EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK "MAHATMA'S BLUNDERS"
On 1st August 1920, the President of the Indian National Congress, Bal Gangadhar Tilak passed away. Gandhiji and a crowd of around 2 Lakh people paid its respect to this ‘Maker of Modern India’. The same day it was formally announced that the leadership of the Congress would be passed on to Gandhiji.
After assuming the leadership of the Indian
National Congress, Gandhiji floated the idea of the Non-Cooperation movement at
the Nagpur session of the Congress. A
programme of surrender of titles, the boycott of schools, courts and councils,
the boycott of foreign goods, the promotion maintenance of a Hindu-Muslim unity
and strict non-violence was tabled in this session.
However, but many senior leaders like Bipin
Chandra Pal, Annie Besant and Sammed Akiwate opposed the idea outright.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah also criticized the idea calling it outlandish. Gandhiji’s
position in the Congress was very weak. Although the younger leaders like
Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were strongly behind him, the entire top
leadership of the Congress was opposed to his idea. Finally, in a bid to garner
support for his cause, Gandhiji struck a deal with the leader of the Khilafat
Movement, Moulana Muhammad Ali Johar.
The Khilafat Movement, which had started in
1919, was a worldwide protest by Muslims against the collapsing status of the ‘Khalifa’ (Caliph), the Islamic system of
governance. The Muslims of India had a great regard for the Caliphate which was
held by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). During the First World War, Turkey joined
the war in favour of Germany. But Turkey and Germany lost the war and a pact
known as the Istanbul Accord was signed between the Ottoman Empire and the
Allied Forces on 3rd November 1918. According to this pact, the
territories of Turkey were to be divided among France, Greece and Britain.
During the war the Indian Muslims were in a
very awkward position, because they had a deep-rooted devotion to the
caliphate. They had profound respect for this holy institution. Therefore,
their support to the British Government was subject to the safeguard and
protection of the holy places of Turkey. But the British could not fulfill
these promises. The Treaty of Savers was imposed on Turkey after the war and
its territories were distributed among the Allied countries. A wave of anger
swept across the Muslim World and the Indian Muslims rose against the British
Government. Muslim leaders like Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Moulana Muhammad Ali
Johar and Moulana Shoukat Ali joined hands with other Muslim leaders to form
the All India Khilafat Committee. They aimed to build political unity amongst
Muslims and use their influence to protect the caliphate.
Gandhiji approached the Khilafat leaders and
requested for their support towards the Non-cooperation Movement. In return, he
promised the Khilafat leaders to work and fight with them for the causes of
Khilafat. In order to win their hearts, Gandhiji even went to the extent of
saying that it was his ‘sacred duty’
and the ‘cause of Khilafat was more
important’ to him than the cause of Indian Independence. He described his
feelings towards Mohammad Ali as ‘love at
first sight’ to underscore his feelings of solidarity.7
Nathuram Godse described this liaison between
Gandhiji and Mohammed Ali Johar as,
(64). He saw that
the foreign rulers by the policy of 'Divide and Rule' wore corrupting the
patriotism of the Muslims and that there was little chance of his leading a
united host to the battle for Freedom unless he was able to cement fellow feeling
and common devotion to the Motherland. He, therefore, made Hindu-Muslim Unity
the foundation of his politics. As a counterblast to the British tactics he
started making the most friendly approaches to the Muslim community and
reinforced them by making generous and extravagant Promises to the Muslims.
This, of Course, wag not wrong in itself so long as it was done consistently
with India's struggle for democratic national freedom; but Gandhiji completely
forgot this, the most essential aspect of his campaign for unity, with what
results we all know by now.
On 4th September 1920, Congress met
at Calcutta in a special session. Gandhiji was supposed to adopt a resolution
for his Non-Cooperation Movement. In order to ensure its success, Khilafat
leader, Mohammed Chotani, a wealthy merchant from Bombay, transported
trainloads of Khilafat delegates to pack the Congress ‘Pandal’ (Shed) and vote for Gandhiji’s resolution. Due to the
support received from the Khilafat leaders, the resolution was passed by 1826 to
804 votes. Thus, Gandhiji seized complete control over the Congress and
asserted himself as its unquestioned leader.
In his book ‘The Indian Struggle’, Subhash Chandra Bose states ‘A special session of the Congress was
therefore summoned in Calcutta in September 1920 under the Presidency of Lala
Lajpat Rai, the well-known Punjab leader. Mr. Gandhi was fully aware that his
new policy of opposition to the reformed constitution would not be accepted by
an influential section in the Congress. He had, therefore, strengthened himself
with an alliance with the Moslem leaders and the All India Khilafat Committee'.
