The Khilafat Movement

By Rai Farhatullah
Dated: April 16, 2015
Contents:
 Introduction
 Background
 Importance
 ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL-INDIA KHILAFAT Committee
 Demands Of Khilafat Movement
 Rowlatt Act, 1919
 Jallianwala Bagh Incident
 Non-Cooperation Movement
 Khilafat Conference, Karachi, July 1921
 Hijrat Movement 1920-21
 End of The Khilafat Movement
 Conclusion
 Bibliography

Rai Farhatullah
Introduction
The Khilafat movement was a pan-Islamic, political protest campaign led by
Muslims of Indo-pak subcontinent against the British government and to protect the
Ottoman Empire during the aftermath of World War I.
The position of Caliph after the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the
military occupation of Istanbul and Treaty of Versailles (1919) fell into a
disambiguation along with the Ottoman Empires existence. The movement gained
force after the Treaty of Sevres which imposed the partitioning of the Ottoman
Empire and gave Greece a powerful position in Anatolia, to the distress of the Turks.
They called for help and the movement was the result. The movement collapsed by
late 1922 when Turkey gained a more favorable diplomatic position; by 1924 it
simply abolished the roles of sultan and Caliph. In India, although mainly a Muslim
religious movement, the movement became a part of the wider Indian independence
movement. The movement was also a topic in Conference of London held in
February 1920.
The ‘Khilafat’ Movement is quite unique, as it has been glorified with one voice by
Islamic ideologists, Indian nationalists and communists alike and along with them
by Western scholars, as an anti-colonial movement of Muslims of India, premised
on the hostility of the British to the Turkish Sultan, their venerated Caliph. Little
attempt has been made to examine the premises on which the movement was
founded, the rhetoric of its leaders being taken at face value. On closer examination
we find extra-ordinary paradoxes and contradictions behind that rhetoric. As for the
‘achievements’ of that Movement, its lasting legacy is the legitimized place that it
gave the Muslim clergy at the center of the modern political arena, armed with a
political organization in the form of the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind which the clergy
have used to intervene actively in both the political as well as the ideological sphere.
Never before in Indian Muslim history was the clergy ever accorded such a place in
political life.
The Khilafat Movement also introduced the religious idiom in the politics of Indian
Muslims. It was not the Muslim League who introduced religious ideology in the
politics of India but it was this movement who did this. Muslim Nationalism was a
movement of Muslims and not a movement of Islam. It was an ethnic movement of
disaffected Muslim professionals and the government-job-seeking educated Indian
Muslim middle class, mainly those of UP and Bihar and urban Punjab. Their

Rai Farhatullah
objectives were modest, for they demanded not much more than fair quotas in jobs
for Muslims and certain safeguards for their interests. Muslim Nationalism in India
was a secular rather than a religious movement. Nor was it, in its origins, a Hindu
hating movement as is some-times made out. To the contrary, by virtue of the
Lucknow Pact of 1916 it had already moved decisively towards a common platform
with the broader Indian National Movement and unity with the Congress Party. The
Khilafat Movement intervened in that context in a way that decisively killed the
politics of the Lucknow Pact. The intervention of the Khilafat Movement in Indian
Muslim politics has had a considerable retrogressive ideological influence on the
modern Indian Muslim mind that reverberates still in Muslim thinking and their
politics in present day India and Pakistan. For that alone, it deserves to be reviewed
and re-evaluated.

