Jinnah and Kashmir

The Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress. According to Mr. Justice Yusuf Saraf, author of “Kashmiris Fight for Freedom” the Quaid-e-Azam and his wife seemed to have had visited Kashmir for the first time before 1929. Though this visit was private in nature, yet as a great Muslim leader he felt concerned at the appalling conditions of the Kashmiris at that time too.

The second visit of the Quaid-e-Azam was in 1936 during which he hinted to his first visit, saying that he had visited Kashmir ten years earlier too. In 1936 the Quaid-e-Azam addressed a meeting held in connection with Milad-un-Nabi, the birthday of the Holy Prophet (SAW) at the Mujahid Manzil, Srinagar. The Muslim Conference (at that point of time was led by Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas and Sheikh Abdullah) in welcome address to Jinnah appreciated his role as lover of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Jinnah reciprocated the sentiments and said that the Muslims were in majority in Kashmir but it was their duty to ensure that the minority community that is, the Hindus of Kashmir would get justice and fair play at the hands of the majority community of Kashmir.

Mr.Jinnah, who was once proclaimed as ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, had been disillusioned by that time and in his speech regretted that some of the leaders of the majority community in British India had not been able to give such an assurance to the Muslim minority. That showed that the Quaid-e-Azam was not satisfied with the concept of Hindu-Muslim unity in British India.

The Muslim Conference, which represented the Muslims of the State 1936, was converted into National Conference in 1939 as its leaders had come under the influence of Nehru. Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, who had joined hand with Sheikh Abdullah in 1939 to found National Conference, realized his mistake within three years. He returned to the Muslim Conference, which had been revived by 14 other leaders from Jammu and Kashmir. Soon many others joined the revived Muslim Conference and once again it became a force to reckon with.

The main and the last visit of the Quaid-e-Azam to the State of Jammu and Kashmir took place in 1944. During this visit he attended a reception by the National Conference headed by Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah had thought that with the help of Dogra administration and the active and crafty Hindus he would suppress the pro-Muslim League elements in the State and assure Mr. Jinnah that the Kashmiris, Hindus as well as Muslims, were believers in One Nation Theory of the Congress. A Hindu nationalist Jialal Kilam presented the address of welcome to the Quaid-e-Azam. The Quaid-e-Azam thanked the National Conference leadership for the right royal reception given to him but at the same time said that it was not a reception for his person, but to the All India Muslim League, the party of ten crore Muslims of India of which he was President. This annoyed the Hindu leader so much that he left the stage in distress.

Jinnah & Hindu - Muslim Unity

The founding of Pakistan by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah so greatly dominates his political life and career that his other roles are bound to be ignored. One important role which Jinnah played in the politics of India was for the achievement of unity between the Hindus and Muslims by bringing about some understanding between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League. In fact, for more than two decades Jinnah was known more for this role than for any other. It will be recalled that Gopal Krishna Gokhale expressed the view that Jinnah “has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”1 Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, who compiled Jinnah’s speeches and writings in 1918 gave the volume the sub-title An Ambassador of Unity and wrote that Jinnah stood “approved and confirmed by his countrymen not merely as an ambassador, but as an embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.”2 Similarly, Jawahar Lal Nehru, who strongly differed from Jinnah on several political issues, wrote in 1936 that Jinnah had been “largely responsible in the past for bringing the Moslem League nearer to the Congress.”3 The fact is that Jinnah continued to work for unity between the Hindus and Muslims until he was convinced early in 1940 that the Hindu leaders were not at all prepared for any kind of understanding. The purpose of this paper is to discuss this aspect of Jinnah’s political life.

Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah: A Guardian of Minorities

 Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah with representatives of minorities

The role of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the annals of Indo-Pakistan has variously been interpreted implying a variety of perspectives which have earned him a good deal of prestigious titles like the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, as a strategist, etc. A survey of literature, however, reveals that Jinnah’s vision regarding minority rights and his struggle and strategies to safeguard their interests perhaps is the most ignored perspective. Jinnah’s vision about minority’s place in the institutional frame of the Imperial Government in British India and later in the Sovereign State of Pakistan rather becomes more important in the context of growing discontent among religious minorities of Pakistan.¹ This situation has earned a scientific inquiry of Jinnah’s vision in this regard since his whole political career seems to be a struggle for minority rights, especially the Muslims.

The Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent during the colonial era constituted the largest minority. About 25% of the total population, the Muslim community, had spread throughout the country. However, their population was distributed as such that they formed majority in five provinces, whereas the Hindus commanded clear majority in seven out of twelve provinces.² The Muslims being a religious and political minority had distinct interests, which were not shared by the dominant community of the Hindus. Thus, it had necessitated additional constitutional and legal protection of the Muslims against the Hindus.

