09-05-2005, 11:05 PM
To understand why Gandhiji supported the Khilafat movement, one has to look the crisis that emerged in the Muslim league leadership and the metamorphis of the national struggle.
The Muslim League was formed by members of the aristocracy, upper middle class muslims and connivance of the Brits. It was lead by "Syeds", the self proclaimed purer, truer and whiter Muslims who hailed from Central Asia or better, Arabia. Syed Ahmed Khan himself once said he was an "Indian, but not an aboriginal" when questioned about his roots by a Britisher. Others like hakim Ajmal khan, The strutting Nawabs, Syed Amir Ali were all of the same flock. They were totally subservient to the British, did every bidding of their masters.
But around 1915, a younger and more modern leadership under Ali brothers, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad rose from the ranks. They bros weren't truly nationalistic, but they resented the British rule in India. probably they were pissed by the British actions aginst Turkey during the Serbian war or they were just subscribing to the Global Ummah ideology. Unlike the earlier mustache-petes, these new leaders were ready to ally with the mainstream national movement, at least to just spite the Brits. The Lucknow pact of 1916 was a major turnaround.
This metamorphis could be tuned into and maybe merged into the National Movement, Gandhiji prolly calculated. As he was about to launch the largest and most radical mass, national movement india has ever seen....... Calpihate and the empire was done away by the Brits. The Deobandi, Calcutta and Aligarh movement were pretty much the leaders of the Muslim movement in those times. They were major pissed with the humiliation of the khalifa and all Muslims throughout India were, for the first time, showing signs of political awakening. All india Khilafat Committee was created after a tie up b/w the INC and the Khilafatists... Gandhiji as the President. Not many realise it, but the Khilafat movement was a parallel nonco-operation movement that was launched along with the Non-Co-operation movement of the Congress.
However, this was forced unity, unity established from the top.......it didn''t trickle down due to factors known to perhaps everyone here. Soon the bhai-bhai turned to an orgy of violence in many regions as the frustrated and tense Indians took on each other. But even then the Ali brothers stayed with G, the break....a very bitter one at that came later. The way the NC movement was turning, the communal color it wa taking up was the reason Gandhiji suspended it. Chauri Chaura was just an excuse.....
My point is, there were Muslim leaders who tried to forge a Hindu-Muslim unity... but the ground realities and the absence of real support for these leaders torpedoed the whole thing. Leaders like G and co tried their hand.... and it worked fr the most part till the ML changed its strategy after their utter rout in the 1937 elections.
Its easy to polemicaly blame Gandhiji for "grovelling", but he realised that a mass movement will not be truly a mass movement when Muslims who constituted 25% of British india stayed away. Already the British refused many Cong demands as they accused the INC of being just a Hindu party not representing "this downtrodden Mussalmans of India"............ oh, they did play that game well! The "adjustements" like Khilafat were done to show them that the Hindus understand Muslim problems and thus get their faith and support.
******************************
I know many people hate Gandhiji here, almost a Pavlovian or rather Polemical reaction. I'm not here to try and convert you.... each one can ride his favurite pony. But i would like to say that old man g was just a man... could make mistakes. And he had made a few of them. The Khilafat move was a mistake he made in his days of pure idealism. But notice how his program radicalised and he became more politically pragmatic over the years.
Idealism to Agrarian radicalism to Civil Disobedience to silence on Quit India movement violence and finally giving the green signal for Indian ops in Kashmir.
A superficial analysis of his programs and his political thought alone would reveal the genius of that man.
His eccentricities and sometimes ridiculous ideals were still there....But then he was only human. And can anyone deny the role he played as the leader of the national movement for 3 decades? Heck, the Cong leadership didn't want to launch the Quit India movement, but G's threat of "launching another movement from the sands of India which will destroy even the Congress" capped the issue. His political program was responsible for the slow yet significant changes in brit governance in favour of Indians... as seen from the Acts of 1919 and 1935.
