THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

EVENTS AND OUTCOMES

BACKGROUND:

Britain and her allies (the United States of America being one of them) emerged victors as a result of the First Word War (1914-1918).  Behavior of the Allies during the War, and their arrogant proclamation, made the Muslims highly apprehensive about their future designs. The Muslims were afraid that the Allies may take over a part of Turkish Empire, distribute some of its part among themselves, may desecrate the holy Muslims shrines and even go to the extent of dismembering the Turkish Empire which the Muslims cherished as a symbol of the global Muslim fraternity. These apprehensions gave out a wave of anger and unrest among the Indian Muslim. They started a country wide movement in which the Hindus stood by their side and gave them full support.

IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

Establishment of the Khilafat Committee:In order to organize a mass movement and launch an opinion-forming campaign, a committee was formed on Nov. 23, 1919; it was name “The All India Khilafat Committee”.

Hindu-Muslim Unity and Non-Cooperation: In the year 1919 the Indian National Congress decided to support the Muslim on the Khilafat issue, and authorized Gandhiji to chalk out a road map for that matter. Gandhiji brought forward a programme of non-cooperation with the government, which was to be executive in four stages.

Khilafat Delegation: In 1920, a delegation headed by Maulana Muhammad Ali (Johar) set off for London. The British government refused to give an ear. The delegation, however, held some meetings and explained its position to the general public.

The Treaty of Sevres: In May 1920, the Allied Forces decided on Turkey’s fate under the treat made at Severs. The Empire was stripped off its occupations in Europe and Arabia. The Treaty was named after the venue where it was concluded.

Non-Cooperation Movement: Maulana Muhammad Ali (Johar), Maulana Shaukat Ali, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Abu-ul-Kalam Azad and Maulana Hasrat Mohani set the Indian emotion at fire with their speeches. An all India hartal was observed on the appeal of the Khilafat Committee on August 1, 1920. Ghandhiji was elected leader of the Non-Cooperation Movement. As a part of the non-cooperation programme courts were boycotted, government servants resigned services, students all over India quit educational institutions and many of the British title holders surrendered their titles and decoration as protest; Ali Brothers (Muhamamd Ali and Shaukat Ali) were convicted on charges of high treason and given two rigorous imprisonments.

Civil Disobedience:        In November 1921, the people were given a call to break the law and disobey the government by refusing to pay taxes and by all other possible means. About thirty thousand people courted arrest as a result of this call.

Hijrat Movement:           Maulan Abul Kalam Azad and Mualana Abdul Bari Farangi Mahali issued Fatwa, which declared India as Darul-Herb and enjoined Muslim to migrate towards Afgahanistan.  The khilafat agitation received a psychological impetus from the traditional Hijrat of 18,000 Muslims to Afghanistan. So many Muhammadans, determined to shake off the dust of the ‘impious Raj’ moved into Darul-Islam, that was Afghanistan. Later, Afghan authorities declined to admit the emigrants and they had to go back. Many lost their lives on this way. Resultantly, a great loss of lives and assets. Many died during this mission. Some went to Soviet Union from Afghanistan because they had nothing in India now as they had sold what they had.

Mopla Uprising:               Moplas were a Muslim community settled on the south Indian shores. They claimed to be the descendants of the Arab traders. In the year 1921 there was a clash between the Moplas and the Hindu business lords of the area on issues of purely local nature. These incidents provided the British Government with a golden opportunity of creating rift between the Hindus and the Muslims. Exaggerated reports about Hindu-Muslim riots were spread, which provoked the extremists on both sides, riots spread throughout India. This state of affairs caused a great setback to the Khilafat Movement.

Chora Chori Incident:     In the year 1922, an infuriated mob at Chora Chori, a small township in the UP  laid siege to a police station and set it at fire. Twenty one policemen were burnt alive.

Civil Disobedience Call off:         Ghanhiji said that since the Civil Disobedience Movement had deviated from its avowed path of non-violence, it was necessary to call it off. He made this decision at a time when the Movement had reached its climax.

Reaction of the Leadership:        The entire leadership of the movement, the Hindu and the Muslim alike was stunned at this sudden decision. Most of the leaders thought that this decision was without justification and had caused a great setback to the Movement.

Abolition of Khilafat:     Attaturk came to power in Turkey. On March 3, 1924 he abolished the institution of Khilafat in constitutional manners. This proclamation came as the final death- blow to the Khilafat Movement in India.

