UNIT 7 KHILAFAT AND NON-COOPERATION

MOVEMENTS
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives

7.2 Beginnings of the Khilafat Movement

7.3 Background to the Non-Cooperation Movement
7.4 Convergence of the Two Movements under Gandhi’s Leadership
7.5 Main Phases, 1920-22
7.6 Role of the Movements in the Anti-Imperialist Struggles
7.7 Summary
7.8 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Khilafat and Non-cooperation movements were important milestones in the history of
modern India. Both these movements ushered in a new era of mass mobilisation and
shaped the future of Indian polity in important ways. In a way, the non-cooperation
movement emerged out of the Khilafat and anti-Rowlatt movements. In fact, it was the
Khilafat Conference which earlier adopted the non-cooperation programme. However, it
could become a full-fledged movement only after the Congress decided to adopt it.
Moreover, when Mahatma Gandhi withdrew it and the Congress ratified the withdrawal,
the non-cooperation movement ended, whereas the Khilafat movement continued beyond
this. Thus, the Khilafat movement had originated earlier and lasted longer than the non-
cooperation movement. Although their trajectories were somewhat different, both were
anti-imperialist movements and were brought together during 1920-22, under the leadership
of Gandhi. In fact, in the absence of Gandhi, it might not be possible to imagine a
successful convergence of these two anti-imperialist streams.
Aims and Objectives
After reading this Unit, you would be able to:
 Discuss the causes for the emergence of the Khilafat and non-cooperation movements.
 Outline the course they adopted,
 Point out the significance of Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership for both the movements,
and
 Describe their impact on the Indian people and the colonial state.
 78 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

7.2 BEGINNINGS OF THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT

The Khilafat movement in India arose out of the sentiments of the Indian Muslims to
protect the institution of the Khalifa in Turkey. The Khalifa in Islamic tradition was
considered as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad, the commander of the believers
and the custodian and protector of the Muslim holy places. In the nineteenth century, the
Ottoman Empire was the only Islamic empire and, therefore, the Sultan of Turkey was
held in great esteem by the Muslims as the Khalifa. As Turkey was defeated in the First
World War and it was certain that the victorious Allies would impose strict terms on it,
the Muslims in India launched the Khilafat movement to pressurise the British government
to be lenient and preserve the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the institution
of Khalifa.
The ideological origins of the Khilafat movement have been explained in two ways. On
the one hand, scholars have located it in the pan-Islamic sentiments and movements
across the world and its outward nature. On the other hand, some historians have
emphasised its inward character and its efforts to use pan-Islamic symbols to build a pan-
Indian Muslim identity and to bring it in sync with Indian nationalism. In fact, both these
trends were not contradictory. The Khilafat may be seen as the attempt on the part of
the Indian Muslim leadership to bring their pan-Islamic and Indian nationalist sentiments
together. It was this synthesis that brought about the major mass mobilisation in 1919 and
thereafter.
This quest for the unity of the Indian Muslims found a religious centre in the office of the
Khalifa and in the person of Turkey’s Sultan. Since the late nineteenth century, there was
a widespread acknowledgement among the Indian Sunni Muslims of the Turkey’s Sultan
as Khalifa who would protect the Muslim holy places. Thus, pan-Islamic sentiments
surged among the Indian Muslim leaders whenever Turkey was involved in hostilities, for
example, during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 and the Greco-Turkish war of 1897.
During 1911-13, a series of Balkan wars created fears in the minds of Muslim leaders
that the Christian powers were attempting to crush the Ottoman Empire and the Khalifa.
During and after the First World War, these sentiments again came to the fore. Turkey
was part of the Axis powers along with Germany and Austria which fought against Britain
and its allies. After its victory in the War, the British government removed the Khalifa
from power in Turkey. There were also talks about imposition of a harsh peace treaty
on Turkey which would deprive it of territories and influence. Under these circumstances,
a widespread movement among the Indian Muslims developed which demanded that the
Khalifa must retain control over the Muslim holy places and that sufficient territories must
be left with the Khalifa to enable him to defend such territories. This movement, known
as the Khilafat movement, quickly spread among the elite as well as among the urban
popular classes and the ulama (lit. Muslim religious scholars). The British government was
declared an enemy; Khilafat funds were flooded with money and ornaments; the Khilafat
meetings were attended by thousands of people, and thousands from the border areas
migrated from the land of enemy (Dar al-Harb) to the land of Islam (Dar al-Islam).
The movement derived its leadership from two streams, both involved in educational
reforms for the Muslims in the wake of the colonial rule. One was the Aligarh-based
Westernising intelligentsia which advocated English education and canvassed for employment
in government services. The other was ulama, or Muslim religious scholars, who attempted
to strengthen the traditional Islamic system of education, based on Madrasas and were
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 79