As Ptolmey said about Alexander "His failures tower over other men's achievements".
Just my 2 cents as "Devil's Advocate".
The Muslim League was formed by members of the aristocracy, upper middle class muslims and connivance of the Brits. It was lead by "Syeds", the self proclaimed purer, truer and whiter Muslims who hailed from Central Asia or better, Arabia. Syed Ahmed Khan himself once said he was an "Indian, but not an aboriginal" when questioned about his roots by a Britisher. Others like hakim Ajmal khan, The strutting Nawabs, Syed Amir Ali were all of the same flock. They were totally subservient to the British, did every bidding of their masters.
But around 1915, a younger and more modern leadership under Ali brothers, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad rose from the ranks. They bros weren't truly nationalistic, but they resented the British rule in India. probably they were pissed by the British actions aginst Turkey during the Serbian war or they were just subscribing to the Global Ummah ideology. Unlike the earlier mustache-petes, these new leaders were ready to ally with the mainstream national movement, at least to just spite the Brits. The Lucknow pact of 1916 was a major turnaround.
This metamorphis could be tuned into and maybe merged into the National Movement, Gandhiji prolly calculated. As he was about to launch the largest and most radical mass, national movement india has ever seen....... Calpihate and the empire was done away by the Brits. The Deobandi, Calcutta and Aligarh movement were pretty much the leaders of the Muslim movement in those times. They were major pissed with the humiliation of the khalifa and all Muslims throughout India were, for the first time, showing signs of political awakening. All india Khilafat Committee was created after a tie up b/w the INC and the Khilafatists... Gandhiji as the President. Not many realise it, but the Khilafat movement was a parallel nonco-operation movement that was launched along with the Non-Co-operation movement of the Congress.
However, this was forced unity, unity established from the top.......it didn''t trickle down due to factors known to perhaps everyone here. Soon the bhai-bhai turned to an orgy of violence in many regions as the frustrated and tense Indians took on each other. But even then the Ali brothers stayed with G, the break....a very bitter one at that came later. The way the NC movement was turning, the communal color it wa taking up was the reason Gandhiji suspended it. Chauri Chaura was just an excuse.....
My point is, there were Muslim leaders who tried to forge a Hindu-Muslim unity... but the ground realities and the absence of real support for these leaders torpedoed the whole thing. Leaders like G and co tried their hand.... and it worked fr the most part till the ML changed its strategy after their utter rout in the 1937 elections.
Its easy to polemicaly blame Gandhiji for "grovelling", but he realised that a mass movement will not be truly a mass movement when Muslims who constituted 25% of British india stayed away. Already the British refused many Cong demands as they accused the INC of being just a Hindu party not representing "this downtrodden Mussalmans of India"............ oh, they did play that game well! The "adjustements" like Khilafat were done to show them that the Hindus understand Muslim problems and thus get their faith and support.
******************************
I know many people hate Gandhiji here, almost a Pavlovian or rather Polemical reaction. I'm not here to try and convert you.... each one can ride his favurite pony. But i would like to say that old man g was just a man... could make mistakes. And he had made a few of them. The Khilafat move was a mistake he made in his days of pure idealism. But notice how his program radicalised and he became more politically pragmatic over the years.
Idealism to Agrarian radicalism to Civil Disobedience to silence on Quit India movement violence and finally giving the green signal for Indian ops in Kashmir.
A superficial analysis of his programs and his political thought alone would reveal the genius of that man.
His eccentricities and sometimes ridiculous ideals were still there....But then he was only human. And can anyone deny the role he played as the leader of the national movement for 3 decades? Heck, the Cong leadership didn't want to launch the Quit India movement, but G's threat of "launching another movement from the sands of India which will destroy even the Congress" capped the issue. His political program was responsible for the slow yet significant changes in brit governance in favour of Indians... as seen from the Acts of 1919 and 1935.
As Ptolmey said about Alexander "His failures tower over other men's achievements".
Just my 2 cents as "Devil's Advocate".