Category: Pre-partition

THE DAWN OF PAKISTAN

It is estimated that over 15 million people were displaced during the Partition of the Indian subcontinent and two million lost their lives in the ensuing communal violence.

This feature covers 42 years from 1906 to 1948, an astonishingly short period of time, during which the freedom movement emerged and subsequently achieved the creation of a separate Muslim state under the dynamic leadership of Mohammad Ali Jinnah – the Quaid-i-Azam – the monumental founder of this nation.

As the nation marks its 70th year, Pakistan’s story becomes your story.

TOWARDS THE FUTURE

DECEMBER 25, 1947

MR JINNAH’S LAST BIRTHDAY

In the photograph above, courtesy Dawn/White Star Archives, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah reads Dawn on his 71st birthday.

Mr Jinnah’s first birthday in Pakistan on December 25, 1947, is tragically his last one too. The morning starts when a smal delegation of journalists from Dawn Karachi, led by the editor, Altaf Husain, calls on him to express their best wishes. They find him reading the morning’s edition of Dawn.

As he reminisces about the heady days when Dawn is founded in Delhi, he expresses his satisfaction that the title and the ethos of Dawn are preserved and are prospering in Karachi.

And then something unusual happens. Never in his career has Mr Jinnah ever endorsed what today we would consider to be a ‘product’ or ‘brand’. And yet, at the behest of his colleagues, he picks up the copy of Dawn at his side and agrees to be photographed reading it.

The newspaper item on the front page congratulates Mr Jinnah on his 71st birthday, and there is a trace of a whimsical smile on his lips. He has come a long way from when he founded Dawn Weekly in October 1941. Those were days of hope; six years later, Dawn, published by Pakistan Herald Limited Karachi, is a living reality.

Later, Mr Jinnah attends the official reception at Governor-General House. He leaves early to attend a private birthday party given by his colleague, Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah.

As the Commander of the Sind Women’s National Guard, Pasha Haroon sings a birthday poem written for him by a poet in Lahore; he is visibly embarrassed and keeps knotting the napkin placed before him on the table. The words of the poem are: Millat kay liye aaj ghaneemat hai tera dumm, Aey Quaid-i-Azam/Sheeraza-e-Millat ko kiya tu ne faraham, aey Quaid-i-Azam. (Your breath alone is sufficient for the nation, oh Quaid-i-Azam/ You alone have been the binding force for the nation, oh Quaid-i-Azam.)

Nine months later, on September 11, 1948, Mr Jinnah surrenders to a prolonged bout of tuberculosis, an illness that afflicts him over the last decade of his life, and is kept a secret. The next day, Dawn pronounces “The Quaid-i-Azam is dead. Long live Pakistan!”

On the same day, Indian troops under the guise of police action, march into the Princely State of Hyderabad, and annex the state to India.

THE QUAID-I-AZAM 1947

THE LEGACY ENDURES

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is seated with the Pakistan flag draped behind him in Karachi in December 1947. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is seated with the Pakistan flag draped behind him in Karachi in December 1947. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

This photo, which appears on the cover of the January 5, 1948 edition of Life magazine, is part of a series taken by Margaret Bourke-White for the magazine.

Today, as Pakistanis celebrate the 70th year of their country’s existence, it is worthwhile to ponder on the legacy of Mr Jinnah, the man who founded what in 1947 is the world’s largest Muslim state.

An uncompromising adherence to the rule of law, freedom of speech and conscience, social justice and equality for all citizens, are the essence of his legacy; a legacy he wants the nation of Pakistan to uphold in the future. Although governance and law-making are the sole prerogative of the people’s elected representatives, as long ago as 1919, he tells the Imperial Legislative Council that “no man should lose his liberty or be deprived of his liberty without a judicial trial in accordance with the accepted rules of evidence and procedure.”

Although Mr Jinnah repeatedly avers that Islam has taught us “equality, justice and fair play”, he makes it clear that Pakistan will not be a theocratic state.

On August 11, 1947, in a historic reiteration of his political creed, he tells the Constituent Assembly: “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”

Speaking on the topic of bribery and corruption, Mr Jinnah calls them “a poison” and declares: “We must put that down with an iron hand, and I hope that you will take adequate measures as soon as it is possible for this Assembly to do so.”


DELHI AUGUST 1947

A LONG WAIT TO FREEDOM

A young refugee in Delhi in August 1947 squats on the rubble of a ruined Sultanate monument, holding his head in despair. In the background, a vast Muslim refugee camp sprawls out as far as the eye can see. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
A young refugee in Delhi in August 1947 squats on the rubble of a ruined Sultanate monument, holding his head in despair. In the background, a vast Muslim refugee camp sprawls out as far as the eye can see. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

As thousands of Muslims seek refuge in this camp praying for a quick escape to Pakistan, thousands of Hindu and Sikh refugees from the Punjab pour into the city. An atmosphere of fear permeates, as anti-Muslim pogroms rock this historical stronghold of Indo-Islamic culture and politics.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, estimates that there are only 1,000 casualties in the city; other sources claim this figure is 20 times higher. Historian Gyanendra Pandey’s recent account of the Delhi violence puts the figure of Muslim casualties between 20,000 and 25,000.

Regardless of the number of casualties, thousands of Muslims are driven to refugee camps and historic sites in Delhi, such as the Purana Qila, Idgah and Nizamuddin, are transformed into refugee camps.

At the culmination of the tensions, 330,000 Muslims are forced to flee to Pakistan. The 1951 Census registers a drop in the Muslim population in the city from 33.22% in 1941 to 9.8% in 1951.

An estimated 15 million people from all sides will have crossed the borders to their chosen homeland as a result of Partition.

THE PRINCELY STATES

DHAKA MARCH 1948

THE SUPREME COMMANDER VISITS

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah decorates Lieutenant Colonel M. Ahmad with the Military Cross for his services in Burma during World War II on March 20, 1948 at the Dhaka Cantonment. Major General Mohammed Ayub Khan, GOC Dhaka, stands between the two. — Courtesy Gauhar Ayub Family Archive
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah decorates Lieutenant Colonel M. Ahmad with the Military Cross for his services in Burma during World War II on March 20, 1948 at the Dhaka Cantonment. Major General Mohammed Ayub Khan, GOC Dhaka, stands between the two. — Courtesy Gauhar Ayub Family Archive

This is Mr Jinnah’s last trip to Dhaka; had he lived beyond September 1948, he would certainly have made many more visits to the capital of East Pakistan.

Although the historic founding of the All-India Muslim League takes place in Dhaka in 1906, it is Calcutta (which Mr Jinnah frequently visits) that is the centre of politics in Bengal under British rule; it is only after Partition that Dhaka becomes the political hub of the Muslim majority in Bengal.

Khawaja Nazimuddin is the Chief Minister of East Bengal. At this time, political elements are stirring up issues of whether Bengali rather than Urdu should be the state language​,​ thereby inflaming provincial sentiments among people. Mr Jinnah has come to Dhaka to clarify matters.

In a mammoth public meeting held in Dhaka on March 21, 1948, he declares that “having failed to prevent the establishment of Pakistan… the enemies of Pakist​​an have turned their attention to disrupting the state by creating a split among the Muslims of Pakistan. These attempts have taken the shape principally of encouraging provincialism. If you want to build up yourself into a nation, for God’s sake give up this provincialism.”

A few days later on March 24, speaking at the annual convocation of Dhaka University, Mr Jinnah says that people could choose to adopt the provincial language of their choice, but there could only be one lingua franca for the whole of Pakistan and that language should be Urdu.

General Ayub Khan becomes​​ the second ​president of Pakistan after a military coup in 1958. He is forced to resign as president in 1969 after a popular uprising in East Pakistan and some other parts of the country.

As a consequence of his military rule, East Pakistan and its capital Dhaka are to be permanently lost to Pakistan a mere thirteen years later.


GILGIT & KASHMIR 1947

A ​PARTIAL VICTORY

November 1, 1947 is the day when Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan accede to Pakistan.

Astore, Gilgit, Hunza and Nagar are part of territories conquered by the Dogra Maharajas. Their grip is tenuous and in 1889 the British create the Gilgit Agency as a means of turning the region into a buffer against the Russians. Then in 1935, the British lease the Gilgit Agency for a period of sixty years from Maharaja Hari Singh.

In 1947, Major William Brown, the Assistant Political Agent in Chilas, is informed that Lord Mountbatten has ordered that the 1935 lease of the Gilgit Agency (it still has 49 years to run) be terminated. Gilgit Agency, despite its 99% Muslim population, is to be allotted to the rule of Maharaja Hari Singh.

Meanwhile, stories of communal violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in the Punjab reach Gilgit, inflaming passions there. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja signs the Instrument of Accession and joins India. (The signed document has never been seen.)

Sensing the discontent, Major Brown mutinies on November 1, 1947. He overthrows the governor, establishes a provisional government in Gilgit and telegraphs the chief minister of the NWFP asking Pakistan to take over. According to the leading historian Ahmed Hasan Dani, despite the lack of public participation in the rebellion, pro-Pakistan sentiments are strong amongst civilians.

Armed Pakhtoon tribesmen wait on a road between Peshawar and Rawalpindi for their leader Bacha Gul of the Mohmand tribe. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Armed Pakhtoon tribesmen wait on a road between Peshawar and Rawalpindi for their leader Bacha Gul of the Mohmand tribe. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Upon hearing of Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India, these tribesmen wait for Bacha Gul to lead them into battle in Kashmir. They reach the outskirts of Srinagar before they are pushed back to the upper reaches of what constitutes today’s Azad Kashmir.

Resistance in Poonch starts over issues related to taxation, but soon turns into an armed uprising when a public meeting is fired upon by Kashmir state forces. Two days later, the chief minister of the NWFP organises a guerrilla force to attack the Maharaja’s forces in the Dheer Kot camp. According to Australian historian Christopher Snedden, it is the Muslims in the Poonch region of Kashmir who instigate the uprising and not Pakhtoon tribesmen invading from Pakistan, as India consistently maintains.

India’s case on Kashmir is built upon a version of events that asserts that India’s military intervention is in response to a tribal invasion supported by Pakistan. On January 1, 1948, India takes the issue to the UN Security Council. The Security Council pass a resolution calling for Pakistan to withdraw from Jammu and Kashmir and for India to reduce its forces to a minimum level, following which a plebiscite is to be held to ascertain the people’s wishes.

Dispute erupts over the implementation mechanism because of which the Kashmir problem remains unresolved to this day.


SWAT, NOVEMBER 24, 1947

THE WALI ASSENTS

The Wali of the Princely State of Swat, Miangul Abdul Wadud, with members of his state police. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
The Wali of the Princely State of Swat, Miangul Abdul Wadud, with members of his state police. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Swat owes its status as a ‘state’ to the decline of the Sikh and Afghan empires. When the British take over Peshawar in 1849, Swat is mainly inhabited by Yusufzai Pathans. The same year, the tribal jirga elects Syed Akbar Shah as king of Swat – although real power in Swat lies with the Akhund, a religious leader known as Saidu Baba.

Saidu Baba dies in 1887 and Swat lapses into factional fighting between his sons and his grandsons.

Finally, in 1917 the jirga appoints Miangul Abdul Wadud, one of the Akhund’s grandsons as king. Although Miangul Abdul Wadud controls most of Swat by 1923, the Government of India does not formally recognise him as the ruler. Instead, in 1926 the British grant him the title of Wali, an honorific religious title – because only the King Emperor in England has the right to the title of king.

Irrespective of the British position, the Wali of Swat is the only elected ruler of a Princely State, by virtue of the jirga.

Miangul Abdul Wadud signs the Instrument of Accession enabling Swat to join Pakistan in 1947. On the right are his son Miangul Abdul Haq Jahanzeb, his grandson Miangul Aurangzeb and the Chief Secretary of Swat, Mr Attaullah. — Courtesy Miangul Aurangzeb Archives, Swat
Miangul Abdul Wadud signs the Instrument of Accession enabling Swat to join Pakistan in 1947. On the right are his son Miangul Abdul Haq Jahanzeb, his grandson Miangul Aurangzeb and the Chief Secretary of Swat, Mr Attaullah. — Courtesy Miangul Aurangzeb Archives, Swat

In 1931, Swat has an area of 18,000 square miles and a population of 216,000. The state is predominantly Muslim, but with a small Hindu presence. Swat’s accession to Pakistan is complicated by its occupation of Kalam shortly before 1947, which was also claimed by Chitral and Dir.

Although Pakistan refuses to recognise the occupation and tries to persuade Swat to revert to the status quo, the Wali, hoping to garner Pakistan’s support of Swat’s claim to Kalam, is eager to accede to Pakistan. Miangul Jahanzeb, the last Wali notes that “with the creation of Pakistan, we immediately joined the new state. We were very patriotic… I talked to the political agent Nawab Shaikh Mehboob Ali over the telephone and told him we were going to sign the Instrument of Accession.”

The Wali executes the Instrument of Accession on November 24, 1947.


BAHAWALPUR, OCTOBER 3, 1947

THE AMIR ACQUIESCES

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah enjoy high tea with the Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V, possibly at his retreat in Malir, on the outskirts of Karachi. Standing in a white suit, between the Amir and Mr Jinnah, is his son, the future Nawab. On the extreme left, behind Miss Jinnah, is Colonel Hashmi, ADC to the Amir. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah enjoy high tea with the Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V, possibly at his retreat in Malir, on the outskirts of Karachi. Standing in a white suit, between the Amir and Mr Jinnah, is his son, the future Nawab. On the extreme left, behind Miss Jinnah, is Colonel Hashmi, ADC to the Amir. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London

The Nawabs of Bahawalpur claim descent from the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad – and in this way distinguish themselves from the other ruling princes of India. They receive their first grant of land from Emperor Nadir Shah and subsequently come under the suzerainty of Ahmed Shah Durrani. When the Durrani Empire crumbles, they assume independence. However, the rise of Sikh power prompts them to sign a treaty with the East India Company in 1833, accepting the paramountcy of the Company.

Nawab Sadiq Abbasi becomes ruler of Bahawalpur at the age of 18 months, and until 1924, the state is ruled under the regency of his eldest sister.

In 1941, Bahawalpur has an area of 17,494 square miles and a population of over 1.3 million subjects. In 1947, the Nawab is in poor health; he is in England and is advised by his doctors to remain ther​​e. This is a crucial moment for Bahawalpur; the state has contiguous borders with India and Pakistan and can choose to accede to either country. Yet, no decision can be taken in the Nawab’s absence. Sir Penderel Moon, the historian and also Public Works Minister in the Bahawalpur Government, notes: “Jinnah, unlike the Congress leaders, was not hostile to the ruling princes and had no plans for sweeping them away or curtailing their powers.”

In April 1947, Mushtaq Ahmed Gurmani, a Unionist minister from the Punjab is appointed prime minister of the state. As the date for the Transfer of Power approaches, rumours circulate that Bahawalpur may accede to India.

On August 15, 1947, Nawab Sadiq Abbasi declares himself Amir (independent ruler), announcing his willingness to enable Pakistan and Bahawalpur “to arrive at a satisfactory constitutional arrangement.” The Government of Pakistan, alarmed by Bahawalpur’s intentions, moves to en​​sure the state’s accession to Pakistan. Negotiations are stymied when the Nawab decides to return to England.

Despite rumours that Mr Gurmani is planning Bahawalpur’s accession to India, he does not oppose the accession; the only complication is the signature of the Amir, which he gives on October 3, 1947.

The Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V in full state regalia. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London
The Amir of Bahawalpur, Nawab Sadiq Mohammad Khan Abbasi V in full state regalia. — Courtesy Princess Yasmien Abbasi Archive London

Nawab Sadiq Abbasi is the last reigning ruler before Bahawalpur’s accession to Pakistan. He follows in the tradition of the Abbasid caliphs by travelling through his state in disguise in order to better understand what is required for effective governance.

He builds schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and an agricultural canal system to create more arable land in the desert. He possesses one of the finest stamp collections in the world and owns one of the largest collections of custom-made Rolls-Royces and Bentleys. He is known for his love of fine art objects and of fine food.


KHAIRPUR, OCTOBER 3, 1947

WELCOMING THE BOY PRINCE

Mir George Ali Murad Khan Talpur II – “the boy prince of Khairpur” – at Faiz Mahal, Khairpur, in December 1947. He is seated on his throne holding a sword, while his Regent, Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur, looks on.— Courtesy Mir of Khairpur Family Archive
Mir George Ali Murad Khan Talpur II – “the boy prince of Khairpur” – at Faiz Mahal, Khairpur, in December 1947. He is seated on his throne holding a sword, while his Regent, Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur, looks on.— Courtesy Mir of Khairpur Family Archive

The Talpur rule in Sindh begins in 1783, when Mir Fateh Ali Khan Talpur of Hyderabad declares himself Rais of Sindh, having obtained a farman to this effect from the king, Shah Zaman Durrani. Mir Fateh Ali Khan Talpur’s nephew, Mir Suhrab Khan, settles in Rohri and establishes the foundations of the state of Khairpur.

Recognising the rising power of the East India Company, the Mir offers Khairpur’s assistance to the British during the First Afghan War. This is an astute move, as the continued existence of Khairpur is largely a consequence of this policy.

On July 24, 1947, the British depose the reigning Mir Faiz Muhammad Khan II due to his poor health and appoint his son, Mir George Ali Murad Khan Talpur II, as the ruling Mir. Because he is a minor, a Board of Regency is created with a rotating chairmanship made up of close male relatives of the Mir – Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur is one such regent.

In the early 1940s, Khairpur covers an area of 6,050 square miles, and its population is estimated to be in the region of 300,000, sixteen percent of whom are non-Muslims.

A large portion of the Lahore-Karachi railway track is within the State and this explains why the Government of Pakistan considers its integration important.

On August 4, 1947, the Khairpur government issues a notification that August 15, 1947 will be celebrated as Khairpur’s Independence Day. However, repeated efforts by the Government of Pakistan finally persuade Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur to sign the Instrument of Accession on behalf of the boy prince on October 3, 1947 – the same day as Bahawalpur accedes.

Hence, on the same day, Pakistan gains two valuable Princely States, not only significant in terms of land mass, but in terms of agricultural land, nascent industries and strategic value.

BUILDING THE NATION

LAHORE 1946-47

AN ENGAGEMENT WITH THE PIONEERS

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in animated conversation with a group of students on the lawns of the University of Punjab, Lahore, on January 7, 1946. The photograph is taken by the prominent photographer of the Pakistan Movement, Faustin Elmer Chaudhry. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in animated conversation with a group of students on the lawns of the University of Punjab, Lahore, on January 7, 1946. The photograph is taken by the prominent photographer of the Pakistan Movement, Faustin Elmer Chaudhry. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives

Students, particularly from the Punjab, play a pivotal role in the 1945 general elections.

The elections are vital for the Muslim League because failure to win the Muslim seats will mean that further discussion on the demand for Pakistan will be dismissed by the Congress and the British Government. Consequently, the Muslim League moves to mobilise Muslim students.

Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan exhorts the students of the Aligarh Muslim University to give up their studies for a period of time and campaign for the Muslim League. A training camp is set up on campus and students are given training courses before they are sent to various parts of the province. An election office opens in Islamia College in Lahore and the Punjab Muslim Students’ Federation establish an election board to spread the Muslim League’s message.

Two hundred students are deputed to tour 20 constituencies covering 400 villages. By the end of the campaign, the Muslim League says 60,000 villages are visited by their student campaigners.

As a result of this massive student mobilisation, a remarkable victory is achieved by the Muslim League, obliterating the failure of the 1936-37 elections.

Women leaders of the Muslim League are released from Punjab Jail in March 1947. First row, from left to right: Begum Nasira Kiani, Begum Jahanara Shah Nawaz; second row (behind Begum Shah Nawaz, left to right): Miss Mumtaz Shah Nawaz, Fatima Begum, Dr Hassan Ara Begum and Begum Kamal-ud-din. Begum Salma Tasadduque Hussain stands behind Miss Shah Nawaz. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Women leaders of the Muslim League are released from Punjab Jail in March 1947. First row, from left to right: Begum Nasira Kiani, Begum Jahanara Shah Nawaz; second row (behind Begum Shah Nawaz, left to right): Miss Mumtaz Shah Nawaz, Fatima Begum, Dr Hassan Ara Begum and Begum Kamal-ud-din. Begum Salma Tasadduque Hussain stands behind Miss Shah Nawaz. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives

Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan dies in 1942. Determined to prevent any attempt by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to intervene in the politics of the Punjab, his successor, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana, disregards the Jinnah-Sikandar pact of 1937.

When negotiations fail, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana is expelled from the Muslim League. The 1945 elections confirm the Muslim League as the single largest party in the Punjab Legislature. Yet, the British Government does not call upon them to form the government; they ask Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana to cobble together a majority government through a coalition with the Hindu and Sikh members of the assembly.

This leads to a civil disobedience campaign in the Punjab and then mass agitation, when Muslim League leaders are arrested in January 1947. Undaunted, the women of the Muslim League defy the ban on demonstrations and court arrest. Eventually, the coalition government is paralysed, Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana resigns and governor rule is imposed.

The women, like the students, play a pivotal role in enabling the creation of Pakistan.


THE NATIONAL GUARD 1948

EMPOWERING WOMEN

Zeenat Rashid, a captain of the Sind Women’s National Guard, practises how to use a lathi in Karachi on November 1, 1947. — Courtesy Seafield Archive
Zeenat Rashid, a captain of the Sind Women’s National Guard, practises how to use a lathi in Karachi on November 1, 1947. — Courtesy Seafield Archive

The Sind Women’s National Guard is a small group of about 25 to 30 teenagers who wear white uniforms, learn first aid and self defence, and encourage citizens to vote.

This photograph is taken in 1947 and Zeenat Rashid is 18 years old. Her father, Haji Abdullah Haroon, passes away five years earlier. Her mother, Lady Nusrat Abdullah Haroon, continues to be a dominant figure in the Pakistan Movement. As a captain in the Sind Women’s National Guard, Zeenat Rashid gathers 35 school friends to form the caucus of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s young women’s contingent.

She explains: “The Quaid-i-Azam said to us: ‘The women are standing shoulder to shoulder with the men. What are you young people doing?’” Zeenat Rashid’s answer to her hero was: “We are ready; what do you want us to do?”

Later, in an interview with Life magazine, she recounts that: “We were a symbol. Mr Jinnah wanted to show people that in Pakistan, women would do things. We didn’t cover our heads! What nonsense. We were a symbol of progress.”

Her grandest moment? It is 1947 and she is practising with the Sind Women’s National Guard, brandishing a lathi – it is then that Margaret Bourke-White captures these magical moments. The one above is part of a series of images in Life magazine’s cover story on Pakistan in January 1948.


A DEMOCRATIC PUNJAB 1937-47

FRIENDLY PERSUASION

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, probably at the time when the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is signed in 1937. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, probably at the time when the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is signed in 1937. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

After winning the general elections in the Punjab in 1937, Sir Sikandar, the leader of the Unionist Party in the Punjab, is faced with pressure from many of his Muslim parliamentary colleagues. Mindful of the need to maintain an equitable stance in a divided Punjabi political milieu, Sir Sikandar enters into negotiations with Mr Jinnah. As a consequence, the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact is signed.

The pact is essentially an arrangement whereby the Muslim League will represent the Muslims at the national level, while the Unionists will maintain a measure of independence at the provincial level.

Mr Jinnah’s ability to deal with various hues in the tapestry of the Punjab through democratic persuasion is reflected in the Muslim League’s ascension to power after 1947.

Mian Iftikharuddin is a scion of the Arain Mian family, custodians of Lahore’s Shalimar Gardens. He begins his political career in the Congress and rises to the presidency in the Punjab. In 1945, he joins the Muslim League. After Partition, he is elected as the first President of the Punjab Provincial Muslim League and Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah appoints him Minister for the Rehabilitation of Refugees.

In 1947, Mian Iftikharuddin founds the Pakistan Times; Faiz Ahmed Faiz is appointed Editor-In-Chief.

In 1949, Mian Iftikharuddin’s proposal for land reforms in the Punjab leads to a backlash from the feudal leadership within the Muslim League. In frustration, he resigns from his ministry and is expelled from the Muslim League in 1951.

After his death in 1962, Faiz Ahmed Faiz pays tribute to him with this couplet: Jo rukey tu koh-e-garan thay hum/ Jo chalay tu jaan say guzar gaye/ Raah-e-yaar hum ne qadam qadam/ Tujhay yaadgaar banaa diya (For when we stayed, we rose like mountains/ And when we strayed, we left life far behind/ Fellow traveller, every step that we ever took/ Became a memorial to your life).

It is a tribute to Mr Jinnah’s political sagacity that he can mobilise talents like Mian Iftikharuddin’s to work within his government in the Punjab.


