qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl

Roll Number A-1544014

Genesis of Pakistan Movement (538)

3/25/2011

Asmat Zahra

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

Faculty of Social Sciences

Department of Pakistan Studies

Course: Genesis of Pakistan Movement (538) Semester: Autumn, 2010

Level: M. Sc

ASSIGNMENT No. 1

Q. 1 Explain Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s views about Indian National Congress and

critically analyse his views about the potential threat of Hindu majoritarian rule

and depoliticizing Muslims in sub-continent.

Sir Syed’s (1817-98) views about Indian National Congress:-

The greatest Muslim reformer and statesman of the 19th Century, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan was

born in Delhi on October 17, 1817. His family on the maternal and paternal side had close

contacts with the Mughal court. His maternal grandfather, Khwajah Farid was a Wazir in the

court of Akbar Shah II. His paternal grandfather Syed Hadi held a mansab and the title of Jawwad

Ali Khan in the court of Alamgir II. His father, Mir Muttaqi, had been close to Akbar Shah since

the days of his prince-hood. Syed Ahmad's mother, Aziz-un-Nisa, took a great deal of interest in

the education and upbringing of her son. She imposed a rigid discipline on him and Sir Syed

himself admitted that her supervision counted for much in the formation of his character.

The early years of Sir Syed's life were spent in the atmosphere of the family of a Mughal noble.

There was nothing in young Syed's habits or behavior to suggest that he was different from other

boys, though he was distinguished on account of his extraordinary physique. As a boy he learnt

swimming and archery, which were favorite sports of the well-to-do class in those days.

Sir Syed received his education under the old system. He learnt to read the Quran under a female

teacher at his home. After this, he was put in the charge of Maulvi Hamid-ud-Din, the first of his

private tutors. Having completed a course in Persian and Arabic, he took to the study of

mathematics, which was a favorite subject of the maternal side of his family. He later became

interested in medicine and studied some well-known books on the subject. However, he soon

gave it up without completing the full course. At the age of 18 or 19 his formal education came to

2

an end but he continued his studies privately. He started taking a keen interest in the literary

gatherings and cultural activities of the city.

The death of his father in 1838 left the family in difficulties. Thus young Syed was compelled at

the early age of 21 to look for a career. He decided to enter the service of the East India

Company. He started his career as Sarishtedar in a court of law. He became Naib Munshi in 1839

and Munshi in 1841. In 1858 he was promoted and appointed as Sadar-us-Sadur at Muradabad. In

1867 he was promoted and posted as the judge of the Small Causes Court. He retired in 1876. He

spent the rest of his life for Aligarh College and the Muslims of South Asia.

Sir Syed's greatest achievement was his Aligarh Movement, which was primarily an educational

venture. He established Gulshan School at Muradabad in 1859, Victoria School at Ghazipur in

1863, and a scientific society in 1864. When Sir Syed was posted at Aligarh in 1867, he started

the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental School in the city. Sir Syed got the opportunity to visit

England in 1869-70. During his stay, he studied the British educational system and appreciated it.

On his return home he decided to make M. A. O. High School on the pattern of British boarding

schools. The School later became a college in 1875. The status of University was given to the

college after the death of Sir Syed in 1920. M. A. O. High School, College and University played

a big role in the awareness of the Muslims of South Asia.

Unlike other Muslim leaders of his time, Sir Syed was of the view that Muslims should have

friendship with the British if they want to take their due rights. To achieve this he did a lot to

convince the British that Muslims were not against them. On the other hand, he tried his best to

convince the Muslims that if they did not befriend the British, they could not achieve their goals.

Sir Syed wrote many books and journals to remove the misunderstandings between Muslims and

the British. The most significant of his literary works were his pamphlets "Loyal Muhammadans

of India" and "Cause of Indian Revolt". He also wrote a commentary on the Bible, in which he

attempted to prove that Islam is the closest religion to Christianity.

Sir Syed asked the Muslims of his time not to participate in politics unless and until they got

modern education. He was of the view that Muslims could not succeed in the field of western

politics without knowing the system. He was invited to attend the first session of the Indian

National Congress and to join the organization but he refused to accept the offer. He also asked

the Muslims to keep themselves away from the Congress and predicted that the party would

prove to be a pure Hindu party in the times to come. By establishing the Muhammadan

3

Educational Conference, he provided Muslims with a platform on which he could discuss their

political problems. Sir Syed is known as the founder of Two-Nation Theory in the modern era.

In the beginning of 1898 he started keeping abnormally quiet. For hours he would not utter a

word to friends who visited him. Medical aid proved ineffective. His condition became critical on

24th of March. On the morning of March 27, a severe headache further worsened it. He expired

the same evening in the house of Haji Ismail Khan, where he had been shifted 10 or 12 days

earlier. He was buried the following afternoon in the compound of the Mosque of Aligarh

College. He was mourned by a large number of friends and admirers both within and outside

South Asia.

