Khilafat Movement and Non-Cooperation Movement

Khilafat Movement and Non-Cooperation Movement

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1,180 →

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi took control of the national movement in 1919, marking the beginning of the third and most significant phase of Indian nationalism, one that would continue right up to independence. Gandhian philosophy rested on the twin strategies of Satyagraha and Ahimsa, techniques Gandhi had evolved in his struggle against the racist authorities of South Africa, grounded in truth and non-violence. His Swadeshi programme held that political freedom was inseparable from social and economic change, and stressed the replacement of foreign machine-made goods with Indian handmade cloth. Applied to the Indian scene, this philosophy of non-violent resistance drew millions of ordinary people into the national movement. The Khilafat Movement and the Non-Cooperation Movement, which together dominated Indian politics between 1919 and 1922, were the first large-scale demonstrations of this new Gandhian method — a fusion of a pan-Islamic religious grievance with a nationwide programme of non-violent resistance against British rule.

Background of the Khilafat–Non-Cooperation Programme

• Between 1919 and 1922, the British were opposed through two mass movements — the Khilafat and the Non-Cooperation movements. Though the two arose from separate issues, they came together under a common programme of action: non-violent non-cooperation.
• The Khilafat issue was not directly linked to Indian politics, but it provided the immediate backdrop to the movement and carried the added advantage of cementing Hindu-Muslim unity against the British.
• The background to both movements was shaped by a series of post-First World War events that belied all hopes of the government’s generosity toward its Indian subjects.

Post-War Discontent in India (1919)

The year 1919 saw a strong feeling of discontent spread across all sections of Indian society, for several converging reasons:

• Economic distress: The post-War economic situation had become alarming, marked by rising commodity prices, a decline in the production of Indian industries, and a growing burden of taxes and rents. Almost every section of society suffered economic hardship because of the war, which deepened anti-British sentiment.
• Political repression: The Rowlatt Act, the imposition of martial law in Punjab, and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre together exposed the brutal and uncivilised face of colonial rule.
• A whitewashed inquiry: The Hunter Commission, set up to examine the Punjab atrocities, proved to be little more than eyewash — the House of Lords even endorsed General Dyer’s actions, and the British public showed its solidarity with Dyer by helping The Morning Post raise £30,000 for him.
• Failed reforms: The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, with their ill-conceived scheme of Dyarchy, failed to satisfy the rising Indian demand for self-government.

Ground for Hindu-Muslim Political Unity

The post-War period also prepared the ground for common political action between Hindus and Muslims:

• The Lucknow Pact (1916) had already stimulated cooperation between the Congress and the Muslim League.
• The Rowlatt Act agitation brought Hindus, Muslims, and other sections of society together in shared protest.
• Radical nationalist Muslims such as Mohammad Ali, Abul Kalam Azad, Hakim Ajmal Khan, and Hasan Imam had by now grown more influential than the conservative Aligarh school elements who had earlier dominated the League. These younger leaders championed militant nationalism, active participation in the national movement, and strong anti-imperialist convictions.

It was in this atmosphere that the Khilafat issue emerged, giving rise to the historic Non-Cooperation Movement. The Khilafat Movement (1919–1924) was a pan-Islamic political protest campaign launched by Muslims in British India to influence the British government and protect the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the First World War — a cause that went on to win the support of Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress.

The Khilafat Issue

• The Khilafat issue consolidated a radical nationalist trend among the younger generation of Muslims, as well as among traditional Muslim scholars who had grown increasingly critical of British rule — this time driven by anger over Britain’s treatment of Turkey after the First World War.
• Indian Muslims, like Muslims worldwide, regarded the Sultan of Turkey as their spiritual leader, the Khalifa, and their sympathies naturally lay with Turkey, which had allied with Germany and Austria during the War.
• When the War ended, Britain took a stern line against Turkey: the Ottoman Empire was dismembered and the Khalifa removed from power following the Armistice of Mudros (October 1918), the military occupation of Istanbul, and the Treaty of Versailles (1919). The movement gained further force after the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920), which partitioned the Ottoman Empire and handed Greece a powerful position in Anatolia — a settlement that incensed Muslims across the world.
• In India, the Ali Brothers — Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali — along with other Muslim leaders including Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Barrister Jan Muhammad Junejo, Hasrat Mohani, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, and Dr. Hakim Ajmal Khan, came together to form the All India Khilafat Committee at Lucknow in 1919, with Seth Chotani as president. The Committee raised two demands, neither of which was ever accepted:
  1. The Caliph-Sultan must retain sufficient territory to defend the Islamic faith.
  2. The lands known as Jazirat-ul-Arab — including Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Palestine — must remain under Muslim suzerainty.
• 17 October 1919 was observed as Khilafat Day; Hindus joined hands with Muslims in the observance, and a strike was called.