KARACHI & DELHI 1947

A TRIUMPH AND A TRAGEDY

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Altaf Husain, Editor Dawn Delhi, outside Mr Jinnah’s residence in Delhi, on June 3, 1947. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Altaf Husain, Editor Dawn Delhi, outside Mr Jinnah’s residence in Delhi, on June 3, 1947. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives

Dawn Delhi and Dawn Karachi are founded by Mr Jinnah. Mr Husain is first appointed editor of Dawn Delhi in 1945; his predecessor was Pothan Joseph. In August 1947, Jan Sangh demonstrators accuse Dawn Delhi journalists of firing at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s procession. This is when Mr Jinnah asks for Mr Husain to be transferred to Karachi and assume the editorship of Dawn Karachi, which is published by the family of Mr Jinnah’s late friend Haji Abdullah Haroon. It is plain to him that Dawn Delhi will not survive the threats of the Jan Sangh. Dawn Delhi is burnt down on September 14, 1947. Despite this, Dawn Karachi continues to carry the inscription: ‘Published simultaneously from Delhi and Karachi’ on the masthead until October 21, 1947, when it is removed and Mr Jinnah accepts the reality that Dawn Delhi is no more.

The loss of Dawn Delhi is a tragedy for Mr Jinnah, for this was the paper he founded and nurtured in 1941 to carry forward the Muslim League’s message across undivided India. His triumph is the survival of Dawn Karachi.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan with the staff of Dawn Delhi. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan with the staff of Dawn Delhi. — Courtesy Altaf Husain Archives & Dawn/White Star Archives

To the right of Mr Jinnah is Pothan Joseph, the editor of Dawn Delhi. Behind Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is Hamid Zuberi, who subsequently joins Dawn Karachi; to the left of Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is Mahmud Husain, GM, Dawn Delhi.

Mr Jinnah founds Dawn Delhi on October 19, 1941, to represent the views of Indian Muslims. The offices are housed in an old building in the Daryaganj area of Delhi. The furniture is modest, the staff minimal and the pay low. Yet, everyone is full of zeal. Mr Jinnah and his editors – Pothan Joseph and then Altaf Husain – inspire them with a strong spirit of nationalism as the newspaper fights for justice and fair play for the Muslims.

PIECING TOGETHER PAKISTAN

KARACHI 1948

THE ARCHITECT OF THE NATION

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah turns his attention to an early musical score of Pakistan’s national anthem after inspecting an anti-aircraft regiment in Malir on February 21, 1948. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah turns his attention to an early musical score of Pakistan’s national anthem after inspecting an anti-aircraft regiment in Malir on February 21, 1948. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives

Mr Jinnah’s personal interest in selecting the national anthem is indicative of his painstaking attention to detail about everything that touches upon Pakistan’s future. (His earlier care in designing the national flag, with its broad white band representing the minorities, is further evidence of the importance he attributes to these matters.)

It is not known whether this is the musical score composed by Ahmed Ghulamali Chagla and selected in 1949. The lyrics are written as late as 1952 by Hafeez Jullundhri. In 1954, the anthem is officially adopted as Pakistan’s qaumi tarana.

As Governor-General, Mr Jinnah steers the nation’s policy, achieving significant results. He nominates Pakistan’s Federal Cabinet and in the absence of a constitution, amends and enforces the Government of India Act 1935. He reorganises the civil service and develops cordial relations with Pakistan’s neighbours and the West. On September 30, 1947, Pakistan becomes a member of the UN. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan has an important role in these matters.

Critics state that the Jinnah-Liaquat relationship deteriorates during Mr Jinnah’s last days. Such conjecture fails to recognise the fact that Mr Jinnah never revoked his decision to nominate Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan as one of the three executors of his will – by no means a small matter for a person as particular as Mr Jinnah when it comes to his private matters.

For Mr Jinnah “the opening of the State Bank of Pakistan symbolises the sovereignty of our state in the financial sphere.”

As per the Pakistan Monetary System and Reserve Bank Order 1947, the Reserve Bank of India is to continue to be the currency and banking authority of Pakistan until September 30, 1948. Mindful of this date, Mr Jinnah performs the inauguration in advance of this deadline on July 1, 1948.


PESHAWAR 1945-48

CROSSING THE LAST FRONTIER

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is presented with a traditional loaf of bread in Peshawar by Afridi chiefs in November 1945. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is presented with a traditional loaf of bread in Peshawar by Afridi chiefs in November 1945. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

In this second visit to the NWFP, Mr Jinnah addresses rallies in Peshawar, Mardan and in the tribal areas. Since 1937, a Congress-Redshirt government is in power in the NWFP. The Muslim League’s popularity is surging amidst Muslim dissatisfaction that although Hindus and Sikhs account for only seven percent of the representation in the Assembly, the British Government has accorded them a disproportionate 24% of the seats.

However, the problems in the NWFP are not communal; they arise from a clash between the Hindu-financed Congress-Redshirt government and the Muslim League, and are further complicated by the tribes who, broadly speaking, are in sympathy with the Muslim League.

In February 1947, the Muslim League launches a civil disobedience movement against the Congress-Redshirt government, which rapidly gains momentum. As Partition approaches, the Congress agree to the British proposal to hold a referendum on the future of the NWFP. In June, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan announces the boycott of the referendum and calls for the establishment of an independent state for Pakhtoons called ‘Pathanistan’. The stock of the Congress-Redshirt government in the NWFP plummets and the momentum swings to the Muslim League.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Landi Kotal on April 11, 1948. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Landi Kotal on April 11, 1948. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

This is Mr Jinnah’s third visit to the NWFP; he spends 10 days touring the province from Khyber to Gomal. This special equation between Mr Jinnah and the tribesmen is a major factor in the Muslim League’s landslide victory in the 1947 referendum on the decision to join Pakistan.

Mr Jinnah has secured the Frontier for Pakistan.


LAHORE 1947

RECLAIMING THE HEARTLAND

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah addresses a mammoth rally at Lahore’s University Stadium on October 30, 1947. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah addresses a mammoth rally at Lahore’s University Stadium on October 30, 1947. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

The violence that mars Partition is a period of great personal anguish for Mr Jinnah. Yet, his clarity of thought is unimpaired. He states: “Some people might think that the acceptance of the June 3, 1947 Plan was a mistake on the part of the Muslim League. I would like to tell them that the consequences of any other alternative would have been too disastrous to imagine…”

A man who has never compromised on his essential beliefs, he continues with conviction: “The tenets of Islam enjoin on every Musalman to give protection to his neighbours and to the minorities regardless of caste and creed. Despite the treatment which is being meted out to the Muslim minorities in India, we must make it a matter of our prestige and honour to safeguard the lives of the minority communities…”

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah campaigns at the Badshahi Mosque during the 1936-37 provincial elections. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah campaigns at the Badshahi Mosque during the 1936-37 provincial elections. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Despite Mr Jinnah’s campaign efforts, the Muslim League lose these elections.

In Punjab, the Unionists, led by Sir Sikandar Hayat, win 67 of the 175 seats; the Congress 18 seats and the Akali Dal 10 seats. Although many Muslim Unionists are ardent supporters of the Muslim League, the Unionist party in Punjab formally constitutes a distinct entity and the Muslim vote is divided.

The election loss galvanises the Muslim League to redouble their efforts in Punjab and turn themselves into a credible alternative to the Unionists and reclaim Punjab. They achieve this in the 1945 elections.


BALOCHISTAN 1943-48

WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Qazi Isa are cheered by the Muslim Student Federation in Quetta. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Qazi Isa are cheered by the Muslim Student Federation in Quetta. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Mr Isa, a prominent leader of the Pakistan Movement, plays a pivotal role in facilitating Mr Jinnah’s visit to Balochistan and his meetings with Baloch leaders. This is one of several visits Mr Jinnah makes to Balochistan.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is welcomed by Nawab Akbar Bugti and prominent Baloch tribal leaders at the Royal Durbar in Sibi, on February 11, 1948. — Courtesy Sherbaz Mazari Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is welcomed by Nawab Akbar Bugti and prominent Baloch tribal leaders at the Royal Durbar in Sibi, on February 11, 1948. — Courtesy Sherbaz Mazari Archives

During Mr Jinnah’s stay in Sibi, he schedules three meetings with the Khan of Kalat to discuss matters related to the accession of Kalat.

The last meeting is scheduled for February 14 in Harboi, the Khan of Kalat’s mountain estate. The meeting is cancelled due to the sudden ‘illness’ of the Khan.

Balochistan consists of British Balochistan, the state of Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran; the latter three are placed under Kalat’s rule as fiduciary states by the British. Three months before Partition, Mr Jinnah is in negotiations with the British on the future status of Kalat and of British Balochistan. After several meetings between Lord Mountbatten, Mr Jinnah and the Khan, a Standstill Agreement between Pakistan and Kalat is announced on August 11, 1947, with a proviso that there will be further discussions with respect to an agreement on defence, external affairs and communications.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, the Khan of Kalat, on October 15, 1945. — Courtesy Khan of Kalat Family Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mir Ahmad Yar Khan, the Khan of Kalat, on October 15, 1945. — Courtesy Khan of Kalat Family Archives

Mr Jinnah then undergoes a change of thinking. His view is that Kalat should sign the Instrument of Accession, just as the other Princely States have done, but the Khan and the Dar-ul-Awam Assembly resist.

By March 18, 1948, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran accede to Pakistan and on March 26, 1948, Pakistan’s Army moves into Jiwani, Pasni and Turbat.

On March 28, 1948, the Khan agrees to merge his now landlocked state with Pakistan. The agreement is backdated to August 15, 1947.

Despite the many disagreements along the way, Mr Jinnah’s efforts succeed in winning the hearts and minds that matter.

HOLOCAUST

1947

EXODUS

Muslim refugees from East Punjab and the United Provinces climb atop trains at Amritsar Railway Station to head towards Lahore. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Muslim refugees from East Punjab and the United Provinces climb atop trains at Amritsar Railway Station to head towards Lahore. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Immediately after Partition, massive population exchanges occur between India and Pakistan. Six-and-a-half million Muslims move from India to West Pakistan and 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs from West Pakistan to India.

Only thirty-two miles separate Amritsar from Lahore. Hindus and Sikhs constitute about a third of Lahore’s population and in Amritsar, Muslims account for half of the city’s population. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs have links in both cities; some have their homes in one and their businesses in the other. Then Partition intervenes and from August to November 1947 huge caravans of refugees from both cities join the mass exodus; Muslims are fleeing from East Punjab and Hindus and Sikhs from West Punjab.

This exodus is accompanied by unprecedented violence on both sides and is most tragically witnessed in the attacks on trains crammed with refugees, and the arrival of trainloads of corpses at both ends of the railway line. The violence destroys 4,000 houses in Lahore and most of the 6,000 houses in the Walled City are badly damaged. Amritsar is the worst affected city in Punjab, with almost 10,000 buildings burnt down.

Hindu refugees wait to board ship at Karachi Harbour and embark for Bombay. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Hindu refugees wait to board ship at Karachi Harbour and embark for Bombay. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Although in the second half of 1947 Sindh is still relatively free of communal violence, Hindus and Sikhs begin migrating to India. According to noted Sindh historian, Dr Hamida Khuhro, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah “fully expected to retain the minority communities in Pakistan” and Ayub Khuhro, his Chief Minister in Sindh, declares the “Hindus to be an essential part of the society and economy of the province.”

Yet, events spin out of control as violence breaks out in Ajmer on December 6, 1947, and then in the Thar Desert, where Muslim casualties are high. On January 6, 1948, anti-Hindu riots break out in Karachi and the situation is aggravated when new arrivals from India forcefully take possession of houses in Karachi and Hyderabad that are still occupied by their Hindu owners.

In September 1947, according to estimates published by the Times of India, 12,000 non-Muslims leave Sindh for Mewar and other Princely States via Hyderabad (Sindh) and approximately 60,000 non-Muslims leave Karachi by rail, sea and air. In Bombay alone, 290,000 non-Muslims arrive on January 7, 1948 after leaving Karachi on August 15, 1947.


AUGUST 1947

A PUNJAB TORN ASUNDER

Too weak to walk on her own, a woman sits on her husband’s shoulders as Sikhs and Hindus brave the unforgiving October heat during their migration to eastern Punjab from Lahore.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Too weak to walk on her own, a woman sits on her husband’s shoulders as Sikhs and Hindus brave the unforgiving October heat during their migration to eastern Punjab from Lahore.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Sir Cyril Radcliffe arrives in India on July 8, 1947. His instructions are to draw up a boundary line between India and Pakistan by August 15, 1947. His objections to the short time frame are ignored. The problem is that Punjab’s population distribution is such that no boundary can divide Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims without massive disruption.

The Commission has four representatives; two from the Congress and two from the Muslim League. But the bitterness between the two sides means that the final decision is Sir Cyril’s alone.

As soon as the Commission announces the demarcation line on August 17, 1947, mass migration movements erupt, as Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab move east, and Muslims in East Punjab move west.

Over the following days, the migrations assume staggering proportions and the violence on all sides of the communal spectrum is catastrophic, and estimates of the death toll vary between 200,000 and two million.

Mr Radcliffe leaves India immediately after completing the demarcation, destroying all his papers before departing.

In 1966, W.H. Auden, the celebrated English poet writes a poem on Mr Radcliffe’s Partition, evoking the difficulties of his task:

“Shut up in a lonely mansion, with police night and day/ Patrolling the gardens to keep assassins away,/ He got down to work, to the task of settling the fate/ Of millions. The maps at his disposal were out of date/ And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect/ …But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,/ A continent for better or worse divided.”

Punjab was indeed torn asunder.

THE SOLE SPOKESMAN

KARACHI AUGUST 15 1947

ENTER THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is sworn in as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah is sworn in as the first Governor-General of Pakistan. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

“I, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, do solemnly affirm true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Pakistan as by law established, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George VI, in the office of Governor-General of Pakistan.”

It is Friday, August 15, 1947 and as Mr Jinnah speaks these words, as enunciated in the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the culminating moment of his long struggle for Pakistan is at hand. The oath of office is administered by Mian Abdul Rashid, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court (Mian Abdul Rashid later becomes the first Chief Justice of Pakistan). A thirty-one gun salute follows immediately.

Next, the first Cabinet of Pakistan is sworn in. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is appointed as the first Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers include I.I. Chundrigar (Trade & Commerce); Malik Ghulam Muhammad (Finance); Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar (Communications); Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan (Food, Agriculture & Health); Jogendra Nath Mandal (Law & Labour); and Mir Fazlur Rahman (Interior, Information & Education).

Following these ceremonies, Mr Jinnah, resplendent in a white sharkskin sherwani, walks towards the naval guard and acknowledges their salute. Although it is the month of August, the day’s heat dissipates under slightly overcast skies and the light incoming winds from the Arabian Sea.

Mr Jinnah walks down the steps of the cascading patio and on to the lawns of Government House, where dignitaries, diplomats, government functionaries and political veterans wait to congratulate him. On the outside perimeter, cheering crowds gather, intent on catching a glimpse of their Governor-General.

The last image of Mr Jinnah and Miss Fatima Jinnah on this historic day is of them waving from one of the balconies of Government House as the Pakistan flag flutters in the wind.


KARACHI AUGUST 1947

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

Saeed Haroon – a salar (commander) of the Muslim League National Guard and former National Guard ADC to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leads a procession towards Boulton Market in Karachi.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Saeed Haroon – a salar (commander) of the Muslim League National Guard and former National Guard ADC to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leads a procession towards Boulton Market in Karachi.— Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

The All-India Muslim League National Guard, founded in the United Provinces in 1931, is a quasi-military organisation associated with the Muslim League. The goal of the National Guard is to mobilise and inspire young Muslims with the values of tolerance, sacrifice and discipline. In 1934, the National Guard is given a further boost by Mr Jinnah and the organisation spreads across all the states of united India to activate participation in the Pakistan Movement.

The rally pictured here is met by a mammoth crowd raising the twin slogans of “Leke Rahenge Pakistan” and “Leke Rahenge Kashmir.” This rally in Karachi is part of an overall effort to mobilise all sections of the country in favour of Pakistan in the wake of Independence.

This photograph of Saeed Haroon was taken by Margaret Bourke-White and appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1947 and subsequently as part of a series of images in Life magazine’s cover story on Pakistan in January 1948.


BOMBAY AUGUST 1947

THE SOLE SPOKESMAN

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah stands in the study of his South Court residence on Mount Pleasant Road in Malabar Hills, Bombay’s most exclusive residential neighbourhood. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah stands in the study of his South Court residence on Mount Pleasant Road in Malabar Hills, Bombay’s most exclusive residential neighbourhood. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

We are a few weeks before Mr Jinnah’s final departure for Karachi, where he will be sworn in as Pakistan’s first Governor General.

For the moment he is still able to enjoy the pleasures of his well-appointed home in Bombay.

A long journey has taken him from being the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity to becoming the sole spokesman for the Muslims of undivided India. This remarkable transition in his political career is analysed in The Sole Spokesman, a groundbreaking work by Pakistani historian, Dr Ayesha Jalal.

Single-handedly Dr Jalal transforms the whole prism through which Mr Jinnah’s career is viewed after his return from a self-imposed exile in London, and her work is a source of inspiration for many subsequent historians in South Asia and abroad, including the former Indian foreign minister, Jaswant Singh.

Here, Dr Jalal explains the dynamics of the concept of the sole spokesman.

Mr Jinnah was representing a divided Muslim community that needed to speak with one voice in order to be effective in the negotiations to determine independent India’s constitutional future. So when Mr Jinnah spoke to the British and the Congress, he claimed to represent all Muslims – be it in Muslim majority provinces or in Muslim minority ones.

Earlier in his career, Mr Jinnah had been styled the “ambassador for Hindu-Muslim unity” by his political mentor in the Congress, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Here, by contrast, Mr Jinnah himself claimed to be the sole spokesman of all Indian Muslims, a tactic that was intended to counter the Congress’s claim to speak on behalf of all Indians and paper over the cracks within the Indian Muslims. The remarkable corollary to this was that throughout his political career,

Mr Jinnah consistently championed minority rights. He demonstrated this aspect in his first address to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in August 1947 and in subsequent statements in the post-independence period. There was a paradoxical side effect to Mr Jinnah’s claim to be the sole spokesman of the Muslims in India. The Congress used Mr Jinnah’s demand for Muslim self-determination to insist on similar rights for non-Muslims in the two main Muslim majority provinces of Bengal and Punjab.

Pressed by the Hindu Mahasabha, the Congress high command called for the partition of these two provinces in March 1947, turning Mr Jinnah’s idea of an undivided Punjab and undivided Bengal for the Muslim state of Pakistan on its head.

This is why, concludes Dr Jalal, “it is a mistake to confuse the demand for Pakistan with the truncated Pakistan that emerged after the partition of Bengal and Punjab.”


KARACHI AUGUST 14, 1947

THE QUAID ASSUMES POWER

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah delivers his reply to the Viceroy’s address at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to mark the transfer of power between the British Government and Pakistan and India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah delivers his reply to the Viceroy’s address at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to mark the transfer of power between the British Government and Pakistan and India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Seated behind him on the podium is Lord Louis Mountbatten. Lady Edwina Mountbatten is seated beneath the podium on the left.

Three days earlier, on August 11, 1947, at the inaugural session of the Constituent Assembly in Karachi, Mr Jinnah delivers a landmark address, setting out some of the key components of his vision for Pakistan. On the subject of the freedom of religious expression he says: “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state… We are all equal citizens of one state.”

Now, Mr Jinnah prepares for the Dominion of Pakistan to assume power… Lord Mountbatten has returned to his seat after delivering his address to mark the transfer of power. In his speech Lord Mountbatten says: “I would like to express my tribute to Mr Jinnah. Our close personal contact and the mutual trust and understanding that have grown out of it are, I feel, the best omens for future good relations…”

Mr Jinnah, dressed in a white sharkskin sherwani, in measured extempore and with a few notes in his hand, replies: “Your Excellency, I thank His Majesty the King on behalf of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly and myself for his gracious message… Great responsibilities lie ahead… It will be our continuous effort to work for the welfare and well-being of all the communities in Pakistan…”

The next day, Mr Jinnah will be sworn in as Pakistan’s first Governor General by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Mian Abdul Rashid.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Miss Fatima Jinnah, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Lady Edwina Mountbatten face jubilant crowds as they leave the Constituent Assembly. — Courtesy Directorate of Electronic Media and Publications [DEMP], Ministry of Information Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Miss Fatima Jinnah, Lord Louis Mountbatten and Lady Edwina Mountbatten face jubilant crowds as they leave the Constituent Assembly. — Courtesy Directorate of Electronic Media and Publications [DEMP], Ministry of Information Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad

Mr Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten drive together to Government House in a gleaming Rolls-Royce. Later in the afternoon, Lord and Lady Mountbatten leave for Delhi to attend the independence celebrations in India.


DELHI JUNE 3, 1947

ONWARDS TO PARTITION

Lord Mountbatten announces the British Government’s plan for the Partition of India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Lord Mountbatten announces the British Government’s plan for the Partition of India. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Earl Louis Mountbatten of Burma, the last viceroy of India is seated in his study at Viceroy House. To the right are Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar (for the Muslim League). To the left are Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Acharya Kripalani (for the Congress) and Baldev Singh (representing the Sikhs). Seated behind Lord Mountbatten are General Lord Ismay (right), his chief of staff, and Sir Eric Miéville (left), his private secretary.

It is June 3, 1947, and failed viceregal initiatives, such as the Simla Conference, the London Conference and the Cabinet Mission Plan – even the killings of Direct Action Day – are matters to be left behind. All hopes for a united India are dead. The sole question is how to proceed with the division of India.

Lord Mountbatten announces the British Government’s plan for the Partition of India, to be implemented under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. British India will be divided into two new and fully sovereign dominions with effect from August 15, 1947. Bengal and Punjab will be partitioned between the two new dominions. Legislative authority is conferred upon the Constituent Assemblies of the two dominions and British suzerainty over the Princely States ends on August 15, 1947.

The meeting is followed by separate broadcasts on All India Radio by Lord Mountbatten, Mr Nehru, Mr Jinnah and Mr Singh.

This is the parting of ways. A few weeks later, Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru assume their responsibilities respectively in Karachi and Delhi.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan at the former’s residence at 10, Aurangzeb Road. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan at the former’s residence at 10, Aurangzeb Road. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

A lawyer by training, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan enters politics in 1923. Throughout the struggle for Pakistan, he is a close associate and friend of Mr Jinnah. After Mr Jinnah’s death, his name appears as one of three executors of his will.

He serves as Pakistan’s first prime minister until his assassination on the grounds of Company Bagh, Rawalpindi, in 1951.

A PLAN TO NOWHERE

CALCUTTA AUGUST 16, 1946

THE AFTERMATH

Vultures feed on corpses strewn across an alleyway in Calcutta. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Vultures feed on corpses strewn across an alleyway in Calcutta. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

As dusk descends, the results of the riots that erupt on Direct Action Day are all too clear. It is a day of untrammelled rioting and slaughter between Hindus and Muslims.

Trouble starts in the morning, even before the Muslim League rally, scheduled for noon at the Ochterlony Monument, begins. The Premier of Bengal, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and his predecessor, Khawaja Nazimuddin are the main speakers. Tensions rise and Khawaja Nazimuddin pleads for restraint.

The moment the rally is over, the crowd, incensed by unconfirmed reports that all the injured are Muslims, start attacking Hindu-owned shops. Hindus and Sikhs lie in wait; as soon as they catch a Muslim, they hack him into pieces. By six o’clock a curfew is imposed; at eight o’clock troops secure the main routes and conduct patrols.

Although the worst affected areas are brought under control by late afternoon and the army presence is extended overnight, the killing escalates the next day. In the slums and areas outside military control, the violence gains in intensity. On August 18, buses and taxis loaded with Sikhs and Hindus armed with swords, iron bars and firearms appear. The communal slaughter continues unabated until August 21, when Bengal is placed under Viceroy Rule.

The violence claims an estimated 3,000 dead and 17,000 injured.


CALCUTTA AUGUST 1946

FACING THE UNKNOWABLE

It is the eve of Direct Action Day. Bengal Premier, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (right), is engrossed in a telephone conversation at his residence in Calcutta. Khawaja Nazimuddin, his predecessor, is seated next to him. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
It is the eve of Direct Action Day. Bengal Premier, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (right), is engrossed in a telephone conversation at his residence in Calcutta. Khawaja Nazimuddin, his predecessor, is seated next to him. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Mr Suhrawardy is the last premier of Bengal under the Raj. He is a prominent leader of the Muslim League and serves as mayor of Calcutta in the 1930s. In ten years’ time, he will be Pakistan’s fifth prime minister. Two years later, Khawaja Nazimuddin will be Pakistan’s second governor general and subsequently Pakistan’s second prime minister.

One month earlier, the Muslim League and Congress, for different reasons, reject the Cabinet Mission Plan. The Congress are intransigent in their opposition to any kind of equal Muslim representation at the centre. It is clear that agreement cannot be reached and Mr Jinnah announces a countrywide Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946 to demonstrate the Muslim League’s determination that any arrangement following a British withdrawal must include parity at the centre.

As Direct Action Day breaks, no one can predict that the events that unfold will come to be known as the Great Calcutta Killings. Meetings and processions take place all across India, and all with minimal disturbance – with one exception – Calcutta. Perhaps because the situation in Bengal is particularly complex.

Although Muslims represent the majority of the population (56%), they are concentrated in eastern Bengal. In Calcutta, the ratio is reversed and Hindus constitute 64% of the population. As a result, Calcutta’s population is divided into two antagonistic entities.

