Section B

4 The growth of political awareness and British reforms

Partition Of Bengal 1905
The Swadeshi Movement
 It was launched by the Hindu-dominated INC (Congress) to oppose the
partition of Bengal in 1905. A boycott of British goods was observed in
several parts of India where the British-made cotton cloth was thrown
into bonfires and Hindus were encouraged to wear locally produced
(Videshi) clothes. Educational institutes and courts were also boycotted
and strikes were observed, especially in Calcutta. Protest rallies were
organised to pressurize the British till the reversal of partition of Bengal
in 1911.
Why was Bengal partitioned in 1905
 Bengal was the most populated province with a population of more than
80 million. This huge population was spread over a small area, making it
a very densely populated province. It was difficult to govern such a big
province as it created problems in maintaining law and order, collection
of taxes and providing emergency help in times of floods and cyclones.
So, it was sensible to divide it into two provinces. The western part of
Bengal had a population of 54 million with a Hindu majority, whereas the
eastern part had 31 million inhabitants with a Muslim majority.

 The British were also closely observing the growing disparity between
the Hindus and the Muslims. Hindus dominated the politics and economy
of Bengal while keeping Muslims underdeveloped and poor. The period
1900-1911 was a period of improved British – Muslim relations. Perhaps
British wanted to give Muslims an opportunity to prosper in the newly
created province of East Bengal with Assam and three districts Dhaka,
Chittagong and Mymensingh where they would be in a majority and
hence would be able to farm their own government (which exactly
happened). The other part, West Bengal, remained a Hindu majority
province. Muslims now began to develop a new seaport at Chittagong.

 British also closely observed the political activities of the INC in the
1890’s when leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak had to be in prison as they
delivered provoking speeches in which they demanded self rule for India.
Therefore, the British decided to distract the attention of the INC towards
 a new issue. Accordingly, Lord Curzon, in 1903, advised the British
government to divide Bengal along communal lines and so, Bengal was
divided in 1905 into a Muslim majority East Bengal and Hindu majority
West Bengal.

Muslim Reaction
 Felt delighted, expressed thanks to British
 Socio-economic & political position improved their govt & majority in a
province began to develop Chittagong port to compete with the Calcutta
port.
 Since 1857, for the first time, improved relations with the British.
 ML, 1906, promised loyalty to the British, condemned INC opposition to
the partition.
Hindu reaction
 Violence, protests, mourning, strikes, boycott of British goods &
institutes. Swadeshi movement; British cloth thrown onto bonfire &
wearing local cloth, a matter of honour; dramatic drop in sale of British
goods.
 Violence more intensified; assassination attempt on British officials e.g.
the future Viceroy, Minto.
 Threat of boycott of the coronation ceremony of King George, 1911.
 British used forces to suppress protest e.g. arrest of leaders, restrictions
on newspapers, public meetings, the 1908 Press Act, but no use.
 Difficulties grew for the British, they began to review the partition &
finally, King George, announced reversal, Dec 1911.
Why did Congress (INC) oppose the partition of Bengal?
 The INC did not like the partition and opposed it fiercely. For the INC, it
was yet another example of the old British policy of “divide and rule”. By
doing so the British were strengthening their grip on the Indian political
affairs while dividing the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims.
The British power lay in the communal differences of India.

 The INC also viewed the partitioned as a step against the Indian
nationalism. It believed that all people living in India were primarily
Indians regardless of the cultural and religious differences and identities.
So, all communities living in Bengal were equally Indians whether they
were Hindus or Muslims. It viewed the whole country as “mother India”
 and therefore, condemned the partition of Bengal as a kind of vivisection
of their motherland. It declared 16th Oct 1905 as a day of mourning.

 The Hindu dominated INC was also unhappy over the loss of monopoly
over the economy and politics of Bengal. In East Bengal, Muslims were a
decisive majority and had formed their own government. Therefore, their
economic condition began to improve. They decided to develop the
Chittagong port in order to compete with the Calcutta port of West
Bengal. All this scenario was worrying for the INC who launched an
aggressive campaign against the British.
How did British react to the Hindu protest against the partition of Bengal
 The British took many quick measures to deal with the Hindu protest.
They placed restrictions on newspapers and public meetings. Between
1906 and 1908 several editors were arrested, trialed and imprisoned for
writing articles against the British policies. The Press Act of 1908 gave
more powers to the government to restrict freedom of expression and
media.

 Between 1905 and 1909 thousand people were arrested and jailed. The
Government grants to schools and colleges participating in the Swadeshi
Movement were discontinued. Mr Tilak was arrested in June 1908, and
after a speedy trial, was given six years’ imprisonment. Many radical
leaders left India in these circumstances as jails were filled with those the
British considered as revolutionaries. The British themselves deported
many suspects without framing them in a case or conducting a trial
against them.

 The British got worried over the growing protest by the Hindu-led INC.
They realized that use of force against Hindus would not be sufficient.
Therefore, they decided to win the support of the moderate Hindus by
drafting new constitutional reforms. The Viceroy Lord Minto worked
with the Secretary of State of India, John Morley. Finally, the Indian
Council’s Act 1909/ the Morley-Minto Reforms were introduced to win
the support of the Hindu community.
The Muhammadan Educational Conference
 The Muhammadan Educational Conference was founded by Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan in 1886. Its main aim was to promote modern and English
education among Muslims. It held annual meetings to unite Muslim
 leaders and discuss educational and social issues. Though not political, it
increased political awareness among Muslims. The 1906 session in
Dhaka helped lead to the formation of the All-India Muslim League.