Khilafat Movement: Results and Consequences

Apparently futile Muslim efforts to keep the institution of Khilafat alive otherwise, had far reaching impact on the Indian politics i.e.,

It was the first popular movement which touched almost all parts of the sub-continent. It was through Khilafat platform that the leaders of public opinion came very close to the common man. It gave people the consciousness which was to serve as motivating force behind the Muslim struggle for the achievement of Pakistan in the days to come. It was an important step towards the liberation of India from the shackles of the British rule.

Although the Indian Muslims did not succeed in achieving their core objective, yet the Khilafat Movement did great service to the Turks who were fighting the war of their survival. Speeches and statements of the Khilafat leaders were translated and spread in Turkey, and it gave the Turk soldeirs courage to consolidate and strengthen their position in the areas left for Turkey after the war was over, and drive the enemies out of the Turk areas.

ROLE OF JINNAH (THE QUAID-I-AZAM) AND ALLAMA IQBAL

The moderate Muslims leaders like Quaid-i-Azam and Allama M. Iqbal were second to none in their sympathies for the Turks, but they did not indulge themselves in the politics of agitation or the emotional frenzy spurred through emotional and agitation politics. Results proved that these leaders were right. The sentiments of Jinnah can easily be understood from the excerpt of the letter wrote to Ghandhi:

“………..the weapon will not destroy the British Empire…It is neither logical nor is it politically sound or wise, not practically capable of being put in execution.”

(The End)

Merits of Khilafat Movement:

i.                     It trained Muslims for political action and agitation.

ii.                   It united the extremists and moderates on one plateform.

iii.                  It destroyed the myth of Muslims loyalty to the British.

iv.                 They learned the deep-rooted differences between two nations.

v.                   Muslims got acquainted of their political power.

vi.                 It made Muslims politically conscious.

Demerits of Khilafat Movement

i.                     Muslims became more interest in the local affairs than international one.

ii.                   Hijrat movement cost million of rupees and million of lives.

iii.                  Religious leaders for the time being vanished from political arena.

iv.                 Emotionalism gave nothing to them. Khilafat was abolished not by the British but by Turks themselves.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT 1919

Government of India Act 1919 was passed by British Parliament to further expand the participation of Indians in the Government of India. Since the act embodied reforms as recommended by a report of Edwin Montagu {Secretary of State for India} and Lord Chelmsford {Viceroy and Governor General}, it is also called as Montague-Chelmsford Reforms or simply Mont-Ford Reforms. The most notable feature of the act was “end of benevolent despotism” and introduction of responsible government in India. This act covered 10 years from 1919 to 1929.

Background

Edwin Samuel Montagu had remained the Secretary of State for India between 1917 and 1922. He was a critic of the entire system by which India was administered. On 20 August 1917, he made a historic declaration in the House of Commons in British Parliament which is called “Montague declaration”. The theme of this declaration was increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and gradual development of self governing institutions and responsible government in India.

 In November 1917, Montague had visited India to ascertain views from all sections of polity including talks with Gandhi and Jinnah. A detailed report on Constitutional Reforms in India {Mont-Ford Report} was published on 8th July, 1918. This report became the basis of Government of India Act 1919.

Key features of this report were as follows:

Increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration.

Gradual development of self- governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British empire.

Progress towards responsible government in successive stages.

Preamble

The Government of India Act 1919 had a separate Preamble. Key points of the preamble were as follows:

India to remain as an integral part of British Empire.

Gradual decentralization of authority with loosening the supreme hold of the central government. Thus, the preamble of this act suggested for a decentralized unitary form of government.

The time and manner towards goal of responsible government will be decided by the British Parliament. Partial responsibility in provinces, but no change in character of the central government.

Introduction of Dyarchy: Reserved and Transferred Subjects

In Government of India Act 1919 the spheres of the central and provincial governments were demarcated by a division of subjects into “central” and “provincial”. Generally speaking, the central subjects included all subjects directly administered by the Government of India or in which extra-provincial interests were dominant. The provincial subjects included subjects in which the interests of the provinces essentially predominated.

The Dyarchy was for the Provincial Governments. The provincial subjects were divided into two categories viz. reserved and transferred. The reserved subjects were kept with the Governor and transferred subjects were kept with Governor acting with the Indian Ministers.

Element of Responsibility in Dyarchy

Dyarchy was a gradual transition from irresponsible to responsible government. The provinces were thought to be suitable for experimenting with such scheme. Thus, the provincial subjects were divided into reserved and transferred subjects. The elements of responsibility was as follows:

The members in control of the reserved subjects were made responsible to British parliament through secretary of state.

The ministers who controlled the transferred subjects were made responsible through the legislative councils to an Indian electorate.