opposed to the English education and Western manners. The presence of these two types
of leadership created a variation in the movement. While the Western-educated leadership
generally sought moderation, the ulama provided a radical edge to the movement.
However, both these streams, at that moment of time, were united in their anti-British
stance and in their support for a pan-Islamic cause.
In order to properly organise the movement, the leadership established two all-India
bodies – the All-India Khilafat Committee and the Jamiat al-Ulama-e-Hind. The earlier
Muslim political organisation – Muslim League – was completely overshadowed by these
two organisations until the mid-1920s. In 1919, the drive to mobilise the Muslim
community for Khilafat demands began successfully. However, it was quite clear that the
fight against the British could not succeed unless the non-Muslim Indians were also
mobilised in a broader anti-imperialist struggle. At that point of time, the Congress as a
nationalist organisation and Mahatma Gandhi as the most acceptable leader were highly
revered. Gandhi was willing to lead the Khilafat movement, but the Congress was not yet
prepared for an all-India movement. However, various other circumstances made it
possible for the many anti-imperialist organisations to come together on one platform.

7.3 BACKGROUND TO THE NON-COOPERATION

MOVEMENT
The Khilafat movement, besides its pan-Islamic character, was also deeply anti-imperialist
and nationalist in its impulse. Beside this, there were several other factors which gave rise
to intense anti-imperialist feelings among the Indian people in general. The economic and
political situation of the country during and after the First World War created dissatisfaction
against the British rule. The prices of commodities rose sharply during and after the War
creating much hardship for the people. Moreover, the peasantry in some areas was also
restive due to increasingly high demand of rents and taxes. This was reflected in the
agitations by peasants and workers in various parts of country like Champaran, Kheda,
Ahmedabad, Bombay, Madras, etc.
The political optimism of the War years also received severe setback when the British
government backtracked on its promises to consider nationalist demands in return for the
Indian support in the War. The Montague-Chelmsford Reforms, which resulted in the
Government of India Act 1919, disillusioned the nationalists who had expected much more
in the direction of self-government. The Indian National Congress, in a special session at
Bombay in August 1918, condemned these proposals as ‘disappointing and unsatisfactory’
and demanded effective self-government.
As if to add insult to injury the colonial government passed the Rowlatt Act in March
1919, which empowered the government to arrest and imprison any person without trial.
The Act was passed even when the Indian members in the Central Legislative Council
opposed it. This incensed the Indian people and a widespread unrest followed. Under the
leadership of Gandhi, a countrywide Satyagraha was held. There were huge meetings,
demonstrations and strikes which sometimes also resulted in violence.
The massacre by the colonial government of peaceful protestors at Jallianwala Bagh in
Punjab proved to be the last straw. On 13 April 1919, a huge but peaceful crowd
gathered at Amritsar in the Jallianwala Bagh to protest against the arrest of their leaders
who were participating in the anti-Rowlatt agitations. General Dyer ordered his troops to
fire on the unarmed people. Hundreds were killed and thousands injured in the firing.
 80 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

Such brutality shocked the entire nation and ripped open the mask of civilisation the
British government was wearing. The great poet, Rabindranath Tagore renounced his
knighthood in protest and declared thus: ‘I, for my part, wish to stand, shorn of all
special distinctions, by the side of my countrymen’. Similar sentiments were widespread
and it was time for an all-India nationalist movement to emerge.

