With reference to this Khilafat agitation it is important to bear this
in mind. After the armistice of 1918, there were two memorials presented
on behalf of Turkey by the Muslim residents in England, one in January
1919 soon after the armistice, which included the names of His Highness
the Aga Khan, Abbas Ali Baig, Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Messrs: Yusaf Ali, H.
K. Kidwai etc.; and one at the end of the year in December 1919, the
signatories thereof included such Mahomedans as the following: H. H. Aga
Khan, Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Hon. Mr. Bhurgi, Mr. M. H. Kidwai. Both
included many non-Mahomedans, some of them of great influence and
position. They claimed for Turkey, Constantinople, Thrace, Anatolia
including Smyrna. There was no claim for the countries occupied by those
who were not Turks.
The Indian Mahomedan claim went much further. By the deputation to the
Viceroy towards the end of that year and by the subsequent deputation to
the Prime Minister and others the claim was advanced for the restoration
of Turkey to the pre-war state, giving Home Rule if necessary to the
Armenians or the Arabs etc. under Turkish sovereignty. This of course
was an impossible demand. The Arabs are entitled to as much
consideration as the Turks. Mahomad Ali and Shaukat Ali are really
responsible for this claim.
Another claim advocated in the Council of State in India was to let
Turkey have Anatolia and Thrace; full independence be given to the Arabs
and the countries inhabited by them without any control by any
non-muslim power. Whether the evacuation of Aden is included in this, I
am unable to say.
The Indian Mahomedan agitation has become a danger to the State on
account of the failure of the Secretary of State and Government of India
to tell the Indian Mahomedans that they, the Government have nothing to
do with the Khilafat question; that their responsibility is confined to
representing to the British cabinet the feelings of the Indian
Mahomedans, and the ultimate decision will depend upon what is good for
the Empire as a whole.
But so far as Gandhi was concerned the position is quite clear. He puts
forward whichever is the most extreme demand made by the Khilafat party
without any enquiry as to their reasonableness. He relies upon a
'promise' made by Lloyd George in favour of Turkey about their home
lands and Thrace discarding at the same time the limitation contained in
the promise to the subject races that they will not again be placed
under Turkey. He relies upon another statement made by Lloyd George that
after this, recruitment went up. The fact is that the recruitment of non
Mahomedans also went up and both were due to Sir Michael O'Dwyer. Though
he now denies having insisted upon the evacuation of Egypt by England as
a necessary condition of satisfaction of the Khilafat claim, he insists
upon the withdrawal of the Indian troops. For what purpose he does not
explain nor does he say whether he wants England to evacuate Egypt. He
knows, I presume, that Egypt has repudiated the Caliph's authority. He
was not apparently aware that the Arabs will not recognize the supremacy
of any Turkish power. But this is no difficulty to him. For if that
turns out to be the case he says the Arab Chief who held sway over Mecca
and Medina might become the Khalif. That Syria is not under England did
not matter. He wants the non-co-operators to be satisfied by England
that she was not in any way responsible for the French occupation or
retention of Syria, in which case he is willing to excuse her. He fails
to appreciate the weight of what appears to be an insuperable objection
that the Turks and their Khalif do not want any domination over Arabia
but, as they said in their deputation in January-February, 1919, after
the armistice, only wanted to be left alone with economic and political
independence in their own ethnological area. Neither Mr. Gandhi nor the
Khilafat advocates show any realisation of this fact. With a light heart
they maintain that the question is not Turkish but Mahomedan and
therefore Turkish opinion alone cannot decide the question. Palestine,
of course, according to Mr. Gandhi, must be under Turkish sovereignty.
It is enough for him that the prophet of Arabia has so willed it. The
prophets of Israel or the founder of Christianity, Jewish or Christian
sentiments, are as nothing in the balance. The real truth of course is
that in the case of the Khilafat agitation Mr. Gandhi and some of its
most active and prominent leaders want to use the agitation to destroy
the Government and not to effect a real settlement of the question. The
most energetic of the promoters of the movement were Mohomed Ali and
Shaukat Ali. They were active members of the Muslim League advocating
Mahomedan interests in opposition to the Hindus in the old days of the
Bengal Partition agitation. In their public speeches they emphasised the
identity of the interests of the Indian Mahomedans with the interests of
the Mahomedans elsewhere in Tripoli and Algeria in preference to those
of the Hindus, though living under the same Government with them. Since
the Balkan wars, however, on account of their intense hatred towards the
British Government for their failure to assist their co-religionists in
the West, they found it politic to approach the Hindus. Then followed
the internment of the brothers which naturally still more embittered
their feelings towards the Government. During the internment they did
not cease to preach sermons of virulence against the Government, and
even after their release they did not cease their propaganda of hatred
against the British Government. The independence of India--no doubt as a
preliminary step towards a subsequent Mahomedan domination in India--was
as much their object as the full restoration of the Khilafat domination
to its pre-war condition. This was avowed by the Ali Brothers
themselves. Mr. Shaukat Ali said in April 1920:--
"We do not embark on this step without fully realising what it means.