The first set of demands of the Muslim community for its constitutional and legal safeguards was manifested in the Simla Deputation of 1906. The address presented by them before the Governor General of India stated explicit terms: it cannot be denied that we Mohammadans are a distinct community with additional interests of our own which are not shared by other communities, and these have hitherto suffered from the fact that they have not been adequately represented…they have often been treated as though they were inappreciably small political factors…..³

Quaid-e-Azam and Hindu Fundamentalism

!انسان بڑا نا شکرا ہے

Leadership of Quaid-e-Azam

!قائد کا فیصلہ

The Pakistan Concept: Its Background

by P.H.L. Eggermont

Introduction
In 1936 Pandit Nehru wrote in his Autobiography :

“The Muslim nation in India- a nation within a nation, and not even compact, but vague, spread out, indeterminate. Politically the idea is absurd. Economically it is fantastic; it is hardly worth considering….”

At the time not only Nehru and his followers but also the greater part of the Western authors, journalists, and political reporters were sceptic, or even opposite to the Pakistan-concept. However, in spite of all these ominous prediction Pakistan became a fact on the 14th August 1947, and, at present, nearly thirty years after, it is manifest that this state has energetically survived wars and calamities, has courageously resisted economic reverse, and has developed into an esteemed member of the United Nations.

Which mysterious forces may have caused the blind spot in the eyes of Nehru, and in the eyes of so many prominent Western intellectuals so that they failed to discern the strength of the Pakistan-concept?

The answer to that question lies hidden within a complexity of factors among which the most important one is the wide gap separating the Islamic and Hindu views regarding social, cultural and religious aspects of life.

As a matter of fact only the British have realized the unity of the sub-continent, and were able to guard it for over a century. In this respect Queen Victoria (1837-1904) was historically the first geographic Chakravartin. As, therefore, in the recent period the political unity of India happened to coincide with the traditional Hindu claim upon its ruling over the entire sub-continent, I am inclined to consider this mere coincidence to represent one among the factors which caused men like Nehru and Gandhi to close their eyes to the lesson of history teaching that partition and division had been the usual feature of the sub-continent for ages and ages.

Another mythical factor is the so-called “Absorption-theory”. In his book “Discovery of India” Nehru writes:-

“India’s peculiar feature is absorption, synthesis”. It is true, in antiquity this theory fitted in well with the facts: invaders like the Greeks in the 3rd century B.C., the Scythian in the 1st century B.C., the White Huns in the 5th century A.D., have been absorbed all of them.

The Muslims, however, are the exception to the rule. They have never been absorbed, though a great range of forms of peaceful co-existence can be noticed during the Muslim period.

How unacquainted the early Muslims were with the Indian culture is shown in the next lines written by Al-Beruni, the contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni, who conquered the Punjab between A.D 1000 and 1026:-

“We believe in nothing in which they believe and vice-versa…. If ever a custom of theirs resembles one of ours, it has certainly just the opposite meaning”

Al-Beruni’s words seem to have remained valid until our days, for Mohammad Ali Jinnah, whose Centenary is celebrated at present, has explained during an interview in 1942 :-

“Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a realistic and practical code of conduct - in terms of everything important in life, of our history, our heroes, our art, our architecture, our music, our laws, our jurisprudence. In all these things our outlook is not only fundamentally different, but often radically antagonistic to the Hindus.”

In between Al-Beruni’s first notes on Indian creed and customs and the interview of Mohammad Ali Jinnah extends the gap of time filled by the autumn-time of the Indian Middle Ages, the preponderance of the Turco-Afghan states, the Empire of the Moghuls, and since A.D 1757 the power of the British Empire.

At first the British continued making use of the feudal structure of the Muslim and Hindu states they had conquered, ruling by means of the administrative Hindu middle class, and maintaining Persian as the language used in the courts of justice. The great change started only in the frame of the rise of liberalism and the big industries in England. Lord William Bentinck the first Governor-General of the entire sub-continent (A.D.1828-1835) replaced Persian by English, a reform of which he himself did not realize the importance, but which in the long run appear to have accelerated the modern development of the sub-continent a great deal. At first this reform was disadvantageous to the Muslims. The Hindus were quick to learn the new language, but they kept sticking to the use of charming Persian and useful Urdu so that they came to lag behind compared with the Hindus. Of 240 Indian pleaders admitted to the Calcutta bar between 1852 and 1868 only one was Muslim. The “Mutiny” of 1857 turned out to be disadvantageous to the Muslims as well. For a long time they were not permitted to follow a glorious career in the Indian army.