7.4 CONVERGENCE OF THE TWO MOVEMENTS

UNDER GANDHI’S LEADERSHIP
Gandhi emerged on the national political scene after his constructive intervention in the
peasants’ and workers’ struggles in Champaran, Kheda and Ahmedabad. After the War,
he was emerging as almost a consensus candidate for the leadership of the Congress,
particularly due to the ill-health of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. His belief in non-violence and his
method of struggle through Satyagraha had also become known to people. The anti-
Rowlatt agitation and the Khilafat movement were two widespread mobilisations after the
War which were directed against the colonial government, and Gandhi played a major
role in both of these. It may be said that it was his leadership that made the convergence
of the two anti-imperialist streams – nationalist and the Khilafat – possible during this
period.
The Khilafat leaders were very keen, right from the beginning, to get the support of the
Hindus for their cause. In this effort, they found Gandhi as their staunchest ally. He further
tried to join the nationalist demand for self-rule to the Muslim assertion over Khilafat
question. He declared that ‘In the proper solution of the Mahomedan question lies the
realisation of Swarajya’ [in Minault, 68]. This endeavour brought about an unprecedented
Hindu-Muslim unity which was reflected in the subsequent mass mobilisations against the
colonial rule. During the anti-Rowlatt agitations, Hindus and Muslims demonstrated
together, and symbols of unity were made overtly public. The Khilafat leaders exhorted
the Muslims not to kill cows for the Bakr-Id festival; an Arya Samaj leader, Swami
Shraddhanand, was requested to give a speech from the pulpit of Jama Masjid in Delhi;
in Amritsar, Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew was given the keys of the Golden Temple; in Calcutta,
Hindus were admitted for the first time to the Nakhuda Mosque; in Bombay, the leaders
of both communities actively tried to sell banned political literature. There were similar
shows of unity throughout the movement.
On 20 March 1919, a Khilafat Committee was formed in Bombay. Prominent local
Muslim merchants were on the Committee which initially took a moderate stand, and their
activities were restricted to meetings, petitions and deputations to secure a better
treatment for Turkey at the Peace Conference. It was, however, the ulama-driven militant
trend which pushed the movement beyond its narrow confines. The advocates of a militant
movement gave whole-hearted support to the anti-Rowlatt agitation and wanted to launch
a non-cooperation movement against the colonial government. An all-India Khilafat Day
was observed on 17 October 1919 which was a huge success. The markets were closed
and fasting, prayers, meetings and hartals were observed. In Delhi, Madras and Bombay,
there were huge audiences, who gathered to hear their leaders. It was clear that the new
Muslim leadership was reaching a much broader urban audience. In its wake, an all-India
Khilafat Conference was organised in Delhi on 23-24 November 1919 in which Gandhi
was also called. The Conference passed some important resolutions in case unjust
treatment was meted out to Turkey during the peace settlement: boycott of peace
celebrations by Muslims, non-cooperation with the government, and the boycott of British
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 81