Background:
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) joined the war in favour of
Germany. But Turkey and Germany lost the war and the allied forces decided to
divide Turkey and put an end on the organization of caliphate. By the time 1st World.
The position of Caliph after the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the
military occupation of Istanbul and Treaty of Versailles (1919) fell into a
disambiguation along with the Ottoman Empires existence.
Being brothers, the Indian Muslims realized their religious duty to help the Muslim
country. It was the extra territorial attachments based on Islam. Another factor same
to the first was that the Indian Muslims considered Ottoman Caliphate a symbol of
unity of the Muslim world as Ummah.
About the importance of Caliphate, Gail Minault writes:
“The caliph, successor to the Prophet Muhammad (saw), commander of the faithful,
the shadow of god on earth, these exalted titles convey the symbolic importance of
caliphate to the community of Islam. In theory the caliph was both spiritual and
temporal leader of the Sunni Muslim, ensuring the defense and expansion of the rule
of divine justice on earth, and in thus furthering God’s purpose, helping to assure
eternal salvation for all Muslims.”
Now Muslims of indo-pak subcontinent 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

Rai Farhatullah
the safeguard and protection of the holy places of Turkey and on the condition that
Turkey will not to be deprived of its territories. But the British Government could
not fulfill both of these promises. The Treaty of Savers 1920 was imposed on Turkey
and its territories like Samarna, Thrace and Anatolia were wrested from it and
distributed among European countries. A wave of anger swept across the Muslin
World and the Indian Muslims rose against the British Government. Muslim leaders
like Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Moulana Muhammad Ali Johar, Moulana Shoukat
Ali and others reacted against the British Government policy and were put behind
the bars.

Importance of the Movement:

This was the first major political Movement in India which involved the common
man. Muslims rendered innumerous sacrifices for the protection and restoration of
the Khilafat Movement but it could not be succeeded due to some reasons
nevertheless, this Movement paved the way for the Pakistan Movement which
ultimately culminated into the inception of Pakistan.
As Khilafat Movement was the 1st movement where ordinary people were involved,
or the ordinary Muslims were involved, people in the streets were involved and
therefore politics at that time came down to the ordinary masses. Khilafat Movement
was supported not only by Muslims but Hindus also favored it therefore, when this
Movement flourished all over India, close contacts were developed between the
leaders and the common men. These close contacts were converted into the sound
base of Pakistan Movement which culminated the dream of Pakistan into the reality.
In other words, Khilafat Movement paved the way for the inception of Pakistan.

ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL-INDIA KHILAFAT Committee:

The Muslims of India decided to launch a movement to safeguard the institution of
Caliphate and to manifest their resentment over actions the Allies had taken in
Turkey. All India Khilafat Committee was formed at Bombay in July 1919 and this
gradually shaped up of the Muslims point of activity regarding Khilafat and in this
Khilafat committee session they were discussing the issues of Khilafat which held
the 1st Khilafat Conference in Delhi in November 1919. The first Khilafat
Conference at Delhi in November 1919 was arranged in which the Congress leaders
like Gandhi and Nehru participated. Congress also started to support the Khilafat

Rai Farhatullah
Movement so in this way, the major political parties joined hands to assault the
injustice with the Muslim community. These steps were announced:

No participation in victory celebrations was the 1st important step taken by the
participants of this Conference. The British and the Allies had won the war and they
were celebrating even in India because India being a part of the British Empire was
on the side of the British therefore these people decided to boycott the victory
celebration to show displeasure on the state of affairs and to express their point of
view in an effective manner.

Second decision which they made here was that they started boycotting the British
goods, in a way a kind of economic policy which they were adopting that they will
not buy the British good which will ultimately affect their economy.

Non Cooperation with the Government was the 3rd important decision which they
made at that time. It meant that not at this stage but at the later stage hey may also
launch the Non-cooperation movement.

The second Khilafat Conference (Amritsar) was held in Dec. 1919 and this was very
important occasion. Like the 1st one all the major political parties participated in this
conference and the most significant thing was that Maulana Muhammad Ali and
Shaukat Ali who were in British detention for violating the British law in protest
against the British policies were released and they also joined the session after being
released from prison. Infact you can’t discuss the Khilafat Movement without
discussing the contribution of Maulana Muhammad.Ali Jauhar and Maulana
Shaukat .Ali .Jauhar and they were used to be described as the Ali brothers. They
played very significant role in mobilizing the masses, they had formidable appeals
at the common level and they also worked with the Congress party. Both the brothers
along with other leaders went to jail for several times, they would come out
demonstrate for Khilafat cause, lead Muslims the British arrest them along with
other leaders but whenever they released they again come back and plead that cause
with conviction.