Importance of the Muhammadan Educational Conference in the formation of the

Muslim League:

 The conference provided a platform for Muslims from all over India to
gather and discuss their social, educational, and political issues. This
unity laid the foundation for a future political party.

 It focused on modern, scientific, and English education for Muslims,

which helped create an educated Muslim middle class. This educated
class later became the leadership and support base of the Muslim League.

 Although the conference was mainly educational, it gradually helped

increase political awareness among Muslims, especially after the
formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885, which many Muslims
felt did not represent their interests.

 The 1906 session in Dhaka became especially important. Many

prominent Muslim leaders attended, and it was during this session that
Nawab Salimullah proposed the idea of a separate political party for
Muslims—this led directly to the formation of the All-India Muslim
League on 30 December 1906.

Simla Deputation
 On 8th October 1906, a delegation of 36 Muslims led by Sir Aga Khan,
called on the Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla. The delegation conveyed to
him a set of demands that included the right of separate electorates for
Muslims, and recognizing them in respect of their political importance
and the service they had rendered to the Empire. It asked for a higher
percentage of seats in the councils than their numerical strength. The
Viceroy promised to convince the British government for the acceptance
of these demands. This success became the immediate reason for the
formation of the ML (Muslim League) in December 1906.
WHY WAS THERE A SIMLA DEPUTATION IN 1906?
 Muslims were happy with the POB as they got a Muslim majority area to
live where they were free from Hindu dominance. However, Hindus were
against the POB as they believed that it was done to break Hindu unity
 and so started large scale protests to reverse it. This worried the Muslims
because they feared the British might reverse the POB because of Hindu
pressure. Hence a group of Muslims went to the viceroy Lord Minto, to
get an Assurance that the Partition was permanent.

 Some extremist groups like Arya Samaj were carrying out militant
activities and were forcing non-Hindus to convert to Hinduism. This was
viewed by Muslims as a threat to their religion, hence they arranged
Simla deputation so that their religious rights could be protected.

 The new liberal Government in Britain decided to increase the number of

elected Indians in Government. This worried the Muslims as they knew
that Hindus would win every election because of their large population
and Muslims would not be properly represented in the council. Therefore,
they arranged a Simla deputation to get a separate electorate for
themselves so that they can be properly represented in the council.
Importance Of Simla Deputation
 The British showed their sympathy towards Muslims. The Muslim
delegation was able to persuade the British to accept them as an important
Indian community. This was possible mainly due to the attempts of Sir
Syed and his colleagues to improve relations with the British. Now, their
efforts had started bearing fruit as the British were prepared to work with
the Muslims and grant them concessions like the separate electorates.

 Success of the Simla delegation also showed the growing political

awareness among Muslims about their rights and status in India. Since
the Hindus had already started making progress in all walks of life, the
rivalry between Muslims and Hindus was bound to grow. This rivalry was
now going to be visible in the constitution, too. The Muslims had started
realizing that they needed to secure a better position in the British India.

 It also showed the growing sense of nationalism among Muslims. By

asking for separate electorates and a greater share in the legislative
councils and the government jobs demonstrated that Muslims had started
working on proving themselves a distinct and important community of
India. For this reason, the Muslims decided to make their own political
party only after two months on 30th December 1906.
Muslim league
Reasons for the formation of ML
 The Muslim League was founded on 30th December, 1906. The pro-
Hindu INC policies were a major reason for the formation of Muslim
League (ML). The INC had been demanding enforcement of Hindi as the
official language replacing Urdu in various provinces. It also opposed the
partition of Bengal in 1905. This was shocking for the Muslims as they
realized the hidden INC aims of denying Muslims to make any progress.
The way the INC launched the Swadeshi Movement with country-wide
protests and strikes, proved to be an eye-opening experience for the
Muslims. The reaction of Hindus meant they could not tolerate Muslims
making progress. So, the Muslims increasingly felt the need of their own
political party that could counter any anti-Muslim activities and
campaigns.

 Another reason for the formation of ML was the success of the Simla
Delegation. In October 1906 about 36 Muslim delegates led by Sir Aga
Khan called on the Viceroy Lord Minto at Simla. This delegation
demanded a greater share of Muslims in the councils and the government
jobs. It also demanded separate electorates for the Muslims in view of
their political importance and numerical weakness against the Hindu
majority. Lord Minto’s encouraging response convinced the delegates that
the organized efforts were more likely to be successful. For this a political
party was needed.

 By the start of the twentieth century the activities of the Hindu extremist
party, Arya Samaj (Hindu Society), had become more intense. The
purpose of this party was to purify India from non-Hindu elements,
especially Muslims. With the passage of time it began to use force against
the weak Muslims and there were reports of forcible conversion of
Muslims into Hindus. Muslims felt insecure about their cultural and
religious identity and realized that a political party could protect and
promote their cultural and political rights.

 In February 1906, the Liberal Party won elections in England. It was

generally more sympathetic towards the Indians and especially, at times,
towards Indian Muslims. It announced that it would expand the
legislative councils by including more Indians. Muslims realized it was
time to think of making their own political party because the INC had not
been sincere towards them. In order to join the legislative councils’
 elections had to be contested through the platform of a political party.
Therefore, prominent Muslim leaders gathered at the residence of Nawab
Salimullah Khan in Dhaka to attend the 20th session of the MEC
(Muhammadan Educational Conference). There they decided to convert
the MEC into a political party name All India Muslim Confederacy that
was soon renamed as All India Muslim League. Its main objective was to
protect political and socioeconomic interests of the Indian Muslims while
keeping them loyal to the British. It may be concluded that ML was
founded mainly because the Hindus had their own political party.