goods. Gandhi was declared as the leader under whose guidance the movement would
be carried forward and who commanded the respect of both the Hindus and the Muslims.
Gandhi himself wanted all-round support for his nationalist cause and, therefore, he was
not averse to the idea of bringing the two movements together provided they conformed
to his method of politics. Thus, early in 1920, he declared that the Khilafat issue was
more important than constitutional reforms and even the Punjab atrocities, and he was
prepared to launch a movement of non-cooperation if the peace terms were antagonistic
to the interests of Turkey. Besides this, other issues necessitating a wider movement were
also present. The government had refused to rescind the Rowlatt Act, the Hunter
Committee appointed to enquire into the Punjab atrocities tried to shield the guilty, the
British House of Lords had voted in favour of General Dyer’s heinous crimes, and in
Britain, 30,000 pounds had been collected from the public as a gift to Dyer.
The terms of the Peace Treaty, which became public in May 1920, were a blow to the
wishes of the Khilafat leaders. The Ottoman Empire controlled by the Turks was
dismembered. The Arab countries were declared independent of the Ottoman Empire;
Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia were put under French and British mandates; Eastern
Trace and Smyrna were ceded to Greece; and although Constantinople remained with
Turkey, the Straits were internationalised. Such disregard of their sentiments hurt most of
the Indian Muslims very much. In a series of meetings held by the Khilafat Conference
and in a meeting held along with Congress members on 1-2 June 1920 in Allahabad, it
was decided to begin a programme of non-cooperation towards the government which
would include:
 renunciation of titles conferred by the government,
 resignation from all kinds of government jobs, including military and police, and
 Non-payment of taxes to the government.

Both Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders were keen to start the non-cooperation movement
as soon as possible. However, for this, the support of the Congress was necessary.
Certain leaders of the Congress were opposed to this move as they felt that a movement
on a religious issue like the Khilafat would not be conducive for the growth of the Indian
polity. Their apprehensions were justified to some extent. The vocabulary of the Khilafat
movement was entirely Muslim-oriented and filled with Islamic ideology and rhetoric. The
arguments of even the best nationalists among them, such as Maulana Azad, were in
support of allying with one set of non-Muslims (i.e., the Hindus) against another set of
non-Muslims (i.e., the British). Through the entire course of the movement, the emphasis
was on the separate existence of two communities and the need to unite them against the
British who were considered as aggressors against both the Khalifa in Turkey and the
Muslims and Hindus in India. So, although the Khilafat movement was anti-imperialist in
orientation, the language of its articulation was basically Islamic.
However, at another level, strong nationalist sentiments were expressed during the course
of the movement and constant appeals for communal amity were made. Moreover, the
Khilafat leaders whole-heartedly supported the nationalist anti-imperialist movement like
Rowlatt Satyagraha launched by Gandhi and the Congress and exhorted the Muslims to
fully participate in this which resulted in the immense success of this agitation. Gandhi and
Shaukat Ali together toured throughout the country mobilising support for the cause of
non-cooperation. Other Khilafat leaders were also active in rallying support for the cause
under the leadership of Gandhi. Thus, it may be said that during the summer of the 1920,
there was a convergence of these two movements.
82 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

