Thus, we
see in Iqbal a philosopher not just lost in his own idealism, but grappling
with the pressing issues in the lives of men and the world they lived in. In
doing so, he proposed and lobbied for a worldview that placed the individual
and his development in center stage. It has been rightly remarked, “Iqbal’s
philosophy began with the individual and ended with it”—not just one
individual in one community, but all
individuals in all
communities. This, for Iqbal was the only acceptable state of affairs. But
this did not imply that all else was utterly unacceptable. As we have seen,
for Iqbal, it was not necessary (or possible) for the ideal to be realized
at once. But it was essential that the ideal remain relevant at all times.
Thus, when moving from the ideal to the real, Iqbal was careful to discern
between the reality in which the ideal was an operating force and the
reality in which the ideal was reduced to irrelevance. The former he
accepted critically—as a critical attitude towards reality was one way in
which it could be shaped in accordance with the ideal—and the latter he
rejected vociferously. This is why he accepted capitalist republican
democratic states—provided they accept the primacy of individuals within
them, encourage the creation of an environment where the community (or
communities, in the case of multi-cultural states) could develop through the
strengthening of the individual personalities in them, and finally, accept
their role as members of a world system where all states were equal—in their
subservience to individual development. Six decades after his death, today’s
world—where emphasis is shifting from democratic institutions to democratic
practice; where countries are
being mapped less and less on the basis of shared skin color and more on the
basis of shared values; where debates on colonialism are focused on
authenticity and intellectual agency rather than just land; where
multiculturalism is becoming a central issue in politics as nationalist wars
create doubts about the whole notion of territorial nationalism; and most
importantly, a world where conceptions of individual human dignity, worth
and potential (though still not universally
practiced) are becoming universal enough to be enshrined in
international declarations and charters—this world, then, bears testimony to
the vision of a 20th century Muslim activist and his
universalistic worldview.