However, only thirty years later, in 1888, Lord Dufferin addressed the members the Mohammedan National League at Calcutta as follows:-

“In any event, be assured, Gentlemen, that I highly value those remarks of sympathy and approbation which you have been pleased to express in regard to the general administration of the country. Descended as you are from those who formerly occupied such a commanding position in India, you are exceptionally able to under-stand the responsibility attaching to those who rule.”

The scholar: Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

This Muslim renaissance, this recovery of Muslim political influence was almost entirely due to one Muslim whose indefatigable energy pointed his co-religionists the way to modern times. He was Sir Syed Ahmad (1817-1898). Starting his career as a clerk in the service of the East India Company in 1837 he finished as a member of the Governor General’s Legislative Council from 1878-1883. He had earned the confidence of the British by his saving many Europeans during the “Mutiny “, so that he was able to make the new rulers acquainted with the Muslim points of view they had been unaware of formerly. His activities comprised three fields, Islam, reconciliation with the British, and relation with the Hindus. As to Islam, after a visit to England in 1869 he became aware that Islamic theology should recover the dynamism it had possessed in the glorious past. In the same way as Islamic philosophy has amalgamated the scientific discoveries of the ancient Greek science during the middle Ages, it should react upon the new data provided by the recent Western science. There is no contradiction between the Word of Allah and the Work of Allah, he said. He spent much time to justify his effort by writing in two journals he had founded. His greatest contribution however was the establishment of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh where besides the study of Islam young Muslims could obtain English education. Many later political leaders as capable as the Hindus have studied there. Politically he preached firm loyalty to the British Crown so that he extricated the Muslims from their isolated position. His policy towards the Hindus was characterized by some distrust. When Lord Ripon created local self-government institutions he insisted that the Muslim communities should receive separate nomination.

This distrust sprang notably from anti-Islamic currents among the Hindus, as e.g. it appeared from the popular novel Anandamath written by the Bengali author Bankim Chandra Chartterjee in 1882. The contents of this novel represented an affront to good taste in general and an insult to the Muslim community in particular. These anti-Islamic currents were not universal at the time. At the first session of the Indian National Congress held in 1886 the President said:

“For long our fathers lived and we have lived as individuals only or as families, but henceforward I hope that we shall be living as a nation, united one and all to promote our welfare, and the welfare of our mother-country”.

Sir Syed however did not agree to that, and called the members of the Congress back to reality by saying in one of his speeches on the subject:-

“The proposals of the Congress are exceedingly inexpedient for a country which is inhabited by two different nations….Now suppose that all the English …were to leave India….then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations---the Mohammedan and Hindu—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.”

In fact it is this antithesis between the idealistic Hindu One-Nation theory and the realistic Muslim Two-Nation theory which contained the seed of the separation realized more than 60 years later.

The Poet: Mohammad Iqbal


Sir Syed had rendered the Indian Muslims their prestige, but the 20th century needed someone who gave them a sense of separate destiny. The Hindus were so fortunate as to obtain at an early time, in 1918, a charismatic leader, Mahatma Gandhi. In their turn the Muslims acquired a gifted and inspiring poet. They had to wait until 1936 before a leader turned up who was acknowledged by all of them. The poet was Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). As a student in Europe (1905-1907) he had discerned the portents of the approaching World-war I. He returned to India, filled with dislike for the selfish policy of the European national sates, but also with admiration for the active, and dynamic life of the Europeans themselves. During the war he published his vision on the relation between individual man, the world and God (1915 and 1918). Some people, he says, regard the development of the individual as supreme end, and the state as an instrument to that. Others exalt the state and regard it as far more important than the rights of the individual. Between these extremes Iqbal shows the middle way, viz. the development of the spiritual person in close connection with the communal group to which one belongs. Such an ideal society however, is only possible if it is based on Monotheism, Tawhid, for the idea of one God emphasises the essential unity of all mankind. The human society is one indivisible unit and man is related to man as brother, irrespective of colour, creed or race or geographical environment. Therefore he says:-

“That which leads to unison in a hundred individuals is but a secret from the secrets of Tawhid. Religion, wisdom and law are all the effects; power, strength and supremacy originate from it. Its influence exalts the slaves, and virtually creates a new species out of them. Within it fear and doubt depart, spirit of action revives, and the eye sees the very secret of the Universe.”

