Generally it is the approach of the nationalist historians to write history in term of hero and traitor. The right method is to analyse the events and determine the results and impact of them on a society. Historical process rather than individuals should be focused in evaluating historical events. First about the term of ‘War of Independence’. Disraeli, the leader of the Tory party in the British Parliament, first used it. Karl Marx subsequently took it from him and refers to it in his Indian writings. Later on Savarkar wrote his book on 1857 entitled as “ The Firs Indian War of Independence” which was immediately banned by the British government in India. In Pakistan, I.H. Qureshi and Moinul Haq called it war of independence from the very beginning in their historical writings. However, among the historians there is still controversy whether it was ‘Sepoys Mutiny’ or War of Independence.

After 1857, the Indians’ attempt to expel the British by armed resistance came to an end and there remained only two choices especially for the Muslim community of India either to withdraw from the mainstream or to accept reality and recognize the British as rulers. The Deoband adopted the policy of withdrawal and non-cooperation with the emphasis on the revival of Islam and creation of religious identity. Sir Syed, on the other hand, believed in the policy of collaboration and cooperation that he thought was the only way to liberate the Muslim Ashraf from outdated values and traditions. No doubt he was the representative of the ashraf and was not much concerned to improve the condition of the common Muslims. Therefore, he made an attempt to interpret Islam to adjust it according to modern milieu. He started to publish Tahzibul Akhlaq to preach modernity or in Norbert Elias word initiated the ‘ civilizing process’. He simplified Urdu to make it an academic language, and tried to isolate the Muslim of India from Pan-Islamism in order to deepen their roots in the Indian soil. He fully realized that the Muslim community was incapable to resist, therefore there was no other way except collaboration and adoption of modernity for its survival.

We can criticize the role of Sir Syed but it is wrong to call him a traitor or hero. He was neither one. He adopted his policy out of sheer sincerity and not for his personal gain. He refused to accept the grant of land by the British government after 1857.Throughout his life he continued to cooperate as well as criticize the policies of the government.

At this juncture, it is necessary to assess the impact of Sir Syed and the Deoband ulama on the Muslims of the Indian subcontitnt and conclude which one is damaging and harmful. Or both proved disastrous.