26.02.

2018 February | 2008 | Ithihas

Ithihas
Kaleidoscope of Indian civilization

In this blog you will find

Monthly Archives: February 2008
Writeups on Indian historical
themes and Biographies of
rulers and statesmen.
INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND PARTITION OF INDIA -PART II
February 29, 2008 – 5:04 am
Blogroll
The isolationist policy and attitude of Muslim separatism was
facetsofindianhistory
strengthened by the divide and rule policy of the British imperialism. But
Sanatana Parishad
the fact is that no imperialistic power has ever worked anywhere in a
Thinkerspad spirit of welfare to the people it dominates and hence, the major
responsibility for the partition of India was that of the Muslims. To a
Archives very great extent, the Indian National Congress was also responsible for
the above course of events. It adopted an attitude of appeasement
February 2018 towards the Muslim League to woo it and frequently made sacrifices of
January 2018 principles. It never tried to understand the character of isolation and
October 2017 aggression of the Muslim separatists (Lal Bahadur, Struggle for
August 2017 Pakistan, p. 294.) One such grave mistake committed by the Congress
June 2017 was the support it gave to Khilafat movement.
May 2017
March 2017
The Khilafat Agitation
October 2016
The last Caliph with a legitimate claim to the title was the Abbasid
June 2016
Caliph Al- Mustansir Billah. The Mongol Hulagu Khan (grandson of
January 2016 Chengiz Khan) had executed him following the sack of Baghdad in 1258.
November 2015 Recognising its value as a political symbol, the Mameluk Sultan of Egypt
August 2015 invited a member of the family to set up a puppet Caliphate in Cairo.
June 2015 These Caliphs were ” complete nonentities”- as the Encyclopedia
February 2015 Britannica puts it- and their claim was ended for all time when the
January 2015 Ottoman Sultan Salim invaded Egypt in 1517. Later the Ottoman
September 2014 Turkish Sultans styled themselves as Caliphs. (Rajaram N.S, Gandhi,
June 2014 Khilafat and the National Movement, p.14)India since the establishment
May 2014 of Mughal rule in the sixteenth century had refused to recognize the
April 2014 Caliphate of the Turkish Sultans. It was only in 1876 that England
March 2014 anxious to maintain the influence and power of the Sultan as a barrier
December 2013
against Russian advance towards the Mediterranean persuaded some
November 2013
Indian Muslims to accept the Turkish Caliphate. Even then Syed Ahmed
Khan, an inheritor of the Mughal tradition, refused to acknowledge the
October 2013
Caliphate, much to the chagrin of Syed Jamal al Din Afghani, the
September 2013
promulgator of the idea of Islamic unity under the leadership of the
August 2013
Turkish Caliph. (Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement in India,
May 2013
Vol III, p.420). During the First World War, Turkey had supported
April 2013 Germany against the Anglo-Saxon powers. After the defeat of the
February 2013 central powers, the Treaty of Serves was imposed upon Turkey by which
January 2013 it was deprived of territories of Hejaz (wherein was Mecca and Medina),
July 2012 Armenia, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.( Hayes C.J.H, Contemporary
January 2010 Europe Since 1870,. p 427.)The Indian Muslims who considered the
July 2009 Caliph, as their religious head wanted the maintenance of the religious
June 2009 prestige and temporal power of the Sultan of Turkey, which implied the
May 2009 unrestricted performance of the Caliph’s duties in the preservation of
April 2009 the holy places, defined by the Muslim jurists as including Palestine,
March 2009 Mesopotamia and Arabia. They were also against the imposition of the
February 2009 mandates of Britain and France over the Arab states of the Fertile
October 2008
Crescent, converting Palestine into a Jewish home under the British
September 2008
protectorate and dividing Arabia among the tribal chiefs. The Muslims of
India had been given assurance by the British Prime Ministers- Asquith
https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2008/02/ 1/5
26.02.2018 February | 2008 | Ithihas

August 2008 and Lloyd George and the Indian Viceroy Hardinge that the territorial
July 2008 integrity of Turkey would be respected, but the terms of the Treaty of
June 2008 Serves was contrary of their pledges. (Tara Chand,.pp.491-492)
May 2008
April 2008
To achieve the above goals the Muslims in India began the Khilafat
March 2008
movement. In September 1919 the All India Khilafat Committee was
formed with Seth Chhotani as President and Shaukat Ali as the
February 2008
Secretary. The first Khilafat Conference was held at Delhi on 23rd
November 1919, under the chairmanship of Fazlul Haq. On the second
day Gandhiji was voted to the chair and he explained that the remedy
for the wrongs of the Muslim was non-cooperation.(Tara Chand, p.417)
Writing in Young India on May 11th, 1921 Gandhiji said that “if the
Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with the Muslims, they must
perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honour of Islam.” But
Jinnah however did not share Gandhiji’s view and held that the fate of
distant Turkey and of its Khalifa was none of India’s concern. (Kulkarni
V.B., British dominion in India, p.183) The Congress under Gandhiji’s
leadership decided to launch a mass struggle (Non-Cooperation
Movement) against the Government with the triple purpose of winning
Swaraj, rectification of the Punjab wrongs, and rehabilitation of the
Khilafat. The combination was significant as it meant the recognition of
a purely communal religious demand as of equal importance with the
national demand for Swaraj. In spite of its concept of territorial
nationalism and logical striving for a unitary sovereign state, the
Congress was compelled to give its assent to the achievement of an
extra-territorial sacramental aim. (Tara Chand, p.419 )