7.5 MAIN PHASES, 1920-22

The non-cooperation movement was formally launched on 1 August 1920. That day was
also marked by the death of Lokmanya Tilak, which witnessed strikes and processions
to mourn the passing way of this great national leader.
A special session of the Congress was held in Calcutta in September 1920 to finally
deliberate and decide the issue of non-cooperation. It gave its assent to non-cooperation,
despite some opposition by those interested in Council entry. By the time of the regular
Congress Session in December 1920 held at Nagpur, the programme of non-cooperation
was accepted without opposition. It involved the surrender of government titles and
honorary positions, boycott of government schools and colleges, law courts, and foreign
cloth. It could also be extended to include resignation from government service and non-
payment of government taxes. Moreover, it was decided to set up national schools and
colleges, establish and strengthen the panchayats for settlement of disputes, promotion of
hand spinning and weaving, condemnation and renunciation of untouchability, maintenance
of communal amity and strict observance of non-violence. Thus, for the first time, an open
extra-constitutional programme of mass mobilisation was started by the Congress.
From January to March 1921, the main emphasis of the movement was on the boycott
of government schools, colleges and law courts, and the use of charkha. Thousands of
students left schools and colleges and joined 800 national schools and colleges that had
come up throughout the country. There were massive student strikes in Calcutta and
Lahore, and the educational boycott was particularly successful in Bengal and Punjab.
Although the boycott of the law courts was not as successful, many leading lawyers of
the country like C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Saifuddin Kitchlew, C. Rajagopalachari, M.R.
Jayakar, Vallabhbhai Patel, Asaf Ali and T. Prakasham quit their practice. The boycott of
foreign cloth became a very successful programme. Thousands of volunteers moved from
house to house trying to convince people about the necessity to adopt Swadeshi. The
foreign-made clothes were collected and set on fire. There was also picketing of shops
selling foreign cloth. The impact of this was enormous. The value of import of such
merchandise fell from Rs. 102 crore in 1920-21 to Rs. 57 crore in 1921-22. Import of
British cotton piece goods declined from 1292 million yards in 1920-21 to 955 million
in 1921-22. Many merchants took vow not to deal in foreign cloth. Another type of
boycott movement was against liquor and toddy shops leading to a substantial fall in
government revenue. Excise revenue declined in Punjab by Rs. 33 lakhs and in Madras
by about Rs. 65 lakhs.
The next phase of the movement may be said to have started from the Vijayawada
session of the Congress held in March 1921. It was decided to concentrate in the next
three months on enrolling one crore members for the party, collecting one crore rupees
for the Tilak Swaraj Fund and distributing and installing 20 lakh charkhas. This phase
also achieved its objectives to a large extent. Tilak fund was oversubscribed, 50 lakh
members were enrolled and charkhas were widely popularised and khadi became the
dress of the movement.
The third phase of the movement witnessed its high points in a challenging speech by
Mohammed Ali in July 1921 declaring it ‘religiously unlawful for the Muslims to continue
in the British Army’ and asking them to resign and to take part in the successful boycott
of the visit of the Prince of Wales in November 1921. The colonial government
immediately arrested Mohammed Ali along with some other leaders. Another important
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 83

nationalist campaign during this phase was against the visit by the Prince of Wales. As
soon as he landed in Bombay on 17 November, he was greeted with city-wide strikes
and demonstrations which sometimes culminated in riots. Wherever he went, there were
strikes and demonstrations.
In the fourth phase, both the non-cooperators and the government appeared in
confrontationist mood. Khilafat leaders like Hasrat Mohani were in favour of demanding
complete independence from the British rule. At the ground level the Congress was
influential among a very large number of people and its Volunteer Corps became almost
a parallel police force. The Congress had sanctioned its provincial committees to start civil
disobedience movement wherever it was felt necessary. The government, on the other
hand, had started using repression as its official policy. There were large-scale arrests, ban
on meetings and prohibition of the volunteer corps. The threat of violence on both sides
was increasing and it was extremely disturbing to Gandhi who not only abhorred violence
particularly among the non-cooperators but also feared that intensive state repression
would crush the movement. His apprehensions proved correct when on 5 February 1922,
in Chauri-Chaura in Gorakhpur district, the police provoked a crowd of demonstrators.
The people attacked the policemen who then fired on them. Angered by this, the people
set fire to the police station building in which many policemen died. When Gandhi heard
about this violent incident, he decided to withdraw the movement which was later ratified
by the Congress Working Committee.
Soon after Gandhi was arrested on 10 March 1922 and was sentenced to 6 years in jail.
The Khilafat movement also declined due to several national and international factors. The
withdrawal of non-cooperation was a severe blow and the Khilafat leaders reacted angrily
to the decision of the withdrawal. Even the international situation was not favourable. The
Turks themselves, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, first abolished the Ottoman
sultanate in 1922 and then did away with the office of the Khalifa itself in 1924. After
this, there was little justification for the movement to continue.