It is with a view to the creation of a Muslim Home-land meant to representing a spiritual centre in support of the other Muslims scattered over the remaining portion of the Indian sub-continent, that Iqbal said at the Session of the Muslim League in 1930 :-

“I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North Western Indian Muslim state appear to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North West India… The Muslim demand ..is actuated by a genuine desire for free development which is practically impossible under the type of unitary government contemplated by the nationalist Hindu politicians with a view to secure permanent communal dominance in the whole of India. Nor should the Hindus fear that the creation of autonomous Muslim states will mean the introduction of a kind of religious rule in such states. For India it means security and peace resulting from an internal balance of power, for Islam an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilize its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.”

In 1933 a Muslim student at Cambridge, Chaudhari Rahmat Ali, proposed to give Iqbal’s project the name of Pakistan. The name struck the imagination of the masses, and was in general use as late as 1940.

The Leader: Muhammad Ali Jinnah

 
Iqbal was a poet, but no real politician. In fact the Muslims had at their disposal a qualified politician, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948), but he followed for a very long period the unitary point of view adhered to by Nehru and Gandhi until, at last , he was converted to the Pakistan concept in 1937. The reason may be sought for in his character on the one hand, and in the political situation on the other.

Jinnah was known as an incorruptible and very strict lawyer. A glimpse of his character appears perhaps from the next words he said in a speech held at Lucknow in 1937:-

“Think one hundred times before you take a decision, but once a decision is taken, stand by it as one man. “

When Muhammad Ali Jinnah started his political career, the Muslim League had got involved in the Khilafat Movement which dominated the political field from 1912 until 1924. In general the Indian Muslims tended to regard the Sultan of Turkey as the leader of the Islamic faith, though formerly, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had said:

“You are the subjects of the British authority, and not those of Abdul Hamid.”

World-war I had turned the British Empire into the adversary of Turkey, and the harsh condition of its peace settlement had, for once, brought the Indian Muslims into line with Gandhi’s opposition against the British. It is why Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the then president of the Muslim League, and the National Congress signed the famous Lucknow Pact in 1916/1917. It was an agreement between the parties on the future Constitution of India according to which the Muslims were to have one third elective seats in the All Indian Legislature, and very reasonable percentages of the elective seats in the various provinces. In this respect one should realize that the strict and incorruptible lawyer Jinnah regarded the Lucknow Pact as a legal act, as a valid cheque on the future, and certainly not as a playing ball created by the political parties to play with of their own accord.

It is from the same point of view why he opposed Gandhi’s resolution of starting a peaceful non-co operation movement at the Nagpur session of the Indian National Congress in 1920. At the Conference there were 1050 Muslims among the 14582 delegates, but Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the only dissentient.

In a letter to Gandhi he wrote:-

“Your methods have already caused split and division in almost every institution that you have approached hitherto …people generally are desperate all over the country and your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate. All this means complete disorganization and chaos.”

The events of august 1921 proved how accurately Jinnah had judged the situation. The Islamic Moplahs of Malabar rose in revolt, murdered a few British administrative officers, finally turned against the Hindu landowners and money-lenders. Gandhi called off his peaceful non-co-operation movement, but preaching peace the had introduced the sword. Between 1920 and 1940 continued the series of the actions and counteractions between Muslims and Hindus which contemporaries like I myself used to read in the journals all over the world at the time.

Jinnah lost his influence in the National Congress, and, disgusted, he left India to establish himself as a lawyer in London between 1930-1940. There he was favoured by participation in the Round Table Conference of 1930-1931, where he met his famous co-religionist Muhammad Iqbal.

The result of this Round Table Conference was the 1935 Government of India Act, an impressive, but very intricate piece of work the most notable feature of which was the introduction of elections for 11 new Provincial Assemblies provided with their own responsible ministers.

In this connection Liaqat Ali Khan urged Jinnah to leave England in order to prepare the elections of 1937. Reminding his Muslim electorate of the Lucknow Pact 1916-17 he brought forward a moderate election programme. However, as the Muslim League was still a middle-class organization without a firm grip on the masses the elections became a brilliant success of the Congress party, which won the majority in 5 Provinces, and turned out to become the largest party in 2 others. Without any regard to Jinnah’s co-operation programme Nehru formed Congress ministries in the Hindu-Majority provinces where the Muslim League had captured a substantial number of the Muslim seats. In Uttar Pradesh the Congress went even so far as to propose that Leaguers would be taken into the Cabinet only if the League dissolved its parliamentary organization and if all its representatives became members of the Congress. This was what later on Sir Percival Griffiths called “a serious tactical blunder of Nehru”. It was even worse than that. Jinnah regarded it as treason to the Lucknow Pact, and he declared:-

“On the very threshold of what little power and responsibility is given, the Majority community have shown their hand, that Hinduism is for the Hindus. Only the Congress masquerades under the names of nationalism.”