Thereafter, some crucial changes were made in
the organization of the Congress, so that it becomes a real political party. A
Four Anna membership was launched so that more and more poor people could join
the Congress. A hierarchy of village, taluka and district level committees was
to be created so that Congress reaches to the Grassroots. Provincial Congress
Committees were organized on linguistic basis.
Jinnah realized that he was being sidelined by
Gandhiji, who was looking to reach out to Muslims through the Khilafat leaders.
Jinnah did not take this development lightly and warned Gandhiji that the
influence of ‘Mullahs and Moulvis’
(Clerics) into mainstream politics would be suicidal. But, Gandhiji turned a
deaf ear to Jinnah’s warnings and continued his romance with Mohammad Ali. As a
result, Jinnah and the Muslim League began to gradually drift away from the
Congress.
In October 1920, in Lucknow, the Khilafat
Committee published the Khilafat Manifesto, which called upon Indian Muslims to
unite and hold the British accountable for this purpose. The Khilafat Manifesto
resolved to protect the holy place of Turkey, to restore the territories of
Turkey and to restore the Ottoman Empire.
In December 1920, the Non-Cooperation Movement
was officially launched by Gandhiji at the Nagpur session of the Indian
National Congress. A programme of surrender of titles, the boycott of schools,
courts and councils, the boycott of foreign goods, the promotion of ‘Khadi’ (Hand woven cloth) and strict
maintenance of non-violence was adopted. In this session, Gandhiji triumphantly
claimed that if the Non-Cooperation Movement gets successful, ‘Swaraj’ (Independence) could be attained
in just one year. Gandhiji further said that this movement was also launched to
demand justice for the victims of the ‘Jallianwala
Bagh’ massacre.
In the
beginning of 1921, a nationwide tour was then taken up by Gandhiji and the
Khilafat leaders. People were asked to support the movement to show their
solidarity towards the victims of the ‘Jallianwala
Bagh’ massacre and also support the Khilafat cause. In every meet, Gandhiji
assured the people of giving them ‘Swaraj’
within a year.
The response to the call given by Gandhiji was
unprecedented. Thousands of students left schools and colleges, government
employees quit their jobs, Lawyers stopped practicing and everyone joined the
movement. Shops which sold foreign clothes were picketed. ‘Khadi’ (Hand woven cloth) and ‘Charkha’
(Hand mill) became the symbol of national movement. This movement had brought
Gandhiji on the front seat of national politics in India.
However, by mid-1921, the Non-Cooperation
movement was completely hijacked by the Khilafat leaders. Moulana Muhammad Ali
appealed to Amir Amanullah, the King of Afghanistan to invade India. In a
speech made in Madras in April 1921, Maulana Muhammad Ali declared, ‘If the Amir of Afghanistan were to invade
India, not aggressively but for the liberation of the country from an infidel
yoke, it would be the duty of all Muslims to assist him actively’.8
Gandhiji immediately jumped to support Mohammad Ali. In an article in Young
India, Gandhiji said, ‘I would, in a
sense, certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if he waged war against the
British govt. It is no part of the duty of a non-violent non-cooperator to
assist the govt against war made upon it by others. I would rather see India
perish at the hands of the Afghans than purchase freedom from Afghan invasion
at the cost of her honor. To have India defended by an unrepentant govt that
keeps the Khilafat and Punjab wounds still bleeding is to sell India’s honor’.”
9
The Amir had invaded the North West Frontier
Province (N.W.F.P.) two years earlier in 1919 and the British had quickly
suppressed that invasion. This time however, the Amir was not to be provoked.
The vigilance of the British broke the conspiracy and nothing came out of the
Ali Brothers' grotesque scheme of the invasion of India.
In his book, ‘Pakistan or the Partition of India’, the leader of the depressed
class, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar states ‘The
Musalmans were not in a mood to listen to the advice of Mr. Gandhi. They
refused to worship the principle of non-violence. They were not prepared to
wait for Swaraj. They were in a hurry to find the most expeditious means of
helping Turkey and saving the Khilafat. And' the Muslims in their impatience did
exactly what the Hindus feared they would do, namely, invite the Afghans to
invade India. How far the Khilafatists had proceeded in their negotiations with
the Amir of Afghanistan it is not possible to know. But that such a project was
entertained by them is beyond question. It needs no saying that the project of
an invasion of India was the most dangerous project and every sane Indian would
dissociate himself from so mad a project. What part Mr. Gandhi played in this
project it is not possible to discover. Certainly he did not dissociate himself
from it. On the contrary his misguided zeal for Swaraj and his obsession on
Hindu-Moslem unity as the only means of achieving it, led him to support the
project’.