 In view of the prevailing circumstances, it was vital for Muslims to

constitute a party that could voice their concerns and safeguard their
political and cultural identity and rights. Eventually the ML became the
founding party of the Pakistan Movement that led to the creation of
Pakistan.
The Indian Councils Act 1909/The Morley-Minto Reforms
 They were jointly drafted by the Viceroy Lord Minto, and the Secretary
of State for India John Morley. Under these all the councils were
enlarged. The Imperial Council now had 60 members, and 60 new
members were added to the Central Executive Council. Provincial
Councils were increased to 50 members in the larger and 30 in the
smaller provinces. The councils, however, could not make, amend or
annul any law but could only advise the government on important
matters. Muslims were given the right of separate electorate and,
therefore, the INC opposed the reforms.
Why were they introduced?
 The British introduced the Morley-Minto Reforms to reduce growing
political pressure in India. The Indian National Congress had been
demanding greater participation in governance, and the protests following
the 1905 Partition of Bengal had shown the rising unrest among Indians.
The British felt that by giving Indians a limited role in government, they
could calm tensions while still keeping control.

 The reforms also aimed to win over moderate Congress leaders. The
British hoped that by offering small political concessions, they could
keep the moderates loyal and isolate the extremist elements within the
Congress who were demanding full independence. In this way, the British
 tried to divide Indian political forces while still maintaining control over
the government.

 The British also wanted to strengthen ties with the Muslim community,
especially after the Simla Deputation of 1906. By introducing separate
Muslim electorates, they aimed to gain Muslim loyalty and show that
they were willing to protect minority rights. This move not only secured
Muslim support but also created divisions within the nationalist
movement, helping the British maintain their rule through a policy of
"divide and rule."
Why were the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 opposed by the INC?
 The INC was disappointed by the reforms. The reforms gave nominal
powers to the central and provincial legislative councils. They could not
make, change or annul any of the laws. Instead, the members could only
ask questions on important matters express their opinions or advise the
government respectfully. This went against the INC policy of making a
demand for self-rule in India.

 The INC also wanted a greater increase in the size of the councils at all
levels so that a greater number of Indians could make way to the power
corridor. The British knew all this and therefore, they increased the size
of the councils according to their own policies as they were in no mood to
raise the legislative councils to the status of a parliament or establish a
democracy in India as can be seen from the remarks of John Morley, “I
for one would have nothing to do with it (democracy/parliament).”

 The INC sharply criticized the granting of separate electorate to the

Muslims. It was unhappy on Muslims getting a relatively higher position
in the councils despite their much smaller numbers. The INC declared
this an undemocratic step because such a special concession to Muslims
directly threatened the Hindu dominance in Indian politics.
Why was the Indian Council Act of 1909 important?
 In the MMR of 1909, Muslims were given Extra seats in the different
councils (more than their population percentage). Thus, it was an
important political development as it helped the Muslims to increase their
political representation in councils and the British were also now
recognizing Muslims as a significant community of India.
  In the MMR of 1909, gave separate electorates in the council to
Muslims. Thus, it was an important political development as now
Muslims could have separate representation in elections and the threat
that they might lose elections to Hindu majority was removed.
 In MMR of 1909, Muslim demands of extra seats and separate electorates
in the council were accepted by the British. However, Congress was not
happy with such demands for Muslims and they called these demands as
"undemocratic" and "concession far too much for a minority like
Muslims". Thus, this was an important political development as it
increased the political rivalry between the Hindus and Muslims which
strengthened the Two Nation Theory of SSAK that became the base of
creation of Pakistan.
Why was partition of Bengal reversed?
 The INC fully pressurized the British government to reconsider the
decision of partition. A country-wide anti-partition campaign was
launched. Mob rallies were organized and shutter down strikes were
observed as a token of resentment against the partition. With the passage
of time, the opposition to the partition became fierce and eventually
adopted the terrorist behaviour. Many senior British officials were
attacked including Lord Minto who survived a murder attempt. This
created a serious problem for the British as they found it difficult to run
the state affairs effectively.
 The INC started the Swadeshi Movement in which boycott of the British
goods and institutions was observed. British titles given to the Hindus
were returned and the attendance in various institutes dropped
significantly. At many places, the British factory-made cotton cloth was
thrown in the bonfire to mark the hatred against the Videshi/foreign
goods. This created serious economic difficulties for the British as the
sale of their products sharply declined in the Indian markets.
 King George V was scheduled to visit India in 1911. The INC, threatened
to boycott the Coronation ceremony of the King that was a royal tradition
and a hallmark of British authority over its colonies. This threat of the
INC was a serious blow to the pride and prestige of the British who were
now pressurized to reconsider the partition. Sir John Jenkins, a member
of the Viceroy’s executive council, advised the British government to
reverse the partition and the King himself announced the reversal in Delhi
in 1911. Assam, Bihar and Orissa were separated from reunited Bengal.
Why was the Reversal of partition of Bengal, 1911 an important political
development?
 The reversal of POB 1911, made the Muslim League realize that British
government have broken their promises of Simla deputation and have
 betrayed them and so they could no longer be trusted. That's why it
changed its aim from ‘loyalty to the British government' to 'Self-rule'.
Thus, it was an important political development as this decision led to
independence in the future.
Relations of Muslims with British