Syed Ahmed Khan Views about Potential threat of Hindu majoritarian rule:-

By reading Syed Ahmed Khan’s view on Quran and Shariah one can easily conclude that

he did not receive proper education in Shariah and he based his views mainly on his

personal opinions and surrounding political environment in Indian subcontinent and his

own personal political objectives. He openly rejected hadith (حديث) and Tafsir (

and created his own interpretation of various (تعويل) Instead he made Taweel .(تفسير

Nus as he sees fit, often to please the British Masters. But as Allah (swt) says in Quran

that if book written by Human you will find contradictions in it, hence, we find many

huge contradictions in writing of Syed Ahmed Khan.

Ironically, while he blamed Ulema to make mockery of Hadith and Tafsir by mentioning

mysterious things, but Syed Ahmed himself is biggest guilty of this act. His opinions are

perhaps worst than any other, and his taweelat is a reminder of Batania sect فرقة)

.(باطنية

He openly made Taweel (create hidden meaning) to prove his wild opinions. In matters

related to Iman and Ghaib (غيب) he denied most of it on pretext that it can’t be proven.

He defined Angels as Quwat-Malakuti ( ملكوتي ) and Devils as Quwat-Bahimi (قوى

بهيمي (قوى and denied their physical existence. He stated that true religion has

nothing to do with Worldly affairs. Strangely, this unique Ilham (ااـهام) was only given

to Syed Ahmed, and Allah (swt) forgot to mention all this wisdom to Prophet

Mohammad (pbuh). He denied miracles, and hence denied all miracles associated to

4

various Prophets, like Ibrahim was never put inside fire, and he termed Musa’s stick

turning into snake as illusion. He denied that Isa (Jesus) was born without a father.

It was very typical of Syed Ahmed Khan that when he couldn’t explain Quran based on

his own presumed Usool (rules), then he will declare that this is and if it (dream) رويا

doesn’t fit into dream, then he make Taweel and change the meaning of original word to

anything else to make his point. He denied that Jesus was given healing powers and when

he gave live to death then death here means Kufr (كفر) and live here mean Iman (

so Jesus brought them from Kufr to Iman. Or when Allah (swt) showed Ibrahim ,(ايمان

how he brings dead birds back to live, it was Ibrahim’s dream, and Mohammad (pbuh)

was taken to Mairaj (معراج) during his dream etc. He denied that army of Abraha (

died after being attacked by birds, rather they died due to smallpox disease. He (ابراهه

denied that in Badr Battle Allah swt sent angles to help the Prophet (pbuh). He also

denied returning of Jesus.

One would like to ask Syed Ahmed that if for the sake of argument we take his opinion,

then we have right to ask that what was stopping Allah (swt) to explain these historical

events in same light as Syed Ahmed explains? If Syed Ahmed can explain it then so as

Allah (swt). If Jesus was born with father, why would Allah (swt) not say it so in Quran,

If Ibrahim was day dreaming, why would Allah (swt) not say so?, if Army of Abraha died

of smallpox why would Allah mention that birds (أبابيل) stroked them with stone of

hard clay.

Syed Ahmed Khan’s allegiance to British is no hidden secret. He openly declared them

his master and often counted their Ahsan (احسانات) on betterment of Muslim society.

He stated that it’s the will of Allah that British became masters over us, and since they

give us religious freedom and rule with justice, we must action their rule and become

loyal and obedient to them. He stated that British rule in India is mercy of Allah on

Muslims for which they must thank Allah. It is our religious obligation that we accept

obedience of Hon Queen with our heart and lives, and pray for their longevity their

government and wealth (1897). He stated that British rule is in our best interest, and

British government can keep as much military in India as it needs to sustain its rule. And

5

it is my wish that British rule in India is not temporary but eternal. He declared that is its

haram to make fight (jihad) with British rule. When he establish Aligarh University he

added as main goal and objective of university is to “prepare Muslims of India for good

services of British Empire and sincere citizen by creating such sincerity in their nature

that is achieved by being grateful of excellent services provided by government rather

than being obedient of Occupied State by external empire.”

Syed Ahmed eventually created a new religious philosophy and called it Naturalist, and

rejected anything that goes against his definition of Human Nature, and he used god’s

will to propagate obedience and sincerity for invading masters. For his loyalty and

services for British Empire, Syed Ahmed Khan was knighted in 1888.

GOLDEN SAYINGS

Sons (of MAO college later AMU)) shall go forth throughout the length and breath of

the land to preach the message of free inquiry, of large-hearted toleration and of pure

morality.

Acquisition of knowledge of science and technology is the only solution for the problems

of Muslims.

Call me by whatever names you like. I will not ask you for my salvation. But please take

pity of your children. Do something for them (send them to the school), lest you should

have to repent (by not sending them)

We will remain humiliated and rejected if we do not make progress’’ (in scientific fields

Get rid of old and useless rituals. These rituals hinder human progress.

Superstition cannot be the part of Iman (faith).

The first requisite for the progress of a nation is the brotherhood and unity amongst

sections of the society.

Yes the main purpose of this college (MAO) is to impart modern education to Muslims

who are suffering because of lack of it but this institution is for all, Hindus and Muslims

alike. Both of them need education.