Rai Farhatullah
After that the Khilafat conference and the Congress party began to work together
because there were issues in India which were agitating others as well. Those issues
were important for Muslims but Muslims attention primarily focused on Khilafat.
There were other issues which were agitating the congress and the congress thought
that Muslims have a set of grievances against the British. They are agitating for the
retention of the Ottoman Empire then the Congress also had grievances against the
British. So they thought if they worked together they cooperate with each other then
they could have a more effective impact rather than the Movements working
separately and the issues which were agitating at that time were one was the issue of
the Rowlett Act,1919.

Demands of Khilafat movement:

The demands of the Khilafat movement were as under
 The Turkish Empire should not be dismembered.
 The institution of Caliphate must be retained.
 The Holy place should remain in the custody of Turkish Government.
 Jazirat-ul-Arab including Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria and Palestine with the
Holy places situated therein must always remain under the direct suzerainty
of the Khilafat.”
The Khilafat Movement aimed at presenting the Ottoman Empire and the
continuity of the temporal power of Khalifa to protect Muslim lands without any
mandate. Mohammad Ali put forward the demands of the Khilafat Movement in
a speech delivered at Paris on March 21, 1920 by declaring:
“The Khilafat shall not be dismembered but that the Khalifa shall have sufficient
temporal power for the defense of the Faith, that in the Island of Arabia there
shall be exclusive, Muslim control without mandate or protection and that the
Khalifa shall remain as heretofore the warden of the Holy places.”

Rowlatt Act, 1919:

According to Shan Muhammad:
“Rowlett Act was a black law introduced in India. To the law, the government got
authority to persecute any Indian and the arrested had no facility of legal assistance
and right to appeal just as the ‘Lettres de Cachet’ in France before the French
Revolution. Jinnah resigned from the central legislature as a protest.”

Rai Farhatullah
This was a law which the British government passed for arresting, detaining people
who would be involved in what they would describe as the criminal activities but
actually those were political activities. Those people could be punished swearly and
without trial, so this Bill which was ultimately made into a law was protested both
by the Muslims as well as the Hindus. When this issue developed.Quaid-e-Azam
was very critical to this Act. He delivered critical speeches in the legislative council
and outside and ultimately he resigned from his seat of the assembly in protest
against this law, because he thought that this Act is a humiliating Act, violates basic
cannons of justice and fair play.
Gail Minault.Graham writes:
“The acts allowed certain political cases to be tried without juries and permitted
internment of suspects without trial. Their object was to replace the repressive
provisions of the wartime Defense of India Act (1915) by a permanent law. They
were based on the report of Justice S.A.T. Rowlatt’s committee of 1918.”
The Rowlatt Acts were much resented by an aroused Indian public. All nonofficial
Indian members of the council (i.e., those who were not officials in the colonial
government) voted against the acts. Mahatma Gandhi organized a protest movement
that led directly to the Massacre of Amritsar (April 1919) and subsequently to his
noncooperation movement (1920–22). The acts were never actually implemented.

Jallianwala Bagh Incident:

The second issue which was agitating was agitating the person across the divide was
the incident related to the Jallianwala Bagh in April 1919..Jallianwala Bagh was
situated in the city of Amritsar and against the backdrop of the Rowlett Act a big
meeting was held in that Bagh. There were so many kinds of people and the British
government was so agitated that they dispatched a unit of the Army that went into
the garden blocked all the entrance points and began shooting directly on the people
and several hundred people were killed and seriously wounded which created a
major uproar throughout India.
B. G.Kunte writes:
“General Dyer opened fire to disperse the throng that cast huge human casualties
(379).”
General Dyer ordered troops to begin shooting without warning or any order to
disperse, and to direct shooting towards the densest sections of the crowd. He