In May 1921, there were public rumours that the
Ali Brothers would be arrested by the British government for conspiring with
the Amir of Afghanistan to attack India. Gandhiji was at a meeting in Allahabad
on 10th May, 1921 when he heard of this rumour. He said with tears
in his eyes, ‘I cannot understand why the
Ali Brothers are going to be arrested as the rumours go, and why I am to remain
free. They have done nothing which I would not do. If they had sent a message,
to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so
long as I can help it, would help the Government to drive him back’. 10
Gandhiji's public posture and attitude towards
the treasonable acts of Ali Brothers were severely criticized by prominent
Congress leaders. All of them including Annie Besant told him in categorical
terms that his speeches and writings which justify the treasonable act of
Mohammed Ali's invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to launch an invasion
against India were not acceptable.
Nathuram Godse says
(70c) Afghan Amir
Intrigue-The Ali Brothers decided to do something to keep alive the Khilafat
sentiments. Their slogan was that whoever was the enemy of the Khilafat was
also the enemy of Islam and as the British were chiefly responsible for the
defeat and the dethronement of the Sultan of Turkey, every faithful Muslim was
in solemn duty bound to be a bitter enemy of Britain. With that object they
secretly intrigued to invite the Amir or Afghanistan to invade. India and
promised him every support. There is a long history behind this intrigue; Ali
brothers never denied their share in the conspiracy. The Mahatma pursued his
tactics of getting Hindu-Muslim Unity by supporting the Ali brothers through
thick and through thin. He publicly poured his affection on them and promised
them unstinted support in the restoration of the Khilafat. Even with regard to
the invasion of India by the Amir the Mahatma directly and indirectly supported
the Ali Brothers. This is proved beyond the. shadow of a doubt. The late Mr.
Shastri, Mr. C. Y. Chintamani the Editor or the `Leader' of Allahabad and even
the Mahatma's life-long friend, the late Rev. C. F. Andrews told him quite
clearly that his speeches and writings amounted to a definite support to the
Ali Brothers in their invitation to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India.
The Mahatma had forgotten his own country in his one consuming desire to please
the Muslims and had become a party to the invasion of his motherland by a
foreign Ruler.
By August 1921, the Khilafat Movement was
converted into a ‘Jihad’ movement.
The Muslim Cleric of Malabar, Mohammed Haji declared ‘Jihad’ against the Hindus and named it ‘Khilafat Rule’. They were incited by the ‘Jamiat-ul-Ulema Hind’ which had declared India as ‘Dar-ul-Harb’ (regions where Islam does
not dominate) and called out to Muslims to have ‘Dar-ul-Islam’ (region where Islam dominates). These views were
endorsed by Khilafat leader Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad in his journal ‘Al-Balagh’. Incited by these
provocations, the Moplah Muslims of Malabar-Kerala, under the leadership of Ali
Musaliar vented their anger on the Hindus whom they considered as infidels.
It resulted in one of the greatest outbursts of
communal violence of those times. Over 30,000 Hindus were slaughtered, over
150,000 were displaced and around 20,000 were converted to Islam. It took the
British administration several months to regain control over the rioters. The
British authorities finally suppressed the rebellion killing 226 rioters,
wounding 1615 and capturing over 40,000. Haji Mohammed and his associate were
court marshaled and hanged.
Nathuram Godse’s states,
(70 b) Moplah
Rebellion-Malabar, Punjab, Bengal and N. W. F. Province were the scene of
repeated outrages on the Hindus. The Moplah rebellion as it was called was the
most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honour,
Hindu life and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to
Islam, women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity
on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of
reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any
active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the
other hand he went to the length of denying the numerous cases of forcible
conversions in Malabar and actually published in his paper 'Young India' that
there was only one case of forcible conversion. His own Muslim friends informed
him that he was wrong and that the forcible conversions were numerous in
Malabar. He never corrected his misstatements but went to the absurd length of
starting a relief fund for the Moplahs instead of for their victims; but the
Promised land of Hindu.Muslim Unity was not yet in sight.
In ‘Pakistan
or the Partition of India’, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar states, “The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar
against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of
horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which
was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass
resolutions of ‘congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were
conducting for the sake of religion’. Any person could have said that this was
too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed
by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to
make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were
congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as ‘the brave God-fearing Moplas
who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they
consider as religious’.”