It means a movement for absolute independence."
In fact, to those who know them or who have read the proceedings of
their trial no evidence of this kind is required.
At the Khilafat Conference in Karachi--of which they were the guiding
spirits--held on the 9th of July 1921 the following resolution calling
upon the Mohomedan sepoys to desert in the name of religion was passed:
"The meeting clearly proclaims that it is in every way religiously
unlawful for a Mussalman at the present movement to continue in the
British Army or to induce others to join the army, and it is the duty
of all the Mussalmans in general and Ulemas in particular to see that
these religious commandments are brought home to every Mussalman in the
army and that if no settlement is arrived at before Christmas regarding
our campaign an Indian republic will be declared at the Ahmedabad
sessions of the Congress."
The two brothers were tried and convicted by the ordinary civil courts,
and the judge pointed out that however lawful and constitutional the
Khilafat committee may have been in its origin, however permissible the
agitation carried on in its earlier stages, those who were controlling
it soon began to rely on dangerous religious propaganda. About them he
said: "They had seen them in Court, heard their statements in the Lower
Court and their speeches here, and they could have no doubt that with
the exception of accused No. Six (a Hindu) they openly gloried in their
hatred of the Government of India and the British name. They justified
the above resolution by the religious law of the Koran which they said
the Mussalmans are bound to follow even when opposed to the law of the
land. All the Mohamedans in this case including Mohamad Ali and Shaukat
Ali maintained, 'first, that their religion compels them to do certain
acts, secondly, that no law which restrains them from doing those acts
which their religion compels them to do has any validity, and thirdly,
that in answer to a charge of breaking the law of the land it is
sufficient to raise and prove the plea that the act which is alleged to
be an offence is one which is enjoyed by their religion.'"
It is impossible to believe that Gandhi and his adherents are not aware
that this claim of the Mahomedans to be judged only by the law of the
Koran, is a claim which is the _fons et origo_ of all Khilafat claims of
whatever kind. It is as well to be clear about this, for not only does
the acceptance of the claim mean the death knell of the British Empire
or Indo-British commonwealth, whatever name we may care to give to the
great fraternity of nations to which we belong, but specifically as
regards India it means a real denial of Swaraj. For it involves
Mahomedan rule and Hindu subjection or Hindu Rule and Mahomedan
subjection. Let there be no mistake about this, no camouflage. Whatever
the Hindus may mean by the Hindu Muslim entente, and I believe they mean
a true equality, and whatever the more enlightened Mussalmans may mean,
Mohamad Ali, Shaukat Ali, and those of their persuasion, mean a
Mussalman dominion pure and simple, though they are of course clever
enough to keep the cat in the bag so long as the time for its emergence
is yet unripe. They protest, it need hardly be said, that they are
animated by no _arriere pensee_, no sectarian spirit, only by the most
loving goodwill towards the Hindu brethren. But there are some of us who
are too experienced to be caught by this mischievous and pernicious
chaff and must sound the warning to those less experienced and more
gullible. Considering the high character of some of the men who follow
Gandhi, I can only believe that this realization came to them so late
that it was difficult for them to withdraw.
As pointed out in the Karachi trial, these movements at first appear
innocuous, then grow dangerous.
The Khilafat associations throughout the country were intended to carry
on the "non-violent non-co-operation" campaign against Government. The
process of evolution from ostensible non-violence at first to violence
is so well described by Mr. Macpherson speaking, in the Legislative
Council that I have quoted it (App. XVI). It applies to all
organisations, but with greater force to Khilafat for reasons arising
out of Islam which will be shortly explained. There is no judicial
description of this development in Malabar, the most notorious instance.
I shall content myself, therefore, with giving a summary of the judgment
convicting certain persons for a riot in Malegaon in April, 1920. So
early had lawlessness in this form begun to show itself. It will also
explain the methods adopted.
A political movement began in Malegaon on the 15th March 1920, when a
"Khilafat Committee" and a body of "volunteers" were formed. The
Committee's activities took the shape of lectures and "wazas". The
lectures were political and the "wazas" are said to have been religious
sermons. In January, 1921, Shaukat Ali visited the town and lectured on
the Khilafat movement. It was shortly after this visit that political
activity became intensified.