Adding fuel to fire, tensions are running high. Hindu and Muslim communal newspapers are whipping up public sentiment with inflammatory reporting. And on the day itself, political leaders fail to anticipate the emotional response the word ‘nation’ evokes; it is no longer a political slogan – it has become a reality, politically and in the popular imagination.

Against this backdrop, Direct Action Day becomes symbolic of the carnage Hindu-Muslim antagonism will trigger in the days leading up, and subsequent, to Partition.

It is a day neither the Muslim League, the Congress nor the British administration could foresee.


DELHI JULY 1946

RENOUNCING THE PLAN

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, is announcing the Muslim League’s rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan at a press conference and calls for a Direct Action Day on Friday, August 16, 1946. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is seated on the right. —Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, is announcing the Muslim League’s rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan at a press conference and calls for a Direct Action Day on Friday, August 16, 1946. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan is seated on the right. —Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Earlier the same year, the Cabinet Mission, appointed by the British Government, is in India to find a solution that will grant independence to India, while attempting to preserve some semblance of the country’s unity.

They draw up a plan that calls for the setting up of a Constituent Assembly composed of members of the Congress and the Muslim League. The plan includes two options.

Option one is an all-India Federation based on the grouping of a) the Hindu majority provinces b) the Muslim majority provinces in the northwest (to include Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab and the NWFP) and the Muslim majority provinces in the northeast (to include Bengal and Assam). The powers of the federal centre under option one are to be limited to defence, foreign affairs and communications. Although acceptable to the Muslim League, this option is rejected by the Congress, which is firmly opposed to the grouping of provinces and the restrictions placed on central powers.

Option two proposes a sovereign Pakistan based on the partition of Punjab and Bengal, with all the Muslim majority areas going to Pakistan. Option two is rejected by both the Muslim League and the Congress, the latter reiterating that they will never forego their national character, accept parity with the Muslim League or agree to a veto by any communal group.

Once it becomes clear that the Congress wants to break the grouping and enhance central powers, Mr Jinnah withdraws the Muslim League’s approval of option one, reiterates the demand for a sovereign Pakistan based on undivided Punjab and Bengal, and calls for a Direct Action Day to force the British to grant them equal representation at the centre.

The die is now cast.

THE VICEREGAL CHESS GAME

SIMLA & LONDON 1945-46

IN THE VICEREGAL SHADOW

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, dons a solar topi as his rickshaw makes its way to Viceregal Lodge. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, dons a solar topi as his rickshaw makes its way to Viceregal Lodge. — Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives

Mr Jinnah is on his way to attend the Simla Conference called at the behest of the Viceroy, Lord Wavell on June 25, 1945. The purpose is to discuss the Wavell Plan with the Muslim League and the Congress.

The Wavell Plan is the outcome of discussions in May 1945 between Lord Wavell and the British Government about the future of India. The crux of the plan is the reconstitution of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, with members selected by the Viceroy from a list of nominees proposed by the political parties. Differences immediately arise between the Muslim League and the Congress on the issue of Muslim representation. The Muslim League’s position is that as the only representative party of Muslims in India, all Muslim representatives on the Council must be nominated by them.

The Congress maintain that as they represent all communities in India they, therefore, should nominate Muslim representatives. The result is a deadlock and failure.

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru caught smiling at each other at a reception at the India Office Library in London in December 1946. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Jawaharlal Nehru caught smiling at each other at a reception at the India Office Library in London in December 1946. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Mr Jinnah and Mr Nehru are attending the London Conference, chaired by British Prime Minister Clement Attlee. This is a further attempt by the British to secure acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Although Mr Jinnah is willing to consider maintaining links with Hindustan (as the future Hindu majority state is referred to) on subjects such as a joint military and communications, he is adamant in his refusal to any agreement with respect to the composition of the Constituent Assembly without the constitutional stipulations required for the protection of future Muslim rights.

Subsequent to the failure of the London Conference, Mr Jinnah insists on a fully sovereign Pakistan with dominion status. The encounter of smiles at the India Office did not work.


DELHI 1946

A REDSHIRT POET DISSENTS

Khan Abdul Ghani Khan (right) converses with Benegal Shiva Rao, a leading journalist and politician, in front of Council House in Delhi. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
Khan Abdul Ghani Khan (right) converses with Benegal Shiva Rao, a leading journalist and politician, in front of Council House in Delhi. — Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

Ghani Khan is the eldest son of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Educated at Rabindranath Tagore’s Shantiniketan School in western Bengal, which Indira Gandhi also attends, he is a poet, a sculptor, a painter – and a man of strong political views.

In April 1947, as Partition approaches, he forms a militant group, Pakhtoon Zalmay (Pakhtoon Youth), aimed at protecting the Redshirts and members of Congress from ‘violence’ at the hands of Muslim League sympathisers. However, the relationship between Congress and the Redshirt Movement is on a downward spiral. Despite Redshirt opposition to Pakistan, Congress negotiations with the British over the Partition of India stipulate for a referendum to be held on whether the NWFP will join Pakistan or India. Bitterly disappointed by this turn of events, his father’s last words to Mahatma Gandhi and his Congress allies are: “You have thrown us to the wolves.”

The referendum is overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan; the Redshirts severe their connection with Congress and move a resolution, whereby the Redshirts “regard Pakistan as their own country and pledge to do their utmost to strengthen and safeguard its interests and make every sacrifice for the cause.”

From then on, although no longer active in politics, Ghani Khan is still seen as a symbol of dissent and spends much of the early 1950s in prison. After his release, he withdraws into philosophy and art and authors several volumes of poems, including De Panjray Chaghar, a literary defence of the Pakhtoonwali code of honour. In 1980, General Zia-ul-Haq confers the Sitara-e-Imtiaz upon him.

He dies in 1996; his legacy is best expressed in his words: “Pakhtoon is not merely a race but a state of mind; there is a Pakhtoon inside every man, who at times wakes up, and it overpowers him.”


PESHAWAR TO BOMBAY 1944

GANDHI MANOEUVERS

Mahatma Gandhi visits the NWFP in the mid-1930s in order to consolidate the alliance between the Indian National Congress and Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s Redshirt Movement. It is the proximity between Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Mahatma Gandhi that earns the former the sobriquet of the ‘Frontier Gandhi’.

The Redshirt Movement begins as a non-violent struggle against British rule by Pakhtoons under the leadership of Abdul Ghaffar Khan. The movement starts facing pressure from the British authorities and Abdul Ghaffar Khan seeks political allies with the national parties.

Rebuffed by the Muslim League in 1931, he finds a sympathetic ear with the Congress. His brother, Dr Khan Sahib, plays an instrumental role in the success of the Congress-Redshirt Alliance in the 1937 and 1946 elections. As Partition approaches, the Redshirt Movement opposes joining Pakistan and when the Congress agrees to the British proposal for a referendum in the NWFP, Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s relationship with the Congress finds itself seriously frayed.

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi smile during the Jinnah-Gandhi talks. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mahatma Gandhi smile during the Jinnah-Gandhi talks. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Initiated by Mahatma Gandhi in July 1944, the talks are held at Mr Jinnah’s residence in Bombay in September. Mahatma Gandhi’s objective is to convince Mr Jinnah that the idea of Pakistan is untenable. In his opinion, power should be transferred to the Congress, after which Muslim majority areas that vote for separation will be made part of an Indian federation.

This view, says Mahatma Gandhi, reflects the substance of the Lahore Resolution. For Mr Jinnah, the absence of any guarantee that would protect Muslim rights under such an arrangement makes the proposal completely unacceptable. The talks end in failure.

ENTER THE QUAID-I-AZAM

KARACHI 1943

A PROCESSION IN TRIUMPH

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and G.M. Syed make their way in a triumphal procession to the Annual Session of the Muslim League in Karachi in December 1943. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and G.M. Syed make their way in a triumphal procession to the Annual Session of the Muslim League in Karachi in December 1943. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Behind them and standing are Mr Jinnah’s National Guard ADCs; Mumtaz Hidayatullah, the son of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah, the veteran politician from Sindh, and Saeed Haroon, the son of Haji Abdullah Haroon.

On March 3, 1943, G.M. Syed brings before the Sindh Legislative Assembly, a resolution demanding the creation of Pakistan. The resolution is adopted, making it the first one in favour of the creation of Pakistan passed by a legislature in undivided India. It states that the Muslims of India “are justly entitled to the right as a single separate nation to have independent national states of their own, carved in the zones in which they are in majority in the subcontinent of India…”

It is this triumph for the Muslim League that frames Mr Jinnah’s arrival later in December to attend the Annual Session of the Muslim League for which Karachi is chosen as the venue.

As the President of the Sindh Muslim League, G.M. Syed is tasked with the responsibility of organising the arrangements for the Annual Session. He writes: “For nearly three months we worked to make a grand job of the honour that had been done to us. We did not spare men or material in lending all the grandeur and splendour to this historic session and only those who attended it can bear testimony to the scrupulous care with which every detail had been attended to and the lavish hospitality that Sindh had to offer.”

In his memoir, Struggle For New Sindh, G.M. Syed also writes about his admiration for Mr Jinnah: “In Jinnah I found a man of extraordinary intellectual capacity. His domineering personality and dynamic genius left a deep impression on my mind.”

G.M. Syed is subsequently asked by Mr Jinnah to resign from the presidency of the Sindh Muslim League, after which a group largely drawn from the Sindh Muslim League and styled as the Progressive Muslim League contest the 1945-46 elections in Sindh and establish a path of their own.


LAHORE MARCH 23, 1940

THE MOMENT OF TRUTH

The Quaid-i-Azam with Nawab Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot at Lahore’s Minto Park. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam with Nawab Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot at Lahore’s Minto Park. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah addresses a mammoth crowd in Lahore’s Minto Park on March 22, 1940, subsequent to the passing of the Lahore Resolution at the three-day Annual Session of the Muslim League.

In the photograph above, Nawab Shahnawaz Khan Mamdot, the Chairman of the Punjab Reception Committee for the session, stands behind him, adjacent to the flagpole.

Sir Zafarullah Khan, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi, Haji Abdullah Haroon and Qazi Isa. — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives
Sir Zafarullah Khan, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi, Haji Abdullah Haroon and Qazi Isa. — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives

Sir Zafarullah Khan (first from left) is credited with the original drafting of the Resolution; the critical points were then submitted in a memorandum to the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, in Delhi. The draft was subsequently further amended in Lahore by the Working Committee. The main supporters of the Resolution, one each from the north-western Muslim majority states in India, are (from second left) Maulana Zafar Ali Khan (Punjab), Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Hazarvi (NWFP), Haji Abdullah Haroon (Sindh) and Qazi Isa (Balochistan).

Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan peruse the Lahore Resolution. — Courtesy Lahore Museum
Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan peruse the Lahore Resolution. — Courtesy Lahore Museum

The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan peruse the Lahore Resolution as Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the seconder of the Resolution and the leader of the Muslim League in the UP legislature, delivers a fiery oration.

Unanimously accepted, the Resolution declares: “No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions, which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary.”

In the long journey to Pakistan, a critical point has been reached. Nothing will be the same again. It is the moment of truth.


SINDH 1938

A REMARKABLE HOMECOMING

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mian Mumtaz Daultana and Haji Abdullah Haroon in Seafield House — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives
Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with Mian Mumtaz Daultana and Haji Abdullah Haroon in Seafield House — Dawn/White Star Archives & Seafield Archives

Haji Abdullah Haroon, President of the Sindh Muslim League relaxes at home in Seafield House between sessions of the Karachi Conference. The Quaid-i-Azam, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Mian Mumtaz Daultana are in an animated discussion about the revitalisation of the first All India Muslim League government in Sindh headed by Haji Abdullah Haroon.

Mr Jinnah, once looked upon as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, returns to India in 1934 to assume the presidency of the Muslim League after four years in self-imposed exile in London. His return is marked by three vigorous years during which he consolidates the foundations of what will eventually constitute the future territories of Pakistan (although Pakistan is still not yet an inevitability in his mind).

Specifically, he succeeds in pushing back the Unionist style coalitions in Sindh, which by their composition are dependent upon the intervention of the British Governor. This pushback culminates in the resolution moved by Shaikh Abdul Majeed and adopted at the Karachi Conference recommending that the Muslim League develop a plan for Muslims to attain full independence.

This is an important first step in Mr Jinnah’s journey towards Muslim independence and a remarkable homecoming.

Four years later, in 1942, Haji Abdullah Haroon passes away. Mr Jinnah in his tribute says: “Muslim India, especially Sindh, has lost a leader who served and guided the people loyally and faithfully. I have lost a friend and colleague and deeply mourn his death.”

Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan describes him as “a pillar of strength to the Muslim League and one of its most sincere leaders. He was a staunch Pakistanist. His death is an irreparable loss to Muslim India in general and to Sindh in particular.”

The Quaid-i-Azam, in celebratory progression through Karachi in December 1938. At the front, next to the driver’s seat is his ADC, a young Mahmoud Haroon. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
The Quaid-i-Azam, in celebratory progression through Karachi in December 1938. At the front, next to the driver’s seat is his ADC, a young Mahmoud Haroon. — Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

THE DAYS IN THE WILDERNESS

ALLAHABAD 1930

AN ADDRESS TO REMEMBER

Sir Muhammad Iqbal arriving at the 25th Session of the All India Muslim League in Allahabad. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives
Sir Muhammad Iqbal arriving at the 25th Session of the All India Muslim League in Allahabad. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives

Sir Muhammad Iqbal arrives at the landmark session of the Muslim League in Allahabad on December 30, 1930, to deliver the now famous Allahabad Address.

Seated in the Lanchester on the right is Haji Abdullah Haroon. Standing next to the car is a young Yusuf Haroon; standing at the extreme left is poet Hafeez Jullundhri who will pen Pakistan’s national anthem eighteen years later.

In his address, Sir Muhammad Iqbal sets out his vision of an independent state for the Muslim majority provinces of undivided India. He defines the Muslims of India as a nation and suggests there is no possibility of peace in India until they are recognised as a nation under a federal system whereby Muslim majority units are accorded the same privileges given to Hindu majority units.

The young barrister Muhammad Iqbal in his library (left). At the historic Mezquita (mosque) of Cordoba, in Andalusia, Spain in 1933 (right). —​ Courtesy Iqbal Academy
The young barrister Muhammad Iqbal in his library (left). At the historic Mezquita (mosque) of Cordoba, in Andalusia, Spain in 1933 (right). —​ Courtesy Iqbal Academy

In outlining a vision of an independent state for Muslim majority provinces for north-western India, Iqbal is the first politician to articulate the two-nation theory; that Muslims are a distinct nation deserving political independence from the other regions and communities of India.

Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s eight stanza masterpiece, Masjid-e-Qurtuba, is inspired by his prayers at the mosque and includes the following lines: “The stars gaze upon your precincts as a piece of heaven/But alas! For centuries your porticoes have not resonated with the call of the azaan”; an allusion to the turning point when Cordoba returned to Christian rule in 1236 and the mosque became a Roman Catholic cathedral.


LONDON 1931

A SELF-IMPOSED EXILE

Mr Jinnah with his sister Fatima and his remarkable daughter Dina. —​ Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Mr Jinnah with his sister Fatima and his remarkable daughter Dina. —​ Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

The Round Table Conferences in London have ended in failure. Mr Jinnah decides to stay on in London where he has a thriving practice as a Privy Council lawyer, with chambers located on King’s Bench Walk.

He spends long periods brooding over the collapse of the Hindu-Muslim unity platform in the Indian National Congress.

Mr Jinnah and Dina share a private moment in the grounds of their home on West Heath Road in Hampstead, London. —​ Courtesy National Archives Islamabad
Mr Jinnah and Dina share a private moment in the grounds of their home on West Heath Road in Hampstead, London. —​ Courtesy National Archives Islamabad

Finally, in 1934, he is persuaded to return to India to assume the presidency of the All India Muslim League. Thereafter, as the Quaid-i-Azam, he launches a series of initiatives that within a record time span of thirteen years, lead to the establishment of Pakistan.

Ruttie Jinnah is the daughter of Parsi baronet, Sir Dinshaw Petit. She marries the Quaid at the age of eighteen in 1918, despite virulent family opposition. The couple reside in South Court Mansion in Bombay.

Ruttie and Mr Jinnah are a glamorous couple. Flawless in her silks, Ruttie wears her signature hairstyle adorned with fresh flowers or complemented with headbands, embellished with diamonds, rubies and emeralds.

The couple are happy in the early years of their marriage. However, by 1923, Mr Jinnah’s deepening political involvement, long hours and frequent travel leave Ruttie feeling lonely and increasingly fragile.

He is in Delhi when a call comes through on February 20, 1929 with the news that Ruttie is critically ill.

According to a close friend, Mr Jinnah says:

“Do you know who that was? It was my father-in-law. This is the first time we have spoken since my marriage.”

What Mr Jinnah does not know is that Ruttie is already dead.

The funeral is held at Bombay’s Muslim cemetery on February 22, 1929. According to Ruttie’s friend, Kanji Dwarkadas, “the funeral was a painfully slow ritual. Jinnah sat silent through all five hours.”

Then as Ruttie’s body is lowered into the grave, Mr Jinnah is the first to throw a handful of earth on the body. Suddenly, he breaks down and weeps like a child.

Another friend, M.C. Chagla, said years later that “there were tears in his eyes. That was the only time I found Jinnah betraying some shadow of human weakness.”


A FIRE EXTINGUISHED 1919-1931

THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (left) standing next to Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari. —​ Courtesy Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar’s family & Dawn/White Star Archives
Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (left) standing next to Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari. —​ Courtesy Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar’s family & Dawn/White Star Archives

Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar (left) dons Turkish attire on his visit to Turkey on the eve of the First World War. Dr Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, leader of the Indian Muslim Medical Mission to Turkey and future president of the Muslim League, stands on the right.

The firebrand Ali Brothers from Rampur State, achieve legendary status within the Khilafat Movement (1919 -1922), as the crucible in which a separate South Asian Muslim identity takes shape.

Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar makes his mark at the end of the First World War, when the Ottoman Empire is occupied by the Allied Powers under the Treaty of Sèvres. The Turkish Nationalists reject the Treaty, and the Grand National Assembly under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk denounces the rule of the reigning sultan, Mehmed VI.

As these events unfold, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar and his brother, Maulana Shaukat Ali, launch an agitation in India aimed at building up political unity among Muslims and pressure the British to preserve the Ottoman caliphate.

The agitation leads to the formation of the Khilafat Movement. However, despite an alliance with the Indian National Congress and a nationwide campaign of peaceful civil disobedience, the Khilafat Movement itself weakens, because Indian Muslims are divided between working for the Congress, the Khilafat Movement and the Muslim League.

The end comes in 1924 when Atatürk abolishes the caliphate. The brothers join the Muslim League and play a major role in the Pakistan Movement.

The Khilafat Movement is a major step towards the establishment of a separate Muslim state in South Asia.

Maulana Shaukat Ali sitting next to the coffin of his brother, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar. —​ Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives
Maulana Shaukat Ali sitting next to the coffin of his brother, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar. —​ Courtesy Lahore Museum Archives

Maulana Shaukat Ali (extreme right) in January 1931 sits next to the coffin of his brother, Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar, on board the ship SS Narkunda on the way to Port Said. Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar is buried within the precincts of the Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem.

His frequent jail sentences and acute diabetes have an adverse impact on his health. He dies in London in January 1931, while attending the First Round Table Conference.

His final words to the British Government are: “I would prefer to die in a foreign country as long as it is free. If you do not grant us freedom in India, you will have to find me a grave here.”


GENESIS DHAKA 1906

THE ALL INDIA MUSLIM LEAGUE

Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, Nawab Salimullah and Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III. — Dawn/White Star Archives
Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk, Nawab Salimullah and Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III. — Dawn/White Star Archives

Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulk (first from left), a prominent political personality from Hyderabad State, inaugurates the founding session of the All India Muslim League in Dhaka in 1906.

Nawab Salimullah of Dhaka (second from left), a venerated educationist, legislator and a powerful advocate for the Partition of Bengal, hosts the session of the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference in Dhaka; a session that leads to the foundation of the All India Muslim League.

Sir Sultan Mohammed Shah Aga Khan III (third from left), the spiritual head of the Ismaili community worldwide, plays a formative role in the founding of the All India Muslim League and serves as President from 1907 to 1913. He later becomes president of the League of Nations.

Founding members of the All India Muslim League. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives
Founding members of the All India Muslim League. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives

The founding members of the All India Muslim League (above and below) at the baradariof Shah Bagh in Dhaka on December 30, 1906.

The image below shows Maulana Muhammad Ali Jauhar seated on the front row, second from left, and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali, sixth from left, same row.

The All India Muslim League which grows from the vision of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan at Aligarh will spearhead the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Founding members of the All India Muslim League. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives
Founding members of the All India Muslim League. —​ Dawn/White Star Archives

TOWARDS 1947

CARAVAN TO FREEDOM

The road to partition. —​ Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi
The road to partition. —​ Excerpted with permission from Witness to Life and Freedom, Roli Books, Delhi

As Partition approaches in 1947, large convoys of Sikh and Hindu refugees head towards East Punjab, and Muslims flee to the two wings of Pakistan. This photo captures the tail end of this momentous period.


This content has been independently produced by Dawn Media Group. UBL has paid for association with the content.


UBL, one of the largest banks in the private sector, was declared Pakistan’s Best Bank in 2016. With a proud legacy of 58 years, UBL is part of the socio-economic fabric of the country and has always served Pakistan with passion and pride. To mark Pakistan’s 70th independence year, this campaign celebrates everything that makes us proud of our past and positive for our future.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1338270/the-dawn-of-pakistan

AUGUST OFFER, INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AND CRIPPS MISSION (1939-1942)

AUGUST OFFER, INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AND CRIPPS MISSION (1939-1942)

  • In 1939 the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared India a belligerent state on the side of Britain  in WW2 without consulting Indian political leaders or the elected provincial representatives.

CWC Meeting at Wardha (September 10-14, 1939):

Different opinions were voiced on the question of Indian support to British war efforts:

  • Gandhi advocated an unconditional support to the Allied powers as he made a clear distinction between the democratic states of Western Europe and the totalitarian Nazis.
  • Subhash Bose and the socialists argued that the war was an imperialist one since both sides were fighting for gaining or defending colonial territories. Therefore, the question of supporting either of the two sides did not arise. Instead, advantage should be taken of the situation to wrest freedom by immediately starting a civil disobedience movement.
  • Nehru made a sharp distinction between democracy and Fascism. He believed that justice was on the side of Britain, France and Poland, but he was also convinced that Britain and France were imperialist powers, and that the war was the result of the inner contradictions of capitalism maturing since the end of World War I.He, therefore, advocated no Indian participation till India itself was free. However, at the same time, no advantage was to be taken of Britain’s difficulty by starting an immediate struggle.

The CWC resolution condemned Fascist aggression. It said that:

  1. India could not be party to a war being fought ostensibly for democratic freedom, while that freedom was being denied to India
  2. if Britain was fighting for democracy and freedom, it should prove it by ending imperialism in its colonies and establishing full democracy in India;
  3. the Government should declare its war aims soon and, also, as to how the principles of democracy were to be applied to India.
  • The Congress leadership wanted to give every chance to the viceroy and the British Government.

Government’s Response:

  • The Government’s response was entirely negative. Linlithgow, in his statement (October 17, 1939), tried to use the Muslim League and the princes against the Congress.The Viceroy in statement claimed that Britain is waging a war driven by the motif to strengthen peace in the world. He also stated that after the war, the government would initiate modifications in the Act of 1935, in accordance to the desires of the Indians.
  • The Government:
  1. Refused to define British war aims beyond stating that Britain was resisting aggression;
  2. Said it would, as part of future arrangement, consult “representatives of several communities, parties and interests in India, and the Indian princes” as to how the Act of 1935 might be modified;
  3.  Said it would immediately set up a “consultative committee” whose advice could be sought whenever required.

Government’s Hidden Agenda:

  1. Linlithgow’s statement was not an aberration, but a part of general British policy “to take advantage of the war to regain the lost ground from the Congress” by provoking the Congress into a confrontation with the Government and then using the extraordinary situation to acquire draconian powers. Even before the declaration of the war, emergency powers had been acquired for the centre in respect of provincial subjects by amending the 1935 Act.
  2. Defence of India ordinance had been enforced the day the war was declared, thus restricting civil liberties. In May 1940, a top secret Draft Revolutionary Movement Ordinance had been prepared, aimed at launching crippling pre-emptive strikes on the Congress. The Government could then call upon the
  3. Allied troops stationed in India. It could also win an unusual amount of liberal and leftist sympathy all over the world by painting an aggressive Congress as being pro-Japan and pro-Germany.
  • British Indian reactionary policies received full support from Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Secretary of State, Zetland, who branded the Congress as a purely Hindu organisation.
  • It became clear that the British Government had no intention of loosening its hold, during or after the war, and was willing to treat the Congress as an enemy. Gandhi reacted sharply to the Government’s insensitivity to Indian public opinion—” …there is to be no democracy for India if Britain can prevent it.” Referring to the minorities and other special interests, Gandhi said, “Congress will safeguard minority rights provided they do not advance claims inconsistent with India’s independence.”