A resolution passed by the Congress Working
Committee stated “Whilst, however,
condemning violence on the part of the Moplas, the working Committee desires it
to be known that the evidence in its possession shows that provocation beyond
endurance was given to the Moplas and that the reports published by and on
behalf of the Government have given a one-sided and highly exaggerated account
of the wrongs done by the Moplas and an understatement of the needless
destruction of life resorted to by the Government in the name of peace and
order. The Working Committee regrets to
find that there have been instances of so-called forcible conversion by some
fanatics among Moplas, but warns the public against believing in the Government
and inspired versions.” 11 This clearly showed that the Congress
leaders did not have the guts to condemn the violence and speak openly against
the perpetrators.
Then, on 2nd February 1922,
volunteers participating in the Non-cooperation movement were protesting near
the marketplace. They were beaten back by local police and couple of their
leaders were arrested and put in the lockup at the Chauri Chaura police
station. In response, a protest against the police was held in the local
marketplace.
On 4th February 1922, approximately
2500 protesters assembled and began marching towards the market at Chauri
Chaura. Armed police were dispatched to control the situation while the crowd
marched towards the market and started shouting anti-government slogans. In an
attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd, the police fired warning shots into
the air. This only agitated the crowd who began to throw stones at the police.
With the situation getting out of control, the
Indian sub-inspector in charge ordered the police to open fire on the advancing
crowd, killing three and wounding several others. In the ensuing chaos, the
heavily outnumbered police fell back to the shelter of the police chowki while
the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the gunfire into their ranks, the crowd
took revenge by setting the chowki ablaze, killing the 23 Indian policemen
trapped inside.
The moment Gandhiji was informed of the Chauri
Chaura incident he decided to call off the Non-Cooperation Movement without
ascertaining the facts behind it. He did not even consult any leader of the
Congress before taking the decision. The decision caused considerable dismay
among the Congress leaders and left the rank and file disgruntled. They felt
that the non-cooperation movement should not be stopped due to isolated
incidents of violence. By Gandhiji was firm on his decision.
On 7th February 1922, Gandhiji went
on an indefinite fast to coerce the Congress to bow down to his demands.
Finally, on the fifth day of his fast, the Congress leadership gave in and
decided to call off the movement. A month later, on 10th March 1922,
Gandhiji was arrested and sentenced for six years imprisonment on charges of
sedition.
By December 1922, a rebellion started
brewing up within the Congress. There were heated exchanges at the Gaya session
of the Congress. Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das were angry with the way
Gandhiji was running the Congress as if it was his personal fiefdom. They left
the Congress and formed the ‘Swaraj Party’
along with Subhash Chandra Bose and Vitthalbhai Patel. Young leaders like Ram
Prasad Bismil and Ashfaqullah Khan formed the ‘Hindustan Republican Army’.
In his book ‘The Indian Struggle’, Subhash Chandra Bose states ‘The Dictator’s decree was obeyed at the time
but there was a regular revolt in the Congress camp. No one could understand
why Mahatma should have used the isolated incident at Chauri Chaura for
strangling the movement all over the country. Popular resentment was all the
greater because the Mahatma had not cared to consult representatives from the
different provinces and because the situation in the country as a whole was
exceeding favourable for the success of the civil-disobedience campaign. To
sound the retreat just when public enthusiasm was reaching the boiling-point
was nothing short of a national calamity’.
Though Gandhiji’s imprisonment shielded him
from the fiercest recrimination from his colleagues, he suffered a huge decline
in credibility and his nonviolent doctrine was seemingly discredited. The
reasons for which the movement was started were demanding justice to the
victims of the ‘Jallianwallah Bagh’
tragedy and obtaining ‘Swaraj’ within
a year. But none of them got a remedy. Gandhiji’s idea of ‘Swaraj’ in one year had proved to be a bubble. He was severely
criticized for exploiting the sentiments of the ‘Jallianwala Bagh’ victims to serve his self-interests.
After the debacle of the Non-Cooperation
Movement, the Congress leaders began losing whatever interest they had in the
Khilafat Movement. As a result, the Khilafat Movement too began falling apart.
The final blow came in late 1922 with the victory of Mustafa Kamal Attaturk's
forces, who overthrew the Ottoman rule to establish a pro-Western, secular
republic in independent Turkey. He ended the role of Caliph and sought no help
from Indians. He then exiled Sultan Abdul Majeed, a helpless Caliph and set up
a government on democratic basis in Turkey by abolishing Khilafat as a system
of government. The abolition of Khilafat by Mustafa Kamal Ataturk was a serious
blow on Khilafat movement in India. The Khilafat Committee was finally
dissolved in 1924.