One of the most unfortunate incidents of the movement was the rising
of the Moplahs in Kerala. The Khilafatist meetings where the wrongs of
Islam were described intensified religious feelings among the Moplahs.
The authorities attempted to suppress the movement, which seemed to
threaten law and order. The Moplahs then rebelled and started a guerilla
war with swords and spears and committed terrible atrocities against
the administration as well as their Hindu neighbours. The Muslim
communalists either denied the atrocities or minimized them and tried
to shift the blame. Moreover the Moplahs were praised for their religious
zeal and bravery. The tender plant of Hindu-Muslim unity began to
wither. But in spite of the grave shock, the Non-cooperation Movement
continued.( Tara Chand, pp.496-497) On February 5th 1922, a clash
took place between the police and the stragglers of a procession at
Chauri Chaura, in which 22 policemen were burnt alive. Gandhiji without
discussing with the Khilafat Committee decided to call off the
movement.( Tara Chand, Op.cit. p.423) This badly affected the Hindu-
Muslim relations as the latter felt that Gandhi had withdrawn the
movement while the Khilafat question was still unsettled and left them
in the lurch. Some Ulamas began to cast doubt upon Gandhiji’s
sincerity. Fissiparous tendencies began to develop. (Tara Chand, p.425)
The surprising feature of this movement was that it was confined to the
Muslims of India only. No other Muslim people in Asia or Africa gave
their moral or material support to the Turkish Sultan or the Caliph. Nor
were the Indian Muslims aware of the extent of the secularization and
Westernization of the progressive parties in Turkey. Even while the
Khilafat leaders were threatening the Indian Government with dire
consequences- issuing fatwas of jihad and boycott of military service,
the Turkish nationalists under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal were
taking steps, which finally led to the abolition of the Khilafat. Gandhiji’s
desire to secure permanent Hindu-Muslim unity by co-operating with the
Muslims in the Khilafat agitation had little chance of fulfillment as the
Khilafatists chose to fight the government on issues of questionable
expediency, issues whose bearing on Hindu and Muslim India’s affairs
was marginal, if not quite unsubstantial. Hence Gandhiji’s identification
with the Muslim cause was from the practical and political point of view,
of dubious value.( Tara Chand, pp.427-428) (to be continued)

https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2008/02/ 2/5
26.02.2018 February | 2008 | Ithihas

Advertisements

Report this ad

Report this ad

By S.Srinivas | Posted in essays | Comments (0)

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND PARTITION OF INDIA – PART-I

February 18, 2008 – 6:56 am
Though the Muslim League passed the resolution on Pakistan in 1940,
but for the help rendered by the British, Pakistan would not have
materialized. What was the reason for the British to divide India before
they quit? Here the role of the Congress in antagonizing the British and
its incompetence to deal with the communal issue played an important
role in the British resorting to partition before they left India.
The Genesis of Muslim Separatism
The separatist and intolerant tendencies of the Muslims in India were
dormant even before the establishment of British rule in India. During
the Medieval period, though the Hindu rulers and the people accorded a
generous treatment to Muslims, they did not reciprocate the same. For
example, the Zamorin of Calicut gave orders that in every family of
fishermen in his dominion; one or more of the male members should be
brought up as Mohammedans. The Hindu reformers and teachers
emphasized that Hinduism and Islam were two different paths leading to
the same goal. They preached that Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim,
Ishwar and Allah, were different names of the same god. An earnest
attempt was made to bring about unity between the two communities
by deprecating priestly ritualism and formalities and emphasizing inner
religious devotion. Not only were the foreign Muslims honoured and
respected, but even Indian converts to Islam were shown regard and a
treatment which was better than that meted out to lower castes among
https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2008/02/ 3/5
26.02.2018 February | 2008 | Ithihas