On October 23, 1939, the CWC meeting:

  1. Rejected the viceroy’s statement as a reiteration of the old imperialist policy,
  2. Decided not to support the war, and
  3. Called upon the Congress ministries to resign in the provinces.
  • Gandhi’s reaction to Linlithgow’s statement of October 1939 was; “the old policy of divide and rule is to continue. The Congress has asked for bread and it has got stone.”
  • Congress Provincial Governments from eight provinces resigned .The resignation of the ministers was an occasion of great joy and rejoicing for leader of the Muslim League, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He called the day of 22 December 1939 ‘The Day of Deliverance‘.
  • In January 1940, Linlithgow stated, “Dominion status of Westminster variety, after the war, is the goal of British policy in India.”

Debate on the Question of Immediate Mass Satyagraha:

  • After Linlithgow’s statement of October 1939, the debate on the question of immediate mass struggle began once again.
  • Gandhi and his supporters were not in favour of an immediate struggle because they felt that the:
  1. Allied cause was just;
  2. Communal sensitivity and lack of Hindu-Muslim unity could result in communal riots;
  3. Congress organisation was in shambles and the atmosphere was not conducive for a mass struggle; and
  4. Masses were not ready for a struggle.
  • They instead advocated toning up the Congress organisation, carrying on political work among the masses, and negotiating till all possibilities of a negotiated settlement were exhausted. Only then would the struggle be begun.
  • The views of the dominant leadership were reflected in the Congress resolution at the Ramgarh session (March 1940)—”Congress would resort to civil disobedience as soon as the Congress organisation is considered fit enough or if circumstances precipitate a crisis.”
  • A coalition of leftist groups—Subhash Bose and his Forward Bloc, Congress Socialist Party, Communist Party, the Royists—characterised the war as an imperialist war giving an opportunity to attain freedom through an all-out struggle against British imperialism.This group was convinced that the masses were ready for action, only waiting for a call from the leadership. They accepted hurdles, such as communalism and the shortcomings of the Congress organisation, but thought that these would be automatically swept away in the course of a struggle. They urged the Congress leadership to launch an immediate mass struggle.
  • Bose even proposed a parallel Congress to organise an immediate mass struggle if the Congress leadership was not willing to go along with them, but the CSP and CPI differed with Bose on this.
  • Nehru considered the Allied powers as imperialists and his philosophy and political perception leant towards the idea of an early struggle but that would have undermined the fight against Fascism. He finally went along with Gandhi and the Congress majority.

Pakistan Resolution—Lahore (March 1940):

  • The Muslim League passed a resolution calling for “grouping of geographically contiguous areas where Muslims are in majority (North-West, East) into independent states in which constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign and adequate safeguards to Muslims where they are in minority”.

Change of Government in England:

  • In the meanwhile, crucial political events took place in England. Chamberlain was succeeded by Churchill as the Prime Minister and the Conservatives, who assumed power in England, did not have a sympathetic stance towards the claims made by the Congress.

August Offer, 8 August 1940:

  • The fall of France temporarily softened the attitude of congress in India. Britain was in immediate danger of Nazi occupation. As the war was taking a menacing turn from the allied point of view congress offered to cooperate in the war if transfer of authority in India is done to an interim government. The governments response was a statement of the viceroy known as the august offer.
  • On 8 August 1940, early in the Battle of Britain, the Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow,made the so-called August Offer.The following proposals were put in:
    1. The establishment of an advisory war council
    2. After the war a representative Indian body would be set up to frame a constitution for India.
    3. Viceroy’s Executive Council would be expanded without delay.
    4. The minorities were assured that the government would not transfer power “to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in Indian national life.”
  • For the first time, the inherent right of Indians to frame their constitution was recognised and the Congress demand for a constituent assembly was conceded. Dominion status was explicitly offered.In July 1941, the viceroy’s executive council was enlarged to give the Indians a majority of 8 out of 12 for the first time, but the whites remained in charge of defence, finance and home. Also, a National Defence Council was set up with purely advisory functions.
  • The Congress rejected the August Offer. Nehru said, “Dominion status concept is dead as a door nail.” Gandhi said that the declaration had widened the gulf between the nationalists and the British rulers.
  • The Muslim League welcomed the veto assurance given to the League, and reiterated its position that partition was the only solution to the deadlock.
  • In the context of widespread dissatisfaction that prevailed over the rejection of the demands made by the Congress, Gandhi at the meeting of the Congress Working Committee in Wardha revealed his plan to launch Individual Civil Disobedience.

Individual Satyagraha 1940-41:

  • Towards the end of 1940, the Congress once again asked Gandhi to take command. Gandhi now began taking steps which would lead to a mass struggle within his broad strategic perspective
  • After the August Offer, disappointed radicals and leftists wanted to launch a mass Civil Disobedience Movement, but here Gandhi insisted on Individual Satyagraha.
  • The Individual Satyagraha was not to seek independence but to affirm the right of speech. The other reason of this Satyagraha was that a mass movement may turn violent and he would not like to see the Great Britain embarrassed by such a situation.
  • This view was conveyed to Lord Linlithgow by Gandhi when he met him on September 27, 1940.
  • The aims of launching individual satyagrahas were:(i) To show that nationalist patience was not due to weakness; (ii) to express people’s feeling that they were not interested in the war and that they made no distinction between Nazism and the double autocracy that ruled India; and (iii) to give another opportunity to the Government to accept Congress’ demands peacefully.
  • The non-violence was set as the centerpiece of Individual Satyagraha. This was done by carefully selecting the Satyagrahis.
  • The first Satyagrahi selected was Acharya Vinoba Bhave, who was sent to Jail when he spoke against the war.
  • Second Satyagrahi was Jawahar Lal Nehru.
  • Third was Brahma Datt, one of the inmates of the Gandhi’s Ashram. They all were sent to jails for violating the Defense of India Act.
  • This was followed by a lot of other people. But since it was not a mass movement, it attracted little enthusiasm and in December 1940, Gandhi suspended the movement. The campaign started again in January 1941, this time, thousands of people joined and around 20 thousand people were arrested.On 3 December 1941, the Viceroy ordered the acquittal of all the satyagrahis.
  • The British feared the destabilizing of India might encourage a Japanese invasion, and would reduce the number of men who volunteered to fight the war. Japan in 1942 had overrun Malaya and was into Burma; the threat of an invasion of India was real. London wanted the cooperation and support of Indian political leaders in order to recruit more Indians into the British Indian Army, which was fighting in the Middle East theatre.

Cripps Mission:

  • In March 1942, a mission headed by Stafford Cripps was sent to India with constitutional proposals to seek Indian support for the war.
  • Stafford Cripps was a left-wing Labourite, the leader of the House of Commons and and government minister in the War Cabinet of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. who had actively supported the Indian national movement.

Why Cripps Mission was sent:

  1.  To secure full Indian cooperation and support for their efforts in World War II, because of the reverses suffered by Britain in South-East Asia, the Japanese threat to invade India seemed real now ‘and Indian support became crucial.
  2. There was pressure on Britain from the Allies (USA, USSR, and China) to seek Indian cooperation.
  3. Indian nationalists had agreed to support the Allied cause if substantial power was transferred immediately and complete independence given after the war.
  • The Congress was divided upon its response to India’s entry into World War II. Angry over the decision made by the Viceroy, some Congress leaders favoured launching a revolt against the British despite the gravity of the war in Europe, which threatened Britain’s own freedom. Others, such as Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, advocated offering an olive branch to the British, supporting them in this crucial time in the hope that the gesture would be reciprocated with independence after the war. The major leader, Mohandas Gandhi, was opposed to Indian involvement in the war as he would not morally endorse a war and also suspected British intentions, believing that the British were not sincere about Indian aspirations for independence. But Rajagopalachari, backed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad and Jawaharlal Nehru held talks with Cripps and offered full support in return for immediate self-government, and eventual independence.
  • Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, supported the war effort and condemned the Congress policy. Insisting on a Pakistan, a separate Muslim state, he resisted Congress’s calls for pan-Indian cooperation and immediate independence

Main Proposals:

  1.  An Indian Union with a dominion status; would be set up; it would be free to decide its relations with the Commonwealth and free to participate in the United Nations and other international bodies.
  2.  After the end of the war, a constituent assembly would be convened to frame a new constitution. Members of this assembly would be partly elected by the provincial assemblies through proportional representation and partly nominated by the princes.
  3. The British Government would accept the new constitution subject to two conditions: (i) any province not willing to join the Union could have a separate constitution and form a separate Union, and (ii) the new constitution- making body and the British Government would negotiate a treaty to effect the transfer of power and to safeguard racial and religious minorities.
  4. In the meantime, defence of India would remain in British hands and the governor-general’s powers would remain intact.

Departures from the Past and Implications:

  1. The making of the constitution was to be solely in Indian hands now (and not “mainly” in Indian hands—as contained in the August Offer).
  2.  A concrete plan was provided for the constituent assembly.
  3. Option was available to any province to have a separate constitution—a blueprint for India’s partition.
  4. Free India could withdraw from the Commonwealth.
  5. Indians were allowed a large share in the administration in the interim period.

Why Cripps Mission Failed:

(a)The Cripps Mission proposals failed to satisfy Indian nationalists and turned out to be merely a propaganda device for US and Chinese consumption. Cripps had designed the proposals himself, but they were too radical for Churchill and the Viceroy, and too conservative for the Indians; no middle way was found. Congress moved toward the Quit India movement whereby it refused to cooperate in the war effort. Various parties and groups had objections to the proposals on different points.

The Congress’s objections:

  1. The offer of dominion status instead of a provision for complete independence
  2. Representation of the states by nominees and not by elected representatives
  3. Right to provinces to secede as this went against the principle of national unity
  4. Absence of any plan for immediate transfer of power and absence of any real share in defence; the governor- general’s supremacy had been retained, and the demand for governor-general being only the constitutional head had not been accepted.                                                  Nehru and Maulana Azad were the official negotiators for the Congress.

The Muslim League’s objections:

  1. Criticised the idea of a single Indian Union.
  2. Did not like the machinery for the creation of a constituent assembly and the procedure to decide on the accession of provinces to the Union.
  3. Thought that the proposals denied to the Muslims the right to self-determination and the creation of Pakistan.

Other groups’ objections:

  1. The Liberals considered the secession proposals to be against the unity and security of India.
  2. The Hindu Mahasabha criticised the basis of the right to secede.
  3. The depressed classes thought that partition would leave them at the mercy of the caste Hindus.
  4. The Sikhs objected that partition would take away Punjab from them.

(b)The explanation that the proposals were meant not to supersede the August Offer but to clothe general provisions with precision put British intentions in doubt.

(c) There was confusion over what Cripps had been authorised to offer India’s nationalist politicians by Churchill and Leo Amery (His Majesty’s Secretary of State for India), and he also faced hostility from the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow.The incapacity of Cripps to go beyond the Draft Declaration and the adoption of a rigid “take it or leave it” attitude added to the deadlock. Cripps had earlier talked of “cabinet” and “national government” but later he said that he had only meant an expansion of the executive council.

(d), in public, he failed to present any concrete proposals for greater self-government in the short term, other than a vague commitment to increase the number of Indian members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Cripps spent much of his time in encouraging Congress leaders and Jinnah to come to a common, public arrangement in support of the war and government.

(d)The procedure of accession was not well-defined. The decision on secession was to be taken by a resolution in the legislature by a 60% majority. If less than 60% of” members supported it, the decision was to be taken by a plebiscite of adult males of that province by a simple majority. This scheme weighed against the Hindus in Punjab and Bengal if they wanted accession to the Indian Union.

(e)It was not clear as to who would implement and interpret the treaty effecting the transfer of power.

(f)Churchill (the British prime minister), Amery (the secretary of state), Linlithgow (the viceroy) and Ward (the commander-in-chief) consistently torpedoed Cripps’ efforts.

(g)Talks broke down on the question of the viceroy’s veto.

(h)Gandhi described the scheme as “a post-dated cheque drawn on a crashing bank”; Nehru pointed out that the “existing structure and autocratic powers would remain and a few of us will become the viceroy’s liveried camp followers and look after canteens and the like”.

(i)Stafford Cripps returned home leaving behind a frustrated and embittered Indian people, who, though still sympathising with the victims of Fascist aggression, felt that the existing situation in the country had become intolerable and that the time had come for a final assault on imperialism.

AUGUST OFFER, INDIVIDUAL SATYAGRAHA AND CRIPPS MISSION (1939-1942)

THE ELECTION OF 1937 AND THE FORMATION OF CONGRESS MINISTRIES

THE ELECTION OF 1937 AND THE FORMATION OF CONGRESS MINISTRIES

  • The demise of the Civil Disobedience Movement around 1934 resulted in serious dissension within Congress, in the same way as it had happened after the withdrawal of NCM.
  • While Gandhi temporarily withrew from active politics, the socialists and other leftist elements formed in May 1934, Congress Socialist Party within Congress. Nehru never formally joined this group, whose ideology ranged fro vague and mixd up radical nationalism to fairly firm advocacy of Marxian Scientific Socialism.
  • Soon divide within Congress centred on two issues: (a) Council Entry (b) Office acceptance
  • At Lucknow Congress in 1936, majority of delegates led by Rajender Prasad and vallabhai patel with the blessing of Gandhi, came to the view that contesting election and subsequent acceptance of office under Act of 1935 would help boost the flagging morale of the Congress at a time when direct action was not an option.
  • AICC meeting in Aug 1936 in Bombay decided in favour of contesting election but postponed the decision on office acceptance until election was over.
  • The federal part of the Government of India Act, 1935 was never introduced but provincial autonomy came into operation from 1937. Though new constitutional reforms fell far short of India’s national aspirations. Congress decided to contest the elections to the assembles in the provinces under the new Act of 1935.

Election:

  • Provincial elections were held in British India in the winter of 1936-37 as mandated by the Government of India Act 1935. Elections were held in eleven provinces – Madras, Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, United Provinces, Bombay Presidency, Assam, NWFP,Bengal, Punjab and Sindh.
  • The 1937 election was the first in which large masses of Indians were eligible to participate. An estimated 30.1 million persons, including 4.25 million women, had acquired the right to vote (14% of the total population), and 15.5 million of these, including 917,000 women, actually did exercise their franchise.

Election Result:

  • The results were in favour of the Indian National Congress. Of the total of 1,585 seats, it won 707 (44.6%). Among the 864 seats assigned “general” constituencies, it contested 739 and won 617. Of the 125 non-general constituencies contested by Congress, 59 were reserved for Muslims and in those the Congress won 25 seats, 15 of them in the entirely-Muslim North-West Frontier Province.
  • The All-India Muslim League won 106 seats (6.7% of the total), placing it as second-ranking party.The election results were a blow to the League. The Muslim League fared badly even in provinces predominantly inhabited by Muslims.After the election, Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the League offered to form coalitions with the Congress. The League insisted that the Congress should not nominate any Muslims to the ministries, as it (the League) claimed to be the exclusive representative of Indian Muslims. This was not acceptable to the Congress, and it declined the League’s offer.
  • The only other party to win more than 5 percent of all the assembly seats was the Unionist Party (Punjab), with 101 seats.

Formation of Ministries:

  • AICC sanctioned office acceptance by overriding objections of Nehru and other CSP leaders. Nehru objection hinged on the argument that by running provincial governments.., Congress would be letting down the masses whose high spirits the Congress itself had once helpd in boosting up.
  • Congress Ministries were formed in 8 out of 11 provinces of India in 1937

Madras Presidency:

  • The Government of India Act of 1935 established a bicameral legislature in the Madras province.The Legislature consisted of the Governor and two Legislative bodies – a Legislative Assembly and a Legislative Council.
  • The Justice Party had been in power in Madras for 17 years since 1920. Its hold on power was briefly interrupted only once in 1926-28.The Justice Government under the Raja of Bobbili had been steadily losing ground since the early 1930s. It was beset with factional politics and its popularity was eroding slowly due to the autocratic rule of Bobbili Raja.
  • The Justice Party was seen as the collaborative party, agreeing with the British Government’s harsh measures. Its economic policies during the Great Depression of the 1930s were also highly unpopular. Its refusal to decrease the land revenue taxation in non-Zamindari areas by 12.5% was hugely unpopular. The Bobbili Raja, himself a Zamindar, cracked down on the Congress protests demanding reduction of the revenue.
  • The Swaraj Party which had been the Justice party’s main opposition merged with the Indian National Congress in 1935 when the Congress decided to participate in the electoral process. The Civil Disobedience movement, the Land Tax reduction agitations and Union organizations helped the Congress to mobilize popular opposition to the Bobbili Raja government. The revenue agitations brought the peasants into the Congress fold and the Gandhian hand spinning programme assured the support of weavers. Preferential treatment given to European traders brought the support of the indigenous industrialists and commercial interests.
  • Congress won 74% of all seats, eclipsing the incumbent Justice Party (21 seats). Despite being the majority party in the Assembly and the Council, the Congress was hesitant to form a Government. Their objections stemmed from the special powers given to the Governor by the Government of India Act of 1935.
  • Eventually an interim Government was formed with Kurma Venkata Reddy Naidu of the Justice Party as Chief Minister on 1 April 1937. Congress leaders like S. Satyamurti were apprehensive about the decision to not accept power. They carried out a campaign to convince Congress High Command to accept power within the limitations set by the Government of India Act. They also appealed to the British Government to give assurances that the Governor’s special powers will not be misused.
  • On 22 June, Viceroy Linlithgow issued a statement expressing the British Government’s desire to work with the Congress in implementing the 1935 Act. On 1 July, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) agreed to form Governments in the provinces they had won. On 14 July, Rajaji was sworn in as the Chief Minister.
  • The 1937 elections marked the start of the Indian National Congress’ participation in the governance of India. In the Madras Presidency, it also marked the beginning of Rajaji’s ascendancy in the Congress Legislature Party.

Sindh:

  • These were the first elections in the province after its creation in 1936.The Sind Legislative Assembly had 60 members. The Sind United Party emerged the leader with 22 seats.
  • In the General constituencies, the Sind Hindu Mahasabha won eleven seats, the Congress Party eight seats.
  • Mohammad Ali Jinnah had tried to set up a League Parliamentary Board in Sindh in 1936, but he failed, though 72% of the population was Muslim.Though 34 seats were reserved for Muslims, the Muslim League could secure none of them.

United Provinces:

  • The UP legislature consisted of a Legislative Council of 52 elected and 6 or 8 nominated members and a Legislative Assembly of 228 elected members: some from exclusive Muslim constituencies, some from “General” constituencies, and some “Special” constituencies.
  • The Congress won a clear majority in the United Provinces, with 133 seats, while the Muslim League won only 27 out of the 64 seats reserved for Muslims.

Assam:

  • In Assam, the Congress won 33 seats out of a total of 108 making it the single largest party, though it was not in a position to form a ministry.
  • The Governor called upon Sir Muhammad Sadulla, ex-Judicial Member of Assam and Leader of the Assam Valley Muslim Party to form the ministry.The Congress was a part of the ruling coalition.

Bombay:

  • GOI Act,1935 created a bicameral legislature in the Bombay province.
  • The Congress fell just short of gaining half the seats. However, it was able to draw on the support of some small pro-Congress groups to form a working majority. B.G. Kher became the first Chief Minister of Bombay.

Other provinces:

  • In three additional provinces, Central Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa, the Congress won clear majorities.
  • In the overwhelmingly Muslim North-West Frontier Province, Congress won 19 out of 50 seats and was able, with minor party support, to form a ministry.
  • The Unionist Party under Sikander Hyat Khan formed the government in Punjabwith 67 out of 175 seats. The Congress won 18 seats and the Akali Dal, 10.
  • In Bengal, though the Congress was the largest party (with 52 seats), The Krishak Praja Party of A. K. Fazlul Huq (with 36 seats) was able to form a coalition government.

Rule of Congress Ministries(1937-39): (More explanations in different chapters)

  • Rule of Congress ministry aroused many expectations among almost all classes. There was all around increased civil liberty and many legislations regarding land reform, industry reform, social reform etc. were passes in many provinces.
  • But the achievements of the Congress ministries during two years frustrated all groups who voted for Congress(Industrial working class, peasants, dalits).
  • Dalits and their leaders were not impressed with only few caste disabilities removal and temple entry bills by Congress ministries.
  • Congress Victories had aroused the hopes of industrial working class leading to increased militancy and industrial unrest in Bombay, Gujarat, UP and Bengal at a time when Congress was drawn into a closer friendship with Indian Capitalists. This resulted in antilabour shift in Congress attitudes that led to Bombay Traders Disputes Act in 1938.
  • Congress also found it difficult to rise up to expectations of Kisan voters who were expecting radical changes.
  • Another dilemma of Congress leadership was visible regarding princely India(to support Prajamandal movement or not)
  • Pirpur Committee was established in 1938 by the All India Muslim League to prepare a detailed report regarding the atrocities of the Congress Ministries (1937-1939) formed after the elections under the 1935 Government of India Act in different provinces. Its report charged the congress for interference with the religious rites, suppression of Urdu and propaganda of Hindi, denial of legitimate representation and suppression in economy of the Muslims.

Resignation of Congress Ministries:

  • Viceroy Linlithgow declared India at war with Germany on 3 September 1939. The Congress objected strongly to the declaration of war without prior consultation with Indians.
  • The Congress Working Committee suggested that it would cooperate if there were a central Indian national government formed, and a commitment made to India’s independence after the war.
  • The Muslim League promised its support to the British,with Jinnah calling on Muslims to help the Raj by “honourable co-operation” at the “critical and difficult juncture,” while asking the Viceroy for increased protection for Muslims.
  • Linlithgow refused the demands of the Congress. On 22 October 1939, Congress ministries tendered their resignations. Both Viceroy Linlithgow and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were pleased with the resignations.On 2 December 1939, Jinnah put out an appeal, calling for Indian Muslims to celebrate 22 December 1939 as a “Day of Deliverance” from Congress.

THE ELECTION OF 1937 AND THE FORMATION OF CONGRESS MINISTRIES

The Civil Disobedience Movement, Round Table Conferences, Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Communal Award,Poona Pact

The Civil Disobedience Movement, The Round Table Conferences,Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Communal Award,Poona Pact

The Civil Disobedience Movement

Purna Swaraj:

  • Before 1930, few Indian Political parties had openly embraced the goal of political independence from the United Kingdom. The All India Home Rule League had been advocating Home Rule for India: dominion status within the British Empire, as granted to Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa. The All India Muslim League favoured dominion status as well, and opposed calls for outright Indian independence. The Indian Liberal Party, by far the most pro-British, explicitly opposed India’s independence and even dominion status if it weakened India’s links with the British Empire.
  • A Congress leader and famous poet Hasrat Mohani was the first activist to demand complete independence (Poorna Swaraj) from the British in 1921 from an All-India Congress Forum.
  • Veteran Congress leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurobindo and Bipin Chandra Pal had also advocated explicit Indian independence from the Empire.
  • For youth Jawaharlal Nehru promoted Hindustan Sewa Dal and for radical congressman, asking for independence, in Dec 1927 he founded the Republican Party within Congress.
  • In August 1928, the “Independence of India League” was formed with Jawahar Lal Nehru and Subhash Chandra Bose as Secretaries and S. Srinivasa Iyengar as President
  • The Nehru Report(1928) demanded that India be granted self-government under the dominion status within the Empire. Younger nationalist leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru (Motilal Nehru’s son) demanded that the Congress resolve to make a complete and explicit break from all ties with the British.
  • In December 1928, Congress held in Calcutta, Mohandas Gandhi proposed a resolution that called for the British to grant dominion status to India within two years. If the British failed to meet the deadline, the Congress would call upon all Indians to fight for complete independence. Bose and Nehru objected to the time given to the British – they pressed Gandhi to demand immediate actions from the British. Gandhi brokered a further compromise by reducing the time given from two years to one. Jawaharlal Nehru voted for the new resolution, while Subhash Bose told his supporters that he would not oppose the resolution, and abstained from voting himself.
  • On 31 October 1929, the Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin announced that the government would meet with Indian representatives in London for a Round Table Conference. To facilitate Indian participation, Irwin met with Mohandas Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and out-going Congress President Motilal Nehru to discuss the meeting. Gandhi asked Irwin if the conference would proceed on the basis of dominion status and Irwin said he could not assure that, resulting in the end of the meeting.
  • Lahore Session of Congress (Dec. 1929): It  which was presided by Jawahar Lal Nehru. and veteran leaders like C. Rajagopalachari and Vallabhbhai Patel returned to the Congress Working Committee. The most land mark resolution was that the Nehru Committee Report had now lapsed and Dominion status will not be acceptable. A Poorna Swarajya Resolution was passed and it was Swarajya means complete Independence. In pursuance with this resolution, the Central and Provincial Legislatures had to be boycotted completely and all the future elections were also to be boycotted. A Programme of the Civil Disobedience was to be launched.
  • On the midnight of December 31, 1929 and January 1, 1930, the deadline of the Nehru Committee report expired and Jawahar Lal Nehru unfurled the tricolour flag of India’s independence on the bank of River Ravi in Lahore.
  • The Congress working committee met on January 2, 1930 and on that day it was decided that the January 26, 1930 should be observed as Poorna Swarajya Day.The Indian National Congress publicly issued the Declaration of Independence, or Purna Swaraj, on 26 January 1930.
  • The Congress regularly observed 26 January as the Independence Day of India – commemorating those who campaigned for Indian independence. In 1947, the British agreed to transfer power and political independence to India, and 15 August became the official Independence Day. However, the new Constitution of India, as drafted and approved by the Constituent Assembly of India, was mandated to take effect on 26 January 1950, to commemorate the 1930 declaration.

