It is generally said that the Khilafat Movement was divided into two stages before its power waned. The first phase (December 1918 – July 1920) was of request and encouragement. The main task in this was to prepare public opinion, form an organization, pass resolutions and give petitions to the government. The second phase (August 1920– March 1922) was of oppression and genocide. Both these phases emphasize the traditional working practices of Islam, stating that the sermon is appropriate until the Ummah is weakened, but then emphasizes large-scale violence when sufficient power is acquired.
Muslim discontent after World War I
The main demand was the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire of Turkey in secret treaties and war agreements between 1915 and 1918. The fall of Turkey was closely associated with issues of patronage of the holy places of the Khilafat and Islam and were issues that were dear to Indian Muslims. The Muslims of India also feared that the fall of the Ottoman Ottoman Empire would adversely affect their political importance within India. Indian Muslims complained that loyalty to the British did not benefit them.
In 1918, a joint report on constitutional reforms was published by Viceroy Lord Chelmsford and Sir Edwin Montague, Minister of India in the British Cabinet, known as the Montford Report. The report stated that “In 1909 the Muhammadans (Muslims) were given special representation with separate constituencies. Muslims consider separate representation and communal elections as their only adequate safeguards. We are confident that the current system is maintained Should be kept. But we do not see any reason to establish communal representation in such provinces where Muslim voters are in majority. It was not a suggestion to discontinue communal representation, but it was difficult for Muslim leaders in Muslim-majority provinces Was enough to increase.
The Press Act (1910) and the Defense of India Act (1915) were often used to obstruct the publication of Muslim magazines such as Comrade, Hamdard, Al-Hilal, Al-Balagh and Zamindar. More importantly, prominent leaders such as Mahmud al-Hasan, Ali Bandhu, Abul Kalam Azad and Hasrat Mohani were in custody. Of the prominent leaders who were placed under house arrest during the war, only Maulana Abdul Bari, Dr. Ansari, Hakeem Ajmal Khan and Mushir Hosain Kidwai were politically active. Beginning in 1917, a movement was launched to release the detained Muslim leaders.
Gandhi’s passion for Hindu-Muslim unity
Gandhi returned to India in 1915 after a successful Satyagraha campaign in South Africa. In 1917, Gandhi was prepared to join the campaign for the release of Muslim leaders. The scope of his Muslim friends expanded further, including Ali brothers, Hakeem Ajmal Khan and Maulana Abdul Bari. In April 1918 at the Delhi Imperial War Conference, he became an honor for these leaders for presenting a strongly Muslim view of Turkey. In February 1919, the Rowlatt Act was passed by the Imperial Legislative Council. This allowed some political cases to detain suspects without cross-examination and without trial. This resulted in widespread dissatisfaction which was witnessed in the massacre of 13 April 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar.
From the beginning of his political career, Gandhi had a passion for Hindu-Muslim unity. Ambedkar described this peculiar character of Gandhi in this way, “At the beginning of his career Mr. Gandhi shocked the people of India by promising to attain Swaraj within six months.” Mr. Gandhi said that he can perform miracles, if certain conditions are met. One of these conditions was Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi never gets tired of saying that there is no Swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi not only gave legitimacy to this slogan in Indian politics, but he has worked hard to make it a reality. While declaring the Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act, Mr. Gandhi determined in March 1919 that the masses attending the meetings should pledge for Hindu-Muslim unity. There was nothing like this in the Satyagraha campaign against the Rowlatt Act, Due to which there would be any conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Nevertheless, Gandhi asked his followers to take the pledge. This shows how earnest he was towards Hindu-Muslim unity from the beginning.
The first public expression of concern over the future of Turkey was given in the conference of All India Muslim League held on 30 December 31, 1918 in Delhi. However, the movement regarding Turkey was mostly concentrated in the big cities of UP, Bengal, Punjab, Bombay and Sindh. Apparently Muslim mobilization was not enough. Hindu support was needed to advance the pan-Islamic agenda. The source material for the history of the freedom movement in India, in its report dated 3 March 1919, states, “In March 1919, Gandhi was in Lucknow as a guest of Abdul Bari. An informant reports that Mr. Gandhi met Maulvi Abdul Bari some time ago and discussed the Satyagraha movement with him. Gandhi is said to have been the most optimistic about the success of the movement. He told Abdul Bari that he has agents in every city and that the idea of passive resistance would extend to subordinate servants and military officers. Hindu-Muslim unity will be complete and the government will be paralyzed.