Rai Farhatullah
continued the shooting, approximately 1,650 rounds in all, until ammunition was
almost exhausted.
Apart from the many deaths directly from the shooting, a number of people died in
stampedes at the narrow gates or by jumping into the solitary well on the compound
to escape the shooting. A plaque in the monument at the site, set up after
independence, says that 120 bodies were pulled out of the well.The wounded could
not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew had been declared - many
more died during the night.
The number of deaths caused by the shooting is disputed. While the official figure
given by the British inquiry into the massacre is 379 deaths, the method used by the
inquiry has been subject to criticism. Officials were tasked with finding who had
been killed during July 1919, three months after the massacre, by inviting inhabitants
of the city to volunteer information about those who had died. This information was
likely incomplete due to fear that those who participated would be identified as
having been present at the meeting, and some of the dead may not have had close
relations in the area. Additionally, a senior civil servant in the Punjab interviewed
by the members of the committee admitted that the actual figure could be higher.

Since the official figures were likely flawed considering the size of the crowd
(15,000-20,000), number of rounds shot and period of shooting, the politically
interested Indian National Congress instituted a separate inquiry of its own, with
conclusions that differed considerably from the Government's. The casualty number
quoted by the INC was more than 1,500, with approximately 1,000 killed. Despite
the Government's best efforts to suppress information of the massacre, news spread
elsewhere in India and widespread outrage ensued; however, the details of the
massacre did not become known in Britain until December 1919.
As per regimental diaries kept by the Gorkha Battalion adjutants in the British Indian
Army, the plan to attack the gathering in Amritsar was claimed to have been
triggered by the news of a mob attack on a British school teacher Sherwood on April
9, which was later shown to be merely an excuse used by an incensed Dyer who
commanded a brigade in nearby Jalandhar and the Lt Governor of Punjab Michael
O'Dwyer who were convinced that they faced an imminent threat of mutiny in
Punjab on the scale of 1857.
Back in his headquarters, General Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been

Rai Farhatullah
"Confronted by a revolutionary army".
In a telegram sent to Dyer, British Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab, Sir Michael
O'Dwyer wrote:
"Your action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves."
O'Dwyer requested that martial law be imposed upon Amritsar and other areas, this
was granted by the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, after the massacre. The "crawling
order" was posted on Aug 19 under the auspices of martial law.
Dyer was messaged to appear before the Hunter Commission, a commission of
inquiry into the massacre that was ordered to convene by Secretary of State for India,
Edwin Montagu, during late 1919. Dyer said before the commission that he came to
know about the meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh at 12:40 hours that day but did not
attempt to prevent it. He stated that he had gone to the Bagh with the deliberate
intention of opening fire if he found a crowd assembled there.
"I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they
would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider,
a fool of myself." — Dyer's response to the Hunter Commission Enquiry.
Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the
enclosure, but these were mounted on armored cars. He said he did not stop the
shooting when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to
keep shooting until the crowd dispersed, and that a little shooting would not do any
good. In fact he continued the shooting till the ammunition was almost exhausted.
He stated that he did not make any effort to tend to the wounded after the shooting:
"Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone
there."
The Hunter Commission did not award any penal nor disciplinary action because
Dyer's actions were condoned by various superiors (later upheld by the Army
Council). However, he was finally found guilty of a mistaken notion of duty and
relieved of his command.
Jallianwala Bagh incident is considered one of the great tragedies in India. It is
during this period that the British imposed martial law in Amritsar and certain other
cities of the province of Punjab including Lahore, Gujranwala and a couple of other
cities martial law was imposed. So in a way that became the 1st martial law in this

Rai Farhatullah
region in the 20th century. So this Jallianwala Bagh incident also mobilized congress
and other groups to move ahead and to pull their resources and to challenge the
authority of the British govt.