While subjects such as Land revenue administration, famine relief, irrigation, administration of justice, law and order, newspapers, borrowing, forests etc. were kept in reserved list; the subjects such as education, public health & sanitation, public works, agriculture, fisheries, religious endowments, local self governments, medical services etc. were kept in transferred list.

In other words, the subjects which were considered of key importance for the welfare of the masses and for maintaining peace and order in the state were classified as reserved, while subjects in which there was more local interest were treated as transferred.

Changes in Secretary of State for India

No substantial changes were made in the office of Secretary of State for India. However, his salary was made a charged expenditure on British revenue this time. Further, the legislative council got the opportunity to criticise him at the time of budget.

Changes in Indian Council

The Indian Council was to be made of not less than 8 and not more than 12 members. Half of the members should have 10 years standing in the Indian public service. Further, their tenure was reduced from seven to five years; and salary was increased from £1000 to £1200. Also the number of Indians on the council was increased from two to three.

Governor General’s Executive Council

A provision was made for inclusion of three Indians in the six member Council of the Governor General. The advocates of Indian high Courts of less than 10 years standing were eligible to be appointed as Law Minister in the Council. The Indian Councillors were entrusted with only some unimportant departments.

Central Legislature

Via the Government of India Act 1919, a bicameral legislature was set up at centre with two houses viz. Legislative Assembly  and Council of State. This was a primitive model of India’s Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Legislative Assembly

Legislative Assembly was the lower house with three years as its tenure. It was made of 145 members of which 41 were nominated and 104 were elected. The 41 nominated members included 26 officials and 15 non-officials. Governor General was authorised to make nominations from Anglo Indians, Indian Christians and Labour to the legislative assembly to safeguard their interests.

The elected members included 52 General Members, 30 Muslims, 9 Europeans, 7 Landlords, 4 Representatives of India Community and 2 Sikhs. This means that the distribution of the seats was not based on population but importance in the eyes of the government.

 Council of State

 The Council of state of upper house had 60 members of which 33 were elected while 27 were nominated.  Out of the 33 elected members, 16 were general, 11 Muslims, 3 Europeans and 1 Sikh. Out of 27 nominated members, 17 were officials and 10 were non-officials. The tenure of Council of State was five years.

Powers of the Assembly and Council

The Legislative Assembly and Council of State enjoyed similar and concurrent powers except in matters of finance. A bill needed to be passed on both the houses before becoming a law. The budget was presented in both the houses in same day, however, all other money bills were first introduced in lower house and then in upper house. Voting on grants could take place only in legislative assembly. Further, if a money bill was passed by assembly but rejected or returned by the assembly with some amendments, the amendment were not acceptable to the assembly until so certified by the Governor General.

Financial Powers

The act separated, for the first time, provincial budgets from the Central budget and authorised the provincial legislatures to enact their budgets. But the financial powers of the central legislature were also very much limited. The budget was to be divided into two categories, votable and non-votable. The votable items covered only one third of the total expenditure. Even in this sphere the Governor-General was empowered to restore any grant refused or reduced by the legislature, if in his opinion the demand was essential for the discharge of his responsibilities.

Conflict between Legislative Assembly and Council

 There were three instruments to resolve the deadlock between the two houses. These instruments were: Joint Committees, Joint Conferences and Joint Sittings. Joint committees meant to avoid the possibility of deadlock. Joint Conferences meant to solve the differences by agreeing to a conference of equal number of representatives of both the houses and Joint Sittings was convened by the Governor as a last resort within six months of the difference.

Elections and Franchise

Under the Government of India Act 1919, the franchise was restricted. There was no universal franchise, no adult suffrage and no voting powers for women. The qualifications for voting were as follows:

They should have a property with rental value, taxable income or paid land revenue of at least Rs. 3000 in a year.

They must have past experience in the legislative council. They must have membership of university senate.

They should hold certain offices in local bodies. They should have some specified titles.

The above qualifications were so much restrictive that there were only 1700 voters for election of 33 members.

Powers of the Governor General

No bill of the legislature could be deemed to have been passed unless assented to by the governor general. However, the later could enact a Bill without the assent of the legislature. He possessed the power to prevent the consideration of a Bill or any of its part, on the plea that it was injurious to the peace and tranquillity of the country. He could disallow a question in the legislature. He had the power to withhold his assent to any bill passed by the legislature without which it could not become an Act. He also had the power to disallow an adjournment motion or debate on any matter. He could enact a law, which he considered essential for the safety and tranquility of the empire even if the legislature had refused to pass it.

