Thread by @JoshiGargiGoyal

Khilafat Movement

What #History Books tell us- Jallianwala Bagh massacre led to the birth of the Non-cooperation movement.

What they should have told us-
As the facts present themselves, in the Amritsar Congress held in 1919, barely five months after the

genocide, Gandhi himself advocated complete cooperation with the British in the wake of the reforms initiated in the royal proclamation and the Government of India Act, 1919. Khilafat Movement saw the birth of the Non-Cooperation movement. Swarajya was just a

by-the-way add-on.
➔ 13th April 1919: Jallianwala Bagh Massacre
➔ Dec 1919: 34th Congress Session Amritsar. Gandhi called for complete cooperation with British in the wake of “reforms” initiated by royal proclamation and Govt of India Act, 1919
➔ 1920: After WW1, the

Indian Muslims were unhappy when the British reduced the Sultan of Turkey, Khalifa, the religious head of Muslims, to just a figurehead. Gandhi decided to support the new movement called “Khilafat Movement” using tools of satyagraha.
➔ June 1920: Gandhi asked

Hindus to suffer to the utmost for this cause in support of the Khilafat movement. – Young India
➔ August 1920: Gandhi wrote to the viceroy regarding this movement by Muslims of India and also return of the medallions received for his loyalty to the

British troops in the Boer War and Zulu Revolt. None of the Hindu Congress Leaders including Nehru, Ambedkar, Lala Lajpat Rai supported it. Even Mohammed Ali Jinah (mainly because of its non-violent methods), All India Sharia Conference were against it.
➔ 4th Sept 1920: Gandhi

persuaded Congress to join hands with Khilafat. Swarajya was added as a minor adjunct to it.
➔ Amir of Afghanisthan was invited to invade India and Gandhi supported this.
 
Other points to note:
1. Ambedkar and several others opined that the movement was unsupportable because

of the basic fact that the Turks, in whose interest the agitation was being carried out in distant India, ‘themselves favoured a republic and it was quite unjustifiable to compel the Turks to keep Turkey as a monarchy when they wanted to

convert it into a republic’.
5 yrs later Turkey usurped the rights of the Khalif to a far greater extent than the British did. Why did then Gandhi claim that it was a matter of faith for Indian-Muslims while Muslims from other parts of the world were

unperturbed?
2. Few Hindus said that they could support in return that Muslims refrain from cow slaughter as they worship her and it was a matter of faith for them. Gandhi debunked the idea saying Hindus’ friendship should be unconditional.
3. Some Muslims, on

Maulana Abdul Bari’s suggestion preferred selling off everything in India and moving to a Dar-ul-Islam, Afghanistan. They faced severe ruin. Interestingly, instead of denouncing such a move, Gandhi, the leader of the Khilafat movement, said: ‘The flight of Mussulmans is

growing apace—they are cheered en route. That it is better for them to leave [a] State which had no regard for their religious sentiment and face a beggar life than to remain in it even though it may be in a princely manner.’ The seeds of Pakistan, it seemed, were

sown three decades before it actually materialized.
4. The Ali brothers are regarded as one of the founding-fathers of Pakistan, while Azad, Dr. Ansari and Hakim Ajmal Khan are widely celebrated as national heroes in India. They, along with Gandhi led the

Khilafat movement. Gandhi’s decision to encourage pan-Islamic sentiments and vision of the Middle Eastern consciousness. This was evident from the massive participation of the ulema in the Khilafat movement and agitation, and in setting up of JUH (Jamiat-ulema-e-hind) with its

clear goal of spreading Middle Eastern consciousness on the back of Khilafat Agitation.

It was far from Non-Violent!

Source: India, Bharat and Pakistan by @jsaideepak , #Savarkar by @vikramsampath

What the “non-violent” Khilafat Movement lead to-

https://twitter.com/bharatiyan108/status/1633062625134145536