Nathuram Godse’s says,
(70 a) In the
moment of opportunism the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the
Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as he
already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim Unity thus achieved
the British would soon have to conced Swaraj. But again, Gandhiji miscalculated
and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the
Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced theological element which
has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. For the moment the movement for the
revival of the Khilafat appeared to be succeeding. The Muslims who were not
with the Khilafat Movement soon became out of date and the Ali Brothers who
were its foremen leaders swam on the crest of a wave of popularity and carried
everything before them. Mr. Jinnah found himself a lonely figure and was of no
consideration for a few years. The movement however failed. Our British Masters
were not unduly shaken and as a combined result of repression and the Montague
Chelmsford Reforms they were able to tide over the Khilafat Movement in a few
years time. The Muslims had kept the Khilafat Movement distinct from the
Congress all along; they welcomed the Congress support but they did not merge
with it. When failure came the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and
their anger was cited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in the various parts of
India followed the chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim
Unity of the Mahatma became a mirage.
Moulana Muhammad Ali and Moulana Shoukat Ali
blamed Gandhiji for the failure of the Khilafat Movement and snapped ties with
him. In late 1924, they joined the Muslim League and went on to capitalize on
the religious sentiments of Muslims which had over-grown after the Khilafat
Movement and thus played a major role in the growth of the League's popular
appeal and the subsequent Pakistan movement. The Ali brothers were later
regarded as founding-fathers of Pakistan.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah blamed Gandhiji for the
humiliation he suffered in Calcutta. He snapped ties with the Congress and
retired into his law practice in London for several years. In his
autobiography, he said ‘I felt so
disappointed that I decided to settle down in London. Not that I did not love
India, but I felt so utterly helpless’. 12 When he returned, he
took charge of the Muslim League which, thanks to the Ali brothers, was now
pursuing a separatist agenda. He too shed his image as a liberal Muslim leader
and became a die-hard separatist. Thus, Jinnah, who was once a die-hard
nationalist and an ‘Ambassador of
Hindu-Muslim unity’, would go on to become the epitome of Hindu-Muslim
hatred and the father of the Partition of India. The cause of all this was only
the Mahatma.
Nathuram Godse states’
62. When
he returned here to serve his countrymen in their struggle for freedom, he had
legitimately hoped that as in Africa he would command the unchallenged
confidence and respect of all communities. But in this hope he soon found
himself disappointed. India was not South Africa. In South Africa, Indians had
claimed nothing but elementary rights of citizenship which were denied to them.
They had nil a common and acute grievances. The Boer and the British both had
treated them like door mats. Hindus, Muslims and Parsis therefore stood united
like one man against the common enemy. They had no other quarrel with the South
African Government. The Indian problem at home was quite different. We were
fighting for home rule, self- Government and even for Independence. We were
intent on overthrowing an Imperial Power, which was determined to continue its
sway over us by all possible means including the policy of 'Divide and Rule'
which had intensified the cleavage between the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhiji was
thus confronted at the very outset with a problem the like of which he had
never experienced in South Africa. Indeed in South Africa he had smooth sailing
throughout. The identity of interest between the various communities there was
complete and every Indian had ranged himself behind him. But in India communal
franchise, separate electorates and the like had already undermined the
solidarity of the nation, more of such were in the offing and the sinister
policy of communal favouritism was being pursued by the British with the utmost
tenacity without any scruple. Gandhiji therefore, found it most difficult to
obtain the unquestioned leadership of the Hindus and the Muslims in India as in
South Africa. But he had been accustomed to be the leader of all Indians and
quite frankly he could not understand the leadership of a divided country. It
was absurd for his honest mind to think of accepting the generalship of an army
divided against itself.
The only thing that Gandhiji obtained from this
movement was that it aroused the religious sentiments of the Muslims and
created a political consciousness among them which inspired them to constitute
another movement for their Independence. Thus had originated and intensified
the demand for the disintegration of this country. This blunder by Gandhiji
would cost the nation very dearly in the years to come. It may be said that the
Khilafat Movement was the stepping stone towards the eventual partition of
India. The question that will be asked even today will be, was it necessary for
Gandhiji to drag a nationalist mass movement like the Indian National Congress
into pursuing a communal agenda by involving itself with a fundamentalist
Islamic movement like the Khilafat?
***********