6

We (Hindus and Muslims) eat the same crop, drink water from the same rivers and

breathe the same air. As a matter of fact Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of the

beautiful bride that is Hindustan. Weakness of any one of them will spoil the beauty of

the bride (dulhan)

We (Hindus and Muslim) have evolved a new language Urdu

I wish that youth of India should follow the example of young men and women of

England who are religiously engaged in the hard work of industrial development of their

country” (During the stay of Sir Syed in England).

Look forward, learn modern knowledge, and do not waste time in studies of old subjects

of no value.

Ijtihad (innovation, re-interpretation with the changing times) is the need of the hour.

Give up taqlid (copying and following old values).

Do not show the face of Islam to others; instead show your face as the follower of true

Islam representing character, knowledge, tolerance and piety.

We should not (by remaining ignorant and illiterate) tarnish the image of our able elders.

All human beings are our brother and sisters. Working for their welfare is obligatory for

Muslims.

Remember that the words Hindu and Muslim are only meant for religious distinction:

otherwise all persons who reside in this country belong to one and the same nation.

Evolution and growth of Muslim Society in the Sub-continent.

Ideology of Pakistan-Definition and Elucidation. Historical aspects Muslim rule in the

sub-continent, its downfall and efforts of Renaissance. Movements for reforms-Sheikh

Ahmed Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah, Aligarh, Deoband, Na&wah, Anjarnun Hamiat-e-Islam

and other Educational Institutions- Sind Madressah and Islamia College Peshawar.

Ideology of Pakistan in the lights of speeches and sayings of Allama Iqhal and Quaid-i-

Azam.

7

Q. 2 Discuss socio-cultural and economic factors that brought Indian people in a state of

war in 1857 against British imperialists.

Socio-cultural and economic factors:-

By 1845, the British Empire had expanded from Bengal to Sindh, and all that remained free

was Punjab. The Sikhs were ruling over Punjab and after the Second Sikh War in 1848, the

British gained control over the Indus. The Koh-I-Noor diamond that Ranjit Singh had worn in

his headdress now became a part of the crown jewels at Westminster.

The War of Independence broke out in January and March 1857. The British army had

recruited local Indians in their forces. These soldiers were issued cartridges greased with fat

from tabooed animals. The soldiers refused to use these cartridges. In 1857, starting with an

uprising in Meerut, soldiers in the British Army in Bengal launched a full-scale mutiny

against the British. This mutiny spread swiftly across the Sub-continent. Initially, the Indian

soldiers were able to push back the British forces. The British army was driven out of Delhi

and the Indian soldiers took control of the city. Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal King,

was compelled to lead the freedom fighters. In Bahadur Shah Zafar, the rebels found a symbol

of freedom, but a mere symbol was all he was. Wanting to spend his days writing poetry, the

man was in no way even a remnant of the glory of his forefathers. He proclaimed himself the

Emperor of the whole of India. The civilians, citizens and other dignitaries took oath of

allegiance to the Emperor. The Emperor issued his own coin and appointed his sons to key

posts.

The initial success of the freedom fighters gave a

boost to the War of Independence. The Indian army

captured the important towns of Haryana, Bihar and

Madhya Pradesh. However, the British forces at

Meerut and Ambala put up a resolute resistance to the

8

royal army and held them back for several months. The British proved to be a formidable foe

with their superior weapons and better strategy. The freedom fighters badly lacked in

adequate resources and their planning proved to be extremely brittle. The royal forces were

finally defeated. The British army entered Delhi and the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar

went into hiding.

The British quickly regained control of Delhi. They ransacked and destroyed the city. They

took revenge in the most gruesome manner by killing innocent people indiscriminately. A

wide scale massacre of the inhabitants of Delhi was carried out to avenge the killings of the

British soldiers. The Mughal emperor was captured from his sanctuary, the tomb of Emperor

Humayun. The emperor's sons were slaughtered in cold blood. Their bodies were beheaded

and their heads were presented to the aging emperor in prison. Bahadur Shah was imprisoned

in Rangoon, Myanmar, where he breathed his last.

After the War of Independence in 1857, the British government assumed sovereignty over the

lands of the British East India Company. The British control over the Sub-continent grew in

the next 50 years and culminated in the British Raj. Queen Victoria's Indian realm continued

to expand, until Hunza, the remote kingdom bordering China, fell into British hands in 1891,

bringing the expansion to its zenith.

The British delineated the frontier separating British India from Afghanistan in 1893. The

resulting Durand Line cut straight through the tribal area of the Pathans. The British left the

tribal areas to govern themselves under the supervision of British political agents.

The British thus became masters of India, where for nearly 800 years Muslims had ruled.

However, their attitude towards the Muslims was that of antipathy. According to Hunter, a

prominent historian, "The Muslims of India are, and have been for many years, a source of

chronic danger to the British power in India". The British attributed the war of 1857 to the

Muslims alone. As a result, property belonging to Muslims was confiscated and they were

denied employment opportunities everywhere in the army, revenue department, and judiciary.