7.6 ROLE OF THE MOVEMENTS IN THE ANTI-

IMPERIALIST STRUGGLES
The Khilafat and non-cooperation movements played extremely important role in generating
and spreading anti-imperialist consciousness among the Indian people. To begin with, there
was a remarkable unity between various communities. The Hindus and Muslims together
participated in the movement throughout the country and often it was difficult to distinguish
between non-cooperation and Khilafat meetings. Despite the Malabar happenings, in
which the Muslim peasants revolted against their largely Hindu landlords and killed and
converted scores of them, the Hindu-Muslim unity remained intact throughout the period.
At some places, two-thirds of those arrested during the non-cooperation movement were
Muslims. Gandhi played the most important role in bringing about and sustaining this
relationship.
Another important issue which the non-cooperation movement brought to the fore was the
need to fight against caste discrimination and untouchability. Gandhi must be credited for
emphatically bringing this issue to the forefront of the national politics for the first time.
From then on this issue would remain quite important for the nationalist politics. The need
for social justice was clearly acknowledged, pushed forward and was later enshrined in
the Constitution of independent India.
 84 Gandhi: The Man and His Times

Strong anti-colonial movements were afoot among various sections of population. Peasants
and workers were particularly active during this period, besides the middle classes in both
the urban and rural areas. Several peasant and worker movements occurred during this
period. In 1921 alone there were 396 strikes involving 600,351 workers and a loss of
6,994,426 workdays. Peasant movements were even more prominent. In the Awadh
region of the United Provinces, in Mewar in Rajasthan, and in many districts of north
Bihar, there were very strong peasant movements involving millions of people.
Even in the urban areas the participation by various middle class groups was unprecedented
throughout the country. Moreover, Gandhi’s insistence on non-violence brought a large
number of women into the movement. Such mobilisation of women was a very significant
phenomenon both for the nationalist movement as well as for the liberation of women
from the boundaries of their houses.
Thus, these movements under the leadership of Gandhi revolutionised the structure of
Indian politics in several ways. The most significant success of the movement should be
located in its mobilisation of various sections of people across the country and the
creation of political and social consciousness in them. The common people now became
integral to the project of nationalism.

7.7 SUMMARY
The Khilafat issue was of central concern to the Indian Muslims in the wake of the British
pressure on Turkey and the impending reduction in size of the Ottoman Empire after the
First World War. These religious sentiments became even more intensified due to Britain’s
presence as a colonial power in India. Thus, the religious and anti-imperialist feelings of
Indian Muslims produced a very strong reaction against the British colonial rule. On the
other hand, the failure of the colonial government to fulfill their promise of some measure
of self-government for the Indians after the War created resentment among politically
active groups. In addition to this, the Rowlatt Act further hurt the feelings of a large
number of Indians, and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre following the anti-Rowlatt agitation
was the last straw. At this moment, Gandhi provided an able leadership and united various
strands of these anti-imperialist movements which developed into the non-cooperation
movement involving millions of rural and urban people across the country. Although the
movement failed to attain its objectives of either saving the Khalifa or to secure self-
government for India, it mobilised a large number of people and imbued them with
consciousness about their political rights. The small, powerless people in the dusty corners
of the country stood against the mightiest of the empires in the world and raised their
voice for freedom. In itself, it was the most significant achievement any movement could
aspire to.

7.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Discuss the nature of the Khilafat movement and its role in formation of the non-
cooperation movement.
2) What was the programme of the non-cooperation movement?
3) What were the major achievements of the non-cooperation movement?
Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920 85

SUGGESTED READINGS
1. Chandra, Bipan, et al., India’s Struggle for Independence 1857-1947, Penguin
Books, New Delhi, 1989.
2. Chandra, Bipan, Amles Tripathi, Barun De., Freedom Struggle, NBT, New Delhi,
1972, 1977.
3. Chandra, Bipan., Modern India, NCERT, New Delhi, 1971, 1976.
4. Minault, Gail., The Khilafat Movement: Religious Symbolism and Political
Mobilisation in India, OUP, Delhi, 1982.
5. Hasan, Mushirul., ‘Pan-Islamism versus Indian Nationalism’, Economic and Political
Weekly, June 14, 1986.
6. Hasan, Mushirul., ‘Religion and Politics: The Ulama and Khilafat Movement’,
Economic and Political Weekly, May 16, 1981.
7. Sarkar, Sumit., Modern India, Macmillan, Madras, 1983, 1985.