On Iqbal’s advice Jinnah started to turn the League into a party of the masses. He reduced the annual membership to two annas. In the same way as Nehru and Gandhi he travelled all over the country conducting a fiery campaign. The number of his followers rose quickly and between 1938 and 1942 the League won 46 out of 56 by-elections in the Muslim constituencies throughout the provinces. He became the Quaid-i-Azam, the Great Leader, and against the Congress’s point of view that only the Congress represented the people of All-India, he was now able to put his counter-claim that the League, and only the League, could represent the Indian Muslims.

On 23rd March 1940 he took the final step leading to autonomy and separation. At the annual session of the League at Lahore the next resolution was accepted:-

“No constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz. that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the north-western and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute Independent States in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

The political correspondents of the press were quick to grasp the significance of this intricate long phrase, and they called it the “Pakistan resolution.”

When the long valley of World-War II was passed the political strife, or better the civil war, between Hindus and Muslims exploded, together with its horrible consequences. It ended in the replacement of Lord Wavell by Lord Mountbatten, the shock therapy by Mr. Attlee, who established the month of June 1947, and later on the 15th of August 1947 as the date of the transfer of power. It ended in the dramatic migration of 14,000,000 people, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as well, perhaps the most massive simultaneous migration known in the history of the world. On 7th of August Jinnah flew to his native town Karachi. He was 71 years of age by now. On 11th of August he opened in his capacity of Governor General the first session of the Constituent Assembly of the recently created autonomous and independent State of Pakistan, and spoke:-

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any place of worship in the State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of our State…Now, I think we should keep that in front of us and as ideal…”

P.H.L. Eggermont is the Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.

Source:    World Scholars on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
                  Edited by: Ahmad Hasan Dani, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan 1979.

Jinnah’s Differences with the Congress

M.A Jinnah differed with Gandhi on the means of achieving self-rule. The League session reassembled at Lahore under Jinnah’s presidency and was attended by a number of Congressmen and leaders of the Khilafat movement. The Quaid, despite his differences with Mahatma Gandhi and the Khilafatists, still enjoyed the trust and admiration of the Muslims of Bombay which can be seen from the fact that he won the Bombay Muslim seat for the Legislative Assembly that he had resigned in protest against the Rowlatt Act.

The Congress had boycotted the first elections under the Act of 1919, which were held in 1920 and so had Jinnah. A group of twenty-four people along with Jinnah formed a group by the name of Independents. In February 1924, The Quaid introduced an important resolution in the National Assembly that went to the heart of India’s struggle for economic independence. According to this resolution, tenders would be invited in India in rupees, which would be an advantage to the businessmen and manufacturers of the country. In 1925, Jinnah was appointed as a member of a committee, which was to survey the possibilities of more Indianization of the army and opening of a military training institute on the lines of Sandhurst. The Quaid was given this privilege in view of his deep interest in the issue of the Indians holding better ranks in the army.

The Khilafat Movement (1919-1924)

The government of India Act of 1919 fell short of the expectations of the Indian political parties. It introduced diarchy in the provinces, which meant subjects were to be divided into reserved and transferred. The reserved were to be administered by nominated Ministers and then transferred by the elected ones. While at the center, the British Governor General remained sole authority. The people could not accept this after the imposition of unsatisfactory Rowlatt Act and the atrocities inflicted on the people of Punjab. The Muslims were also perturbed over the unfair treatment given to Turkey by the victorious allied powers. During the war, the Muslims had shown concern about the developments in Turkey and the institution of the Khilafat.

Lloyd George,the British Prime Minister to pacify the Muslims all over the world, had assured the world that the Allies had no intention to dismember Turkey and after the war Turkish possessions would be made over to Turkey. He said, “nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of the rich lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish in race.” But the promise was not honored. The Jazirat-ul-Arab which includes Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria and Palestine was being divided among allies in the form of a Mandate. This development raised a war of indignation among the Indian Muslims due to sanctity and respect associated with these lands. They demanded that the pledges given to them during the war should be honored. This demand gave rise to what is generally known as the Khilafat Movement. This cause was initially taken up by Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind founded by Maulana Mohammad Ahmed Malani. Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali also joined it.