Non-Cooperation Movement:
The ‘Indian Experiment’ of ‘The Non-cooperation Movement’ of 1920-22 was
undertaken by the Indian National Congress under the leadership and direction of
Gandhi, when every segment of the Indian society was seething with
discon-tentment and itching for action due to various reasons – Rowlett Act, the
Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, martial law in Punjab, the neglect of the Khilafat
Committee aspirations, high prices of commodities, drought and epidemics. The
non-cooperation movement was launched formally on 1 August, 1920, the day on
which Lokamanya Tilak breathed his last.
The Congress gave a call to the people to:
 Surrender all titles and honorary offices and resign from nominated seats in
local bodies.
 Refuse to attend government of semi-government functions.
 Withdraw slowly step by step children from schools and colleges, aided or
controlled by the government.
 Boycott of British courts by lawyers and litigants.
 Refusal for recruitment for military and other services in Mesopotamia.
 Boycott the elections to be held for councils as per the reforms of 1919.
 Boycott of foreign goods.

Besides the above-mentioned measures of non-cooperation with the government, it

was decided to establish native educational institutions and native arbitration centres
all over India and also to establish harmonious relations between the Hindus and the
Muslims. In 1921-22, the movement continued with unabated zeal by the
participation of masses. National institutions like Gujarat Vidyapith, Bihar
Vidyapith, Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapith, Kasi Vidyapith, the Bengal National
University, and the Jamia Milia of Delhi were established.
The Swadeshi concept became a household word and Khadi became a symbol of
freedom. In order to finance the non-cooperation movement, Tilak Swaraj Fund was
started to which money poured and within six months, nearly a crore of rupees was

Rai Farhatullah
subscribed. When Prince of Wales visited India in 1921, a successful hartal was
organized against his visit.

On 5 February 1922, police station of Chaura, near Gorakhpur in UP was attacked

by a mob of peasants. The mob burnt the police station and in those nearly 22
policemen died. This violent event disturbed the soul of Gandhi and he ordered for
the immediate suspension of the programme.
Though many leaders were very unhappy with the decision of Gandhi, they accepted
the decision in good faith. The non-cooperation movement definitely awakened
tremendous national awareness for freedom and success-fully erased the fear
psychosis from the minds of the Indians and the movement thus inspired the people
to be ready for further sacrifices and future struggles with confidence and hope.
Discussing the impact and significance of the non-cooperation movement.

Anil Seal concludes:

“The non-cooperation movement of 1921-22 was in many respects a debacle”.
According to Bipan Chandra
“the battle was over, but the war would continue”
. Sumit Sarkar writes:
“An adequate understanding of the non-cooperation upsurge of 1921-22 requires an
analysis at three levels – the phases of the all-India movement as sought to be
determined by the Gandhian Congress leadership, the role of district social groups
and classes, and most interesting and important of all perhaps, the regional and local
variations”.

Sumit Sarkar further continues:

“Four phases may be distinguished in what may be termed the official movement.
From January to March 1921, the central emphasis was on students and lawyers
giving up practice. In the face of pressure from below, the Bombay AICC meeting
of 28-30 July adopted a somewhat militant stance. Gandhi here gave a call for
flooding the prisons with volunteers ‘Our triumph consists in thousands being led to

Rai Farhatullah
prisons like lambs in the slaughter house’ and organi­zation of volunteer bands was
now given top priority. Despite the brakes, however, developments in the fourth
phase between November 1921 and February 1922, very nearly brought the
government to its knees and the entire movement was abruptly called off on 11
February, 1922″.
A.R. Desai writes:
“with the section of workers and peasants participating in it, the national movement
which was restricted to the upper and middle classes till 1917 got a mass basis for
the first time”. Griffith concludes, “Gandhi taught India new self-respect which
could be content with nothing less than self-government. He inspired his countrymen
with a tradition to suffer in the case of their country. Gandhi, who had himself learnt
from Britain the meaning of justice and freedom, imparted these ideas to his fellow
countrymen with such success that Indian nationality and Indian nationalism a
unanimous expression of the feeling of the Indians”.