Condition of Indian Peoples after the War:-

9

The war of Independence of 1857 was conducted mainly by the Muslims. Its failure started a

new era of alien rule in the Sub-Continent. Although the war was ill planned and short lived yet

it shocks the British Imperialism to its foundations. The concern of the British Government can

be judged from the fact that immediately after the war the crown took over the control of the

country from the English East India Company. The British Government took stock of the entire

situation and held the Muslims of the Country responsible for the 1857 catastrophe. This

attitude turned all the British wrath and anger against the Muslims. Thus the Muslims were

subjected to all sorts of oppression and repression. Leading Muslims were hanged or sentenced

to jails. The properties of the Muslims were confiscated. They were denied important jobs

under the crown. Sir William Hunter’s book “The Indian Mussalmans” published in 1871 gives

a lot of information about the pitiable conditions of the Muslims of India after the 1857

upheaval. Although the observations of William Hunter are confined only to the Muslims of

Bengal yet the condition of the Muslims of rest of India was not different. The following

extracts from his book illustrate the conditions of the Muslims.

About the landowning classes of Eastern Bengal he writes, At Murshidabad a Mohammadan

Court still plays its force of mimic state and in every district the descendent of some line of

princes suddenly and proudly eats his heart out among roofless palaces and weed chocked

tanks……. if any statesman wishes to make a sensation in the House of Commons he has only to

truly narrate the history of these Mohammadan families of Bengal.

Then W. Hunter gives the position of the Muslims in the public services in these words,

“In the three grades of Assistant Government Engineers there were fourteen Hindus and not

one Muslim; among die apprentices there were four Hindus and two Englishmen and not one

Muslim. Among me Sub-Engineers there were 24 Hindus to one Muslim and in the upper

Subordinate Department there were 22 Hindus and again not one Muslim.” About the causes

of the whole state of affairs Hunter writes. “The truth is that when the country passed under

our rule the Muslims were the superior race and superior not only in the stoutness of me

heart and strength of arm but in power of political organization and the science of political

government.” Later on W. Hunter writes, “All sorts of employments great and small are 10

being gradually snatched away from me Muhammadans and bestowed on men of other races

particularly the Hindus.”

According to another survey in 1871 out of a total of 2141 persons employed by the Bengal

Government there were only 92 Muslims, 711 Hindus and 1338 Europeans. Moreover it is

stated that between 1852 and 1862 out of 240 natives admitted as the pleaders of the High

Court there was only one Muslim.

An Indian socialist leader Asoka-Mehta in his book “The Communal Triangle” throws light

on the status enjoyed by Muslims in public offices.

“Not only were the Muslims economically crushed, educationally and socially also their

position was deliberately depressed by the government. In 1870 the Mohammadan pleaders

presented two memorials to the High Court pointing out that while closed holidays allowed to

the Christians were sixty two and those to Hindus fifty two, only eleven were granted to the

Muhammadans…… In the government offices, no Muhammadan holiday was sanctioned at

all.”

These details clearly demonstrate the awe-fully pitiable condition of the Muslims of India

after the war. The British were hostile to Muslims and took all steps to ensure that they could

not rise in future. In addition to these misfortunes the Muslims refused to learn Western

education and sciences. They were not prepared to part with their age old customs and

manners. The Muslims considered the acquisition of modern education as a step contrary to

their religion. They hated English language and decided to continue with Persian. But

unconsciously, in this manner they were slowly but surely leaving the field open for the

Hindus. This gradual decline in the status of the Muslims as a community was first diagnosed

and checked by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.

Reasons behind the failure of the war:-

There were two major reasons behind the failure of the war. Lack of unity between the various

classes of people in the Indian subcontinent and the enormous strength of the British force. There

is no single reason why the war failed to fulfill its goals. The elaborated reasons are as follows.

11

Lack of   unity :-

The landed aristocracy and some even fed information to the British regarding the Sepoy's

movement. In addition to that, some Landed aristocracy helped the British by providing carts,

horses and elephants. The British acknowledged this and presented titles such as Khan Sahib to

the Landed aristocracy. Seeing this middle class also sided the British. Moreover the lower class

and the peasantry remained apathetic, because, they were the ones who were affected the most

by the ongoing war, so they did not want any more trouble.

Strength of the British:-

Despite all other problems the Sepoy s did give all their effort, however, the British were just too

strong for them. Britain was one of the wealthiest nations at that time and its troops were highly

trained for skilled warfare. Moreover the availability of better armaments was another benefit for

the British over the Sepoy. The British also implemented its scheme of divide and conquer, by

daunting the landed aristocracy; it claimed that the uprising would spell a major threat to the

social hierarchy. 

Both the reasons stated above contribute equally to the, to the massive failure of the Sepoys.

However. If there would be some unity between the different classes, it can be assumed that the

British could possibly be defeated

Q. 3 Do you think that separate electoral system paved the way towards separate home

land for Muslim in sub-continent. Evaluate your arguments in the light of Muslim demand

for separate electoral system in India.