the Hindu themselves.The Muslims on the other hand, believed in their

superiority and branded the Hindus as an inferior people, feeble and
unprogressive. If a Hindu, who was converted to Islam, showed any
inclination to revert to the religion of his forefathers, he was, according
to the law of the Sultanate, put to death, and if any Hindu preached that
Hinduism and Islam alike were true religions, he was liable to capital
punishment. Moreover, according to the Quranic injunction it is not
permissible for a Muslim male to marry a non-Muslim woman without
first converting her to Islam; nor it was permissible for a Muslim woman
to be given in marriage to a Hindu, unless he himself became a Muslim.
Further, by the orders of the Quran, Muslims were prohibited from
showing any respect or consideration for their non-Muslim ancestors.
This Quranic injunction made it impossible for Indian Muslim, most of
them who were converts from Hinduism, to have anything to do with
their Hindu ancestors, or to have legitimate pride in the ancient history
of this country. (Srivastava A.L, Medieval Indian Culture pp. 230-32)
Kafirs must pay Jiziya
The Quranic law divides all non-Muslims into two classes, namely those
who are, according to it, the possessors of some kind of revealed
scripture (ahle-kitab) and those who are not and are idolaters (kafirs
and mushriks). The first group consisting of Jews and Christians is
permitted by the authority of the Quran to enjoy partial tolerance in a
Muslim state on payment of an invidious tax, called the Jiziya; but the
other consisting of polytheists is not eligible for any kind of toleration.
Subsequently, a third group of non-Muslims, that is, of those who
resembled the possessors of revealed books (musahab ahl-I-kitab) was
recognized and Zoroastrians were placed under this category. They were
also allowed to live in a Muslim country on payment of the Jiziya like the
Jews and Christians. Of the four early and authoritative commentators
of the shariat, who become the founders of the four well-known school
of Muslim law, three namely, Malik Ibn Anas (715-795 A.D.), Ash Shafi
(767-820 A.D.) and Ahmad bin Hanbal (780-855 A.D.), lay down in
unmistakable terms that idolaters have no right to live in a Muslim
country (i.e., one either ruled by Muslims or peopled by Muslims) and
that they must either embrace Islam or suffer death. But the fourth
commentator named Abu Hanifah (699-766 A.D.) is of the opinion that
idolaters might be given, beside the choice between Islam and death,
one more alternative, namely, permission to live as Zimmis (living under
a contract) or as inferior citizens with an obligation to pay the Jiziya
(poll tax) and to submit to certain political, legal and social disabilities.
Muhammad bin Qasim, the conqueror of Sindh, finding it impossible to
enforce the rigid interpretation of the Quranic law upon the Hindus, on
account of numerical superiority and their being armed to the teeth,
wisely anticipated the ruling of Abu Hanifah, and extended partial
religious tolerance, which was the special privilege of the Jews and
Christians, to the Hindus of Sindh and Multan. This became a precedent
to be followed by the later Turkish and Afghan conquerors and rulers.
(Srivastava A.L, Medieval Indian Culture. p.3)
The Meaning of Jihad
According to historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the highest duty of a Muslim
ruler is to carry on jihad by waging war against infidel lands (Dar-ul-
Harb) till they became a part of the realm of Islam (Dar-ul-Islam), and
their populations are converted into true believers. (Srivastava A.L,
Medieval Indian Culture. p 4) Jihad has two meanings in Islamic
theology. Apart from the popular concept of Jihad Bil-Saif (striving with
sword), the term Jihad also implies discovering the truth within, that is,
Jihad Bin-nafs (striving with oneself). Since the birth of Islam, the term
Jihad (striving, in the cause of God) has been uniformly interpreted as
signifying a holy war against the infidels (kafirs). The Jihad had five
distinct objectives: (1) Forcible spreading of Islam;(2) destruction of the
kafir population against which the Jihad is mounted;(3) imposition of tax
(Jiziya) on the defeated infidels;(4) the wresting of war booty; and (5)
the enslavement of the females and children of the vanquished kafirs.
There was never any doubt about the meaning of Jihad in Islamic
https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2008/02/ 4/5
26.02.2018 February | 2008 | Ithihas

theology or history. (Balbir K. Punj, Islam, Jihad and terrorism, The New
Indian Express, 12-07-2000) For example after the sack of Somanath
Temple by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1025 A.D., the idol of Somanath was
broken to pieces and sent to Ghazni, Mecca and Medina and cast in
streets and staircases of chief mosques to be trodden by the Muslims
going there for their prayers. (Srivastava A.L, The Sultanate of Delhi. p.
59) Mahmud also sent huge quantities of gold and silver and presents of
incalculable value to the Caliph, who in turn, congratulated him and
bestowed royal titles on two of his sons. (Mehta J.H., Advanced Study in
the History of Medieval India. p.60) If Jihad had really meant something
else, the Caliph would have definitely admonished Mahmud for bringing
bad name to Islam through his acts. The above fact confirms that the
supreme head of the Muslims had justified the act of Mahmud done in
the name of Jihad. (To be continued)

By S.Srinivas | Posted in essays | Comments (0)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. | .

https://ithihas.wordpress.com/2008/02/ 5/5