Gandhi in an article published in Young India on February 23, 1922 declared,

“it is high time that the British people were made to realize that the fight that was
commenced in 1920 is a fight to the finish, whether it lasts one month or one year or
many months or many years and whether the representatives of Britain re-enact all
the indescribable orgies of the Mutiny days with redoubled force or whether they do
not”.

The abrupt suspension of non-cooperation movement led to a great divide among

the Congress as pro-changers and no changers. The visit of Simon in 1927 was
boycotted and was greeted with black flags. In 1929, the then Viceroy Lord Irvin
declared that dominion status would be accorded to India in stages as its ultimate
goal.

As this proposal was not acceptable to the Congress, in its Lahore session of 1929,
the Indian National Congress demanded Purnaswaraj or complete independence as
its ultimate goal. As the British government adopted adamant attitude towards the
aspirations of the people, the Indian National Congress under the direction of Gandhi
started civil disobedience movement.

Rai Farhatullah
Khilafat Conference, Karachi, July 1921:
A Khilafat Conference was held in Karachi in July 1921 and in this session the
participants were predominantly Muslims expressed their loyalty to Khilafat and the
Turkish Sultan which by that time had been disposed by its territory by the allied
powers the British and the others and they had also decided to keep the movement
going on. They welcomed Ataturk’s efforts to dislodge foreign forces from
mainland. By that time Ataturk was emerging as a leader and he was taking steps to
expel the foreign forces from Turkey and it was very early stage but nevertheless
they welcomed the. That and they thought that it is something new that needs to be
encouraged and needs to be endorsed.

Hijrat Movement 1920-21:

When Khilafat movement was at its peak, in the meantime a voice arose from
Lucknow declaring the India sub-continent as Dar-ul-Harb (home of war), urging
the Muslims to migrate from their homeland on the plea of few Ulama of India as a
result of their inability to compete against the aggressive steps of the British, they
ought to go somewhere else.
K. K.Chaudhari writes:
“Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Moulana Abdul Bari Farangi, Moulana Muhammad
Ali and Moulana Abdul Majeed Sindhi issued a Fatwa which declared migration
from India Dar-ul-Harb (home of war) to Dar-ul-Aman (home of peace) desirable
for the Muslims of India after World War I. Nazims were appointed in every big city
and a central office was established in Delhi known as Khuddam-ul-Muhajireen to
motivate Muslims for migration”.
Giving importance to the announcement of Ulema most of the Muslims decided to
migrate to the nearest Muslim country Afghanistan, which was thought a suitable
for their shelter. Muslims of the Indian sub-continent were unable to spend their life
according to teachings of Islam and Islamic culture under British rule. Hijrat
movement was considered such an important virtue that the Muslims were not even
made to hear a minor word in opposition of the movement and it became so dominant
that even Non-cooperation Movement paled before it.
Muslims sold their property and headed for Kabul. K. K.Chaudhari writes:

Rai Farhatullah
 “A group of 750 Muslims Muhajireen form Sindh set out for Kabul under the
leadership of Barrister Jan Muhammad Junejo. This group of Muslims received an
enthusiastic reception at every train station it passed; this enhanced the vigor for
migration amongst the Muslims of Punjab.”
The popularity of movement can be determined from the fact the more than thirty
thousand Muslims had left for Kabul in the second week of August 1920. The
movement spread out to the Frontier province and locals became more active to
surpass other in this sacred cause. The movement was undertaken as religious
significance. The rural areas of N.W.F.P province such as Peshawar and Mardan
were the worst affected areas. The local Hindus motivated Muslims for migration
and started buying their land and cattle at throw-away price. A land worth of ten
thousand was sold for one hundred and a Bull worth of two hundred was sold for
forty rupees only. The carvans of emigrants who were moving towards Afghanistan
via Peshawar and Khyber Pass were brought up and nourished by the locals. A
proper setup was made for their hospitality, donations from locals and dedicated
their time and energy for the help of refuges. A Sarai at Namak Mandi Peshawar was
reserved for the stay and hospitalization of the emigrants. Majority of Muslims
leaders from N.W.F.P were in the favour of Hijrat movement including, Abdul
Ghaffar khan, Abbas khan, Muhammad Akbar khan and Ali Gul khan and they
themselves migrated to Afghanistan with common refuges.
The migration took place at a large scale, a very large number of people majorly
from lower class of society, the common people, the poor people left from India to
Afghanistan. The emigrants carried out their journey on foot and carts because
sources of transportation were not that mush developed at that time. In the beginning
the Afghanistan government welcomed Indian Muslims and King Amanullah ruler
of Afghanistan appointed Muhammad Iqbal Shedai as his minister for refuges.
Afghan government later on closed down their frontiers when they found flood of
refugees were coming would be too difficult for them to handle. Even those who
have managed to enter successfully were spending miserable life and disgusted
because Afghanistan was a poor country and facing many internal problems. The
refugees came across so many hardships and soon they were force to take a journey
back home. Some of the refugees went to Soviet Union and Europe.
Hijrat movement was an emotional and ill advised movement and it had no potential
to have constructive result. Majority of Ulema and leaders of public opinion did not
approve, including Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Habib-ur-Rehman, Hakeem Ajmal

Rai Farhatullah
khan, Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum khan and Alama Inayatullah khan. Hijrat movement
ended in misery for the Muslims because it was unplanned and was based on the
emotions and had not taken into account the realities of Afghanistan. It was an
unwise act of Muslims of Sub-continent lost their lives, home, crops and cattle. It
was act of serious blunder of Muslims not looking into consequences and made them
from poor to poorer. Muslims were at the brink of disaster and facing Hindu
opposition because they had nothing in India now as they sold whatever they had.
Sincere and zealous Muslims suffered severe hardships; however Hijrat movement
reinforced the total commitment of Muslims sacrifice for the ideology, principles
and teaching of Islam.

End of the Khilafat Movement:

The Khilafat Movement that was started by the Muslims of the British India for the
retention of the institution of the Ottoman Empire and for retaining the control of the
Muslims holy places, that movement gradually fizzled out. How that did happened
a number of developments from 1921 to onward contributed to that. Some Of them
are mentioned below:

Moplah Revolt Malabar Coast, near Kalicut:

This incident took place in 1921.Moplahs were the descendents of the Arab Muslims
settled in the Sub-Continent even before the arrival of Muhammad Bin Qasim. In
August 1921, they revolted against Hindu landlords whose treatment was very brutal
with them. The issue was not the religious but was led to safeguard their rights.
Gail Minault.Graham writes about this as follow:
“The uprising was against the injustice against the suffering which the Moplas were
facing and as they revolted the police took the side of the landlords.”
The local Hindu unions began to project to this as the kind of Hindu Muslim issue,
there was a lot of propaganda against the Muslims with reference to this uprising
and there were calls from some of the Hindu organizations to wake up against to
face the challenge which was emerging Later this clash changed as Moplahs versus
the Police and Hindu. This embittered the Hindu-Muslim relations. This uprising
had a negative impact on the Hindu Muslim unity that was being demonstrated in
the Khilafat Movement. The Congress party and the Khilafat Committee were very

Rai Farhatullah
cooperative and were working together. The Muslim leaders were addressing
meetings along with Gandhi and others, so it was a rare demonstration of Hindu
Muslim unity and that cooperative sentiment was undermined by this incident.