Separate Electorate System was introduced by the morley-minto reforms of 1909, recognized

by the montagu-chelmsford report of 1919 and further extended by the Government of India Act

of 1935. All the elections to local bodies and Legislative Council from 1909 to 1946 were held

on the basis of the separate electorate system. The elections of 1954 in East Bengal were also

held under the separate electorate system. The constitution of Pakistan (1956) abolished this

system and introduced, instead, universal joint electorate system maintaining some minority

safeguards for the Hindus.

12

The system of separate electorate gained ground from a specific socio-political situation created

by the relations between the two largest communities of India, Hindus and Muslims. The

development of the two communities had been moving very unequally ever since the British

conquest. Since the Hindus received modern education and this had access to the opportunities

created by the colonial state, they established an absolute dominance over the political, social

and economic fields.

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the Hindu middle class had been developing political

aspirations including sharing power with the colonial government. Politically, this aspiration was

reflected in the formation of the All India National Congress in 1885 and other associations. It

had a deep political significance. The Congress, which was led by the Hindus by and large, tried

to bring all Indians under its nationalist banner. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the north Indian Muslim

leader, was of the opinion that joining the Congress, on the part of the Muslims, was no solution

to the backwardness of the Indian Muslims. He maintained that the Indian Muslims should take

to English education, become loyal to the British and stay away from the nationalist politics of

the Congress. This is what his followers called the Aligarh Movement.

While the Viceroy Lord Minto announced his eagerness to introduce responsible government in

India, a deputation of Muslim leaders headed by Aga Khan met him at Simla and ventilated their

demand for safeguarding the Muslim interests by arranging community representation based on

separate electorate until the Muslims were sufficiently advanced for participating in politics with

the Hindus on equal footing. To the viceroy, the demand sounded reasonable and thus he assured

them his support to the proposal. Eventually, the Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) provided for the

separate electorate system for the Muslims.

The introduction of separate electorate system was interpreted by the Congress as a colonial

device to constrict the normal growth of Indian nationalism. The Congress agitation to revoke

this system did not yield any positive result. In the mean time, the political scenario began to

take a new shift from 1912. The annulment of the partition of Bengal (1912) alienated the

Muslims and forced them to join the agitation politics of the Congress. To bring the Muslims to

the nationalist fold, the Congress changed its strategy and finally recognized the separate

electorate system by signing a covenant with the Muslim League at Luck now in 1916. The

13

incorporation of the separate electorate into the India Act of 1919 was thus not opposed by the

Congress though it rejected the constitution on some other grounds.

The Simon commission (1927), which was appointed to inquire into the working of the

constitution of 1919 and suggest ways and means for further constitutional reforms,

recommended not only to preserve the separate electorate system but also to extend it to other

depressed communities and castes. The constitution of 1935 thus introduced separate electorate

for the Muslims and scheduled castes. Of the total 250 seats of Bengal Legislative Assembly,

117 seats were kept reserved for the Muslims, and 20% of the rest of the seats were reserved for

the Scheduled Castes. Accordingly, the general elections of 1937 were held on the basis of the

extended separate electorates. The Muslim league and the krishak praja party could form the

coalition government in 1937 because of the separate electorate system. This system

undoubtedly further widened the process of separatism between the two communities, and

outcome was the Lahore resolution (1940) which enunciated a separate homeland for the

Muslims on the basis of two-nation theory, a doctrine which paved the way to Pakistan in 1947.

The separate electorate system was abolished under the Pakistan Constitution of 1956.

Why did the Muslims of Indo-Pak subcontinent demand a separate homeland for

themselves:-

Introduction:-

Hindus and Muslims had lived peacefully together in India for centuries, but after the British

invasion in South Asia and their undue support to Hindus, life became very difficult for Indian

Muslims. In fact, the Muslims were a separate nation who always adhered to their religious

identity. The British and the Hindus in spite of their great efforts could not put a wedge into the

Muslim unity and their love for the national character. The creation of Pakistan owes much to

this feeling of adherence to their national image and religious identity.

14

The Muslims of Indo Pak Sub Continent demanded a separate homeland on the following

grounds.

1. Desire to establish an Islamic State

Islam is a complete code of life for the Muslims and they are eager to implement it in their

personal and collective life. Islamic code of Life or Islamic Ideology cannot be implemented

until a pure Islamic Society free from all other unIslamic influences is established. The desire to

establish an Islamic State was also one of the factors to demand a separate homeland.

2. Two Nation Theory

The Two Nation Theory played an important role for demanding a separate homeland according

to which Hindus and Muslims are the two nations and therefore they cannot live together. Quaid-

e-Azam once said,

Hindus and Muslims though living in the same towns and villages had never been blended into

one nation. They were always two separate entities.

So the Muslims should have a separate State where they could lead their individual and

collective life in accordance with the Islamic principles.

3. Historical Collusion

Hindu and Muslim historical collusion started when Muhammad Bin Qasim, defeating Raja

Dahir, founded Islamic government in the subcontinent. Many battles were fought between

Hindus and Muslims under Muslim Rule. The historical collusion continued also during the

British Regime. Hindus, cooperating with British, tried to diminish Muslim culture and their way

of life but they remained futile. The future of Muslims was obvious in such condition; therefore

they decided to demand for the separate homeland.