Development of the Khilafat–Non-Cooperation Programme

• For some time, Khilafat leaders confined their activity to meetings, petitions, and deputations. A more militant trend later emerged, demanding active agitation, including the complete withdrawal of cooperation with the British.
• To strengthen Hindu-Muslim unity in political action, Swami Shraddhanand of the Arya Samaj was invited by Muslims to preach from the pulpit of the Jama Masjid in Delhi, while Dr. Kitchlu, a Muslim, was symbolically given the keys of the Golden Temple at Amritsar.
• At the All India Khilafat Conference held in Delhi in November 1919, a call went out for a boycott of British goods, followed by a Khilafat Manifesto calling on Britain to protect the Caliphate. Khilafat leaders made clear that unless the post-War peace terms favoured Turkey, they would withdraw all cooperation from the government.
• 19 March 1920 was again observed as Khilafat Day. At the Delhi session of the All India Khilafat Committee later in 1920, addressed by the Shankaracharya of Puri, Gandhi — then president of the Committee — recognised in the issue a platform from which mass, united non-cooperation could be declared against the government.
• An all-party conference at Allahabad in June 1920 finalised the agenda of the Non-Cooperation programme and asked Gandhi to lead it. The agenda combined:
  • Boycott of titles conferred by the government.
  • Boycott of civil services, the army, the police, and all other government offices.
  • Boycott of government schools, colleges, and law courts.
  • Non-payment of taxes to the government.

Congress Stand on the Khilafat Question

• The success of the Khilafat movement clearly depended on Congress support. Yet while Gandhi favoured launching Satyagraha and non-cooperation on the Khilafat issue, the Congress itself was far from united on this course of action.
• Tilak opposed forming an alliance with Muslim leaders over what he saw as a purely religious issue, and remained sceptical of Satyagraha as a political instrument; Gandhi made a determined effort to win him over on both counts. Other provisions of Gandhi’s non-cooperation programme, such as the boycott of councils, also met with resistance within the party.
• Gandhi eventually secured Congress approval for his programme. The party came around to supporting non-cooperation on the Khilafat question for three main reasons:
  1. It was seen as a golden opportunity to cement Hindu-Muslim unity and draw Muslim masses into the national movement — allowing diverse sections of society, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, peasants, artisans, capitalists, tribals, women, and students, to join the struggle for their own rights and recognise that colonial rule worked against their interests.
  2. The Congress was losing faith in constitutional struggle, especially after the Punjab incidents and the blatantly partisan Hunter Commission Report.
  3. The Congress recognised that the masses were eager for an outlet to express their discontent.

Muslim League Support to Congress

• The Muslim League decided to extend its full support to Congress and its agitation on political questions.
• In early 1920, a joint Hindu-Muslim deputation was sent to the Viceroy to seek redress of Khilafat grievances, but the mission proved abortive.

Launch of the Non-Cooperation Movement

• In February 1920, Gandhi announced that the Khilafat question had overshadowed both the Punjab wrongs and the demand for constitutional advance, and that he would lead a movement of non-cooperation should the peace treaty terms fail to satisfy Indian Muslims.
• The Treaty of Sèvres, signed with Turkey in August 1920, went on to completely dismember the Ottoman Empire.
• On 31 August 1920, the Khilafat Committee launched a formal campaign of non-cooperation — the same period in which Tilak passed away.
• In September 1920, at a special session in Calcutta, the Congress approved a non-cooperation programme to continue until the Punjab and Khilafat wrongs were redressed and Swaraj established. The programme included:
  1. Boycott of government schools and colleges.
  2. Boycott of law courts, with disputes settled through Panchayats instead.
  3. Boycott of Legislative Councils — though some leaders, such as C.R. Das, initially resisted this provision before bowing to Congress discipline; many of these leaders went on to boycott the councils’ elections of November 1920, and the majority of voters stayed away as well.
  4. Boycott of foreign cloth in favour of khadi, along with the practice of hand-spinning.
  5. Renunciation of government honours and titles.
  6. A planned second phase of mass civil disobedience, including resignation from government service and non-payment of taxes.
  7. A Constructive Programme, under which participants were to work for Hindu-Muslim unity, prohibition of alcohol, the fostering of temperance, the establishment of national educational institutions, the collection of a fund worth one crore rupees, and the removal of untouchability — all while remaining strictly non-violent.

The Nagpur Session (December 1920)

At the Nagpur session of the Indian National Congress:

• The programme of non-cooperation was formally endorsed.
• An important shift was made in the Congress creed: instead of pursuing self-government through constitutional means, the Congress now committed itself to the attainment of Swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means — an extra-constitutional mass struggle.
• Significant organisational changes followed: a Congress Working Committee (CWC) of 15 members was set up to lead the party going forward; Provincial Congress Committees were reorganised on a linguistic basis; ward committees were introduced; and the entry fee was reduced to four annas.

Aims of the Non-Cooperation Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement was undertaken with three broad aims: (a) to restore the status of the ruler of Turkey, (b) to avenge the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and other acts of violence in Punjab, and (c) to secure Swaraj for India. Gandhi promised Swaraj within a year if the Non-Cooperation programme was fully implemented. Underlying all of this was Gandhi’s own loss of faith in constitutional methods — a shift that turned him from a cooperator with British rule into its foremost non-cooperator.