WHY DID THE BRITISH MUSLIM RELATIONS

DETERIORATE/Worsened BETWEEN 1911 AND 1914

 In 1911. Reversal of Partition of Bengal took place. British promised

Muslim in Simla Deputation that partition is final. However when the
British reversed it, Muslims felt betrayed as the British had broken their
promise. Thus, this worsened British Muslim relations as Muslims no
longer trusted the British.
 After the RPOB, Muslim League revisited Morley Minto reforms and this
time criticized British for not giving Indians enough say in ruling their
own country as their post in the councils were just advisory. They could
not make or amend laws. This worsened the B-M relationship as the
Muslims who previously supported MMR were now opposing them.
 Thirdly, in 1913 ML changed their once aim from loyalty to the British to
self-rule. Thus, this worsened the B-M relationship as Muslims, who once
supported British rule were now opposing it.
 Lastly, British supported the Balkan states in their war against the Turkey
which was the largest Muslim state. This greatly strained BM relationship
as Muslims felt that the British did not care for them and did not protect
their rights and didn’t protect their rights.

Why were there mixed views in India about supporting the British in the WW1?

 The Indians were divided when the War broke out in 1914. Many of them
were in a way ‘idealists’ as they believed that in case of the British
victory, they surely would reward Indian loyalty by introducing reforms
to give the Indians a greater role in governing the country. They,
therefore, agreed with the idea of giving support to the British on the
ground that the British were fighting for the rights of nations to determine
how they should be governed (self-determination). The British, too,
admitted that the war would have prolonged beyond their calculations and
indeed might not even have been won without the help of the Indians.
 However, it is also true that many Indians were not sympathetic to the
British and wanted to exploit the British weakness during the War. They
saw Britain’s ‘necessity’ as ‘India’s opportunity’. They were, therefore,
called the ‘opportunists’ or ‘realists. According to their views, Britain
was in difficulty and needed help, so there was more opportunity for the
 Indians to press the British for self-government. This ‘anti-British’ group
soon began to take action in the form of the revolutionary activity in and
beyond India. They included the Mutiny Party of Lala Hardayal in the US
in 1913, rise of the nationalists in the Punjab in 1915 and the Silk Letter
Conspiracy.

Lucknow Pact

 It was an agreement signed between the Muslim League and the Congress
in December 1916 at Lucknow. Jinnah led the ML while Mahajan led the
INC. Congress agreed to the separate Muslim electorates and one third
Muslim seats in the Central Legislative Assembly. Both demanded more
seats in the Councils, provincial autonomy and protection of minorities. It
was the first occasion of Hindu-Muslim unity that showed the possibility
of starting some kind of Home Rule campaign.

Why was the Lucknow Pact signed?

 The INC and the ML decided to work together. Jinnah had joined ML in
1913 while retaining his membership of the INC. He persuaded the ML
leaders to change the policy of “loyalty to the British” and make a
demand for self rule. This brought ML closer to INC that already was
demanding “Swaraj” (self rule). Gradually both parties realized it would
be better to ask for constitutional reforms jointly.
 The British were planning to introduce fresh reforms and this was leaked
to the two major parties. The British had failed to grant more rights to the
Indians in the period upto 1914. Instead, the British policy of repression
during the WW1 also brought the two parties closer to each other.
Therefore, both parties set up joint councils to improve common
understanding on key issues. So, both decided to cooperate with each
other in order to generate feelings of goodwill and friendship.
 ML and INC also wanted to reduce mutual friction and to accommodate
each other. The main figure in this regard was Mr. Muhammad Ali Jinnah
who believed in a unity between the INC and the ML. He was, therefore,
given the title of the ‘ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’ by Mr.
Gokhale. Thus, the INC and the ML held a joint session in Lucknow. In
this INC for the first time accepted the separate electorates for Muslims
and one third Muslim seats in the central government, in addition to
preparing a draft of common demands for Indians.

Importance of the Lucknow Pact

 In the Lucknow pact 1916, Congress for the first time agreed that
Muslims should be granted separate electorates in the council. This meant
 that Muslim representatives would be elected by Muslim voters. This
increased the political representation of Muslims in the councils. This
helped to improve H-M relations. Congress was not only ready to work
with them but was also prepared to protect the political rights of
Muslims.

 In the Lucknow pact 1916, Congress also agreed that Muslims should be
given extra seats i.e. even though Muslims were 1/4 but Congress agreed
to grant them 1/3 seats in the central assembly. This improved H-M
relations as Congress was accepting Muslims as a significant community
of India by granting them more seats than their population percentage.

 In the Lucknow pact 1916, Congress stated that no law affecting a

community should be passed until 75% of the members on the council
supported it. This meant that minority rights would be protected and since
Muslims were a minority, they were pleased as Congress was protecting
their rights hence improving H-M relations.

Montague Chelmsford reforms

 They were jointly drafted by the Secretary of State, John Montague and
the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford. A bicameral set up was introduced at the
Centre with an Upper House, the Council of States, and a Lower House,
the Legislative Assembly. Out of 145 members of the Legislative
Assembly, 103 were elected. At the provincial level, Diarchy was
introduced under which some of the reserved subjects of the Governor
were transferred to the ministers. The right of separate electorates was
extended to the Sikhs, too. The number of voters was increased to 5.5
million. Both INC and ML opposed the reforms.

Reasons for its introduction

 After World War I, Indian support for the British war effort raised
expectations for political rewards. Indians had contributed soldiers,
money, and resources, and in return, they hoped for greater self-
governance. To respond to these rising demands, the British introduced
the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, promising gradual development of
self-rule.