Gandhi linked the issue of Swaraj with the Khilafat Movement

The Muslim League met in Calcutta under Jinnah. At this meeting Jinnah said:

“First came the Rowlatt Bill — accompanied by the Punjab atrocities — and then came the spoliation of the Ottoman Empire and the Khilafat. One attacks our liberty and the other our faith…”

In November 1919, a joint conference of the Muslims and Hindus was called at Delhi in pursuance of the Muslim League President Fazl-ul-Haq in which he said, “ we should renounce any lurking spirit of strife and quarrel with other communities and seek their help and assistance in our troubles and difficulties. The question of cow protection was also raised in order to create goodwill between the Muslims and the Hindus. Ghandi suggested to start the non –cooperation movement which was opposed by Jinnah.

In December 1919, the Khilafat Conference held its second session in Amritsar where the Muslim League and the Congress also held their annual sessions. But the tensions raised could not be settled and Jinnah could no longer play a leading role in the Khilafat movement and it passed into the hands of Ali brothers, Dr. Kitchlew and the militant segment of the Ulema. Under that leadership it began to over power the Muslim League. Jinnah took a back seat to all this and did not join the Indian leaders who met the Viceroy on January 19, 1920 to plead for a settlement with Turkey.

The third Khilafat Conference was held in February 1920 at Bombay which passed the resolution for non- cooperation and the Calcutta Provincial Conference decided to “cease all relations of loyalties” with the British and to assist the Caliph in all possible ways to keep his dominion was not kept in tact as it was before the war. Jinnah and other fellow moderates did not participate in this Khilafat agitation. In a letter to Ghandi, Jinnah said that the movement was bound to lead to disaster. He said that this kind of a plan has appealed only to the illiterate and the inexperienced youth of the country. He said that though he had no power to remove the cause, he wished to advise his countrymen against the dire consequences of such an extreme act.

Thus Jinnah opposed Gandhi’s plan of starting a mass non-violent, non-cooperation movement all over the country. Gandhi became the head of the Khilafat movement and declared that the Indians would boycott all British goods, courts, institutions, elections etc. He urged that such large scale protest movement would force the British to grant India self rule. He had envisaged four progressive stages of the movement. First the resignation of titles and offices. Second, with drawl from all government services except police and military. Third, with-drawl from police and military, and fourth, suspension of payment of taxes to the State. The Quaid on the other hand, felt that the Indians should fight Imperialism constitutionally instead. The Nagpur session, which was thirty-fifth Congress, was held in December 1920. Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement had been approved at a special session at Amritsar and during the Nagpur session, Jinnah was the only person who had the courage to openly oppose the resolution proposed by Gandhi, despite strong opposition by the crowd. The Quaid said:

“… the weapon will not destroy the British empire… it is neither logical nor is it politically sound or wise, nor practically capable of being put in execution.”

Colonel Wedgood, who heard Jinnah’s speech was very impressed and commented:

“I do not know enough about Mr. Jinnah’s politics to say whether I agree with him or not, but I do know that a man who has the courage to come to this audience and tell what he has told you is a man of my money. The first thing in every political leader is not brains, but courage.”

Jinnah stayed aloof from Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement along with some other leaders. The start of the movement followed the arrests of leaders and activists associated with it. Problems began emerging when the movement, though remained one of non-cooperation was no more one of non-violence. The Ali brothers were very persistent in their support of the Khilafat movement. Riots started broke out all over the country and encounters with the police became a common occurrence. This was something leaders like the Quaid had predicted.

The Prince of Wales was to arrive in India, and the call to boycott his welcome went forth. On his arrival in Bombay violent outbreaks started in the city and several innocent people lost their lives. Coincidentally, Gandhi was present in Bombay at time and witnessed the horrific situation, which was an outcome of his non-cooperation movement. He commented:

“Swaraj stinks in my nostrils.”

The Khilafat movement intensified when Maulana Abdul Bari called on the Muslims to migrate from India. Many young Muslims migrated to Afghanistan where they were looted and ruined.

Another unpleasant resultant of the Khilafat movement were Moplah riots of 1921. In Malabar, the Moplah Muslim peasants and farmers rose against the Hindu landlords. That development created a rift between the Muslims and the Hindus.

The non-cooperation movement was called off after the Chauri Chaura tragedy in which twenty-two policemen were burnt alive by a mob on February 5th 1922. The Congress negotiated with the government, Pandit Malaviya acting as the mediator. The government agreed to let off the civil disobedience prisoners, if the Congress called off the boycott. Also, a Round Table conference was to be arranged on March 22nd between the government and the Congress.

On the other hand the developments in Turkey were very disappointing for the Indian Muslims as the in itself was abolished. The Muslim League was reduced to an accessory of the Congress and did not meet as a self-sufficient body till 1924.