15

4. Hindus and British

Since the British snatched power from Muslims, they were doubtful about the faithfulness of

Muslims. So, Hindus and British joined hands to destroy the Muslims morally, socially,

economically and politically. They reserved all higher civil, judicial and military appointments

for British only while Muslims were debarred from all official positions. The Islamic educational

system was replaced by British one. Then Muslims were forced to change their religion to

Christianity and were compelled to send their children to co educational institutes and abandon

purdha. This was the reason that Muslims became fed up with both British and Hindus and

decided to have a separate homeland.

5. British Parliamentary System

Indian National Congress demanded the British Parliamentary system of government in India

which meant majority rule. The implementation of this simply meant the Hindus slavery of

Muslims since they were in majority. This was the reason that Muslims stressed on separate

electorates and got it accepted. Separate electorate was the first brick in the foundation of

demand for separate homeland.

6. Shuddi and Sangathan Movement

Hindu Muslim Unity evaporated in the year after the Khilafat Movement and Hindu Muslim

Riots began. The poison of differences between the two nations aggravated with the passage of

time. The differences reached to the peak when Shuddhi and Sangathan movements began. The

Shuddhi Movement aimed at the mass conversion of certain backward groups of Muslims into

Hindus by force whereas the Sangathan Programme sought to organize the Hindus into a Militant

force to flight with the Muslims.

16

7. Activities of Maha Sabha

Maha Sabha was established in 1900. It was a non political party until the Shuddhi and

Sangathan Movement started. These movements motivated Maha Sabha to be involved in

politics. It proved to be the worst enemy of Muslims. The party declared Muslims as outsiders

and said that Muslims have no relation with India. If they want to leave it then they could leave it

happily but if they want to leave it then they could leave it happily but if they want to live in

India, they will have to accept Hindu Mut. So it was impossible for Hindus and Muslims to live

in a country together.

8. Protection of Urdu Language

Urdu was considered to be the language of Muslims in the subcontinent. In 1867, the Hindu-

Urdu controversy began with some outstanding Hindus of Banaras demanding replacements of

Urdu by Hindi as the court language. The supporters of Hindi claimed for it a national status

whereas the Muslims hotly denied it. As the controversy spread, the two languages became more

and more exclusive. Muslims got very disappointed when in April 1900 UP Governor Sir

Antony Mac Donnell gave Hindi the status of National language with Urdu. That’s why Muslims

felt the need to set a political party. Then after a detailed discussion at last All India Muslim

League was established in 1906. Maulvi Abdul Haque (1870-1961) has rightly said, Urdu

Language placed the first brick in the foundation of Pakistan. It is a reality that it was one of the

major reasons for demanding a separate country.

9. Protection of Muslim Culture

Hindus, with the consent of British during the Congress Ministries, burnt and looted the

properties and houses of Muslims, Moreover, the signs of Muslims, past glory were damaged.

Educational Syllabus was changed. Urdu was replaced by Hindi and the Muslim students were

17

forced to worship statues of Gandhi in their schools. The Muslims of India, therefore, decided

that the Muslim culture could be protected in a free and separate Muslim State.

10. Narrow mindedness of Hindus

Hindu is a narrow-minded nation who does not believe the philosophy of equality. They

considers themselves superior and used to call Muslims ‘Maleech’ (impure). There was no

concept of eating and drinding together. Furthermore Muslims were not allowed to touch the

food items of Hindus. There was only way out for the Muslims to demand a separate homeland.

11. Economic Hardships

During the period of British Government, Hindus practically threw out Muslims from the fields

of trade and industry. All the business, industrial, and services opportunities were occupied by

Hindus and some degraded jobs were left for the Muslims. Muslims of India became the political

slave of British and economic slave of Hindus. To come out from this vicious circle, at last,

Muslims decided to demand for a separate homeland.

12. Congress Ministries

During the period of Congress Ministries (1937-1939). Hindus did worst possible injustice with

Muslims. The Hindu-Muslim riots were usual during the Congress rule. Band-e-Mataram, three

coloured flag and statue of Gandhi were introduced at national level. Urdu was replaced by Hindi

and slaughtering cow was banned. Muslim leaders showed their resentment before Gandhi and

Jawahar lal Nehru. Gandhi showed his helpless while Nehru plainly and openly said that there

were only two nations in India, Congress and British and the rest should follow them. After this

statement, nothing for left for Muslims but to present Pakistan Resolution in 1940.

18

Conclusion

On the basis of above mentioned factors and bitter attitude of British and Congress the Muslims

apprehended that they would lose their identity if they remained a part of Hindu society.

Therefore they quitted Congress and demanded separate land on the ground that they were

different nation from Hindus. According to Quaid-e-Azam

The Muslims demanded Pakistan were they can rule in accordance with their own system of life,

their cultural development, their traditions and Islamic law.

Q. 4 Discuss the impacts of Khilafat Movement on Hindu-Muslims relations in India.

The Lucknow pact showed that it was possible for middle-class, English-educated Muslims and

Hindus to arrive at an amicable settlement on Hindu-Muslim constitutional and political

problems. This unity reached its climax during the Khilafat and the Non-Cooperation

Movements.