 The political pressure within India had also increased significantly. The
Indian National Congress was gaining popularity, and more Indians were
 demanding real power, not just advisory roles. The British realized they
had to give some political reforms to reduce unrest and maintain control
over the colony.

 Another reason was the declaration made by Edwin Montagu, Secretary

of State for India, in 1917. He promised “increasing association of
Indians in every branch of administration” and “responsible government.”
These promises had to be fulfilled, so the reforms were introduced in
1919 to show the British were serious about political progress—though in
reality, the reforms gave only limited power.

IMPORTANCE of the Reforms

 In MFR 1919, the system of diarchy was introduced in the provinces.

According to this system, there were reserved and transferred subjects.
The Indians were given the power to make laws regarding transferred
subject e.g. education, forests and the British kept the reserved subjects
with them like Police, Justice. Thus, it was a success as British
government for the first time gave Indians a chance to govern their local
areas, which was a step to greater autonomy in future.
 In the MFR of 1919, the number of Indian voters was increased to 2% as
per property qualification law. Thus, it was a success as Indians could
now practice their basic democratic right by choosing representatives of
their own choice.
 In the MFR of 1919, the British granted separate electorates to the
Muslims, Sikhs and low caste Hindus etc. Thus, it was important as the
British were protecting the rights of minorities and now, they were free
from Hindu dominance.

Why was the Montague Chelmsford Reforms opposed by Indians?

 In MFR 1919, the system of diarchy was introduced in the provinces.

According to this system, there were reserved and transferred subjects.
The Indians were given the power to make laws regarding transferred
subject e.g. education, forests and the British kept the reserved subjects
with them like Police, Justice. Thus, it was a success as British
government for the first time gave Indians a chance to govern their local
areas, which was a step to greater autonomy in future.
 In the MFR of 1919, the number of Indian voters was increased to 2% as
per property qualification law. Thus, it was a success as Indians could
now practice their basic democratic right by choosing representatives of
their own choice.
  In the MFR of 1919, the British granted separate electorates to the
Muslims, Sikhs and low caste Hindus etc. Thus, it was important as the
British were protecting the rights of minorities and now, they were free
from Hindu dominance.

Rowlatt Act 1919

 The British anticipated a violent reaction to the Mont-Ford reforms. They
appointed an investigative committee under Justice Rowlatt in Dec. 1917.
In the light of its report the Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919. The Act
empowered the local administration/police to arrest anyone without
warrant, detain him without the right of bail and decide where the people
in a province should live. Gandhi launched a countrywide strike against
it, and Jinnah resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council in protest.

Why was it opposed?

 The committee recommended extending strict laws in the Defence of
India Act,1915 permanently to deal with such anti-British activities.
These strict laws included, arresting any suspect without warrant and
detaining the arrested person for an indefinite period without granting
him the right of bail. Moreover, they included such steps as ‘juryless’ in
camera trials, and empowered provincial government to ask residents of
any area where to live. These proposals angered the Indians a lot as they
contradicted two of the central principles of the British justice system,
namely trial by jury, and providing safeguards against illegal
imprisonments.
What were the reactions of Indians, regarding the implementation of Rowlatt
Act 1919
 The introduction of the Rowlatt Act in 1919 sparked widespread anger
among Indians. Many felt that it was an infringement on their basic
rights, as it allowed for the arrest and detention of individuals without
trial. The Act was seen as a blatant attempt to suppress the growing
independence movement. National leaders like Mahatma Gandhi called
for mass protests, including a nationwide hartal (strike), to demonstrate
opposition to the Act. The protests soon spread across the country, with
both Hindus and Muslims participating.
 Indian leaders, especially Mahatma Gandhi, encouraged non-violent
resistance to the Rowlatt Act. Gandhi promoted a campaign of non-
cooperation with the British, urging Indians to boycott British goods,
refuse to pay taxes, and resign from government positions. This
 movement was grounded in the philosophy of civil disobedience, aiming
to peacefully defy British authority without resorting to violence. The act
of disobedience grew as a unifying force across India, uniting people
from different backgrounds in their struggle against British oppression.
 The Indian reaction to the Rowlatt Act took a violent turn after the British
responded to peaceful protests with brutal repression. The most infamous
incident was the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on April 13, 1919, in
Amritsar, where British troops under General Dyer opened fire on a
crowd of unarmed protesters, killing hundreds. This massacre deepened
Indian resentment toward British rule and made it clear to many that the
British were unwilling to listen to peaceful demands for justice. It marked
a turning point in the Indian independence movement, leading to even
stronger calls for complete independence. (MAYBE)

Why was the Rowlatt Act of 1919 an important political development?