Jinnah learnt a lot from the Khilafat movement. It disillusioned him with the Congress and the British rulers and strengthened his faith to work for the intrests of the Muslims. He worked hard to bring the Muslims out of their demoralized state of mind and reorganize them under the banner of the Muslim League.

Act of 1919 (Montagu-Chlemsford Reforms)

Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India visited India in November to review the situation under Lord Chelmsford’s Government. After an interview with Jinnah, Montagu expressed his opinion and found Jinnah.

“…Perfectly mannered, impressive looking, armed to the teeth with the dialects… Chelmsford tried to argue with him, and was tied up into knots. Jinnah is a very clever man and it is of course an outrage that such a man should have no chance of running the affairs of his own country.”

The act of 1919 came into force on January 1, 1921. The reforms introduced in the act were based mainly on the proposals of the Montagu-Chelmsford report published on July 8, 1918. The act substituted the Central Legislative Council by a legislature of two houses, which were the Indian Legislative Assembly and the Council of States. The onus of the power rested with the Governor General who could legislate and impose taxes under his power to certify the bills. The Governor General’s Executive Council was still answerable only to the Secretary of State but the composition of the Council that was previously six British and an Indian member was now three Indian and four British. Communal representation was granted to the minorities and Muslims were given separate electorates as agreed upon in the Lucknow Pact. One of the most important feature of this act was the introduction of the system of diarchy in the provinces. The ministers held office only to enjoy the comforts of the house and had little significant powers.

These reforms received a mixed reaction in India. Jinnah was one of the first to comment on 23rd July 1918. He talked about how different the reforms were from those decided by the Congress and the Muslim League he did not reject them despite the fact that he was not entirely satisfied with them. He was flexible about his reaction to the reforms provided that the powers rested in the government were temporary. On 18th of July of the same year the Rowlatt Act was passed which included three High Court judges would preside over a special court, which could record evidence, which was not permitted under the Indian Evidence Act. The provincial government was permitted to warrant and detain anyone to stop from any particular act. The Quaid was against that Bill on the ground that it was against the law of justice that any man shall be denied his rights without a judicial trial. He sent a letter to the Viceroy in which he resigned from the Imperial Legislative Council,and said:

“The passing of the Rowlatt Bill…has severely shaken the trust reposed by them in British justice.”

The Lucknow Pact (1916)

The Muslim League and the Congress held their meetings at Lucknow in the end of December 1916. They accepted unanimously agreed reforms scheme presented by their respective committees. The Congress-League scheme popularly known as the Lucknow Pact pointed out the steps that needed to be taken to gain self government for India. Jinnah supported the coming together of the two parties to coerce the government to grant India self-rule.

The most significant achievement of this pact for the Muslims was that for the first time the Congress had recognized the Muslim League as a representative body of the Muslims of the sub-continent and they were granted separate electorates in the provincial as well as in Imperial Legislative Council. The central government was generally to avoid undue intervention in the working of the provincial governments. The Muslims who feared losing Islamic and cultural identity were assured that: No bill, nor any clause thereof, nor a resolution introduced by a non-official memeber affecting one or the other community, which question is to be determined by the members of that community in the Legislative Council concerned, shall be proceded with, if three-fourth of the members of that community in the particular Council, Imperial or provincial, oppose the bill or any Clause thereof or the resolution. The Muslims were Guaranteed more seats than the ratio of their population in the Center and minority provinces but less in Punjab and Bengal. This made the Muslims majority in these two provinces less effective in the days to come.

In an address where he said that the demand for united India was ‘irresistible’ Jinnah seemed to identify himself more with the League than with the Congress.He became the president of the League only after three years of joining it. This raised the status of the League as well as of Quaid-i-Azam as a political leader. He was of the view that the Muslims could organize themselves for political action, ”lest impending changes (self rule) should swamp them altogether as a community”.

The Congress had made it clear that the League was there to represent the Muslims and the former would not speak for all the communities and minorities. Jinnah thus came to the conclusion that the Congress did not represent all the communities of India, especially the Muslim community. He utilized the Muslim League to interpret and express the opinions of the Muslims.

At this point of history he believed in Hindu-Muslim unity and worked for the quick attainment of full independence from the British rule.

The Realists and the Idealists

The Muslims at that point were divided into two groups. Firstly, there were the Idealists who believed that the Hindus and the Muslims could still work together to achieve their goals. These Idealists joined the Congress. The other group was that of the Realists who were convinced that the Congress was a biased platform which protected only the interests of the Hindus, whichn will ultimately lead to the Hindus ruling the Muslims. Jinnah attended the annual session of the Congress at Calcutta in 1906 along with other similar minded Muslims, Hindus, Parsis and the Christians.This meeting was presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji and M.A Jinnah acted as his secretary.