It was agreed that when the agitation is at its peak, there will be a big meeting of the Ulama Maulvi and common Muslims, in which Abdul Bari should be elected Sheikh-ul-Islam and Muslims should make demands about Khilafat, holy places etc. Hindus would support these demands, which should be presented to His Excellency the Viceroy with the caveat that his non-acceptance would mean jihad. Abdul Bari, in return for the help of Hindus Issuing a fatwa in the form of Sheikh-ul-Islam would declare that the animal originally sacrificed by Ibrahim was a sheep and not a cow and that cow sacrifice would be prohibited in the future. The plan is said to have been ruined by widespread outbreaks of violence in various parts of the country. Both Gandhi and Abdul Bari were using each other and the issues they stood for were for their own personal benefit. Gandhi exploited the Khilafat issue to garner Muslim support and thereby lead to a unanimous leadership of a united India. ‘ Gandhi’s support for Abdul Bari meant strengthening the Khilafat movement and perhaps personal fame as the ‘Sheikh-ul-Islam’ of the subcontinent. For this he was ready to revise his earlier stance and propagate cow protection. Gandhi’s support for Abdul Bari meant strengthening the Khilafat movement and perhaps personal fame as the ‘Sheikh-ul-Islam’ of the subcontinent. For this he was ready to revise his earlier stance and propagate cow protection. Gandhi’s support for Abdul Bari meant strengthening the Khilafat movement and perhaps personal fame as the ‘Sheikh-ul-Islam’ of the subcontinent. For this he was ready to revise his earlier stance and propagate cow protection.
On 19 March 1919, some wealthy Muslim businessmen from Bombay, attached to the Firangi Mahal, gave funds to establish the Bombay Khilafat Committee. In mid-May 1919, Amir Amanullah of Afghanistan started a war with the British. The All-Islamists lost no time in aligning with the agents of the Amir. Abdul Bari circulated a provocative booklet and a lengthy jihadi pamphlet appeared in UP emphasizing the need for a religious war. Despite the delegations in London, efforts by pan-Islamic societies in London and movement in India to defend Turkey’s case, no favorable results were seen. To give a more united expression to his feelings, an All India Muslim Conference was held in Lucknow in September 1919, In which around 1000 important Muslim leaders of various political views participated. Two important decisions were taken by the conference; The first was the establishment of a central co-ordinating body and the second, to be celebrated on 17 October 1919 as ‘Khilafat Day’. The Muslim League was reluctant to pursue an aggressive anti-government line, so it was considered necessary to establish a temporary organization only for the Khilafat question. The Khilafat Committee of Bombay was designated as a central body with branches formed throughout the country. As a result, in a meeting held on 11 November 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee changed its title to “The Central Khilafat Committee of India, Bombay”. To be celebrated as The Muslim League was reluctant to pursue an aggressive anti-government line, so it was considered necessary to establish a temporary organization only for the Khilafat question. The Khilafat Committee of Bombay was designated as a central body with branches formed throughout the country. As a result, in a meeting held on 11 November 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee changed its title to “The Central Khilafat Committee of India, Bombay”. To be celebrated as The Muslim League was reluctant to pursue an aggressive anti-government line, so it was considered necessary to establish a temporary organization only for the Khilafat question. The Khilafat Committee of Bombay was designated as a central body with branches formed throughout the country. As a result, in a meeting held on 11 November 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee changed its title to “The Central Khilafat Committee of India, Bombay”.
Central Khilafat Committee
The Central Khilafat Committee again held meetings in Amritsar (December 1919) and Bombay (February 1920). According to its constitution, the objectives of the Central Khilafat Committee were: to secure a just and honorable peace for Turkey. Settlement of Khilafat issue. Solutions in accordance with the Sharia beliefs in the holy places of Islam and also in Jazirat-ul Arab (Arabian Peninsula). To fulfill the promise made by the Honorable Mr. Lloyd George on January 5, 1919 and by Lord Harding to preserve the integrity of the Turkish Empire. Contacting British ministers, Viceroy of India and British public for the above purpose. To undertake publicity work inside and outside India and other such works and take steps which may be considered necessary for the fulfillment of these objectives. The Central Khilafat Committee was headquartered in Bombay and consisted of 200 members.
Later in 1923 they increased to 250. Bombay was given 54 seats, Sindh 20, Madras 15 and the remaining seats went to other provinces. Provincial Khilafat Committees were required to work in affiliation with the Central Khilafat Committee and where such committees were not present, the Central body was to function only. Central and provincial committees were to collect funds. With more than 100 local committees and a huge membership, it became the most powerful Muslim body until the Muslim League once again became important in the late 1920s. Apart from this it also had so-called Khilafat activists and Khilafat volunteers. At some places such people were appointed who collected four per person of donations from those who wanted to become members of the Khilafat. At the level of collective membership, no clear distinction was made between Congress and Khilafat followers in those years.