 In 1919, the British passed the Rowlatt Act in order to suppress
revolutionary activities in India against British rule. The Act consisted of
clauses like Arrest without warrant and detention without bail etc. Since
these laws were unjust, Indians opposed them by riots and strikes. Even
the political leaders Jinnah and Gandhi showed resentment. Jinnah
resigned from the Imperial legislative council and Gandhi launched the
Hartal Movement. Thus, these reactions from Indians clearly gave an
indication that they were not ready to accept British rule anymore which
strengthened their drive towards Self-rule even further.
The Amritsar Massacre
 As part of protest against the Rowlatt Act, there was unrest in Amritsar
and five Europeans were killed. An angry mob of 20,000 gathered in a
public park, Jallianwala Bagh. Though all were peaceful protesters,
General Dyer, the local British Commander was determined to restore
peace as he had banned all public meetings. He sealed the only exit of the
park and ordered a shootout without warning. Over 1600 rounds were
fired and about 400 people were killed while another 1200 were
wounded. Dyer was trialed under the Hunter Committee and was
removed from his service without any further punishment.
What had happened:
 The politically volatile situation resulting from the implementation of the
Rowlatt Act worsened with time as the British were totally inflexible
about it. They tried to restrict the Indian protests, and banned public
meetings. Moreover, by early 1919, they deported two prominent
nationalist leaders, Dr Satyapal and Dr Saif-ud- Din Kitchlew. The public
 unrest gained momentum especially in Punjab. On 10 April, large scale
riots in Amritsar led to attacking two banks and killing of five Europeans.
Violence escalated when the British commander of the area, General
Dyer banned all public meetings. The notice of this ban was not
publicised widely. So, several Hindu and Sikh villagers primarily
gathered to celebrate their annual festival of Baisakhi in the public park.
They also wanted a peaceful demonstration against the Act.
 Dyer was angered when he was told about a crowd of 20,000 gathered at
Jallianwala Bagh, a public park in Amritsar on 13 April 1919. The park
had a narrow entrance surrounded by a 5-foot wall. Dyer appointed his
troops at the entrance, and ordered an immediate shootout without any
warning. Around 1600 rounds were shot causing about 400 deaths of
men, women and children. Another people 1200 were wounded. Dyer
justified his step by saying he wanted the Indians to obey the British rule
in all circumstances. He was reprimanded by the British government but
the media defended his action. This further angered the Indians, and
consequently violence grew more in India.
Hunter Committee
 It was set up to inquire what Dyer had done in Amritsar. Dyer was
removed from service. He was given no further punishment by the
Committee. In the eyes of British media, he was a hero which highly
offended the Indian.

Why was the Hunter Committee set up?

 The British Government set up the committee to inquire into the events in
Jallianwala Bagh. There were influential people in Britain who wanted to
know what had happened.

 There was such uproar in the region as a result of what happened that the
British had to be seen to be taking action.

 Many people in the Indian sub-continent believed that the purpose of the
Committee was to calm things down in the region and possibly
whitewash Dyer.

 This was a period when there was widespread protest in India and the
British were trying to calm the situation.
The Khilafat Movement
 It was started in 1919 by the Muslim religious leaders of India to save the
respect of Turkey and the institute of Khilafat. Maulana Muhammad Ali
Johar, Maulana Shaukat Ali and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad were its
 major leaders. Gandhi merged his noncooperation campaign with it.
Three Khilafat Conferences were held, a delegation was sent to the
British PM Lloyd George in February 1920 to persuade him for a fair
treatment of Turkey. Thousands of Muslims migrated to Afghanistan in
the Hijrat Movement in 1920. Jinnah and the ML stayed away from it but
supported the cause of the Khilafat Movement. The Movement ended in
1924 with the abolition of the Khilafat by Kemal Attaturk.
Reasons for the formation of Khilafat Movement
Growth of Anti-British sentiment
 Muslims were suspicious of many of the British policies. Indian Muslims
had been developing fears about the British policy towards Muslims not
only in India but in other parts of the world. The governor of UP, Sir
James Meston, ordered demolition of the eastern part of a mosque in
Kanpur as part of a project of widening a road in the city. A Hindu temple
on the same road was spared when Hindus pressurized the British
government. Many Muslims requested the governor not to demolish any
part of the mosque but did not accept their request. This generated anger
among Muslims as it reflected a disregard for the Muslim holy places by
the British. Consequently, many Indian Muslim leaders began to believe
that British wanted to induce a fear of Hindus so that Muslims could be
forced to cooperate with the British wherever needed. For this reason,
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad sharply criticized Muslims who had
“cooperated with the Satans of Europe”. As a result of such statements,
there were a large number of desertions by Muslim soldiers in the British
army when they were asked to fight against fellow Muslims in Turkey.
The neighbouring Muslim states, Afghanistan and Persia (Iran) had been
the subject of clash between Russia and Britain. Both powers agreed on
the way the two Muslim states should be run without consulting or
considering the opinion of Muslim majority in the two states. Therefore
when, the WWI ended. the British aims about the fate of Turkey became
public, prominent Muslim leaders in India did not hesitate in organizing a
powerful Khalifat Movement whose aim was to save the sacred institute
of Khalifat.
Protecting the Caliph
 Turkey was not just the only Muslim empire in the World, it was also the
last seat of the institute of Khalifat for many centuries. Sultan of Turkey
was the Khalifa (spiritual head) of the Muslim world and in that capacity,
he was custodian of the Holy places of Islam in Arabia and other parts of
the Middle East. His name was pronounced in the Friday sermons
throughout the Muslim world as a token of respect for his dignified
 status. This was so because of the sanctity of institute of Khalifat since
the days of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (632 AD – 661AD and onwards).
Thus, Indian Muslims, like Muslims of the other part of the world, had
great respect for Turkey in general and the Khalifa in particular.
Therefore, they felt themselves morally and religiously bound to make all
out efforts to save the Khalifat.
Protecting Turkey
 Roots of KM are to be traced in the beginning and the end of WWI
(World War One, 1914 – 1918). Since Turkey had decided to support
Germany in the War, the Indian Muslims felt themselves in a predicament
as they developed a fear that Indian Muslims might be forced to fight
against the Turkish Muslims if they were pitted against each other during
the War. To this was added the fear of harsh treatment of Turkey by the
British-led Allies in case of British victory. On the British reassurance the
Muslims soldiers decided to support the British army So they sought
reassurance about the respect of Turkey. After the war, the peace treaties
of Versailles and Sevres unfolded the British plans of abolishing the
Turkish empire along with punishing Germany and Austria. The Muslims
felt disillusioned about the British promises and immediately founded a
Khalifat Committee to launch the KM.
Other