The two Mahomedan schools, the Beitulullum and the Anjuman school, used
to receive grants-in-aid from Government. Money was raised to enable the
two State-aided schools to refuse the Government grant-in-aid in
pursuance of the non-co-operation movement, and a few Hindus were
members of the party. The collections were to be made by means of a
"paisa" fund, an old idea. Every person selling a "sari", that is all
the weavers in Malegaon, were required to pay a "paisa" or quarter of an
anna to the fund.
The system left practically no option to the weavers who objected to pay
the "paisa". Objecting buyers were encountered by persecution. The fund
Committee called a public meeting on the 27th February, at which it was
resolved that the buyers refusing to make the collections as directed
should be commercially boycotted. The commercial boycott of the
recalcitrant buyers was enforced by picketing their shops with
volunteers and their business was stopped. The former had appealed for
protection to the authorities by applications and petitions, but so long
as nothing actually illegal was done these were powerless actively to
interfere.
Meanwhile lectures and "wazas" were being continually held in the open
spaces in the town and excitement was running high. On the reports made
to him the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that in a place
like Malegaon which is ill-lighted the carrying of swords and cudgels at
public meetings at night by volunteers was likely to lead to a breach of
the peace. He therefore issued a proclamation on the 30th March
prohibiting the practice. It was a breach of the terms of this
proclamation and its enforcement by prosecutions which was the immediate
excuse for the riot.
But the local authorities had also tried to allay the friction and
excitement in other ways. The Sub-Divisional Officer, had called a
meeting on the 13th March with a view to find a method of collection of
the Fund which might put an end to the trouble about it and stop
enforced contributions. Collection boxes were recommended, but nothing
definite was agreed to by the other side.
Some of the leaders were persuaded to issue a manifesto which was signed
by eleven persons. This manifesto quotes Mr. Gandhi's dictates to
non-violence and exhorts the volunteers not to carry cudgels and
recommends that only peaceful methods should be used in collecting the
Funds.
It clearly had little effect. One of the men who signed it, on the 4th
April (it had been issued on the 1st April) at a public meeting
apologized for it on his own and the other signatories' behalf and they
were pardoned for having signed it. Meanwhile the boycotting and
picketing of the shops of the Anti-Fund people was continued. On the
15th prosecutions were instituted against 24 volunteers for a breach of
the District Magistrate's proclamation of the 30th March. On the 24th
April, the day before the hearing of these cases, a meeting was again
called at night at which a leading Mahomedan is reported to have used
the following words:--
"They must not be afraid of Government or of the police and that the
volunteers would see about the cases brought against them and may God
give the volunteers strength to promote their religion." The next day
April 25th twelve of these cases came on for hearing before Mr. Thakar
the Resident Magistrate. They ended in the conviction of the 6
volunteers and their being fined Rs. 50 each with the alternative of 4
weeks' simple imprisonment. The fines were not paid.
On the result being known the mob that had collected gave vent to their
feelings by loud cries of "Alla-ho-akbar," the war cry used by the mob
throughout the riot, assaulted all the police to be found in the town of
Malegoan, burned a temple, killed the Sub-Inspector of Police, not the
only one killed and threw his body into the fire and looted the houses
of all who were opposed to the Khilafat movement, the owners themselves
having fled in the meantime.
This illustrates the 'non-violent' methods followed by the Khilafat
committees and volunteers. I give another instance in full for
illustration Barabanki (App. XI) which shows perhaps more forcibly the
violent fanaticism supporting the movement. More instances can be easily
given.
The development from an apparently peaceful to a revolutionary attitude
is strikingly illustrated in the Khilafat agitation not only by
revolutionary activities but by open declaration. The resolution of the
Karachi Conference showed the Mahomedan intention to declare
independence and proclaim an Indian Republic at the following Congress
at Ahmedabad in December 1921. A resolution for absolute independence
was actually passed in the Subjects Committee of the Khilafat Conference
at Ahmedabad, but was not passed at the Conference itself only because
the President ruled it out of order. But immediately after the meeting
formally closed, the motion was passed by the members of the Conference
at the instance of the President of Muslim League whose speech as
President will amply repay perusal (App. XVIII). He was in effect only
carrying out at the Khilafat Conference the intention of the Karachi
Conference of which the Ali Brothers were the moving spirits. In his
speech he points out, what in effect is apparent to all, that Islam is
opposed to non-violence and, as he said in the course of one of his
speeches, the Mussalmans accepted it on the promise of Mr. Gandhi to
secure Swaraj within a year. It was a legitimate move therefore to
proclaim a rebellion. Another difference in principle was pointed out
which is productive of frightful consequences and must alienate Hindus
from Mahomedans. The Ali Brothers had already said that if the Afghans
invaded India to wage a holy war the Indian Mahomedans are not only
bound to fight them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to
co-operate with them. When therefore Gandhi and his followers
fraternised with the Khilafatists, the latter had no doubt of their
support if eventually it came to rebellion. They were confirmed in this
by Gandhi's attitude on the questions in issue between them and the
Hindus. He advises the latter Hindus--to submit themselves to Mahomedan
dictation. He begs them not to insist on the prohibition of the cow
slaughter by Mahomedans and to rely upon Mahomedan forbearance to afford
them relief in that direction. On the other hand he advises the Hindus
to refrain from irritating the Mahomedans by insisting on carrying their
processions past the mosques on their religious occasions. He advises
them to study Hindustani as against Hindi; in fact complete submission
to the Muslim feelings in all matters in controversy between them. His
attitude towards the Mopla outrages shows the extent of his surrender.