After World War I, the Ottoman Empire faced dismemberment. Under the leadership of the Ali

Brothers, Maulana Muhammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, the Muslims of South Asia

19

launched the historic Khilafat Movement to try and save it. Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi

linked the issue of Swaraj with the Khilafat issue to associate Hindus with the movement. The

ensuing movement was the first countrywide popular movement.

The Muslims of India had a strong feeling of identity with the world community of Islam. They

had seen the decline in the political fortunes of Islam as the European powers conquered the

Muslim lands one after the other. The Anglo-Russian convention of 1908 had reduced their next-

door neighbor Iran to a mere dependency. Afghanistan also suffered as it was a bone of

contention between Russia and Britain, and was now under the latter's sphere of influence.

The general impression among the Muslims of India was that the western powers were waging a

war against Islam throughout the world in order to rob it of all its power and influence. The

Ottoman Empire was the only Muslim power that had maintained a semblance of authority and

the Muslims of India wanted to save the Islamic political power from extinction.

As an institution, the Khilafat had a checkered past. It had originally migrated from Medina to

Damascus and from Damascus to Baghdad. For sometime it was located in Egypt, then it fell to

the lot of Turkey, very much as a prize.

The Turkish Sultans had claimed to be the caliphs of the Muslim world. As long as the Mughal

Empire had been in existence, the Muslims of India had not recognized their claim. At this

critical juncture, when the Muslims of the Sub-continent had no sovereign ruler of their own,

they began to see the necessity of recognizing the Sultan of Turkey as their caliph. Tipu Sultan

was the first Indian Muslim who, having been frustrated in his attempts to gain recognition from

the Mughal had turned to the Sultan of Turkey to establish a legal right to his throne.

The European powers had played a leading role in reducing the might of Turkey in Europe to

Eastern Thrace, Constantinople and the straits in the Balkan Wars (1912-13). To seek revenge,

the Turks decided to side with the Germans against the Allied Forces. The Indian Muslims

supported this decision.

20

Muhammad Ali argued that for Muslims to accept mandates over Iraq, Syria and Palestine would

amount to a total disregard of the wishes of the Holy Prophet (S. A. W.). Thus the Muslims of

India launched the Tehrik-i-Khilafat. The objectives were as follows:

To maintain the Turkish Caliphate.

To protect the holy places of the Muslims.

To maintain the unity of the Ottoman Empire.

There was absolute unanimity among the Indian Muslims. Though separated from Turkey by

thousands of miles, they were determined to fight Turkey's battle from India.

Rioting started in Amritsar on April 10, 1919. On April 13, 1919, a crowd assembled at the

Jalianwala Bagh. These protestors were unaware of a ban that had just been imposed by the

martial law administrators on public meetings. Sir Michael O'Duiyer opened fire on the crowd,

resulting in 379 dead and 1,200 wounded. This incident is known as the Jalianwala Bagh

Tragedy.

When the terms of the Treaty of Serves were announced in 1920, it caused deep resentment

among the Muslims. They felt betrayed. In June 1920, 90 influential Muslims wrote to Lord

Chelmsford, the Viceroy, informing him of their intent to start a non-cooperation movement

against the government from August, until the terms of the treaty with Turkey were revised.

But this was to no avail as the British Prime Minister Lloyd George was an implacable enemy of

Turkey and by association, of the Indian Khilafat Movement. When the Indian Khilafat

deputation visited England in 1920 to put their views before the British Government, he

ignored them and the deputation met with failure.

A tragic offshoot of the Khilafat Movement was the Hijrat Movement proposed by Jamiyat-al-

Ulema-i-Hind. When a land is not safe for Islam, a Muslim has two options; Jihad or Hijrat.

21

Around 925 eminent Muslims signed this fatwa. According to one version, the idea of Hijrat was

originated from Maulana Abul Kalam Azad.

In the North West Frontier Province and Sindh, hundreds of families sold their land and property

and departed in the direction of the Khyber Pass, to migrate to Afghanistan, a brotherly

independent Muslim state. In the month of August alone, some 18,000 Indian Muslims migrated

to Afghanistan. Afghanistan, a poor country, was unable to absorb so large an influx of

population and sealed its borders. It is difficult to establish who was responsible for misleading

such a large number of Muslims.

Another tragic event was the Moplah Uprising. In mid of August 1921, agrarian riots broke out

in Nilambur. The Moplah peasants revolted against the Hindu landlord's oppressive policies,

which are in alliance with the British. The Hindu landlords redistributed their lands and the

Moplahs, who had been suffering, rose in revolt. A pitched battle between the British regiment

and the Moplahs killed several Europeans. Four thousand Moplahs were killed in action and tens

of thousands were injured.

Then there was the notorious Moplah Train Tragedy. Around a hundred prisoners, confined in a

closed and almost airtight goods van, were transported by rail. When the door was opened, 66

Moplahs were found suffocated to death and the remaining 34 were on the verge of collapse.