It was also not uncommon to associate Congress organizations and offices with equal people in the Muslim League, and the same rule applied to the Congress and the Khilafat Conference and the Central Khilafat Committee. This was because the Congress had fully accepted the Khilafat demands from the summer of 1920. There were large meetings especially in Punjab, Sindh, Bombay, UP, Bihar, Bengal and Madras. The movement was spreading to the villages as well. Not only the Muslim public, but also the Muslim liberals participated. As an exception, some liberal Muslims, particularly Jinnah, considered the Khilafat Movement “a false religious frenzy” in which nothing good was going to happen in the end, neither for India in general nor specifically. For Indian Muslims. It is noteworthy that in these early expressions of the Khilafat movement, no mention is made of association with Hindus or Swaraj. opposite of this,
The supporters of the Khilafat movement were skeptical of the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1913 itself, Muhammad Ali gave a similar warning to Hindu and Muslim leaders against “accidental mistake for essentials” and “drowning in a flood of words of problems”. Several years after the incident, Muslim League leader Chaudhary Khalikuzma described in his memoir the “senseless enthusiasm” of the Muslims who took Swami Shraddhanand inside the mosque in Delhi. Probably some thirty years after these events, Nehru, being wise, spoke of the creation of “artificial unity between the various dissenters by Gandhi”. The religious and even political aspects of the Khilafat movement had little appeal to the majority Hindus. Among their leaders, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya (1861–1946) was perhaps the main skeptic. In December 1918, as the President of the Congress,
Sankaran Nair (1857–1934, president of the 1897 Congress session) was openly critical of the Khilafatists! Lokmanya Tilak (1856–1920) was another similar skeptic. Vallabhbhai Patel (1875–1950) and Indulal K. Yagnik (1892–1972, participating in Gandhi’s Kheda Satyagraha in 1918) exchanged several “profane jokes and jokes” on the Khilafat’s sacred objectives. Bipin Chandra Pal (1858–1932), who was always warned of the awe of the virus of pan-Islamism, also shied away from supporting it. Motilal Nehru (1861–1931) recognized that there are many more issues in and around the country that we should focus on than the Khilafat question. Follower of Gopal Krishna Gokhale; VS Srinivasa Shastri (1869–1946), whom Gandhiji addressed as’ elder brother ‘, also advised Gandhi to stay away from the Khilafat movement because’
There were others who gave only verbal support and there were some who considered the condition related to cow protection a pre-requisite precondition of cooperation with the Muslims. Despite Gandhi’s efforts and his claims that twenty-one crore Hindus were willing to confront the government to help Muslims achieve their desired conditions, the program of Khilafat Day (17 October 1919) had such a view of Hindu-Muslim unity No excitement was seen. Only in Dhaka, Bombay, Lucknow, Hyderabad (Sindh), Sukur and some other places did Hindus join the demonstrations of Muslims and participate in strikes. In a meeting of the Central Khilafat Committee in 1920, “extremist Muslim leaders advocated joining the Afghan army, Who could attack to drive away the British from India. Hindu leaders sought clarification on this and made it clear that Hindus would cease to cooperate at any such danger signal ”.
From persuasion to coercion
Despite all efforts, Prime Minister Lloyd George’s speeches raised serious doubts that Turkey would find the solution the Khilafat agitators were hoping for. The British government called for a peace ceremony in India in December 1919 to celebrate the end of the war. When on 23 November 1919, the first session of the All India Khilafat Conference began in Delhi; So it was unanimously decided to boycott this peace ceremony as a religious duty. It was decided to send a delegation to Britain to put their demands before the responsible British ministers. If it failed to produce the desired result, it was decided to start a boycott of British goods, Even after this, if there was a need, there was to be a gradual termination of cooperation with the government. Regarding non-cooperation, Gandhi suggested boycotting British goods and ignoring Muslim community’s insistence on violence.
In order to gain significant Hindu support for the Khilafat movement, a special joint meeting of Hindu and Muslim representatives took place the next day (24 November 1919). He was made president to call Gandhi and the proposal to boycott British goods opposed by him was withdrawn. To get Hindu approval, Fazlul Haq had proposed linking the Punjab issue (Jallianwala Bagh massacre and martial law) with the issue of Khilafat. But this proposal was abandoned because Gandhi was opposed to it. He wanted the Khilafat issue to be the sole basis of non-cooperation. Khilafatists successfully boycotted peace ceremonies. Liberal business leaders were sidelined in the Central Khilafat Committee and the Ali brothers became leaders of the Khilafat Movement. The principle of non-cooperation was accepted at the Central Khilafat Committee meetings in Bombay in April and May 1920 and a committee was appointed to formulate a plan for its commencement.
In June 1920, the All India Khilafat Conference in Allahabad pledged to force non-cooperation “without further delay”; Although the Viceroy was given “a month’s warning”. While the Khilafatists accepted the non-cooperation program without much opposition, the Congress took longer to do so. Initially the Khilafatists were ready to negotiate a good deal with the Congress. His program included resigning from the police and the military and refusing to pay taxes, while the congressional program initially envisaged people not to submit themselves to the military. These widely varied programs reflected the inner wave of Hindu leaders in the Congress. How did Gandhi neutralize opposition to the Khilafat movement within the Congress and force it to launch a movement for the Khilafat, This is another story. The time of persuasion with a colleague like Gandhi was over; Now was the time of coercion and massacre for the Khilafatists!