Why Salt?

  • The Congress Working Committee gave Gandhi the responsibility for organising the first act of civil disobedience, Gandhi’s plan was to begin civil disobedience with a satyagraha aimed at the British salt tax. The 1882 Salt Act gave the British a monopoly on the collection and manufacture of salt, limiting its handling to government salt depots and levying a salt tax.Violation of the Salt Act was a criminal offence. Even though salt was freely available to those living on the coast (by evaporation of sea water), Indians were forced to purchase it from the colonial government.
  • Initially, Gandhi’s choice of the salt tax was met with incredulity by the Working Committee of the Congress,Jawaharlal Nehru and Dibyalochan Sahoo were ambivalent; Sardar Patel suggested a land revenue boycott instead.
  • The British establishment too was not disturbed by these plans of resistance against the salt tax. The Viceroy himself, Lord Irwin, did not take the threat of a salt protest seriously, writing to London, “At present the prospect of a salt campaign does not keep me awake at night.”
  • Gandhi had sound reasons for his decision. The salt tax was a deeply symbolic choice, since salt was used by nearly everyone in India. An item of daily use could resonate more with all classes of citizens than an abstract demand for greater political rights.
  • The salt tax represented 8.2% of the British Raj tax revenue, and hurt the poorest Indians the most significantly.
  • Explaining his choice, Gandhi said, “Next to air and water, salt is perhaps the greatest necessity of life.”
  • Gandhi felt that this protest would dramatise Purna Swaraj in a way that was meaningful to the lowliest Indians. He also reasoned that it would build unity between Hindus and Muslims by fighting a wrong that touched them equally.

Dandi March (Salt Satyagraha) (March 12 – April 6, 1930)

  • On March 2, 1930, Gandhi informed the viceroy of his plan of action. According to this plan (few realised its significance when it was first announced), Gandhi, along with a band of seventy-eight members of Sabarmati Ashram, was to march from his headquarters in Ahmedabad through the villages of Gujarat for 240 miles.
  • On reaching the coast at Dandi, the salt law was to be violated by collecting salt from the beach.
  • Even before the proposed march began, thousands thronged to the ashram. Gandhi gave the following directions for future action:
  1. Wherever possible civil disobedience of the salt law should be started.
  2. Foreign liquor and cloth shops can be picketed.
  3. We can refuse to pay taxes if we have the requisite strength.
  4. Lawyers can give up practice.
  5. Public can boycott law courts by refraining from litigation.
  6. Government servants can resign from their posts.
  7.  All these should be subject to one condition—truth and non-violence as means to attain swaraj should be faithfully adhered to.
  8. Local leaders should be obeyed after Gandhi’s arrest.
  • The historic march, marking the launch of the Civil Disobedience Movement, began on March 12, and Gandhi broke the salt law by picking up a handful of salt at Dandi on April 6.
  • The violation of the law was seen as a symbol of the Indian people’s resolve not to live under British-made laws and therefore under British rule. The march, its progress and its impact on the people was well covered by newspapers. In Gujarat, 300 village officials resigned in answer to Gandhi’s appeal.
  • Gandhi created a temporary ashram near Dandi. From there, he urged women followers in Bombay (now Mumbai) to picket liquor shops and foreign cloth. He said that “a bonfire should be made of foreign cloth. Schools and colleges should become empty.”

Spread of Salt Disobedience:

  • Once the way was cleared by Gandhi’s ritual at Dandi, defiance of the salt laws started all over the country.
  • In Tamil Nadu, C. Rajagopalachari led a march from Tiruchirapally to Vedaranniyam.
  • In Malabar, K. Kelappan led a march from Calicut to Poyannur.
  • In Assam, satyagrahis walked from Sylhet to Noakhali (Bengal) to make salt.
  • In Andhra, a number of sibirams (camps) came up in different districts as headquarters of salt Satyagraha.
  • Nehru’s arrest in April 1930 for defiance of the salt law evoked huge demonstrations in Madras, Calcutta and Karachi. Gandhi’s arrest came on May 4, 1930 when he had announced that he would lead a raid on Dharsana Salt Works on the west coast. Gandhi’s arrest was followed by massive protests in Bombay, Delhi, and Calcutta and in Sholapur, where the response was the fiercest.

After Gandhi’s arrest, the CWC sanctioned:

  1. Non-payment of revenue in Ryotwari areas;
  2. No-chowkidara-tax campaign in zamindari areas; and
  3. Violation of forest laws in the Central Provinces.

Other Forms of Upsurge:

Chittagong:

  • Surya Sen’s Chittagong Revolt Group carried out a raid on two armouries and declared the establishment of a provisional government.

Peshawar:

  • Here, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan’s educational and social reform work among the Pathans had politicised them. Gaffar Khan, also called Badshah Khan and Frontier Gandhi, had started the first Pushto political monthly Pukhtoon and had organised a volunteer brigade ‘Khudai Khidmatgars’, popularly known as the ‘Red-Shirts’, who were pledged to the freedom struggle and non-violence.
  • On April 23, 1930, the arrest of Congress leaders in the NWFP led to mass demonstrations in Peshawar which was virtually in the hands of the crowds for more than a week till order was restored on May 4.
  • This was followed by a reign of terror and martial law. It was here that a section of Garhwal Rifles soldiers refused to fire on an unarmed crowd. This upsurge in a province with 92 per cent Muslim population left the British Government nervous.

Sholapur:

  • This industrial town of southern Maharashtra saw the fiercest response to Gandhi’s arrest. Textile workers went on a strike from May 7 and along with other residents burnt liquor shops and other symbols of government authority such as railway stations, police stations, municipal buildings, law courts, etc. The activists established a virtual parallel government which could only be dislodged with martial law after May 16

Dharsana:

  • On May 21, 1930, Sarojini Naidu, Imam Sahib and Manilal (Gandhi’s son) took up the unfinished task of leading a raid on Dharsana Salt Works. The unarmed and peaceful crowd was met with a brutal lathicharge which left 2 dead and 320 injured.
  • This new form of salt Satyagraha was eagerly adopted by people in Wadala (Bombay), Karnataka (Sanikatta Salt Works), Andhra, Midnapore, Balasore, Puri and Cuttack.

Bihar:

  • A campaign was organised for refusal to pay chowkidara tax and a call was given for resignation of chowkidars and influential members of chowkidari panchayat who appointed these chowkidars.
  • This campaign was parti­cularly successful in Monghyr, Saran and Bhagalpur. The Government retaliated with beatings, torture and confiscation of property.

Bengal:

  • Anti-chowkidara tax and anti-union-board tax campaign here was met with repression and confiscation of property.

Gujarat:

  • The impact was felt in Anand, Borsad and Nadiad areas in Kheda district, Bardoli in Surat district and Jambusar in Bharuch district. A determined no-tax movement was organised here which included refusal to pay land revenue.
  • Villagers crossed the border into neighbouring princely states (such as Baroda) with their families and belongings and camped in the open for months to evade police repression. The police retaliated by destroying their property and confiscating their land.

Maharashtra, Karnataka, Central Provinces:

  • These areas saw defiance of forest laws such as grazing and timber restrictions and public sale of illegally acquired forest produce.

Assam:

  • A powerful agitation was organised against the infamous ‘Cunningham circular’which forced parents, guardians and students to furnish assurances of good bahaviour.

United Provinces:

  • A no-revenue campaign was organised; a call was given to Zamindars to refuse to pay revenue to the Government. Under a no-rent campaign, a call was given to tenants against Zamindars.
  • Since most of the Zamindars were loyalists, the campaign became virtually a no-rent campaign. The activity picked up speed in October 1930, especially in Agra and Rai Bareilly.

Manipur and Nagaland:

  • These areas took a brave part in the movement. At the young age of thirteen, Rani Gaidinliu of Nagaland raised the banner of revolt against foreign rule. She was captured in 1932 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Gaidinliu (1915–1993) was a Naga spiritual and political leader who led a revolt against British rule in India. At the age of 13, she joined the Heraka religious movement of her cousin Haipou Jadonang. The movement later turned into a political movement seeking to drive out the British from Manipur and the surrounding Naga areas. Within the Heraka cult, she came to be considered an incarnation of the goddess Cherachamdinliu.Gaidinliu was arrested in 1932 at the age of 16, and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the British rulers. Jawaharlal Nehru met her at Shillong Jail in 1937, and promised to pursue her release. Nehru gave her the title of “Rani”, and she gained local popularity as Rani Gaidinliu.She was released in 1947 after India’s independence, and continued to work for the upliftment of her people. An advocate of the ancestral Naga religious practices, she staunchly resisted the conversion of Nagas to Christianity. She was honoured as a freedom fighter and was awarded a Padma Bhushan by the Government of India.

  • Mobilisation of masses was also carried out through prabhat pheries, vanar senas, manjari senas, secret patrikas and magic lantern shows.

Impact of Agitation:

  1. Imports of foreign cloth and other items fell.
  2. Government income from liquor, excise and land revenue fell.
  3. Elections to Legislative Assembly were largely boycotted.

Extent of Mass Participation:

Several sections of the population participated in the movement.

Women:

  • Gandhi had specially asked women to play a leading part in the movement. Soon, they became a familiar sight, picketing outside liquor shops, opium dens and shops selling foreign cloth.
  • For Indian women, the movement was the most liberating experience and can truly be said to have marked their entry into the public sphere.

Students:

  • Along with women, students and youth played the most prominent part in boycott of foreign cloth and liquor.

Muslims:

  • The Muslim participation was nowhere near the 1920-22 level because of appeals by Muslim leaders to Muslim masses to stay away from the movement and because of active government encouragement to communal dissension. Still, some areas such as the NWFP saw an overwhelming participation.
  • Middle class Muslim participation was quite significant in Senhatta, Tripura, Gaibandha, Bagura and Noakhali. In Dacca, Muslim leaders, shopkeepers, lower class people and upper class women were active. The Muslim weaving community in Bihar, Delhi and Lucknow were also effectively mobilised.

Merchants and Petty Traders:

  • They were very enthusiastic. Traders’ associations and commercial bodies were active in implementing the boycott, especially in Tamil Nadu and Punjab.

Tribals:

  • Tribals were active participants in Central Provinces, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

Workers:

  • The workers participated in Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Sholapur, etc.
  • Peasants were active in UP, Bihar and Gujarat.

Government Response—Efforts for Truce:

  • The Government’s attitude throughout 1930 was ambivalent; it was puzzled and perplexed. It faced the classic dilemma of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t—if force was applied, the Congress cried ‘repression’, and if little was done, the Congress cried ‘victory’. Either way the hegemony of the Government was eroded. Even Gandhi’s arrest came after much vacillation.
  • But once the repression began, the ordinan­ces banning civil liberties were freely used, including gagging of the press. Provincial governments were given freedom to ban civil disobedience organisations. The CWC was, however, not declared illegal till June. Lathi charge and firing on unarmed crowds left several killed and wounded, while 90,000 satyagrahis including Gandhi and other Congress leaders were imprisoned.
  • The government repression and publication of the Simon Commission Report, which contained no mention of dominion status and was in other ways also a regressive document, further upset even moderate political opinion.
  • In July 1930 the viceroy suggested a round table conference (RTC) and reiterated the goal of dominion status. He also accepted the suggestion that Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar be allowed to explore the possibility of peace between the Congress and the Government.
  • In August 1930 Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru were taken to Yeravada Jail to meet Gandhi and discuss the possibility of a settlement.
  • The Nehrus and Gandhi unequivocally reiterated the demands of:
  1. Right of secession from Britain;
  2. Complete national government with control over defence and finance; and
  3. An independent tribunal to settle Britain’s financial claims.

Talks broke down at this point.

The Round Table Conferences:

  • The three Round Table Conferences of 1930–32 were a series of conferences organized by the British Government to discuss constitutional reforms in India. They were conducted as per the recommendation by the report submitted by the Simon Commission in May 1930.
  • Before this, the viceroy Lord Irwin announced in October 1929, a vague offer of ‘dominion status’ for India in an unspecified future and a Round Table Conference to discuss a future constitution. Congress decided to be absent.

First Round Table Conference (November 1930 – January 1931)::

  • The Round Table Conference was opened officially by Lord Irwin on November 12, 1930 at London and chaired by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald.This was the first ever conference arranged between the British and the Indians as equals.
  • The three British political parties were represented by sixteen delegates. There were fifty-seven political leaders from British India and sixteen delegates from the princely states. In total 89 delegates from India attended the Conference.
  • While the Congress and most business leaders boycotted the First RTC, the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Liberals and princes attended it. Many of Congress leaders were in jail for their participation in Civil Disobedience Movement.
  • Among leader of British-Indian delegation were: Muslims: Aga Khan III, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, etc, Hindus: B. S. Moonje, M. R. Jayakar,           Justice Party: Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, Liberals:, Tej Bahadur Sapru,                      Depressed Classes: B. R. Ambedkar, Rettamalai Srinivasan Women: Begum Jahanara Shahnawaz, Radhabai Subbarayan.
  • The idea of an All-India Federation was moved to the centre of discussion. All the groups attending the conference supported this concept. The responsibility of the executive to the legislature was discussed, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar demanded a separate electorate for the so-called Untouchables.
  • Virtually every delegate reiterated that a constitutional discussion to which the Congress was not a party was meaningless. Also, at the conference, the British Prime Minister hinted at an olive branch to the Congress and expressed the hope that the Congress would attend the next RTC.
  • So, the First Round Table Conference could not get any fruitful result due to the absence of Congress.

Gandhi-Irwin Pact:

  • The Government now started to convince Congress to participate in the Second Round Table Conference in 1931.On January 25, 1931 Gandhi and all other members of the CWC were released unconditionally. The CWC authorised Gandhi to initiate discussions with the viceroy.
  • Finally, Gandhiji was convinced to negotiate with the Viceroy Lord Irwin. So Gandhiji and Lord Irwin met on 19th February, 1931. As a result of these discussions, a pact was signed between the viceroy, representing the British Indian Government, and Gandhi, representing the Indian people, in Delhi on February 14, 1931. This Delhi Pact, also known as the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, placed the Congress on an equal footing with the Government.
  • ‘Gandhi-Irwin Pact’ was endorced by the Congress in its Karachi Session on 29thMarch, 1931. It also reiterated the goal of ‘Poorna Swaraj’.
  • The terms of the “Gandhi-Irwin Pact” fell manifestly short of those Gandhi prescribed as the minimum for a truce.
  • British officials were outraged by the idea of a pact with a party whose avowed purpose was the destruction of the British Raj.Winston Churchill publicly expressed his disgust “…at the nauseating and humiliating spectacle of this one-time Inner Temple lawyer, now seditious fakir, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceroy’s palace, there to negotiate and parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor.”

Below were the proposed conditions:

  • Discontinuation of the civil disobedience movement by the Indian National Congress
  • Participation by the Indian National Congress in the Round Table Conference
  • Withdrawal of all ordinances issued by the British Government imposing curbs on the activities of the Indian National Congress
  • Withdrawal of all prosecutions relating to several types of offenses except those involving violence
  • Release of prisoners arrested for participating in the civil disobedience movement
  • Removal of the tax on salt, which allowed the Indians to produce, trade, and sell salt legally and for their own private use

Irwin on behalf of the Government agreed on:

  1. Immediate release of all political prisoners not convicted of violence;
  2. Remission of all fines not yet collected;
  3. Return of all lands not yet sold to third parties;
  4. Lenient treatment to those government servants who had resigned;
  5. Right to make salt in coastal villages for personal consumption (not for sale);
  6. Right to peaceful and non-aggressive picketing; and
  7. Withdrawal of emergency ordinances.

The viceroy, however, turned down two of Gandhi’s demands:

  1. Public inquiry into police excesses, and
  2. Commutation of Bhagat Singh and his comrades’ death sentence to life sentence.

Gandhi on behalf of the Congress agreed:

  1. To suspend the civil disobedience movement, and
  2. To participate in the next RTC on the constitutional question around the three lynch-pins of federation, Indian responsibility, and reservations and safeguards that may be necessary in India’s interests (covering such areas as defence, external affairs, position of minorities, financial credit of India and discharge of other obligations).

Evaluation of Civil Disobedience Movement:

Was Gandhi-Irwin Pact a Retreat?

  • Gandhi’s decision to suspend the civil disobedience movement as agreed under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was not a retreat, because:
  1. Mass movements are necessarily short-lived;
  2. Capacity of the masses to make sacrifices, unlike that of the activists, is limited; and
  3. There were signs of exhaustion after September 1930, especially among shopkeepers and merchants, who had participated so enthusiastically.
  • Gandhi’s motives in concluding a pact with the Viceroy can be best understood in terms of his technique. The Satyagraha movements were commonly described as “struggles”, “rebellions” and “wars without violence”. Owing, however, to the common connotation of these words, they seemed to lay a disproportionate emphasis on the negative aspect of the movements, namely, opposition and conflict. The object of Satyagraha was, however, not to achieve the physical elimination or moral breakdown of an adversary—but, through suffering at his hands, to initiate a psychological processes that could make it possible for minds and hearts to meet. In such a struggle, a compromise with an opponent was neither heresy nor treason, but a natural and necessary step. If it turned out that the compromise was premature and the adversary was unrepentant, nothing prevented the Satyagrahi from returning to non-violent battle.
  • No doubt, youth were disappointed: they had participated enthusiastically and wanted the world to end with a bang and not with a whimper(as J. Nehru had said).
  • Peasants of Gujarat were disappointed because their lands were not restored immediately (indeed, were restored only during the rule of the Congress ministry in the province).
  • But vast masses of people were” jubilant that the Government had to regard their movement as significant and treat their leader as an equal, and sign a pact with him. The political prisoners when released from jails were given a hero’s welcome.

Compared to Non-Cooperation Movement:

  1. The stated objective this time was complete independence and not just remedying two specific wrongs and a vaguely-worded swaraj.
  2. The methods involved violation of law from the very beginning and not just non-cooperation with foreign rule.
  3. There was a decline in forms of protests involving the intelligentsia, such as lawyers giving up practice, students giving up government schools to join national schools and colleges.
  4. Muslim participation was nowhere near the Non- Cooperation Movement level.
  5. No major labour upsurge coincided with the movement.
  6. But massive participation of peasants and business groups compensated for decline of other features.
  7. The number of those imprisoned was about three times more this time.
  8. The Congress was organisationally stronger.

Karachi Congress Session—1931:

  • In March 1931, a special session of the Congress on held at Karachi to endorse the Gandhi-Irwin or Delhi Pact.
  • Six days before the session (which was held on March 29) Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru had been executed. Throughout Gandhi’s route to Karachi, he was greeted with black flag demonstrations by the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, in protest against his failure to secure commutation of the death sentence for Bhagat and his comrades.

Congress Resolutions at Karachi:

  • While disapproving of and dissociating itself from political violence, the Congress admired the “bravery” and “sacrifice” of the three martyrs.
  • The Delhi Pact was endorsed.
  • The goal of purna swaraj was reiterated.
  • Two resolutions were adopted—one on Fundamental Rights and the other on National Economic Programme— which made the session particularly memorable.
  • The resolution on Fundamental Rights guaranteed:
  1. Free speech and free press
  2. Right to form associations
  3. Right to assemble
  4. Universal adult franchise
  5. Equal legal rights irrespective of caste, creed and sex
  6. Neutrality of state in religious matters
  7. Free and compulsory primary education
  8. Protection to culture, language, script of minorities and linguistic groups
  • The resolution on National Economic Programme included:
  1. Substantial reduction in rent and revenue
  2. Exemption from rent for uneconomic holdings
  3. Relief from agricultural indebtedness
  4. Control of usury
  5. Better conditions of work including a living wage, limited hours of work and protection of women workers
  6. Right to workers and peasants to form unions
  7. State ownership and control of key industries, mines and means of transport
  • This was the first time the Congress spelt out what swaraj would mean for the masses—”in order to end exploitation of masses, political freedom must include economic freedom of starving millions.”
  • The Karachi Resolution was to remain, in essence, the basic political and economic programme of the Congress in later years.

Second RTC(September – December 1931) and Second Civil Disobedience Movement:

  • The Second Round Table Conference, which the Congress had agreed to attend under the Delhi Pact, was held in London.
  • There were three major differences between the first and second Round Table Conferences. By the second:
  1. Congress Representation — The Gandhi-Irwin Pact opened the way for Congress participation in this conference. Mahatma Gandhi was invited from India and attended as the sole official Congress representative accompanied by Sarojini Naidu and also Madan Mohan Malaviya, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Mirza Ismail (Diwan of Mysore), S.K. Dutta and Sir Syed Ali Imam. Gandhi claimed that the Congress alone represented political India; that the Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a “minority”; and that there should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities.
  2. National Government — two weeks earlier the Labour government in London had fallen. Ramsay MacDonald now headed a National Government dominated by the Conservative Party.
  3. Financial Crisis – During the conference, Britain went off the Gold Standard further distracting the National Government.
  • Not much was expected from the conference because of the following reasons.
  1. The Right Wing in Britain led by Churchill strongly objected to the British Government negotiating with the Congress on an equal basis. They, instead, demanded a strong government in India. The Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald headed a Conservative-dominated cabinet with a weak and reactionary secretary of state, Samuel Hoare.
  2. An overwhelming majority of RTC delegates were conservative, loyalist, reactionary and communal, men who had been used by the colonial government to assert that the Congress did not represent all Indians vis-a-vis imperialism, and to neutralise Gandhi and his efforts.
  3. The session soon got deadlocked on the question of the minorities. Separate electorates were being demanded by the Muslims, depressed classes, Christians and Anglo-Indians. All these came together in a “Minorities’ Pact”. Gandhi fought desperately against this concerted move to make all constitutional progress conditional on the solving of this issue.
  4. Princes were also not as enthusiastic about a federation, especially after the possibility of the formation of a Congress government at the centre had receded after the suspension of civil disobedience movement.
  • During the Conference, Gandhi could not reach agreement with the Muslims on Muslim representation and safeguards.

The session ended with MacDonald’s announcement of:

  1. Two Muslim majority provinces—NWFP and Sindh;
  2. The setting up of Indian Consultative Committee;
  3. Three expert committees—finance, franchise and states; and
  4. The prospect of a unilateral British Communal Award if Indians failed to agree.
  • The Government failed to concede the basic Indian demand of freedom. Gandhi returned to India on December 28, 1931. On December 29, the CWC decided to resume the civil disobedience movement.

During Truce Period (March-December 1931):

  • Some activity during this period kept alive the spirit of defiance. In the United Provinces, the Congress had been leading a movement for rent reduction and against summary evictions. In the NWFP, severe repression had been unleashed against the Khudai Khidmatgars and the peasants led by them who were agitating against the brutal methods of tax-collection by the Government.
  • In Bengal, draconian ordinances and mass detentions had been used in the name of fighting terrorism. In September 1931, there was a firing incident on political prisoners in Hijli Jail.

Changed Government Attitude:

  • The higher British officials had drawn their own lessons from the Delhi Pact which had raised the political prestige of the Congress and the political morale of the people and had undermined British prestige.
  • They were now determined to reverse this trend. There were three main considerations in British policy:
  1. Gandhi would not be permitted to build up the tempo for a mass movement again.
  2. Goodwill of the Congress was not required, but the confidence of those who supported the British against the Congress government functionaries, loyalists, etc.—was very essential.
  3. The national movement would not be allowed to consolidate itself in rural areas.
  • After the CWC had decided to resume the civil dis­obedience movement, the new Viceroy Willingdon refused a meeting with Gandhi on December 31. On January 4, 1932, Gandhi was arrested.

Government Action:

  • A series of repressive ordinances were issued which ushered in a virtual martial law, though under civilian control, or a “Civil Martial Law”.
  • Congress organisations at all levels were banned; arrests were made of activists, leaders, sympathisers; properties were confiscated; Gandhi ashrams were occupied. Repression was particularly harsh on women. Press was gagged and nationalist literature, banned.

Popular Response:

  • People responded with anger. Though unprepared, the response was massive. In the first four months alone, about 80,000 satyagrahis, mostly urban and rural poor, were jailed.
  • Other forms of protest included picketing of shops selling liquor and foreign cloth, illegal gatherings, non-violent demonstrations, celebrations of national days, symbolic hosting of national flag, non-payment of chowkidari tax, salt Satyagraha, forest law violations and installation of a secret radio transmitter near Bombay.
  • This phase of the civil disobedience movement coincided with upsurges in two princely states—Kashmir and Alwar.