Dadabhai claimed that by partitioning Bengal, the British had made a grave mistake, which must be remedied for the sake of the people of the subcontinent. Talking about the issue of the mounting distance between the Hindu and the Muslim communities, he said, “Once self-government is attained, then there will be prosperity enough for all, but not till then. The thorough union, therefore, of all the people for their emancipation is an absolute necessity.” At that point Jinnah was a firm believer of this ideology and strongly advocated it. He therefore came to be known as the ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity’. With this stance in mind, he set out to accomplish the Congress’s mission of uniting the two communities, which would ultimately help the Indians to achieve swaraj (self rule).

There was a split in the Congress led by the Maharashtra’s Lokamanya, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, in the session held at Surat in 1907. Tilak had no confidence in the reforms promised by Morley and in protest his followers first rejected British-made goods and later boycotted their institutions too. They started protesting fervently for swaraj and became popular with the masses. The British government in an attempt to gain control over the situation arrested the prominent leaders of that movement which included Tilak.Tilak chose Jinnah to his case in the High Court and although the British government refused to hear anything on Tilak’s behalf, Jinnah’s exceptional skills as a barrister and orator were obvious in the way he presented his case. Also the depth of his character can be seen in the fact that he was willing to fight, to the best of his ability, for the leader of an oponent party. This earned him the respect and esteem of one of the most conformist leaders of the subcontinent at that time.

Jinnah was one of the few members to participate in the Viceroy’s sixty-man Central Legislative Council in 1910. He represent Bombay. He was 35 at that time and was amongst the youngest members to join this high level council, again verifying his brilliance and standing. This was three years before when he actually joined the Muslim League. King George V annulled the partition of Bengal, in December 1911, leaving the Muslims of India with a feeling of betrayal as the highest officials of the government had assured them of its permanence.

Partition of Bengal

The partition of Bengal shook India in 1905. Lord Curzon, one of the most powerful British rulers gave affect to the partition. With a population of over 80 million, it was difficult to administer the province so a line was drawn between the Hindu dominated West Bengal and the Muslim dominated East Bengal. Dacca became the capital of the new Muslim majority province comprising Eastern Bengal and Assam. West Bengal with Hindu majority was administered from Calcutta. The birth of the “Eastern Bengal and Assam” province was considered as a blessing and a moment of relief for the Muslims whereas it was an eyesore for the Hindus.

The Hindu community was aghast at the creation of the Muslim majority province and even a movement was launched against the partition. Calcutta’s Bengali Hindu elite protested vehemently against this partition. Large rallies and protests on the streets were carried out frequently all over the country and the British goods were also boycotted.

The impassioned anti-government speeches brought the common man in the streets. Though Jinnah was not very vocal about the issue of the partition of Bengal but its effects were to alter his life and career tremendously in the future. The partition of Bengal gave the Muslims of Bengal adequate representation in the power structure and awakened political consciousness among them which led to the formation of the Muslim League in 1906.

Protect Hindu neighbors - A call to Muslims (9th Jan 1948)

Message sent to the Refugees on the occasion of tour of the not affected areas in Karachi on 9th January, 1948

I quite understand the feeling of the Muslim refugees and those who have suffered, and they have my fullest sympathy, but they must restrain themselves and act as responsible men, and not abuse the hospitality that has been extended to them and forget all that is being done for them to make their lot happier. I once more want to impress upon all Muslims that they should fully co-operate with the Government and the officials in protecting their Hindu neighbor against these lawless elements, fifth columnists and the cliques who are responsible for creating these disturbances, and restore trust and confidence amongst all the communities. Pakistan must be governed through the properly constituted Government, and not by cliques, or fifth-columnists or a mob, and the Pakistan Government are going to take the severest possible measures against the offenders, and they shall be dealt with sternly and ruthlessly. I fully sympathize with Hindus many of whom have been misled by propaganda that is being carried on to pull them out of Sind, with an ulterior motive, and as a result many innocent Hindus have seriously suffered. With regard to this unfortunate trouble, it is not yet known who was responsible for bringing the Sikhs to Karachi and arranging to lodge them at the Gurdwara without informing the District Magistrate, Sind, or any Sind Authority or Police; this is a matter which requires thorough investigation. At present it seems somewhat mysterious, but it is going to be fully investigated.

Pakistan Zindabad