 Both Muslims and Hindus of India had been working together to achieve
self-rule since the Lucknow pact of 1916. So, when, Muslims started the
KM, Hindus including Gandhi, unanimously supported it, as they
believed that it was another good opportunity for both the communities to
work together and achieve self-rule. The Muslims welcomed them, which
shows that another aim of KM was to attain maximum concessions from
the British.
 Some Muslim leaders like Maulvi Fazal-ul-haq believed that decline of
the Turkish empire (which was the largest Muslim empire) would have an
adverse effect on the Indian Muslims, as the British would treat them
with disrespect. Hence, KM started to save the prestige of Muslims in
India.
Events from 1919-1922:

The first Khilafat Conference

 In 1919
 Held in Delhi
 Lead by Ali brothers
 Gandhi & Abdul Kalam Azad also took part in the conference.
  Aim of the conference was the protection of the Caliph.
 A resolution was passed that a delegation would be sent to Britain to
make British aware about Muslim strength for Caliph.

The Second Khilafat Conference?

 In 1919
 Held in Amritsar
 It was decided that Gandhi would persuade the
 British not to punish Turkey
 Maulana M. Ali Johar who went to persuade the British had returned
from Britain....
 Lloyd George, PM, said Turkey would get justice just like Germany

Non-Cooperation Movement
 It was primarily launched by Gandhi 1920 onwards, also followed by the
Muslim leaders after Gandhi’s merger of non-cooperation with the
Khilafat Movement. The third and last Khilafat Conference was held in
July 1921 in Delhi. The leaders of the movement urged people to boycott
British educational institutions, stop working in the police or cooperating
with the British in any other way. All major leaders of the Khilafat
movement were arrested after the conference. Muhammad Ali Jauhar was
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. His defiant statements during his
trial made him a hero among the Muslims.
The Moplah uprising
 It was a violent uprising by the Moplahs, Muslim peasants in South India
during the Khilafat Movement. Their anger was against Hindu
landowners and the British. In August 1921, nearly 10,000 Moplahs at
Tirur destroyed the police station and seized all arms and also destroyed
Hindu property including temples. The British troops reacted quickly and
killed more than 4,000 Moplahs while several more were wounded. There
were only 100 British casualties.
The Chauri-Chaura incident
 Chaura-Chauri is a village in Gorakhpur district, UP. A violent incident
took place there in February 1922 during the peak phase of the Khilafat
Movement. An angry mob participating in the non-cooperation
movement of Gandhi attacked the local police station. The police opened
fire, and in retaliation the mob set fire to the police station. This resulted
in burning alive of 22 policemen and killing of 3 civilians. Gandhi, who
had conditioned his support for non-cooperation movement with
Ahimsa / Ahinsa or non-violence, withdrew from the movement. This
greatly weakened the Khilafat Movement.
Violence at Nilambur

 During the Malabar Rebellion of 1921, Nilambur was one of the areas
affected by violent uprisings. The rebellion was initially a protest against
British colonial rule and the oppressive landlords (mainly Hindu Jenmis),
but it later took on religious and communal overtones, especially in
certain areas like Nilambur. Nilambur was one of the centers where the
rebellion turned violent and communal, leading to deep mistrust between
communities. The British later used this violence as propaganda to
discredit the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation movements.

Why did Gandhi call off his Non-Cooperation Movement

 Gandhi believed in peace and saw that his campaign was being used by
others for violence.

 Gandhi was horrified by the murder of policemen at Chauri-Chauri in

February 1922.

 After the Moplah uprising in 1921 some Indian leaders criticised

Gandhi's support of the Khilafat Movement as one of the causes of the
violence seen during the uprising. Gandhi did not want to be associated
with violence

 The events of 1921/22 convinced Gandhi that India was not yet ready for
a mass campaign of civil disobedience.
Hijrat Movement
 It was a religious move that was started by the Muslim leaders of the
Khilafat Movement in August 1920. The leaders urged Muslims to leave
Dar ul Harb, India, and migrate to the neighbouring Dar ul Islam,
Afghanistan. Around 18000-20000 Muslims migrated, selling their
houses and leaving their jobs. They were promised a better future but the
Afghan government refused to accommodate them. Many died on their
way back to India.
Why did Hijrat Movement occur?
 Many Muslims scholars like Azad Kalam and Abdul Bari declared India
as Dar-ul-Harb, where Islam could not be practiced properly. Thus, they
encouraged the Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan so that they could
practice Islam without any interference, as Afghanistan was an Islamic
state.
  The leaders of KM were aware that the British were not paying attention
to their demand regarding the Turkish empire so they declared the
Subcontinent as Dar-ul-Harb and gave a call for Hijrat to Afghanistan.
Thus, the Hijrat Movement was started to hurt the prestige of the British
so that they could be seen as oppressors worldwide and hence could be
pressured.

 Indian Muslims were not only informed that they would be warmly
welcomed by the Afghan Government but they were also told that they
would be given fertile lands for farming. Thus, this gave the Indian
Muslims an incentive to improve their social and economic condition.
Hence, they started the KM.
Why did the Hijrat Movement fail?
 The scholars, such as Maulana Azad Kalam termed the Subcontinent as
'Dar-ul-Harb' and asked Muslims to migrate to Afghanistan. 18,000
Indian Muslim marched towards Afghanistan leaving all their possessions
back. However, the Afghan Government did not welcome them and so
they had to come back. Hence, the failure of the Hijrat Movement was
inevitable.