But this phase of the movement could not be sustained for long because:

  1. Gandhi and other leaders had no time to build up the tempo; and
  2. (ii) The masses were not prepared.

Communal Award(16 August 1932 ):

  • The Communal Award was announced by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, on 16 August 1932 granting separate electorates in British India for the Forward Caste, Lower Caste, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Untouchables (now known as the Dalits) etc.. This was yet another expression of British policy of divide and rule.
  • The Muslims, Sikhs and Christians had already been recognised as minorities. The Communal Award declared the depressed classes also to be minorities and entitled them to separate electorates.
  • The ‘award’ attracted severe criticism from Mahatma Gandhi, the Akali Dal etc. Akali Dal, the representative body of the Sikhs, was also highly critical of the Award, since only 19% reservation was provided to the Sikhs in Punjab, as opposed to the 51% reservation for the Muslims and 30% for the Hindus.

Congress Stand:

  • Though opposed to separate electorates, the Congress was not in favour of changing the Communal Award without the consent of the minorities. Thus, while strongly disagreeing with the Communal Award, the Congress decided neither to accept it nor to reject it.
  • The effort to separate the depressed classes from the rest of the Hindus by treating them as separate political entities was vehemently opposed by all the nationalists.

Gandhi’s Response:

  • Gandhi saw the Communal Award as an attack on Indian unity and nationalism. He thought it was harmful to both Hinduism and to the depressed classes since it provided no answer to the socially degraded position of the depressed classes.
  • Once the depressed classes were treated as a separate political entity, he argued, the question of abolishing untouchability would get undermined, while separate electorates would ensure that the untouchables remained untouchables in perpetuity. He said that what was required was not protection of the so-called interests of the depressed classes but root and branch eradication of untoucha­bility.
  • Gandhi demanded that the depressed classes be elected through joint and if possible a wider electorate through universal franchise, while expressing no objection to the demand for a larger number of reserved seats.
  • And to press for his demands, he went on an indefinite fast at Yerwada Central Jail in Pune ( on September 20, 1932. Now leaders of various persuasions, including B.R. Ambedkar, M.C. Rajah and Madan Mohan Malaviya got together to hammer out a compromise contained in the Poona Pact.

Poona Pact:

  • The Poona Pact refers to an agreement between Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi signed on 24 September 1932 at Yerwada Central Jail in Pune.
  • The Poona Pact was accepted by the Government as an amendment to the Communal Award.
  • Provisions of the Pact:
  1. The Pact abandoned separate electorates for the depressed classes. But the seats reserved for the depressed classes were increased from 71 to 147 in provincial legislatures and 18 per cent of the total in the central legislature.
  2. Election to seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following procedure: All members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general electoral roll of a constituency will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote and four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary elections shall be the candidates for election by the general electorate.
  3. The system of primary election to a panel of candidates for election as before mentioned shall come to an end after the first ten years, unless terminated sooner by mutual agreement.
  4. The system of representation of Depressed Classes by reserved seats shall continue until determined otherwise by mutual agreement between the communities concerned.
  5. The Franchise of the Depressed Classes shall be as indicated, in the Lothian Committee (Indian Franchise Committe)Report.
  6. There shall be no disabilities attached to any one on the ground of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any election to local bodies or appointment to the public services. Every endeavour shall be made to secure a fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these respects.
  7. In every province out of the educational grant an adequate sum shall be ear-marked for providing educational facilities to the members of Depressed Classes.

Third Round Table Conference (November – December 1932):

  • The third and last session assembled on November 17, 1932. Only forty-six delegates attended since most of the main political figures of India were not present. The Labour Party from Britain and the Indian National Congress refused to attend.
  • From September 1931 until March 1933, under the supervision of the Secretary of State for India, Sir Samuel Hoare, the proposed reforms took the form reflected in the Government of India Act 1935.

Assessment of Civil Disobedience Movement:

  • Salt Satyagraha succeeded in drawing the attention of the world. Millions saw the newsreels showing the march. Time magazine declared Gandhi its 1930 Man of the Year, comparing Gandhi’s march to the sea “to defy Britain’s salt tax as some New Englanders once defied a British tea tax.” Civil disobedience continued until early 1931, when Gandhi was finally released from prison to hold talks with Irwin. It was the first time the two held talks on equal terms,and resulted in the Gandhi–Irwin Pact. The talks would lead to the Second Round Table Conference at the end of 1931.
  • Salt Satyagraha produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and did not win any major concessions from the British.It also failed to attract Muslim support. Congress leaders decided to end satyagraha as official policy in 1934. Nehru and other Congress members drifted further apart from Gandhi, who withdrew from Congress to concentrate on his Constructive Programme, which included his efforts to end untouchability in the Harijan movement.
  • Even though British authorities were again in control by the mid-1930s, Indian, British, and world opinion increasingly began to recognise the legitimacy of claims by Gandhi and the Congress Party for independence.The Satyagraha campaign of the 1930s also forced the British to recognise that their control of India depended entirely on the consent of the Indians – Salt Satyagraha was a significant step in the British losing that consent.
  • More than thirty years later, Satyagraha and the March to Dandi exercised a strong influence on American civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., and his fight for civil rights for blacks in the 1960s.

The Civil Disobedience Movement, Round Table Conferences, Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Communal Award,Poona Pact

 

THE NEHRU REPORT, DELHI PROPOSAL AND JINNAH’S FOURTEEN DEMANDS

THE NEHRU REPORT, DELHI PROPOSAL AND JINNAH’S FOURTEEN DEMANDS

Nehru report on constitutional framework for the country(August,1928):

  • The Nehru Report in August 1928 was a memorandum outlining a proposed new dominion status constitution for India.
  • The rejection by Indian leaders of the all-white Simon Commission led Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India to make a speech in the House of Lords in which he challenged the Indians to draft a Constitution implying that they could not produce one that would be widely acceptable among the leaders of the various Indian communities.
  • As an answer to Lord Birkenhead’s challenge, an All Parties Conference met in February 1928 and appointed a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Motilal Nehru ,with his son Jawaharlal acting as secretary, to draft a constitution.There were nine other members in this committee, including two Muslims. However, the final report was signed by only eight persons: Motilal Nehru, Ali Imam, Tej Bahadur Sapru, M.-S. Aney, Mangal Singh, Shuaib Qureshi, Subhas Chandra Bose, and G. R. Pradhan. Shuaaib Qureshi disagreeing with some of the recommendations.
  • This was the first major attempt by the Indians to draft a constitutional framework for the country.
  • The recommendations of the Nehru Committee were unanimous except in one respect—while the majority favoured the “dominion status” as the basis of the Constitution, a section of it wanted “complete independence” as the basis, with the majority section giving the latter section liberty of action.

Main Recommendations:

The Nehru Report confined itself to British India, as it envisaged the future link-up of British India with the princely states on a federal basis. For the dominion it recommended:

  1. Dominion status on lines of self-governing dominions as the form of government desired by Indians (much to the chagrin of younger, militant section—Jawaharlal Nehru being prominent among them).
  2. Rejection of separate electorates which had been the basis of constitutional reforms so far; instead, a demand for joint electorates with reservation of seats for Muslims at the centre and in provinces where they were in minority (and not in those where Muslims were in majority, such as Punjab and Bengal) in proportion to the Muslim population there with right to contest additional seats.
  3. There should be federal form of government with residuary powers vested in the center.
  4. It included a description of the machinery of government including a proposal for the creation of a Supreme Court and a suggestion that the provinces should be linguistically determined.
  5. Nineteen fundamental rights including equal rights for women, right to form unions, and universal adult suffrage.
  6. Responsible government at the centre and in pro­vinces.
  7. Full protection to cultural and religious interests of Muslims.
  8. Complete dissociation of state from religion.
  9. The language of the Commonwealth shall be Indian, which may be written either in Devanagari, Hindi,Telugu, Kannada, Marathi,Gujarati,Bengali, Tamil or in Urdu character. The use of the English language shall be permitted.

The Nehru Report, along with that of the Simon Commission was available to participants in the three Indian Round Table Conferences (1930–1932). However, the Government of India Act 1935 owes much to the Simon Commission report and little, if anything to the Nehru Report.

The Muslim and Hindu Communal Responses:

  • Though the process of drafting a constitutional framework was begun enthusiastically and unitedly by political leaders, communal differences crept in and the Nehru Report got involved in controversies over the issue of communal representation.
  • Earlier, in December 1927, a large number of Muslim leaders had met at Delhi at the Muslim League session and evolved four proposals for Muslim demands to be incorporated in the draft constitution.
  • These proposals, which were accepted by the Madras session of the Congress (December 1927), came to be known as the ‘Delhi Proposals’. These were:
  1. Joint electorates in place of separate electorates with reserved seats for Muslims;
  2. One-third representation to Muslims in Central Legislative Assembly;
  3. Representation to Muslims in Punjab and Bengal in proportion to their population;
  4. Formation of three new Muslim majority provinces— Sindh, Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province.
  • However, the Hindu Mahasabha was vehemently opposed to the proposals for creating new Muslim-majority provinces and reservation of seats for Muslims majorities in Punjab and Bengal (which would ensure Muslim control over legislatures in both). It also demanded a strictly unitary structure.
  • This attitude of the Hindu Mahasabha complicated matters. In the course of the deliberations of the All Parties Conference, the Muslim League dissociated itself and stuck to its demand for reservation of seats for Muslims, especially in the Central Legislature and in Muslim majority provinces.
  • Thus, Motilal Nehru and other leaders drafting the report found themselves in a dilemma: if the demands of the Muslim communal opinion were accepted, the Hindu communalists would withdraw their support, if the latter were satisfied, the Muslim leaders would get estranged.

The concessions made in the Nehru Report to Hindu communalists included the following:

  1. Joint electorates proposed everywhere but reservation for Muslims only where in minority;
  2. Sindh to be detached from Bombay only after dominion status was granted and subject to weightage to Hindu minority in Sindh;
  3. Political structure proposed was broadly unitary, as residual powers rested with the centre.

Amendments Proposed by Jinnah:

  • At the All Parties Conference held at Calcutta in December 1928 to consider the Nehru Report, Jinnah, on behalf of the Muslim League, proposed three amendments to the report:
  1. One-third representation to Muslims in the Central Legislature
  2. Reservation to Muslims in Bengal and Punjab legislatures proportionate to their population, till adult suffrage was established
  3. Residual powers to provinces.
  • These demands not being accommodated, Jinnah went back to the Shafi faction of the Muslim League and in March 1929′ gave fourteen points which were to become the basis of all future propaganda of the Muslim League.

Jinnah’s Fourteen Demands(1929):

  1. Federal Constitution with residual powers to provinces.
  2. Provincial autonomy.
  3. No constitutional amendment by the centre without the concurrence of the states constituting the Indian federation.
  4. All legislatures and elected bodies to have adequate representation of Muslims in every province without reducing a majority of Muslims in a province to a minority or equality.
  5.  Adequate representation to Muslims in the services and in self-governing bodies.
  6. One-third Muslim representation in the Central Legislature.
  7. In any cabinet at the centre or in the provinces, one- third to be Muslims.
  8. Separate electorates.
  9. No bill or resolution in any legislature to be passed if three-fourths of a minority community considers such a bill or resolution to be against their interests.
  10.  Any territorial redistribution not to affect the Muslim majority in Punjab, Bengal and NWFP.
  11. Separation of Sindh from Bombay.
  12. Constitutional reforms in the NWFP and Baluchistan.
  13. Full religious freedom to all communities.
  14. Protection of Muslim rights in religion, culture, education and language.

Response of Younger Section of the Congress:

  • Not only were the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Sikh communalists unhappy about the Nehru Report, but the younger section of the Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhash Bose was also angered.
  • The younger section regarded the idea of dominion status in the report as a step backward, and the developments at the All Parties Conference strengthened their criticism of the dominion status idea. Nehru and Subhash Bose rejected the Congress’ modified goal and jointly set up the Independence for India League.

THE NEHRU REPORT, DELHI PROPOSAL AND JINNAH’S FOURTEEN DEMANDS

SIMON COMMISSION

SIMON COMMISSION

  • The Indian Statutory Commission , popularly known as the Simon Commission(after the name of its chairman Sir John Simon),.was a group of seven British Members of Parliament of United Kingdom that had been dispatched to India in 1928 to study constitutional reform and recommend to the Government.One of its members was Clement Attlee, who subsequently became the British Prime Minister and eventually oversaw the granting of independence to India and Pakistan in 1947
  • There was a chorus of protest by all Indians against the appointment of an all-white, seven-member Indian Statutory Commission,
  • The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced the system of dyarchy to govern the provinces of British India. However, the Indian public clamoured for revision of the difficult diarchy form of government, and the Government of India Act 1919 itself stated that a commission would be appointed after 10 years to investigate the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps for reform.
  • Although constitutional reforms were due only in 1929, the Conservative Government, then in power in Britain, feared defeat by the Labour Party and thus did not want to leave the question of the future of Britain’s most priced colony in “irresponsible Labour hands”.
  • Hence, it appointed seven MPs (including Chairman Simon) to constitute the commission that had been promised in 1919 that would look into the state of Indian constitutional affairs. The people of the Indian subcontinent were outraged and insulted, as the Simon Commission, which was to determine the future of India, did not include a single Indian member in it. The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras (now Chennai), resolved to boycott the Commission. A faction of the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the Commission.
  • The Conservative Secretary of State, Lord Birkenhead, who had constantly talked of the inability of Indians to formulate a concrete scheme of constitutional reforms which had the support of wide sections of Indian political opinion, was responsible for the appointment of the Simon Commission.
  • The Indian response against the commission was immediate and nearly unanimous. What angered the Indians most was the exclusion of Indians from the commission and the basic notion behind the exclusion that foreigners would discuss and decide upon India’s fitness for self-government. This notion was seen as a violation of the principle of self- determination, and a deliberate insult to the self-respect of Indians.

Parties’ Response:

  • The Congress session in Madras (December 1927) meeting under the presidency of M.A. Ansari decided to boycott the commission “at every stage and in every form”. Meanwhile Nehru succeeded in getting a snap resolution passed at the session, declaring complete independence as the goal of the Congress.
  • Those who decided to support the Congress call of boycott included the Liberals of the Hindu Mahasabha and the majority faction of the Muslim League under Jinnah.
  • Some others, such as the Unionists in Punjab and the Justice Party in the south, decided not to boycott the commission.

Public Response:

  • The commission landed in Bombay on February 3, 1928. On that day, a countrywide hartal was organised and mass rallies held. Wherever the commission went, there were black flag demonstrations, hartals and slogans of ‘Simon Go Back’.
  • A significant feature of this upsurge was that a new generation of youth got their first taste of political action. They played the most active part in the protest, giving it a militant flavour. The youth leagues and conferences got a real fillip. Nehru and Subhash emerged as leaders of this new wave of youth and students.
  • Both travelled extensively, addressed and presided over conferences. This upsurge among the youth also provided a fertile ground for the germination and spread of new radical ideas of socialism reflected in the emergence of groups such as the Punjab Naujawan Bharat Sabha, Workers’ and Peasants’ Parties and Hindustani Sewa Dal (Karnataka).

Police Repression:

  • The police came down heavily on demonstrators; there were Lathi charges not sparing even the senior leaders. Jawaharlal Nehru and G.B. Pant were beaten up in Lucknow.
  • On October 30, 1928, the Simon Commission arrived in Lahore where, as with the rest of the country, its arrival was met with massive amounts of protesters and black flags.  The Lahore protest was led by Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab in February 1928. In order to make way for the Commission, the local police force began beating protestors with their sticks. The police were particularly brutal towards Lala Lajpat Rai, who died later on November 17, 1928.

Aftermath:

  • The Commission published its report in May 1930. It proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of representative government in the provinces. It also recommended that separate communal electorates be retained, but only until tensions between Hindus and Muslims had died down.
  • In September 1928, ahead of the Commission’s release, Motilal Nehru presented his Nehru Report to counter its charges that Indians could not find a constitutional consensus among themselves. This report advocated that India be given dominion status of complete internal self-government.
  • Noting that educated Indians opposed the Commission and also that communal tensions had increased instead of decreased, the British government opted for another method of dealing with the constitutional issues of India. Before the publication of the report, the British government stated that Indian opinion would henceforth be taken into account, and that the natural outcome of the constitutional process would be dominion status for India. The outcome of the Simon Commission was the Government of India Act 1935, which established representative government at the provincial level in India and is the basis of many parts of the Indian Constitution. In 1937 the first elections were held in the Provinces, resulting in Congress Governments being returned in almost all Provinces.

Impact of Appointment of Simon Commission:

  1. It gave a stimulus to radical forces demanding not just complete independence but major socio-economic reforms on socialist lines.
  2. The challenge of Lord Birkenhead to Indian politicians to produce an agreed constitution was accepted by various political sections, and thus prospects for Indian unity seemed bright at that point of time.

SIMON COMMISSION

KHILAFAT MOVEMENT AND NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT

KHILAFAT MOVEMENT AND NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT

  • Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi took control of the national movement in 1919. With this, the third and significant phase of Indian nationalism began and which continued till independence. Gandhian philosophy emphasized the strategy of Satyagraha and Ahimsa in fighting against the British. In his struggle against the racist authorities of South Africa, Gandhi evolved the technique of Satyagraha based on truth and non­violence.
  • Gandhi showed the people a new way of fighting injustice without violence, for what one believed to be right and he called this “Satyagraha.” The Swadeshi program of Gandhi was based on the belief that political freedom was closely liked, with social and economic changes and it meant the use of things belonging to one’s own country partic­ularly stressing the replacement of foreign machine-made goods with Indian handmade cloth. Gandhian philosophy consisted non-violent resistance and, when applied to the Indian scene, it served to bring millions of people into the National movement.

Background of Khalifat—Non-Cooperation Programme:

  • During 1919-22, the British were opposed through two mass movements—the Khilafat and Non-Cooperation. Though the two movements emerged from separate issues, they adopted a common programme of action—that of non-violent non- cooperation.
  • The Khilafat issue was not directly linked to Indian politics but it provided the immediate background to the movement and gave an added advantage of cementing Hindu-Muslim unity against the British.
  • The background to the two movements was provided by a series of events after the First World War which belied all hopes of the Government’s generosity towards the Indian subjects.

The year 1919 saw a strong feeling of discontent among all sections of Indians for various reasons:

  • The economic situation of the country in the post-War years had become alarming with a rise in prices of commodities, decrease in production of Indian industries, increase in burden of taxes and rents etc. Almost all sections of society suffered economic hardship due to the war and this strengthened the anti-British attitude.
  • The Rowlatt Act, the imposition of martial law in Punjab and the Jallianwalla Baghmassacre exposed the brutal and uncivilised face of the foreign rule.
  • The Hunter Commission on the Punjab atrocities proved to be eyewash. In fact, the House of Lords (of the British Parliament) endorsed General Dyer’s action and the British public showed solidarity with General Dyer by helping The Morning Post collect 30,000 pounds for him.
  • The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms with their ill- conceived scheme of Dyarchy failed to satisfy the rising demand of the Indians for self-government.

The post-First World War period also saw the preparation of the ground for common political action by Hindus and Muslims:

  • The Lucknow Pact (1916) had stimulated Congress- Muslim League cooperation;
  • The Rowlatt Act agitation brought Hindus and Muslims, and also other sections of the society, together;
  • Radical nationalist Muslims like Mohammad Ali, Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan and Hasan Imam had now become more influential than the conservative Aligarh school elements who had dominated the League earlier. The younger elements advocated militant nationalism and active participation in the nationalist movement. They had strong anti-imperialist sentiments.
  • In this atmosphere emerged the Khilafat issue around which developed the historic Non-Cooperation Movement.The Khilafat movement (1919–1924) was a pan-Islamic, political protest campaign launched by Muslims in British India to influence the British government and to protect the Ottoman Empire during the aftermath of World War I. It won the support of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress.

The Khilafat Issue:

  • The Khilafat issue paved the way for the consolidation of the emergence of a radical nationalist trend among the younger generation of Muslims and the section of traditional Muslim scholars who were becoming increasingly critical of the British rule. This time, they were angered by the treatment meted out to Turkey by the British after the First World War.
  • The Muslims in India, as the Muslims all over the world, regarded the sultan of Turkey as their spiritual leader, Khalifa, so naturally their sympathies were with Turkey. During the War, Turkey had allied with Germany and Austria against the British.
  • When the War ended, the British took a stern attitude towards Turkey— Turkey(Ottoman Empire) was dismembered and the Khalifa removed from power after the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Istanbul and Treaty of Versailles(1919). The movement gained force after the Treaty of Sèvres(August 1920) which imposed the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and gave Greece a powerful position in Anatolia, to the distress of the Turks.This incensed Muslims all over the world.
  • In India, Ali Brothers Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali )along with some other Muslim leaders such as Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari. Raees-ul-Muhajireen Barrister Jan Muhammad Junejo, Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Hakim Ajmal Khan joined hands a created an All India Khilafat Committee, at Lucknow in 1919 with Seth Chotani as president. It had two main demands, which were never accepted:
    1. Caliph Sultan must retain sufficient territories so that he is able to defend the Islamic Faith.
    2. The places which are called Jazirat-ul-arab, including the Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Palestine must remain under Muslim suzerainty.
  • October 17, 1919 was observed as Khilafat Day. The Hindus also joined hands with the Muslims and a strike was called for.

Development of the Khalifat—Non-Cooperation Programme:

  • For some time, the Khilafat leaders limited their actions to meetings, petitions, deputations in favour of the Khilafat. Later, however, a militant trend emerged, demanding an active agitation such as stopping all cooperation with the British.
  • For Hindu Muslim unity in political action, Swami Shradhanand of Arya Samaj was asked by Muslims to preach from pulpit of Jama Masjid at Delhi while Dr. Kitchlu, a Muslim, was given the keys of the Golden Temple of Amritsar.
  • Thus, at the All India Khilafat Conference held in Delhi in November 1919, a call was made for boycott of British goods.and later a Khilafat Manifesto was published which called upon the British to protect the Caliphate. The Khilafat leaders also clearly spelt out that unless peace terms after the War were favourable to Turkey they would stop all cooperation with the Government.
  • Again March 19 1920 was observed as Khilafat Day and following that there was an all party conference in June 1920 at Allahabad. The agenda of the Non-cooperation Movement was finalized. The agenda was:
    1. Boycott of the Titles conferred by the Government
    2. Boycott of civil services, army and police and all other Government offices.
    3. Non-payment of taxes to the government.
  • In 1920, Delhi session of All India Khilafat Committee was addresed by Shankaracharya o Puri. Gandhi, who was the president of the this Committee, saw in the issue a platform from which mass and united non- cooperation could be declared against the Government.

Congress Stand on Khilafat Question:

  • It was quite clear that the support of the Congress was essential for the Khilafat movement to succeed. However, although Gandhi was in favour of launching Satyagraha and non-cooperation against the Government on the Khilafat issue, the Congress was not united on this form of political action.
  • Tilak was opposed to having an alliance with Muslim leaders over a religious issue and he was also sceptical of Satyagraha as an instrument of politics. Gandhi made a concerted bid to convince Tilak of the virtues of Satyagraha and of the expediency of an alliance with the Muslim community over the Khilafat issue.
  • There was opposition to some of the other provisions of the Gandhi’s non-cooperation programme also, such as boycott of councils.
  • Later, however, Gandhi was able to them get the approval of the Congress for his programme of political action and the Congress felt inclined to support a non-cooperation programme on the Khilafat question because—
  1. It was felt that this was a golden opportunity to cement Hindu-Muslim unity and to bring Muslim masses into the national movement; now different sections of society—Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, peasants, artisans, capitalists, tribals, women, students—could come into the national movement by fighting for their own rights and realising that the colonial rule was opposed to them;
  2. The Congress was losing faith in constitutional struggle, especially after the Punjab incidents and the blatantly partisan Hunter Commission Report;
  3. The Congress was aware that the masses were eager to give expression to their discontent.

Muslim League Support to Congress:

  • The Muslim League also decided to give full support to the Congress and its agitation on political questions.
  • In early 1920, a joint Hindu-Muslim deputation was sent to the viceroy to seek redress of grievances on the issue of Khilafat, but the mission proved abortive.