Increase in Violence 1921:

The 2nd incident that affected this Movement was the increase in violence when in
1920 Non Cooperation Movement was launched by Gandhi it was argued that this
would be a peaceful Movement, this would be a non violent movement but the
Indians would demonstrate against the British in a peaceful manner even the British
will use force on them they will not respond. However with the passage of time
violence entered this non cooperation there was an increase in violence day by day
and the Chorachori Incident (UP) in February 1922 worsened the situation.Chora
Chori is a small place in Uter Pradesh (UP) and here what happened was the
Congress activist attacked a police station as a part of agitation against the British.
About this incident K. K.Chaudhari writes:
“The Congress volunteers set a police station on fire and as a result about 21
policemen were burnt alive.”
There were other violence and due to this increase in violence Gandhi suddenly
decided to call off the Non Cooperation movement. This decision affected the
Khilafat movement adversely. Here K. K.Chaudhari again writes:
“Gandhi, s decision did affect this movement firstly, it was a sudden and individual
decision not consulting the Khilafat Movement people because they were working
together and suddenly the Non Cooperation Movement was called off which
adversely affected the Movement and created distrust between the two groups that
were operative at that time. So this was an incident that weakened the movement and
they began to diverge or move in different directions.”

Developments in Turkey:
3rd and most significant development relates to Turkey itself, things began to change
in Turkey. The abolition of Khilafat by Kamal Ataturk was a serious blow on
Khilafat movement in the sub-continent and he exiled Sultan Abdul Majeed, a
helpless Caliph and abolished Khilafat as an institution, due to this all agitational
activities came to an end in the Sub-continent.
A.R. Desai writes:

Rai Farhatullah
“In 1922 Ataturk who was in the military service in the Ottoman Empire emerged
as a national leader. He collected his colleagues and undertook the operation against
the occupying foreign forces and he was able to expel the foreign forces which
strengthened his position.”
In Nov, 1922 the new political developments under Ataturk that had developed there
restricted the powers of the Sultan.Infact Sultan Abdul-Hamid was replaced by
another person, then in October 1922 Ataturk was elected as the head of the state,
he was appointed Chief of the state by Grand National Assembly. Turkey became
Republic and in March 1924 the Grand National Assembly the parliament of Turkey
abolished the institution of Khilafat.In March 1924, Khilafat was abolished. So in a
way the very institution for which the Muslims were fighting had been replaced by
Turkey’s new leadership that emerged, the present day Turkey that emerged in
1922.This caused a widespread resentment among the Indian Muslims. They sent
delegations to Turkey but failed to achieve their objectives. As the Institution was
abolished the movement became weak and disappeared gradually and this is how
Khilafat Movement ended.

Conclusions:
In spite of collapse of the Caliphate, Khilafat Movement was an important
step towards the Muslim political development. Muslims learnt the importance of
leadership and political organization. The movement did a great job in uniting the
Muslims of India against Britain in support of the Caliph of Turkey. It aroused the
feelings of Indian Muslims for their brothers in the world. Muslims got the idea and
desire of a separate homeland for themselves.
Once again, due to various incidents that took place during this movement, the
Muslims became aware that they could no longer trust on Hindus and British. Both
betrayed them on various occasions. Congress suddenly quit the movement when it
had reached its climax. If Muslims have to survive, they will have to do it on their
own. No dependence on other nations.

Rai Farhatullah
Bibliography:
 Gail Minault, The Khilafat movement: religious symbolism and political
mobilization in India, Columbia University Press, 1982.
 K.K Chaudhari, Khilafat movement: 1920-21, Gazetteers Dept., Gov. of
Maharashtra, 1982.
 Shan Muhammad, Khilafat movement, Meenakshi Prakashan, 1983.
 Gail Minault.Graham, The Khilafat movement: a study of Indian Muslim
leadership, 1970.
 A.R Desai, Social Background Of Indian Nationalism, Bombay, Oxford
University Press, 1949.
 Bipan Chandra, India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947, New Delhi,
1989.
 Sumit Sarkar, Modern India: 1885-1947, Basingstoke, 1989.
 Anil Seal, The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and
Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century, 1968.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement
 https://reddiarypk.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/alavi07082009/
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Rai Farhatullah