All this was followed by Hindu-Muslim communal clashes, particularly in Multan and Bengal in

September 1922. The Sanghattan and Shuddi movements were offshoots of these communal

rioting, which were anti-Muslim and aimed at Hindu revivalism.

Besides other events, the arrest of the Ali brothers in September 1921 gave a severe blow to the

Khilafat Movement. Gandhi, who was using this movement to accelerate India's advance towards

Swaraj, also withdrew his support for the Muslim cause in the aftermath of the Chauri Chaura

incident in February 1922. Using the excuse that the national volunteers were responsible for the

murder of 21 policemen, thus leading to violence, he called off the whole movement.

22

In 1924, Turks under Mustafa Kamal were consolidating their position in Turkey. They

announced an end to the Khilafat. It was a great blow to Indian Khilafatists who had been

campaigning on behalf of Turkey and Khilafat. Gradually the enthusiasm of the people died

down and the Khilafat Conference and Committee developed new interests and in a short time

nothing but their name remained.

Although the Khilafat Movement failed to achieve its declared objectives, it carried political

awakening to large masses of Muslims. It was during the Khilafat days that representatives of

Indian Muslims came into contact with eminent personages from other Muslims countries to

save the semblance of unity in the world of Islam.

The Khilafat Movement was an asset for the struggle of Pakistan. It made clear to the Indian

Muslims to trust neither the British nor the Hindus, but to look to their own strengths for self-

preservation.

Q. 5 Discuss and analyze the recommendations made by Simon Commission. Explain

Congress and Muslims League’s reaction on it.

The Commission was effectively boycotted by all important elements of Indian political opinion.

Nevertheless, the members worked hard on its two volume report. As noted above, the first

volume was a masterly review of the situation in India and retains its value, as a historical

document, to this day.

The Commission’s recommendations were:-

  Future Advance - The first principle which we would lay down is that the new constitution

should, as far as possible, contain within itself provision for its own development. It should not

lay down too rigid and uniform a plan, but should allow for natural growth and diversity.

23

Constitutional progress should be the outcome of practical experience. Where further legislation

is required, it should result from the needs of the time, not from the arbitrary demands of a fixed

time-table. The constitution,while contemplating and conforming to an ultimate objective, should

not attempt to lay down the length or the number of the stages of the journey…. It has been a

characteristic of the evolution of responsible government in other parts of the British Empire that

the details of the constitution have not been exhaustively defined in statutory language. On the

contrary, the constitutions of the self-governing parts of the British Empire have developed as

the result of natural growth, and progress has depended not so much on changes made at

intervals in the language of an Act of Parliament, as on the development of conventions, and on

the terms of instructions issued from time to time to the Crown's representative. The Preamble to

the Government of India Act declares that progress in giving effect to the policy of the

progressive realisation of responsible government in British India can only be achieved by

successive stages; but there is no reason why the length of these successive stages should be

defined in advance, or why every stage should be marked by a commission of enquiry." (Simon

Report vol. 2 p.5)

 Almost Responsible Government at the Provincial Level –

Dyarchy should be scrapped and Ministers responsible to the Legislature would be entrusted

with all provincial areas of responsibility. However, safeguards were considered necessary in

areas such as the maintenance of peace and tranquility and the protection of the legitimate

interest of the minorities. These safeguards would be provided, mainly, by the grant of special

powers to the Governor.

Federation 

The Report considered that a formally federal union, including both British India and the

Princely States, was the only long-term solution for a united, autonomous India.

Immediate Recommendations at the Centre 

24

to help the growth of political consciousness in the people, the franchise should be extended; and

the Legislature enlarged. Otherwise, no substantial change was recommended in the Centre. The

Report strongly opposed the introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre. It should be noted that Simon

set great store on having a unanimous report. This could only be done if he recommended no

change at the centre as: the diehards were opposed to any Indian responsibility at the Centre: the

Conservative leadership would oppose any responsibility at the Centre which did not build in

conservative-pro-British control (as they tried to do in the Government of India Act 1935; and,

Labour would oppose the type of gerrymandering at the Centre necessary to meet the

requirements of the Conservative leadership. 

Impact of the Simon Commission

The appointment of the “all-white” Simon Commission reinvigorated Indian Nationalism to a

high pith of activity which would have a major impact throughout the remaining years of the

British Raj. This led, in short order, to the boycott of the Commission the development of the all-

party Nehru Report

1. The Indian Round Table Conferences 1931-1933 were an attempt to undo the damage caused

by the mishandling of the appointment of the Commission;

When the Simon recommendations are compared to the Government of India Act 1935 the

following may be noted.

2. At the provincial level Simon’s recommendations were taken over by the Act but with even

more stringent safeguards – i.e. even less true responsible government.

3. At the Centre, contrary to Simon’s recommendations, the Act authorized the formation of an

utterly unworkable federation (see Government) that never came into being. Thus the Centre

remained governed by Government of India Act 1919.

4. Clement Attlee got his education on India on the Commission and both he and Simon were involved

in developing Indian policy during the Second World War and Attlee header the labour Government

that Granted India independence in 1947.

25

26