Next developments:

  • In February 1920, Gandhi announced that the issues of the Punjab wrongs and constitutional advance had been overshadowed by the Khilafat question and that he would soon lead a movement of non-cooperation if the terms of the peace treaty failed to satisfy the Indian Muslims.
  • The Treaty of Sevres with Turkey, signed in May 1920, completely dismembered Turkey.
  • An all-party conference at Allahabad in June 1920 approved a programme of boycott of schools, colleges and law courts, and asked Gandhi to lead it.
  • On August 31, 1920 the Khilafat Committee started a campaign of non-cooperation and the movement was formally launched. (Tilak had, incidentally, had just died.)
  • On September 1920, at a special session in Calcutta, the Congress approved a non-cooperation programme till the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs were removed and swaraj was established.The programme was to include:
  1. Boycott of government schools and colleges;
  2. Boycott of law courts and dispensation of justice through Panchayats instead;
  3. Boycott of Legislative Councils; (there were some differences over this as some leaders like C.R. Das were not willing to include a boycott of councils, but bowed to Congress discipline; these leaders boycotted elections held in November 1920 and the majority of the voters too stayed away);
  4. Boycott of foreign cloth and use of khadi instead; also practice of hand-spinning to be done;
  5. Renunciation of government honours and titles;
  6. The second phase could include mass civil disobedience including resignation from government service, and non-payment of taxes.
  7. Constructive Programme: During the movement, the participants were supposed to work for Hindu-Muslim unity, Prohibition of alchoholic drink, Fostering of temperance, Establishment of national education institutions, collection of fund worth one crore rupee, removal of untouchability, all the time remaining non-violent.
  • December 1920: At the Nagpur session of the Indian National Congress:
  1. The programme of non-cooperation was endorsed;
  2. An important change was made in Congress creed: now, instead of having the attainment of self-government through constitutional means as its goal, the Congress decided to have the attainment of swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means, thus committing itself to an extra- constitutional mass struggle;
  3. Some important organisational changes were made: a Congress Working Committee (CWC) of 15 members was set up to lead the Congress from now onwards; Provincial Congress Committees on linguistic basis were organised; ward committees was organised; and entry fee was reduced to four annas
  • The Non-cooperation movement was undertaken to (a)restore the status of the ruler of Turkey (b) to avenge the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and other violence in Punjab and (c) to secure Swaraj (independence) for India. Gandhi promised Swaraj in one year if his Non Cooperation Programme was fully implemented. The another reason to start the Non-cooperation movement was that Gandhi lost faith in constitutional methods and turned from cooperator of British Rule to Non-Cooperator.
  • Many groups of revolutionary terrorists, especially those from Bengal, also pledged support to the Congress programme.
  • At this stage, some leaders like Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Annie Besant, G.S. Kharpadeand B.C. Pal left the Congress as they believed in a constitutional and lawful struggle while some others like Surendranath Banerjee founded the Indian National Liberal Federation and played a minor role in national politics henceforward.
  • The adoption by the Congress of the non-cooperation movement initiated earlier by the Khilafat Committee gave it a new energy, and the years 1921 and 1922 saw an unprece­dented popular upsurge.

Spread of the Movement:

  •  It was the first countrywide popular movement. Gandhi accompanied by the Ali brothers undertook a nationwide tour. About 90,000 students left government schools and colleges and joined around 800 national schools and colleges which cropped up during this time.
  • These educational institutions were organised under the leadership of Acharya Narendra Dev, C.R. Das, Lala Lajpat Rai, Zakir Hussain, Subhash Bose (who became the principal of National College at Calcutta) and included Jamia Millia at Aligarh, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Gujarat Vidyapeeth and Bihar Vidyapeeth.
  • Many lawyers gave up their practice, some of whom were Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, C.R. Das, C. Raja- gopalachari, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Vallabhbhai Patel, Asaf Ali, T. Prakasam and Rajendra Prasad.
  • Heaps of foreign cloths were burnt publicly and their imports fell by half. Picketing of shops selling foreign liquor and of toddy shops was undertaken at many places. Tilak Swaraj Fund was oversubscribed and one crore rupees collected. Congress volunteer corps emerged as the parallel police.
  • In July 1921, the Ali brothers gave a call to the Muslims to resign from the Army as that was unreligious. The Ali brothers were arrested for this in September. Gandhi echoed their call and asked local Congress committees to pass similar resolutions to that effect.
  • Now, the Congress gave a call to local Congress bodies to start civil disobedience if it was thought that the people were ready for it. Already, a no-tax movementagainst union board taxes in Midnapore (Bengal) and in Guntur (Andhra) was going on.
  • In Assam, strikes in tea plantations, steamer services, Assam-Bengal Railways had been organised. J.M. Sengupta was a prominent leader in these strikes.
  • In November 1921, the visit of the Prince of Wales to India invited strikes and demonstrations.
  • The spirit of defiance and unrest gave rise to many local struggles such as Awadh Kisan Movement (UP), Eka Movement (UP), Moppila Revolt (Malabar) and the Sikh agitation for the removal of mahants in Punjab.

Government Response:

  • Talks between Gandhi and Reading, the viceroy, broke down in May 1921 as the Government wanted Gandhi to urge the Ali brothers to remove those portions from speeches which suggested violence. Gandhi realised that the Government was trying to drive a wedge between him and the Khilafat leaders and refused to fall into the trap.
  • In December, the Government came down heavily on the protestors. Volunteer corps were declared illegal, public meetings were banned, the press was gagged and most of the leaders barring Gandhi were arrested.

The Last Phase of the Movement:

  • Gandhi was now under increasing pressure from the Congress rank and file to start the civil disobedience programme and the Ahmedabad session in 1921 (presided over, incidentally, by C.R. Das while still in jail; Hakim Ajmal Khan was the acting president) appointed Gandhi the sole authority on the issue.
  • On February 1, 1922 Gandhi threatened to launch civil disobedience from Bardoli(Gujarat) if (1) political prisoners were not released, and (2) press controls were not removed. The movement had hardly begun before it was brought to an abrupt end.

Chauri Chanra Incident and withdrawal of Non Cooperation Movement:

  • A small village named Chauri-Chaura (Gorakhpur district, UP) has found a place in history books due to an incident of violence on February 5, 1922 which was to prompt Gandhi to withdraw the movement.
  • The police here had beaten up the leader of a group of volunteers campaigning against liquor sales and high food prices, and then opened fire on the crowd which had come to protest before the police station.
  • The agitated crowd torched the police station. Twenty-two policemen were killed in the violence. Gandhi, not happy with the increasingly violent trend of the movement, immediately announced the withdrawal of the movement.
  • The CWC met at Bardoli in February 1922 and resolved to stop all activity that led to breaking of law and to get down to constructive work, instead, which was to include popularisation of Khadi, national schools, and campaigning for temperance, for Hindu-Muslim unity and against untouchability.
  • Most of the nationalist leaders including C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Subhash Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru, however, expressed their bewilderment at Gandhi’s decision to withdraw the movement.
  • Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das formed the Swaraj Party, rejecting Gandhi’s leadership. Many nationalists had felt that the non-cooperation movement should not have been stopped due to isolated incidents of violence, and most nationalists, while retaining confidence in Gandhi, were discouraged.
  • In March 1922 Gandhi was arrested and sentenced to six years in jail. He made a magnificent court speech “I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”

Why Gandhi Withdrew the Movement:

  • Gandhi felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the method of non­violence. Incidents like Chauri-Chaura could lead to excitement and fervour turning the movement generally violent. A violent movement could be easily suppressed by the colonial regime that could use the |incidents of violence as an excuse to use the armed might of the state against the protestors.
  • The movement was also showing signs of fatigue. This was natural as it is not possible to sustain any movement at a high pitch for very long. The Government seemed to be in no mood for negotiations.
  • In wake of these disturbances, the Ali brothers began distancing themselves from Gandhi and the Congress. The Ali brothers criticised Gandhi’s extreme commitment to non-violence and severed their ties with them after he suspended all non-cooperation movement.Although holding talks with the British and continuing their activities, the Khilafat struggle weakened as Muslims were divided between working for the Congress, the Khilafat cause and the Muslim League.The Khilafat leadership fragmented on different political lines. Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari created Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam with the support of Chaudhry Afzal Haq .Leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khanremained strong supporters of Gandhi and the Congress. The Ali brothers joined Muslim League.
  • The central theme of the agitation the Khilafat question dissipated soon. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose under Mustafa Kamal Pasha and deprived the Sultan of political power. Turkey was made a secular state. Thus, the Khilafat question lost its relevance. A European style of legal system was established in Turkey and extensive rights granted to women. Education was nationalised and modern agriculture and industries developed. In 1924, the caliphate was abolished.

Evaluation of Khilafat Non-Cooperation Movement:

  • The movement brought the urban Muslims into the national movement, but at the same time it communalised the national politics to an extent. Although Muslim sentiments were a manifestation of the spread of a wider anti-imperialist feeling, the national leaders failed to raise the religious political consciousness of the Muslims to a level of secular political consciousness.
  • Khilafat is regarded as a political agitation based on a pan-Islamic, fundamentalist platform and being largely indifferent to the cause of Indian independence.
  • Critics of the Khilafat see its alliance with the Congress as a marriage of convenience.Proponents of the Khilafat see it as the spark that led to the non-cooperation movement in India and a major milestone in improving Hindu-Muslim relations, while advocates of Pakistan and Muslim separatism see it as a major step towards establishing the separate Muslim state.
  • With the Non-Cooperation Movement, nationalist sentiments reached every nook and corner of the country and politicised every strata of population—the artisans, peasants, students, urban poor, women, traders etc. It was this politicisation and activisation of millions of men and women which imparted a revolutionary character to the national movement.
  • The movement was successful enough to break the back of British rule, and possibly even the catalyst for the movement that lead to independence in 1947.
  • Colonial rule was based on two myths one, that such a rule was in the interest of Indians and two, that it was invincible.
  • The first myth had been exploded by the economic critique by Moderate nationalists. The second myth had been challenged by Satyagraha through mass struggle. Now, the masses lost the hitherto all-pervasive fear of the colonial rule and its mighty repressive organs.

KHILAFAT MOVEMENT AND NON-COOPERATION MOVEMENT

PARTITION OF BENGAL AND SWADESHI MOVEMENT

PARTITION OF BENGAL AND SWADESHI MOVEMENT

Partition of Bengal:

  • The provincial state of Bengal had an area of 189,000 sq. miles and a population of nearly 8 crores. It included the Hindi-speaking regions of Bihar, the Oriya-speaking regions of Orissa as well as the Assamese-speaking region of Assam, making it a huge administrative entity.Moreover, the capital Calcutta was the capital of the entire British India.
  • With the growing efforts of the Indian National Congress to secure the independence of India, The partition was expected to weaken what was perceived as the nerve center of Indian nationalism.
  • With real objective as second one but declared objective as first one, Lord Curzon decided to partition Bengal into two entities, which would result in a Muslim-majority in the eastern half, and a Hindu-majority in the western half. This he hoped would reduce the administrative pressures as well divide the population on religious grounds, quelling the Indian Independence Movement.
  • The main reason for the Partition was purely political. The Hindus were in a better position in terms of economic status, professional qualities etc., than the Muslims. During the pre-Sepoy Mutiny period, section of Hindu traders greatly helped the British while their Muslim counterparts did not. The British were angry. With the spread of Western education Hindus made a big way, but the Muslims could not. A sense of deprivation crept in. Perhaps, the sense of deprivation was engineered. When the discontentment grew in the beginning of this century, the British capitalised on this sense of deprivation.
  • Even Lord Minto, Curzon’s successor was critical of the way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion saw that it was good political strategy; Minto argued that ‘from a political point of View alone, putting aside the administrative difficulties of the old province, I believe partition to have been very necessary.‘
  • The Partition of Bengal in 1905 was made on October 16 by Viceroy Curzon. The former province of Bengal was divided into two new provinces (1) “Bengal”(comprising western Bengal as well as the province of Bihar and Orissa) and capital at Calcutta. It was to have 17 million Bengali and 37 million Oriya and Hindi speaking people thus reducing Bengali to a minority in Bengal itself. (2) “East Bengal and Assam” with a population of 31 million people and with its capital at Dhaka.File:Bengal gazetteer 1907-9.jpg
  • In the official note, Risley, the Home Secretary to the Government of India said, “Bengal united is power; Bengal divided will pull several different ways”.
  • The partition of the state intended to curb Bengali influence by not only placing Bengalis under two administrations, but by reducing them to a minority in Bengal itself.
  • Also, the partition was meant to foster another kind of division-this time on the basis of religion, i.e.  between the Muslims and the Hindus. The Indian Nationalist clearly saw the design behind the partition and condemned it unanimously. The anti-partition and Swadeshi movement had begun.
  • Due to these political protests, the two parts of Bengal were reunited in 1911. A new partition which divided the province on linguistic, rather than religious grounds followed, with the Hindi, Oriya and Assamese areas separated to form separate administrative units: Bihar and Orissa Province was created to the west, and Assam Province to the east. The administrative capital of British India was moved from Calcutta to New Delhi as well.

Swadeshi Movement:

  • The Swadeshi movement had its genesis in the anti-partition movement which started with the partition of Bengal by the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, 1905 and continued up to 1911.
  •  It was the most successful of the pre-Gandhian movements. Its chief architects were Aurobindo Ghosh, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai.
  • Though affected in 1905, the partition proposals had come onto the public domain as early as 1903. Therefore, since 1903, there was prepared the ground for the launch of the Swadeshi movement.In first phase (1903-1905), moderate way of 3Ps was in full sway but it could not stop partition.
  • Strong sense of unity among Bengalis fostered by their regional independence,cultural development of 19th century, spread of western education and Hindu revivalist mood gave birth to a vehement resistance.

The Nature of the Swadeshi Movement:

  • The Bengalis adopted the boycott movement as the last resort after they had exhausted the armoury of constitutional agitation (between 1903 and 1905) known to them, namely vocal protests, appeals, petitions and Conferences to coerce the British to concede the unanimous national demand.
  • This was boycott-cum-swadeshi movement.
  • The original conception of Boycott was mainly an economic one. It had two distinct, but allied purposes in view. The first was to bring pressure upon the British public by the pecuniary loss they would suffer by the boycott of British goods, particularly the Manchester cotton goods for which Bengal provided the richest market in India. Secondly, it was regarded as essential for the revival of indigenous industry which being at its infant stage could never grow in the face of free competition with foreign countries which had highly developed industry.
  • Like the Boycott, the Swadeshi as a purely economic measure for the growth of Indian Industry was not an altogether novel idea in India. It was preached by several eminent personalities in the 19th century, Gopal Hari Deshmukh, better known as Lokahitawadi of Bombay, Swami Dayananda and Bholanath Chandra of Calcutta. But the seeds sown by them did not germinate till the soil was rendered fertile by the grim resolve of a united people, exasperated beyond measure; to forge the twin weapons of Boycott and Swadeshi in order to undo the great wrong which was inflicted upon them by an arrogant Government.
  • Later on, the economic boycott receded into background with the passage of time and it developed into an idea of non-cooperation with the British in every field and the object aimed at was a political regeneration of the country with the distant goal of absolute freedom looming large before the eyes of the more advanced section.
  • Similarly, Swadeshi completely outgrew the original conception of promoting Indian industry. It assumed a new form based upon the literal connotation of the word swadeshi, namely attachment to everything Indian.
  • The movement marked the beginning of new politics, it marked the beginning of a new nationalist era- the former was politics of militancy and the later the politics of the militant nationalism. It was characterised by a shift from political moderation to political extremism, from constitutional agitation to radical struggle and from politics of petition to direct action.
  • The movement marked the beginning of new form of mobilization. New political weapons for giving a new orientation to the politics of pressure came to be used- Swadeshi, Constructive Swadeshi, Boycott, Extended Boycott, passive resistance, mass agitation etc.
  • The movement was the first popular upsurge and humble beginning of multi-class movement ensuring participation of new section of people like students, women, lower middle class people, zamindars, peasant etc. The mobilisation is remarkable by mobilisation of pantry in some areas and politicization of the economic grievances of the labours. Even though mobilization was in limited areas, the very beginning of modern mass politics in India is markable. Peasants in most parts didn’t actively join boycott or passive resistance but many though meetings, constructive works, etc. were exposed for the first time to modern nationalist ideas and politics.

Samitis and Swadeshi:

  • Corps of volunteers (or samitis as they were called) were another major form of mass mobilization widely used by the Swadeshi Movement.
  • The Swadesh Bandhab Samiti set up by Ashwini Kumar Dutt, a school teacher, in Barisal was the most well known volunteer organization of them all. Through the activities of this Samiti, whose 159 branches reached out to the remotest corners of the district, Dutt was able to generate an unparalleled mass following among the predominantly Muslim Peasantry of the region.
  • The samitis took the Swadeshi message to the villages through magic lantern lectures and Swadeshi songs, gave physical and moral training to the members, did social work during famines and epidemics, organized schools, training in Swadeshi craft and arbitration courts.
  • Though the samitis stuck their deepest roots in Barisal, they had expanded to other parts of Bengal as well. British officialdom was genuinely alarmed by their activities, their growing popularity with the rural masses.

The Economic Boycott and Swadeshi:

  • In the economic sense, Swadeshi would represent both a positive and a negative element. These have been discussed as under:-
  • The positive element of economic swadeshi was the regeneration of indigenous goods.The boycott of foreign goods led to the increase in demand of indigenous goods especially clothes which felt short of supply. The mill-owners of Bombay and Ahmadabad came to its rescue. The Boycott movement in Bengal supplied a momentum and driving force to the cotton mills in India and the opportunity thus presented was exploited by the mill-owners. It was complained at that time that the Bombay mill-owners made a huge profit at the expense of what they regarded as ‘Bengali Sentimentalism’, for buying indigenous cloth at any sacrifice and there maybe some truth in it but this is not sure.
  • Bengal had to supplement the supply from Bombay mills by the coarse production of handlooms. The weaving industry in Bengal was a very flourishing one till the British ruined it after they had established their rule over the province in the 18thcentury. The economic boycott movement seemed to be a suitable opportunity for reviving that industry. The clothes produce were very coarse but were accepted by the Bengalis in the true spirit of the Swadeshi Movement. A song which became very popular all over the country urged upon the people to give the place of honour to the coarse cloth which is the gift of the Mother, too poor to offer a better one.
  • J N Tata founded Tata Iron ad Steel. Prafulla Chandra Ray set up Bengal Chemicals Factory.
  • Tilak described Swadeshi as Yoga of Bahiskar, a rligious ritual of self punishment.
  • The negative element of the economic swadeshi was the boycott and burning of foreign goods. Though Manchester cloth was the chief target of attack, the movement was extended to other British manufacturers also, such as salt and sugar as well as luxury goods in general. The ideas of Swadeshi and economic boycott was kept alive and brought home to every door by articles in newspapers, processions, popular songs, enrolment of volunteers to keep vigilant watch and by occasion bonfires of foreign cloth, salt and sugar. The old apparels of foreign made belonging to sundry people were placed in a heap and then it was set on fire.
  • Fines were inflicted on anyone found using foreign sugar. Foreign cigarettes were bought and burnt in the streets, Brahmins refused to assist any religious ceremonies in houses where European salt and sugar in houses where European salt and sugar were used and Marwaris were warned of importing foreign articles.
  • All these bonfires however affected the economy of the people. To burn ‘Manchester made goods’ bought at a high price literally affects the people but swept by national enthusiasm.

Swadeshi and Social Boycott:

  • The social boycott was an outcome of economic swadeshi movement. It was preached to go against the repressive measures of the Government. The social boycott was a very powerful weapon. A man selling or buying foreign goods or in any way opposing swadeshi Movement and helping Government in putting it down would be subjected to various degrees of humiliation. Such social ostracism would make a man quite unhappy, sometimes even very miserable and the Government could do very little to help him in his distress. But such non-violent ostracism was not the only form of persecution. Sometimes, the ‘renegade’ would suffer material loss and bodily or mental pain.

Swadeshi and National Education:

  • One of the major planks of the programme of selfreliance was Swadeshi or national education. Taking a cue from Tagore’s Shantiniketan, the Bengal National Collegewas founded, with Aurobindo as the principal.
  • Students in promoting the boycott and swadeshi movement drew upon them the wrath and violence of the British Raj. Circulars were issued forbidding the students under threat of severe penalty to associate themselves in any way with the Boycott movement even the cry of Bande Mataram in streets and other public places was declared to be a punishable offence.
  • Scholars or colleges whose students disobeyed the order were not only threatened with the withdrawal of Government grants and even with disaffiliation, but their students were to be declared ineligible for Government Service.The authorities of the educational institutions were asked to keep strict watch over their pupils, and if unable to control them, were to report the names to the Education Department for taking necessary disciplinary action.The magistrates were asked to inform the teachers and those connected with the management of educational institutions, that of necessary they might be enrolled as Special Constables. The Direction of Public Instruction asked the principals of colleges to show causes why their students who took part in the picketing should not be expelled.
  • All this produced a storm of indignation in the country and the Indian-owned Press denounced the circulars in the strongest language. Anti-circular society was set up with the objective of rallying students through processions, picketing, collection of funds and creating awareness.
  • The students of some colleges in Rangpur defied the Government orders and when they were fined, the guardians refused to pay the fine and stabled a national school for the boys who were expelled. Teachers were also asked to resign for not whipping the boys.
  • The action of the authorities led to a movement among the students to boycott the Calcutta University which they described as Golamkhana (House of manufacturing slaves).
  • At a conference attended by a large number of very eminent men of Bengal in different walks of life held on 10th November, 1905, it was decided to establish at once a National Council of Education(Jatiya Shiksha Parisad) in order to organize a system of education-literary, scientific and technical- on national lines and under national control. The number of national schools also grew apace with time.
  • The enthusiasm with which the two Bengals responded to the idea of national education shows the way in which the swadeshi movement, like a mighty river was overflowing its bed and inundating vast stretches of country. It was no longer confined to its primary object of industrial regeneration and boycotting British goods. More important still, the movement with its extended connotation was no longer confined to Bengal but spread to the whole of India.
  • The earliest use of the term national education was made by Prasanna Kumar Tagore in connection with Hindu College Pathshala in 1839. The effort to organise Tattvabodhini Pathshala in 1840 and Hindu Hitarthi Vidyalaya in 1846 also indicated desire for establishing national education, But real credit for popularising and organising national education goes to Satish Chandra Mukherjeeand his Dawn Society.
  • Founder-editor of the Dawn magazine (1897–1913), an organ of Indian Nationalism, in 1902 Satish Chandra Mukherjee organised the “Dawn Society” of culture, to protest against the Report of the Indian Universities Commission, representing the inadequate university education imposed by the Government to fabricate clerks for the merchant offices.
  • In a protest meeting on 5 Nov, 1905 and addressed by R N Tagore, Hirendranath Dutta, Satishchandra Mukherjee etc , the idea of national education took a more concrete shape. By the donation of Subodh Chandra Mullick(for which he was give title of Raja)and zamindar Mymensingh, in 1906, Satish took a leading part in forming the National Council of Education and became a lecturer in the Bengal National College. In 1907, after Sri Aurobindo’s resignation on 2 August 1907 (fearing “that he might be spirited away to prison at any moment, and his association with the National College might cause great damage to the institution”). Under the aegis of the National Council of Education, a number of National Schools were founded at various places like Jadavpur Engineering College. . Taraknath Patil had set up the society for the Promotion of Technical ducation which founded Bengal Technical Institute. But most of these schools and institutions failed to flourish due to hostile government. But Jadavpur Engineering College continued and transformed into University in 1956.
  • The scheme for National Council of Education was indebted to a letter from Sir George Birdwood, known for his valuable census of Indian crafts and industries, to Satish in 1898. Birdwood wrote that while India must look to the west for scientific culture, she must never surrender her spiritual culture.

Swadeshi, Art, Culture , Science and Press:

  • It was perhaps in the cultural sphere that the impact of the swadeshi movement was most marked. The songs composed at the time of Rabindranath Tagore, Rajani Kanta Sen, Dwijendralal Ray, Makunda Das, Syed Abu Mohammad and other later became the moving spirit for nationalist of all hues, ‘terrorists’, ‘Gandhian or Communists’ are still popular.
  • Rabindranath Tagore, Rajnikant Sen, Dwijendralal Roy and Nabakrishna Chakraborty composed patriotic songs. Rabindranath’s Amar Sonar Bangla, written at that time, was to later inspire the liberation struggle of Bangaldesh and was adopted as the National Anthem of the country in 1971. The Swadeshi influence could be seen in Bengali folk music popular among Hindu and Muslim villagers and it evoked collections of India fairy tales such as, Thakurmar Jhuli(Grandmother’s tales) written by Daksinaranjan Mitra Majumdar which delights Bengali children to this day.
  • Similarly, there were great improvements in Indian art. Painting became a national art. Abanindranath Tagore broke the domination of Victorian naturalism over Indian art and sought inspiration from indigenous tradition of Mughal, Rajput and Ajanta. Nandlal Bose was first recipient of a scholarship offered by Indian Society of Oriental Art founded in 1907.
  • Tagore gave a call for Rakhi Bandhan as a token for Hindu-Muslim unity and wrote articles under title Atma Shakti.
  • The Swadeshi period saw the creative use of traditional popular festivals and melas as a means of reaching out to the masses. The Ganapati arid Shivaji festivals, popularized by Tilak, became a medium for Swadeshi propaganda not only in Western India but also in Bengal. Traditional folk theatre forms such as jatras i.e. extensively used in disseminating the Swadeshi message in an intelligible form to vast sections of the people, many of whom were being introduced to modern political ideas for the first time.
  • Ramsay Macdonald visiting Bengal during this period wrote that Bengal was creating India by song and worship.
  • In science, J C Bose, Prafulla Chandra Ray and others pioneered original research that was prased by the world over.
  • The writings of Bande Mataram, practically revolutionized the political attitude of Bengal. Surendranath Banerjea, Krishna Kumar Mitra, Prithwishchandra Ray and other leaders launched a powerful press campaign against the partition proposals through journals and newspapers like the Bengalee, Hitabadi and Sanjibani.
  • The four leading newspapers of Calcutta- the Bengalee, the Amrita Bazaar Patrika, the Indian Mirror and the Hindu Patriot protested against this division of Bengal.The Amrita Bazaar Patrika in its issue of 14th December, 1903 called on the people of East Bengal to hold public meetings in every town and village to prepare petition for submission to the government, which was signed by lakhs of people.
  • Vernacular newspapers such as the Sanjivani and the Bangabashi expressed open hostility against this proposal.

