CONCILIATION BETWEEN MUSLIM LEAGUE AND NATIONAL CONGRESS

CONCILIATION BETWEEN MUSLIM LEAGUE AND

NATIONAL CONGRESS

The Muslim League expected that the British Government would protect the justified and fundamental rights of Muslims. That is why they had expressed their loyalty to the Government. No doubt, the British Government encouraged Muslim by fulfilling the initial demands of Muslims. They, now, came to realise that mere loyalty to the British government would be of no use. Rather, they would have to introduce some changes in the fundamental aims of the Muslim League. They after realized that to slink away from the congress would add to their problems. In order to face the British Government, Muslim League began to feel the importance of conciliation with the National Congress. Following were the developments which paved the way for alliance between Muslim League and Congress:

i.                    Abrogration of the Partition of Bengal: The English rules had repeatedly assured the Muslims that the decision of the partition of Bengal was final and categorical, and that the Government had no intention to introduce any change in it. But despite all promises made with Muslims, the British Government, being impressed by the Hindus agitations, annulled the partition of Bengal in 1911.

ii.                  The detention of Ali Brothers: In the early day of World War-I, each of the involving parties i.e Britian and Germany wanted Turkey to become its ally. In the meanwhile an editorial with the title “Choice of the Turks” was published in “London Times” in which the editor of the newspaper adopted humiliating tone while speaking of favours conferred by Britian on Turkey, to side with the britian during the war. In counterblast to it, Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar published a lengthy editorial with the same title in his newspaper ‘Comrade’. In this article he proved with the help of historical references that the attitude of Britian towards Turkey had been unjust in the past. At the end he advised the Turks to remain neutral in the war. His tone, in the course of the article was in no way seditious. The editorial caused resentment ot the British Government. In retaliation they arrested Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali and sent them to prison after seizing the security of their respective papers “Comrade” and “Hamdard”. Maulana Shaukat Ali had no concern with the matter. This step of Government spread dejection among the Muslim.

iii.                Jinnah’s participation in Muslim League: In 1913, keeping in view the anti-Muslim attitude of the British Government, Muslim League revised its constitution to bring about some radical changes in its fundamental aims and objectives. These changes brightened the possibilities of collaboration between Muslim League and Congress. His impressive personality strengthened the standpoints of Muslim League. As a result, both the organisations i.e., the League and the Congress drew close to each other and began to hold joint session.

iv.                 The possibilities of political reforms: During the First World War, the British Government wanted to politically gratify the native people in order to get the support and cooperation. In 1916, when Lord Chelmsford was appointed as Viceroy, the news spread throughout the country that the British rulers intended to introduce some political reforms in India. All the political parties of India thought it necessary to calirify the viewpoints of native people before any step was taked by the Government. Accordingly, in Sepetember 1916, nineteen members of the Legislative Council moved a memorandum consisting of some recommendations on the subject of reforms to the Viceroy. This memorandum made the Muslims realise the importance of conciliation between the League and the Congress.

In view of the development mentioned above, National Congress and Muslim League appointed a Joint Commission review the expected reforms. This Committee met at Calcutta. By the vitue of Jinnah’s endeavours, it was agreed unanimously that a joint session of the two parties be held at Lucknow in December, 1916. The agreement concluded between the League and National Congress in that joint session is known as Lucknow Pact.

Rowlatt Act 1919 and its Consequence

(The Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh)

After the Lucknow Pact of 1916 both Hindus and Muslims started their struggle for the self-rule for India. It was a brief period of Hindu-Muslim unity. To probe into their secret activities, the British Government formed a committee headed by Justice Sidney Rowlatt. Rowlatt presented his report to the Government on 30 April 1918 and as a result the Government introduced a bill in the Imperial Legislative Council known as the ‘Rowlatt Bill’ that gave unlimited powers to the administration and the police. The accused had no right to appeal or employ a lawyer for his defence. The Government was authorized to put any individual under house arrest without assigning any reason.

During the First World War the Indians had made great sacrifices for the British and expected that in compensation of their services the British Government would grant self-government to them but on the contrary they got no reward but penalty in the shape of ‘Rowlatt Act’. When the bill was presented before the Imperial Legislative Council, all the 23 non-official members voted against it; among these members were also those who were very loyal to the Government. However, despite the whole opposition and protest the bill was passed and was decreed as ‘Rowlatt Act’. As protest Quaid-i-Azam resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council.

Strikes started all over India and M. K Gandhi also launched his non-violence movement. At that time Sir Michael O’ Dwyer, the Governor of Punjab had a strong hatred for the Indians and even determined to exert British dominance by all means. He was of the view that the British, which had seized the government by force, could preserve it only with force. For that matter he banned all public meetings, processions and protests in the province. To curb the political unrest in Punjab the Government banned the two well-known leaders of Amritsar, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr Satyapal from making speeches. Later on they were arrested and sent to Dharamsala. The news of their arrest spread like wild fire and left the whole city in panic. On 9 April 1919, a large crowd gathered in a park demanding the release of their leaders. The police even opened fire to disperse the crowd. On 10 April, General Dyer received orders to leave Jalundhar for Amritsar. He reached Amritsar with 475 English and 710 Indian soldiers and two armored vehicles.

On the morning of April 13, he toured around the city and made announcements at 19 places that all the public meetings and processions had been banned and in case these orders are defied, use of force would not be ruled out. When General Dyer was told that a meeting was being held at Jallianwala Bagh, he reached there instantly with 90 troops and ordered them to open fire on the unarmed gathering. The firing continued for fifteen minutes and left 379 people dead on the spot and more than 1200 critically injured.

General Dyer believed that the event of Jallianwala Bagh was a part of the conspiracy in which the Indians were involved to overthrow the British Government. But the Hunter Committee had arrived at the conclusion that the riots in Amritsar including the meeting at Jallianwala Bagh weren’t the part of any planned conspiracy to overthrow the British Government. After the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh martial law was imposed in the Punjab and all the citizens of Lahore were ordered to hand over all their vehicles, bicycles, lamps and fans to the military. Martial law orders were pasted on the walls of the houses of prominent persons including Fazl-e-Hussain, Pir Tajuddin and Khalifa Shujauddin. The Principal of Dyal Singh College was punished only because someone had pasted an anti-martial law placard on the college wall. Moreover, water and power connections were cut off at various places of Punjab especially Lahore.

The public opinion in England was divided into two groups regarding the brutal tactics used by General Dyer. One group considered it a timely action to teach a lesson to the Indian whereas in view of the second group the tragedy at Amritsar had played a vital role in arousing the nationalistic feelings among the Indians. On the whole, the massacre at Jallianwala Bagh shattered into pieces once for all the tradition of loyalty to the British Crown. And within a period of 27 years, it was proved that the brutal acts of General Dyer could not suppress the passion for independence that flared up after the above episode.