EXCERPT FROM THE BOOK "MAHATMA'S BLUNDERS"

On 1^st 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 3^rd 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 4^th 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 10^th 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 2^nd 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 4^th 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 7^th 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 10^th 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?

***********