Swadeshi Movement outside Bengal:

  • The message of Swadeshi and the boycott of foreign goods soon spread to the rest of the country: Lokamanya Tilak took the movement to different parts of India, especially Poona and Bombay; Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai spread the Swadeshi message in Punjab and other parts of northern India. Syed Haidar Raza led the movement in Delhi; Rawalpindi, Kangra, Jammu, Multan and Haridwar witnessed active participation in the Swadeshi Movement; Chidambaram Pillai took the movement to the Madras presidency, which was also galvanized by Bipin Chandra Pal’s extensive lecture tour.

Repressive measures taken by the Government:

  • Other than boycott and burning of foreign goods, people also resorted to ‘peaceful picketing’ which destined to become a normal feature in almost every type of political agitation in future. All these gave the police a good opportunity to interfere.
  • The volunteers were roughly handled and if they resisted the police a good opportunity to interfere. The volunteers were roughly handled and if they resisted, the police beat them with lathis. These ‘Regulation Lathis’, were freely used by the police in the first instance to drive away the picketers and to disperse crowds, whether rioters or peaceful.
  • The uttering of Bande Mataram was an indisputable evidence of sympathy to movement and later it was made illegal to shout Bande Mataram in a public place.
  • The official phrase, “mild lathi charge” to describe the assault of the police, was a misnomer. It was certainly not mild as the gaping wounds on the bodies loudly proclaimed.
  • The  Government also issued instructions to the educational institutions to control their boys and prevent them from participating in the swadeshi movement. Rural markets were controlled bans were put on processions and meetings, leaders were put into confinement without any trial and loyal Muslims were made to go against the recalcitrant Hindus.

Drawbacksm Effects and Estimate of Swadeshi Movement:

  • It didn’t garner the support of mass Muslims and they were turned against the movement by British. The use of traditional popular customs and festivals to mobilise masses was misinterpreted by Communal forces backed by the State. Communal riots broke in Bengal.
  • Curzon said: Dacca would become capital of new Muslim majority province and they will get better deal free from Calcutta. To mollify the people of East Bengal, Lord Curzon declared that a university as a center of excellence would be established in Dacca (which would later be named as University of Dhaka) and formed a committee in this regard consisting Khwaja Salimullah, A. K. Fazlul Huq and others. The decision was severely criticized by some Hindu leaders in West Bengal.
  • The swadeshi partition and the Government measures finally led to the split of Hindus and Muslims and virtually the formation of Muslim League in 1906.
  • Movement lacked effective organisation and politcal structure and they lacked struggle-pause-struggle technique of Mahatma Gandhi.
  • Split of Congress in 1907 weakened the movement and repression of British caused intensity dreamed.
  • Though swadeshi movement had spread outside Bengal but rest of the country was not yet prepared to adopt new style and stage of politics.
  • For the first two or three years, there was a serious decline in the import of British goods, particularly cloth.
  • Passive resistance could not go for long and its ultimate result could never be in doubt. This was the genesis of the sudden emergence of a network of secret revolutionary organizations which were determined to meet the Government on equal terms, by collectively arms and opposing terrorism by terrorism. The youth of the county, who had been part of the mass movement, now found themselves unable to disappear tamely into the background once the movement itself grew moribund and Government repression was stepped up. Frustrated, some among them opted for ‘individual heroism’ as distinct from the earlier attempts at mass action.
  • Although swadeshi was originally conceived as merely a handmade of boycott of foreign goods and meant only to be an urge to use indigenous in preference to foreign goods, it soon attained a much more comprehensive character and became a concrete symbol of nationalism.
  • Swadeshi in Bengal brought into the vortex of politics a class of people-the landed aristocracy– who had hitherto held studiously aloof from the congress or any other political organization.
  • Outside Bengal, it gave a rude shock of disillusionment to the whole of India and stimulated the political thoughts of the people. Swadeshi emphasized on ‘atmasakti’ or soul force.Movement gave a thrust to self-reliance, a new confidence and reassertion of national pride.
  • Self-help and constructive work at the village level was envisaged as a means of bringing about the social and economic regeneration of the villages and of reaching the rural masses. This meant social reform and campaigns against evils such as caste oppression, early marriage, the dowry system, consumption of alcohol, etc.
  • It had permanent impact on the development of several industries like textile mills, soap and match factories etc. Banks and insurance companies were started. The greatest beneficiaries were Bombay and Ahmedabad where enterprising industrialists came forward to fill the vacuum created by decrease of British import.
  • It had direct impact on cultural development and education in Bengal.
  • The movement evolved several new methods and techniques of mass mobilization and mass action though it was not able to put them all into practice successfully. It also widened social base of movement.
  • One particular aspect of the swadeshi movement which M.K. Gandhi prized was that it taught the people to challenge and defy the authority of the Government openly in public and took away from the minds of even ordinary men the dread of police assault and prison as well as the sense of ignominy which hitherto attached to them. To go to prison or get badge of honour and not as hitherto a brand of infancy.
  • Swadeshi Movement was only the first round in the national popular struggle against colonialism. It was an important battle’ in the long drawn out and complex ‘war of position’ for Indian independence.

Attitude of the Congress to Swadeshi Movement:

  • In 1905, Congress with Gokhale as President recorded emphatic protest agaist partition of Bengal which was already done.
  • Moderates were not ready to extend open support to boycott. Under pressure fro Bengal delegates a colourless compromise resolution was passed, leaving it unclear whether the boycott of British goods was approved or not.
  • In 1906, the Extremists were able to secure better terms from the Moderates. The Congress with Dadabhai Naoroji as President, recognized Boycott as legitimate and accorded its most cordial support to Swadeshi Movement. Another resolution asked th people to take up the question of national education for booth boys and girls.
  • Extremists wanted to etend the movement to rest of India and beyond the programme of just Swadeshi and Boycott to full fledged mass struggle with aim of Swaraj but Moderates were not ready for it.
  • After the open split in Surat in 1907, Congress with under grip of the Moderates never reiterated of discussed the resolution passed in 1906. They looked up Bengal as local issue and ignored because it meant a direct confrontation with the government.

PARTITION OF BENGAL AND SWADESHI MOVEMENT

From Empire to Independence: The British Raj in India 1858-1947

By Dr Chandrika Kaul
Last updated 2011-03-03

1858: Beginning of the Raj

In 1858, British Crown rule was established in India, ending a century of control by the East India Company. The life and death struggle that preceded this formalisation of British control lasted nearly two years, cost £36 million, and is variously referred to as the ‘Great Rebellion’, the ‘Indian Mutiny’ or the ‘First War of Indian Independence’.

Inevitably, the consequences of this bloody rupture marked the nature of political, social and economic rule that the British established in its wake.

It is important to note that the Raj (in Hindi meaning ‘to rule’ or ‘kingdom’) never encompassed the entire land mass of the sub-continent.

Two-fifths of the sub-continent continued to be independently governed by over 560 large and small principalities, some of whose rulers had fought the British during the ‘Great Rebellion’, but with whom the Raj now entered into treaties of mutual cooperation.

The ‘Great Rebellion’ helped create a racial chasm between ordinary Indians and Britons.

Indeed the conservative elites of princely India and big landholders were to prove increasingly useful allies, who would lend critical monetary and military support during the two World Wars.

Hyderabad for example was the size of England and Wales combined, and its ruler, the Nizam, was the richest man in the world.

They would also serve as political bulwarks in the nationalist storms that gathered momentum from the late 19th century and broke with insistent ferocity over the first half of the 20th century.

But the ‘Great Rebellion’ did more to create a racial chasm between ordinary Indians and Britons. This was a social segregation which would endure until the end of the Raj, graphically captured in EM Forster’s ‘A Passage to India’.

While the British criticised the divisions of the Hindu caste system, they themselves lived a life ruled by precedence and class, deeply divided within itself. Rudyard Kipling reflected this position in his novels. His books also exposed the gulf between the ‘white’ community and the ‘Anglo-Indians’, whose mixed race caused them to be considered racially ‘impure’.

Government in India

While there was a consensus that Indian policy was above party politics, in practice it became embroiled in the vicissitudes of Westminster.

Successive viceroys in India and secretaries of state in London were appointed on a party basis, having little or no direct experience of Indian conditions and they strove to serve two masters. Edwin Montagu was the first serving secretary of state to visit India on a fact-finding mission in 1917-1918.

1,200 civil servants could not rule 300 to 350 million Indians without indigenous ‘collaborators’.

Broadly speaking, the Government of India combined a policy of co-operation and conciliation of different strata of Indian society with a policy of coercion and force.

The empire was nothing if not an engine of economic gain. Pragmatism dictated that to govern efficiently and remuneratively, 1,200 Indian civil servants could not rule 300 to 350 million Indians without the assistance of indigenous ‘collaborators’.

However, in true British tradition, they also chose to elaborate sophisticated and intellectual arguments to justify and explain their rule.

On the one hand, Whigs and Liberals expounded sentiments most iconically expressed by TB Macaulay in 1833: ‘that… by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government, that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. … Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history.’

On the other hand, James Fitzjames Stephen, writing in the 1880s, contended that empire had to be absolute because ‘its great and characteristic task is that of imposing on Indian ways of life and modes of thought which the population regards without sympathy, though they are essential to its personal well-being and to the credit of its rulers.’

What was less ambiguous was that it was the economic interests of Britain that were paramount, though as the 20th century progressed, the government in India was successful in imposing safeguards. For instance, tariff walls were raised to protect the Indian cotton industry against cheap British imports.

Financial gains and losses

There were two incontrovertible economic benefits provided by India. It was a captive market for British goods and services, and served defence needs by maintaining a large standing army at no cost to the British taxpayer.

However, the economic balance sheet of the empire remains a controversial topic and the debate has revolved around whether the British developed or retarded the Indian economy.

Controversy remains over whether Britain developed or retarded India’s economy.

Among the benefits bequeathed by the British connection were the large scale capital investments in infrastructure, in railways, canals and irrigation works, shipping and mining; the commercialisation of agriculture with the development of a cash nexus; the establishment of an education system in English and of law and order creating suitable conditions for the growth of industry and enterprise; and the integration of India into the world economy.

Conversely, the British are criticised for leaving Indians poorer and more prone to devastating famines; exhorting high taxation in cash from an inpecunious people; destabilising cropping patterns by forced commercial cropping; draining Indian revenues to pay for an expensive bureaucracy (including in London) and an army beyond India’s own defence needs; servicing a huge sterling debt, not ensuring that the returns from capital investment were reinvested to develop the Indian economy rather than reimbursed to London; and retaining the levers of economic power in British hands.

The Indian National Congress

The foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 as an all India, secular political party, is widely regarded as a key turning point in formalising opposition to the Raj.

It developed from its elite intellectual middle-class confines, and a moderate, loyalist agenda, to become by the inter-war years, a mass organisation.

It was an organisation which, despite the tremendous diversity of the sub-continent, was remarkable in achieving broad consensus over the decades.

Also split within Congress were those who advocated violence and those who stressed non-violence.

Yet it was not a homogenous organisation and was often dominated by factionalism and opposing political strategies. This was exemplified by its splintering in 1907 into the so-called ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ wings, which reunited 10 years later.

Another example were the ‘pro-changers’ (who believed working the constitutional structures to weaken it from within) and ‘no-changers’ (who wanted to distance themselves from the Raj) during the 1920s.

There was also a split within Congress between those who believed that violence was a justifiable weapon in the fight against imperial oppression (whose most iconic figure was Subhas Chandra Bose, who went on to form the Indian National Army), and those who stressed non-violence.

The towering figure in this latter group was Mahatma Gandhi, who introduced a seismic new idiom of opposition in the shape of non-violent non-cooperation or ‘satyagraha’ (meaning ‘truth’ or ‘soul’ force’).

Gandhi oversaw three major nationwide movements which achieved varying degrees of success in 1920-1922, 1930-1934 and in 1942. These mobilised the masses on the one hand, while provoking the authorities into draconian repression. Much to Gandhi’s distress, self-restraint among supporters often gave way to violence.

Reasons for independence

The British Raj unravelled quickly in the 1940s, perhaps surprising after the empire in the east had so recently survived its greatest challenge in the shape of Japanese expansionism.

The reasons for independence were multifaceted and the result of both long and short term factors.

The pressure from the rising tide of nationalism made running the empire politically and economically very challenging and increasingly not cost effective. This pressure was embodied as much in the activities of large pan-national organisations like the Congress as in pressure from below – from the ‘subalterns’ through the acts of peasant and tribal resistance and revolt, trade union strikes and individual acts of subversion and violence.

With US foreign policy pressurising the end of western imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gained its freedom.

There were further symptoms of the disengagement from empire. European capital investment declined in the inter-war years and India went from a debtor country in World War One to a creditor in World War Two. Applications to the Indian Civil Service (ICS) declined dramatically from the end of the Great War.

Britain’s strategy of a gradual devolution of power, its representation to Indians through successive constitutional acts and a deliberate ‘Indianisation’ of the administration, gathered a momentum of its own. As a result, India moved inexorably towards self-government.

The actual timing of independence owed a great deal to World War Two and the demands it put on the British government and people.

The Labour party had a tradition of supporting Indian claims for self-rule, and was elected to power in 1945 after a debilitating war which had reduced Britain to her knees.

Furthermore, with US foreign policy pressurising the end of western subjugation and imperialism, it seemed only a matter of time before India gained its freedom.

Partition and religion

The growth of Muslim separatism from the late 19th century and the rise of communal violence from the 1920s to the virulent outbreaks of 1946-1947, were major contributory factors in the timing and shape of independence.

However, it was only from the late 1930s that it became inevitable that independence could only be achieved if accompanied by a partition. This partition would take place along the subcontinent’s north-western and north-eastern boundaries, creating two sovereign nations of India and Pakistan.

The Muslim League failed to achieve the confidence of the majority of Muslims in the elections of 1937.

Muslims, as a religious community, comprised only 20% of the population and represented great diversity in economic, social and political terms.

From the late 19th century, some of its political elites in northern India felt increasingly threatened by British devolution of power, which by the logic of numbers would mean the dominance of the majority Hindu community.

Seeking power and a political voice in the imperial structure, they organised themselves into a party to represent their interests, founding the Muslim League in 1906.

They achieved something of a coup by persuading the British that they needed to safeguard the interests of the minorities, a demand that fed into British strategies of divide and rule. The inclusion of separate electorates along communal lines in the 1909 Act, subsequently enlarged in every successive constitutional act, enshrined a form of constitutional separatism.

While there is no denying that Islam and Hinduism were and are very different faiths, Muslims and Hindus continued to co-exist peaceably. There were, however, occasional violent outbursts which were driven more often than not by economic inequities.

Even politically, the Congress and the League cooperated successfully during the Khilafat and Non Cooperation movements in 1920-1922. And Muhammad Ali Jinnah (the eventual father of the Pakistani nation) was a Congress member till 1920.

Although Congress strove to stress its secular credentials with prominent Muslim members – for example, Maulana Azad served as its president through World War Two – it is criticised for failing to sufficiently recognise the importance of a conciliatory position towards the League in the inter-war years, and for its triumphant response to Congress’s 1937 election victory.

The Muslim League advocated the idea of Pakistan in its annual session in 1930, yet the idea did not achieve any political reality at the time. Furthermore, the League failed to achieve the confidence of the majority of the Muslim population in the elections of 1937.

Hasty transfer of power

The lack of confidence in the Muslim League among the Muslim population was to be dramatically reversed in the 1946 elections.

The intervening years saw the rise of Jinnah and the League to political prominence through the successful exploitation of the wartime insecurities of the British, and the political vacuum created when the Congress ministries (which had unanimously come to power in 1937) resigned en masse to protest at the government’s unilateral decision to enter India into the war without consultation.

The creation of Pakistan as a land for Muslims nevertheless left a sizeable number of Muslims in an independent India.

The rejuvenated League skilfully exploited the communal card. At its Lahore session in 1940, Jinnah made the demand for Pakistan into its rallying cry. The ensuing communal violence, especially after Jinnah declared ‘Direct Action Day’ in August 1946, put pressure on the British government and Congress to accede to his demands for a separate homeland for Muslims.

The arrival of Lord Louis Mountbatten as India’s last viceroy in March 1947, brought with it an agenda to transfer power as quickly and efficiently as possible. The resulting negotiations saw the deadline for British withdrawal brought forward from June 1948 to August 1947.

Contemporaries and subsequent historians have criticised this haste as a major contributory factor in the chaos that accompanied partition. Mass migration occurred across the new boundaries as well as an estimated loss of a million lives in the communal bloodbaths involving Hindus, Muslims and also Sikhs in the Punjab.

The final irony must remain that the creation of Pakistan as a land for Muslims nevertheless left a sizeable number of Muslims in an independent India making it the largest minority in a non-Muslim state.

Find out more

Books

Inventing Boundaries: gender, politics and the Partition of Indiaedited by Mushirul Hasan (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Pakistan as a peasant utopia: the communalization of class politics in East Bengal, 1920-1947 by Taj ul-Islam Hashmi (Boulder, Colorado; Oxford: Westview, 1992)

The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan by Ayesha Jalal (Cambridge University Press, 1985)

The Partitions of Memory: the afterlife of the division of Indiaedited by S. Kaul (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001)

Borders & boundaries: women in India’s partition by Menon, Ritu & Bhasin, Kamla (New Delhi: Kali for Women, 1998)

Remembering Partition: violence, nationalism and history in India by Gyanendra Pandey (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

‘Reviews: The high politics of India’s Partition: the revisionist perspective’ by Asim Roy (Modern Asian Studies, 24, 2 (1990), pp. 385-415)

About the author

Chandrika Kaul is lecturer in Modern History at the University of St Andrews. Her research interests include British press and political culture (1850-1950), the British imperial experience in South Asia, the Indian press and communications in world history. She is author of the first detailed examination of British press coverage of Indian affairs, Reporting the Raj: The British Press and India (2003). Kaul has also edited a collection of essays, Media and the British Empire (2006). Her forthcoming research project is a new history of India titled The Indian experience of the Raj.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/independence1947_01.shtml

Toward Partition

Congress predictably opposed all proposals for partition and advocated a united India with a strong center and a fully responsible parliamentary government. To many, notably to Jawaharlal Nehru, the idea of a sovereign state based on a common religion seemed a historical anachronism and a denial of democracy. From 1940 on, reconciliation between Congress and the Muslim League became increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

During World War II, the Muslim League and Congress adopted different attitudes toward British rule. British priorities were driven by the expediencies of defense, and war was declared abruptly without any prior consultation with Indian politicians. Congress ministers in the provinces resigned in protest. As a consequence, Congress, with most of its leaders in jail for opposition to the Raj, lost its political leverage over the British. The Muslim League, however, followed a course of cooperation, gaining time to consolidate. The British appreciated the loyalty and valor of the British Indian Army, many of whose members were Punjabi Muslims. The Muslim League’s success could be gauged from its sweep of 90 percent of the Muslim seats in the 1946 election, compared with only 4.5 percent in the 1937 elections. The 1946 election was, in effect, a plebiscite among Muslims on Pakistan. In London it became clear that there were three parties in any discussion on the future of India: the British, Congress, and the Muslim League.

Spurred by the Japanese advance in Asia and forceful persuasion from Washington, British prime minister Winston Churchill’s coalition war government in 1942 had dispatched Sir Stafford Cripps to India with a proposal for settlement. The plan provided for dominion status after the war for an Indian union of British Indian provinces and princely states wishing to accede to it, a separate dominion for those who did not, and firm defense links between Britain and an Indian union. Cripps himself was sympathetic to Indian nationalism. However, his mission failed, and Gandhi described it as “a post-dated check on a crashing bank.”

In August 1942, Gandhi launched the “Quit India Movement” against the British. Jinnah condemned the movement. The government retaliated by arresting about 60,000 individuals and outlawing Congress. Communal riots increased. Talks between Jinnah and Gandhi in 1944 proved as futile as negotiations between Gandhi and the viceroy.

In July 1945, the Labour Party came to power in Britain with a large majority. Its choices in India were limited by the decline of British power and the necessity of retaining Indian links in imperial defense. General unrest in India spread, and, when a naval mutiny in Bombay broke out in 1945, British officials came to the conclusion that independence was the only alternative to forcible retention of control over an unwilling dependency. The viceroy, Lord Wavell, met with Indian leaders in Simla in 1945 to decide what form of interim government would be acceptable. No agreement was reached.

New elections to the provincial and central legislatures were ordered, and a three-man team came from Britain to discuss plans for self-government. The Cabinet Mission Plan, proposed by Cripps, represented Britain’s last, desperate attempt to transfer the power it retained over India to a single union. The mission put forward a three-tier federal form of government in which the central government would be limited to power over defense, foreign relations, currency, and communications; significant other power would be delegated to the provinces. The plan also prescribed the zones that would be created: northeastern Bengal and Assam would be joined to form a zone with a slight Muslim majority; in the northwest, Punjab, Sindh, North-West Frontier Province, and Balochistan would be joined for a clear Muslim majority; and the remainder of the country would be the third zone, with a clear Hindu majority. The approximation of the boundaries of a new Pakistan was clear from the delineation of the zones. The mission also suggested the right of veto on legislation by communities that saw their interests adversely affected. Finally, the mission proposed that an interim government be established immediately and that new elections be held.

Congress and the Muslim League emerged from the 1946 elections as the two dominant parties, although the Muslim League again was unable to capture a majority of the Muslim seats in the North-West Frontier Province. At first, both parties seemed to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan, despite many reservations, but the subsequent behavior of the leaders soon led to bitterness and mistrust. Nehru effectively quashed any prospect of the plan’s success when he announced that Congress would not be “fettered” by agreements with the British, thereby making it clear that Congress would use its majority in the newly created Constituent Assembly to write a constitution that conformed to its ideas. The formation of an interim government was also controversial. Jinnah demanded equality between the Muslim League and Congress, a proposal rejected by the viceroy. The Muslim League boycotted the interim government, and each party disputed the right of the other to appoint Muslim ministers, a prerogative Jinnah claimed belonged solely to the Muslim League.

When the viceroy proceeded to form an interim government without the Muslim League, Jinnah called for demonstrations, or “Direct Action,” on August 16, 1946. Communal rioting broke out on an unprecedented scale, especially in Bengal and Bihar. The massacre of Muslims in Calcutta brought Gandhi to the scene, where he worked with the Muslim League provincial chief minister, Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy. Gandhi’s and Suhrawardy’s efforts calmed fears in Bengal, but rioting quickly spread elsewhere and continued well into 1947. Jinnah permitted the Muslim League to enter the interim government in an effort to stem further communal violence. Disagreements among the ministers paralyzed the government, already haunted by the specter of civil war.

In February 1947, Lord Mountbatten was appointed viceroy with specific instructions to arrange for a transfer of power by June 1948. Mountbatten assessed the situation and became convinced that Congress was willing to accept partition as the price for independence, that Jinnah would accept a smaller Pakistan than the one he demanded (that is, all of Punjab and Bengal), and that Sikhs would learn to accept a division of Punjab. Mountbatten was convinced by the rising temperature of communal emotions that the June 1948 date for partition was too distant and persuaded most Indian leaders that immediate acceptance of his plan was imperative.

On June 3, 1947, British prime minister Clement Attlee introduced a bill in the House of Commons calling for the independence and partition of India. On July 14, the House of Commons passed the India Independence Act, by which two independent dominions were created on the subcontinent; the princely states were left to accede to either. The partition plan stated that contiguous Muslim-majority districts in Punjab and Bengal would go to Pakistan, provided that the legislatures of the two provinces agreed that the provinces should be partitioned–they did. Sindh’s legislature and Balochistan’s jirga (council of tribal leaders) agreed to join Pakistan. A plebiscite was held in the Sylhet District of Assam, and, as a result, part of the district was transferred to Pakistan. A plebiscite was also held in the North-West Frontier Province. Despite a boycott by Congress, the province was deemed to have chosen Pakistan. The princely states, however, presented a more difficult problem. All but three of the more than 500 states quickly acceded to Pakistan or India under guidelines established with the aid of Mountbatten. The states made their decisions after giving consideration to the geographic location of their respective areas and to their religious majority. Hyderabad, the most populated of the princely states, was ruled by a Muslim but had a Hindu majority and was surrounded by territory that would go to India, and Junagadh (a small state with a Muslim prince but a Hindu majority) presented a problem. Both hesitated but were quickly absorbed into India. The accession of the third state, Jammu and Kashmir, could not be resolved peacefully, and its indeterminate status has poisoned relations between India and Pakistan ever since.

Throughout the summer of 1947, as communal violence mounted, preparations for partition proceeded in Delhi. Assets were divided, boundary commissions were set up to demarcate frontiers, and British troops were evacuated. The military was restructured into two forces. Law and order broke down in different parts of the country. Civil servants were given the choice of joining either country; British officers could retire with compensation if not invited to stay on. Jinnah and Nehru tried unsuccessfully to quell the passions of communal fury that neither fully understood. On August 14, 1947, Pakistan and India achieved independence. Jinnah the first governor general of the Dominion of Pakistan.

http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/13.htm