His alliance with the Khilafat movement has led to frightful results in
Malabar. Relying on the assurance of Gandhi and his followers, of Hindu
support for the Khilafat movement, and supported by the teaching that
the Hindus may be treated as foes on failure to support them in a holy
war, the Moplas when they rose against the British Government were
furious at the Hindu attitude of loyalty to England. The result was,
themselves, armed and organised they took the Hindus unawares and
committed atrocities too well known, to need recapitulation
here--butchered them and inflicted injuries on them far worse than death.
For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember anything in history to
match the Malabar rebellion. It broke out about the 20th of August. Even
by the 6th of September the results were dreadful. The Viceroy's speech
made on that date deserves careful attention (App. I).
The atrocities committed more particularly on women are so horrible and
unmentionable that I do not propose to refer to them in this book. I
have selected a few accounts out of literally hundreds that might be
selected from the English and vernacular papers (App. III). One
narrative is by Mrs. Besant. The resolution passed at a meeting presided
over by the Zamorin Maharaja at which, many of the leading Hindus in the
District were present enters a strong protest against the attempts made
by interested persons to minimize the gravity of the occurrence (App.
V). The moving appeal signed by many ladies headed by the senior Rani
of Nilambur who belongs to one of the wealthiest families and were
rulers in ancient days shows the nature of the atrocities and the
apprehensions still entertained after the rebellion is quelled (App.
IV). I do not think it advisable to publish any more but I would point
out in addition to those mentioned in these articles two other forms of
torture credibly reported as having been resorted to in the case of
men--flaying alive, and making them dig their own graves before their
slaughter. It is now ascertained that the Mahomedans had held frequent
meetings in their mosques and, had made all preparations for a rising.
Hence it was difficult for the Hindus in these tracts to make any
defence or escape. The horrid tragedy continued for months. Thousands of
Mahomedans killed, and wounded by troops, thousands of Hindus butchered,
women subjected to shameful indignities, thousands forcibly converted,
persons flayed alive, entire families burnt alive, women it is said
hundreds throwing themselves into wells to avoid dishonour, violence and
terrorism threatening death standing in the way of reversion to their
own religion. This is what Malabar in particular owes to the Khilafat
agitation, to Gandhi and his Hindu friends. The President of the Indian
Moslem League, following the Ali injunction, justified the Mahomedan
atrocities as an act of war against the Hindus and the Government.
Gandhi too pleaded for the Mahomedans. All this was too much even for
their dupes who have entered a spirited protest (App. III). It is
impossible after all I have said above that there can be any sympathy
with the Khilafat agitation. The future may be envisaged. Gandhi and his
dupes have led Khilafatists to understand that the Hindus will stand by
them in any contingency, impliedly assuring them, as they believed in
Malabar, of support even in resistance to British rule. This Islamic
consciousness which looks to a brotherhood beyond India and beyond the
Empire does not support the claim for early concession of Home Rule, for
Home Rule means Home Rule within the Empire, not outside it--the Home
Rule enjoyed by the self-governing constituents of the commonwealth. The
Empire, it will be reasonably urged, cannot afford to place great power
in the hands of a party which would subordinate the interests of the
Empire and of India to the interests of a large body outside the Empire
who actually stand in opposition to it. The introduction of this
religious element in this manner is fatal to the well-being of the
Empire, and unless some other basis can be found for the Hindu-Mahomedan
entente, it must go. The extent to which Mr. Gandhi is prepared to go in
support of the Khilafat claim is stated in this extract:--
"What will the Imperial Government do if France were to attempt to
deprive England of Dover and India were secretly to help France or
openly to show indifference or hostility to England's struggle to
retain Dover? Can Indians be expected to sit idle when the Khilafat is
vivisected?"
It is one thing to ask the Empire or India to go to war in favour of an
oppressed class--but to ask her to do it in the interests of
co-religionists of a community living outside the Empire is very
different.
What is the present position? I shall describe it in the words of one of
Mr. Gandhi's dupes, a secretary of a District Congress Committee, Mr. K.
Madhavan Nair of Calicut, who writes on January 4th as follows:--