A new historical analysis is sparking renewed debate over the complex legacy of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a figure long celebrated in South Asian textbooks as the “grandfather of Muslim nationalism.” Emerging scholarship argues that this familiar portrayal barely scratches the surface of a man whose intellectual project challenged, disrupted and redefined Muslim engagement with modernity in nineteenth-century India.
Born in 1817 into Delhi’s fading Mughal aristocracy, Sir Sayyid came of age as imperial authority crumbled and British power surged. Serving in the East India Company’s administration, he witnessed the violence of 1857 at close range, his home was looted, relatives were killed, and British suspicion fell heavily on Muslims. For him, the trauma was not merely personal; it was, as he wrote, “the ruination of my qaum.”
In the post-1857 world, Muslims faced social exclusion, economic decline and widespread mistrust. Unlike Hindu communities that pivoted quickly towards Western education, most Muslims rejected English schooling, inadvertently distancing themselves from emerging avenues of influence. Sir Sayyid diagnosed this as civilisational self-harm, arguing that survival in a new political order required intellectual adaptation rather than nostalgia.
This conviction led to sweeping reforms. His Scientific Society, Aligarh Institute Gazette, and journal Tehzib-ul-Akhlaq aimed to modernise public reasoning. His most influential initiative, the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, founded in 1875 after a study tour of England, sought to cultivate a new class of confident, English-educated Muslims capable of navigating modern political realities. Notably, the college’s early classes included more Hindu than Muslim students, reflecting his commitment to a shared public culture rather than sectarian boundaries.
Yet his theological project was the most controversial. Emphasising rational inquiry, rejecting blind traditionalism and questioning hadith reports he deemed inconsistent with natural law, Sir Sayyid was denounced by orthodox scholars as a heretic. Modernists, meanwhile, criticised his selective progressivism, particularly regarding women’s education.
By the late nineteenth century, his political positions further provoked debate. He urged Muslims to avoid mass politics until educationally prepared, warning that premature participation could enshrine permanent marginalisation.
Today, scholars argue that both Pakistan and India selectively appropriate his legacy. The fuller picture reveals a radical thinker who sought not separation, but intellectual revival, aiming to rescue his community from fear and stagnation and to reconcile faith with a rapidly changing world.