Other Important Provisions

The act provided for the establishment of a Public Service Commission in India for the first time. This act also made a provision in its part V, that a statutory commission would be set up at the end of 10 years after the act was passed which shall inquire into the working into the system of the government. The Simon commission of 1927 was an outcome of this provision.

The communal representation was extended and Sikhs, Europeans and Anglo Indians were included. TheFranchise (Right of voting) was granted to the limited number of only those who paid certain minimum “Tax” to the government.

Critical Assessment

The above description makes it clear that the Government of India Act provided for partial transfer of Power to the electorate through the system of Dyarchy. It also prepared the ground for the Indian Federalism, as it identified the provinces as units of fiscal and general administration. But the growing nationalism was not satisfied. The Act of 1919 had three major defects from the nationalist point of view:  (a) absence of responsible government at the center, (b) separate electorates for different communities.  Although the Mont-ford Report had declared that the separate electorate was a very serious hindrance to the development of the self-governing principles, yet separate electorate came to be significant feature of the Indian political life. The introduction of diarchy in the province was too complicated to be smoothly worked.

Analysis: Merits (despite limitations) of GOI Act 1919

Despite of several limitations, the GOI Act 1919 had some merits. The GOI act 1919 marked the end of the policy of benevolent despotism, and thus began the genesis of the responsible government in India. It was for the first time, that elections to the legislatures were known to the people and this created political consciousness among the masses. However, those people who had a property, taxable income & paid land revenue of Rs. 3000 were entitled to vote. The number of the Indian raised to 3 in the Governor General Council of 8. These Indian members were entrusted to some portfolios such as labor, health and industry.

It was the GOI Act 1919, whereby, the Indians came in direct contact with administration for the first time. This was a very useful experience. It was also for the first time that a number of Indian women got the right to franchise for the first time.

 Now, under the Indian ministers, some of the far reaching measures were taken such as enactment of Madras State Aid to Industries Act, 1923, the Bombay Primary Education act, the Bihar and Orissa village administration Act, the Bombay local boards act, 1923, etc.

GENERAL ELECTION 1920

General elections were held in British India in 1920 to elect members to the Imperial Legislative Council and the Provincial Councils. They were the first elections in the country's history.

The new Central Legislative Assembly which was the lower chamber of the Imperial Legislative Council was based in Delhi had 104 elected seats, of which 66 were contested and eight were reserved for Europeans elected through the Chambers of Commerce.           For the upper chamber, the Council of State, 24 of the 34 seats were contested, whilst five were reserved for Muslims, three for Whites, one for Sikhs and one for the United Provinces.^[1] The Parliament was opened by the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn on 9 February 1921.

Alongside the national elections there were also elections to 637 seats in Provincial Assemblies. Of these, 440 were contested, 188 had a single candidate elected unopposed. Despite the calls by Mahatma Gandhi for a boycott of the elections, only six constituencyhad no candidate. Within the Provincial Assemblies 38 were reserved for White voters.

MOPLAH UPRISING

Who are the Moplahs?

The Moplahs (also Mappila muslims) were the descendants of Arab traders who had settled in the Malabar region of Kerala in Indian sub-continent.

Moplah rebellion (also known as Malabar rebellion) was an armed revolt against the Britishers and the Jenmis (High caste Hindu landowners).

The Moplah rebellion that took place in  August, 1921 is taken as retribution against the suppression of Khilafat movement by the British government. The British officials and Jenmis became the targets. The Mappilas attacked and conquered the British offices, police stations, and courts.

The Moplah Rebellion or the Malabar Rebellion was an extended version of the Khilafat Movement in Kerala in 1921. The Government had declared the Congress and Khilafat meetings illegal. So, a reaction in Kerala began against the crackdown of the British in Eranad and Valluvanad taluks of Malabar. But the Khilafat meeting incited so much communal feelings among the Muslims peasants , known as Moplahs, that it turned out to become an antihindu movement from July 1921 onwards. The violence began and the Moplahs attacked the police stations and took control of them. They also seized the courts, and the government treasuries. It became a communal riot when the kudiyaan or tenant Moplahs attacked their Hindu jenmis or landlords and killed many of them. Thus the Hindu Landlords became the victims of the atrocities of the Moplahs. The leaders of this rebellion were: Variyankunnath Kunjahammed Haji, Seethi Koya Thangal of Kumaranpathor Ali Musliyar. For some two months the administration remained in the hands of the rebels. The military as well as Police needed to withdraw from the burning areas. Finally the British forces suppressed the movement with greater difficulty. The situation was under control by the end of the 1921. This rebellion was so fearful that the government raised a special battalion, the Malabar Special Police (MSP).