations of belief in the unity of the Godhead, and respect for the patriarchs and concern for the moral issues of life as preached and upheld by Christ. Later, when He was removed, Christianity became encrusted with dogmas and creeds and the subtle casuistry of scholastics. But so was Islam in the course of the centuries hardened into fossilised teachings, lifeless formalism and mechanical obedi ence to the ipse dixits of an ignorant priestcraft, so radically opposed to the pure and lofty mono theism of the holy prophet of Arabia. There was no reason, whatever, why the adherents of the two faiths, the one in its rise, on the secular side, to power, and the other in a sad predicament because of the decline of its political prestige, should not shake hands and form a life-long friendship, co-operating towards common ends and loyally working side by side. And history has pronounced its verdict that the generous minded Syed was right, both in principle and in anticipations of resulting good.