 Secondly, this movement was not at all organized. Neither the Afghan
Government was consulted nor were the migrants in the guidance of any
prominent leader. Thus, a movement which was ill-planned and based on
religious sentiments was bound to fail.

 Thirdly, Jinnah, one of the main leaders of Indian Muslims did not
approve of the Hijrat Movement as he believed that the politics of India
should remain in India only. Hence, it shows that not only the Indian
Muslims were disunited but also lacking support and guidance of
important leaders.
Reasons for the failure of Khilafat Movement
Gandhi calling off his Non-cooperation
 Gandhi withdrew his support at a critical moment. Initially Gandhi had
conditioned his support for the Khilafat Movement with Ahimsa (non-
violence). When in February 1922, an angry mob took control of a police
station in the UP town of Chauri Chaura and burned 22 policemen alive,
Gandhi reacted on this violent event and announced the withdrawal of his
support for the Khilafat Movement. It was a deadly blow to the
 movement. Gandhi was perhaps using this movement in order to
strengthen his Swaraj Movement. Now, just as Gandhi’s support was
vital for the movement, his withdrawal proved fatal because he had
unified the two largest communities of India ---- Hindus and Muslims. In
the following years, violent communal clashes between the Muslims and
Hindus erupted which marred the Khilafat Movement, for example, the
Moplah uprising in Southern India.
Failure of Hijrat Movement
 Failure of the Hijrat Movement also damaged the stability of the Khilafat
Movement. In 1920, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and other leaders
declared India as Dar-ul-Harb (literally, “battle field” and, in Islamic
Sharia, “a land under enemy/non-Muslim rule). They asked the Muslims
to migrate to the nearest independent Muslim state Afghanistan. The
exact figures aren’t known but it’s estimated that anywhere from around
15000 - 20000 Muslims resigned from their jobs, sold their properties and
left for Afghanistan. Many students left their studies and joined the
migrant Muslims. These Muslims had been promised a good future in
Afghanistan where; by cultivating the fertile lands, they could start a new
phase of life. Unfortunately, these promises proved fake as Afghanistan
was a resource-deficit country with a rugged landscape and without any
fertile land. In the beginning the migrant Muslims were welcomed but as
their number grew, they were pushed back. Many were accommodated in
Peshawar and neighbouring towns of modern day KPK but many died
during the long and dangerous journey. Those who managed to get back
to India found their jobs and homes occupied. This Hijrat Movement
brought economic disaster and miseries to thousands of Muslims and also
damaged the creditability of the Khilafat leaders. Indian Muslims also
realized that Muslims of others states were not as much concerned about
the Khilafat as they themselves had been.
Outbreak of violence
 In southern India the Muslim peasants of the Arab origin became violent
in August, 1921. They were enthusiastic religious Muslims, who were
angry with both the powerful Hindu landlords as well as the British
authorites. At Tirur nearly 10,000 Moplahs destroyed the local police
station and seized arms and ammunition. They also damaged the Hindu
property including temples. The British troops soon took strict action as
they killed more than 4,000 Moplahs and wounded several others. The
British suffered around 100 casualties. The violence damaged the cause
 of the Khilafat Movement by dividing Muslims and Hindus in all parts of
India. The Hindu community gradually withdrew its support for the
Khilafat Movement.
 The British were concerned that the Movement was a threat to law and
order. So, when there were outbreaks of violence this allowed the British
to take harsh measures against the Movement.
Abolishment of Caliph
 The last nail in the coffin of the Khilafat Movement was driven by the
Turkish Military leader Kemal Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Pasha). In 1922
under a military revolution, Turkey became a republic and the last
Khalifa Sultan Muhammad/Mehmet VI was deprived of political powers.
Ataturk, in the meantime, had regained some of the lost Turkish terror
ties and forced the Allies for a new peace treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne.
This made him a hero in the eyes of the Turkish people. In 1924, the new
Turkish Government led by Kemal Ataturk, abolished the institute of
Khilafat and later sent the last Khalifa into exile. This proved to be a
decisive blow to the Khilafat Movement since it showed that the Turks
didn’t care for the struggle of the Indian Muslims. That is why some
historians have described the Khilafat Movement, as a wrong ideology,
romantic and out of touch with realities. The Indian Muslims were greatly
disillusioned by this act of a fellow Turkish Muslim and it sealed the fate
of the Khilafat Movement. It may be concluded that the Khilafat
Movement failed mainly due to the abolition of the Khilafat by Kemal
Ataturk because the Indian Muslims found it pointless to continue a
movement whose vary foundation had been lost. They also felt totally
isolated as Muslims of other states did not support them against their
expectations.
Lack of Common aims between Muslims and Hindus
 Although the Khilafat Movement was the first movement in which
Hindus and Muslims worked together their unity was probably always
doomed to failure The Hindu aim of self-rule was not really an objective
of the Muslims (Jinnah (RA) spoke out against such a policy) and the
Hindus were prepared to support the Muslims in protecting their religious
rights only as long as it helped move India towards self-rule. Gandhi also
stressed that working with Hindus would reduce Muslim hostility towards
the Hindu religion. As he said “In Laying down my life for the Khilafat, I
ensure the safety of the cow.” Once difficulties emerged, however, (such
as the communal rioting in 1921-22) it was inevitable that this unity
began to decline.