• Many groups of revolutionary terrorists, particularly from Bengal, also pledged their support to the Congress programme.
• At this stage, some leaders — including Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Annie Besant, G.S. Kharpade, and B.C. Pal — left the Congress, holding firm to constitutional and lawful methods of struggle; Surendranath Banerjee went on to found the Indian National Liberal Federation, which played only a minor role in national politics thereafter.
• The Congress’s adoption of the non-cooperation programme, first initiated by the Khilafat Committee, gave the movement fresh energy, and the years 1921 and 1922 witnessed an unprecedented popular upsurge.

Spread of the Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement was India’s first countrywide popular movement. Gandhi, accompanied by the Ali Brothers, undertook a nationwide tour to spread its message.

Educational Boycott

• About 90,000 students left government schools and colleges to join around 800 national schools and colleges that sprang up during this period.
• These institutions were organised under leaders such as Acharya Narendra Dev, C.R. Das, Lala Lajpat Rai, Zakir Hussain, and Subhash Bose (who became principal of the National College at Calcutta), and included Jamia Millia at Aligarh, along with the Kashi Vidyapeeth, Gujarat Vidyapeeth, and Bihar Vidyapeeth.

Boycott of the Legal Profession

• Many lawyers gave up their practice in response to the call, including Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, C.R. Das, C. Rajagopalachari, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Vallabhbhai Patel, Asaf Ali, T. Prakasam, and Rajendra Prasad.

Economic Boycott and Fund-Raising

• Heaps of foreign cloth were publicly burnt, cutting imports by half. Picketing of shops selling foreign liquor, as well as toddy shops, was carried out at many places.
• The Tilak Swaraj Fund was oversubscribed, raising a full one crore rupees, and the Congress volunteer corps emerged as a kind of parallel police force.

Labour Unrest and Regional Movements

• In July 1921, the Ali Brothers called on Muslims to resign from the Army on religious grounds; they were arrested for this in September, with Gandhi echoing their call and urging local Congress committees to pass similar resolutions.
• The Congress authorised local bodies to launch civil disobedience wherever the people appeared ready for it. A no-tax movement against union board taxes was already underway in Midnapore (Bengal) and Guntur (Andhra).
• In Assam, strikes spread across tea plantations, steamer services, and the Assam-Bengal Railways, with J.M. Sengupta emerging as a prominent leader of these strikes.
• The visit of the Prince of Wales to India in November 1921 triggered further strikes and demonstrations.
• This spirit of defiance also fuelled several local struggles — the Awadh Kisan Movement and the Eka Movement (both in UP), the Moppila Revolt (Malabar), and the Sikh agitation for the removal of corrupt mahants in Punjab.

Government Response

• Talks between Gandhi and the Viceroy, Lord Reading, broke down in May 1921, after the government demanded that Gandhi persuade the Ali Brothers to remove violence-suggesting passages from their speeches. Sensing an attempt to drive a wedge between him and the Khilafat leaders, Gandhi refused to comply.
• In December 1921, the government cracked down hard on the protest movement: volunteer corps were declared illegal, public meetings were banned, the press was gagged, and most leaders — barring Gandhi himself — were arrested.

The Last Phase of the Movement

• Under growing pressure from the Congress rank and file to launch civil disobedience, the Ahmedabad session (1921) — presided over by C.R. Das even while he remained in jail, with Hakim Ajmal Khan serving as acting president — appointed Gandhi as the sole authority on the matter.
• On 1 February 1922, Gandhi threatened to launch civil disobedience from Bardoli (Gujarat) unless (1) political prisoners were released, and (2) press controls were withdrawn. The movement had barely begun, however, before it was brought to an abrupt end.

Chauri Chaura Incident and Withdrawal of the Movement

• The small village of Chauri-Chaura (Gorakhpur district, UP) earned its place in history through an incident of violence on 5 February 1922 that would prompt Gandhi to call off the entire movement.
• Local police had beaten the leader of a group of volunteers campaigning against liquor sales and high food prices, and then opened fire on the crowd that had gathered in protest before the police station.
• The enraged crowd retaliated by setting the police station ablaze; twenty-two policemen were killed in the violence. Deeply unhappy with this violent turn, Gandhi immediately announced the withdrawal of the movement.
• The CWC met at Bardoli in February 1922 and resolved to halt all activities involving the breaking of law, redirecting energy instead toward constructive work — the popularisation of khadi, national schools, temperance campaigns, Hindu-Muslim unity, and the removal of untouchability.
• Most nationalist leaders, including C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Subhash Bose, and Jawaharlal Nehru, expressed bewilderment at Gandhi’s decision to withdraw. Motilal Nehru and Chittaranjan Das went on to form the Swaraj Party, rejecting Gandhi’s leadership. Many nationalists felt the movement should not have been halted over isolated incidents of violence, and while most retained their confidence in Gandhi, they were nonetheless discouraged.
• In March 1922, Gandhi was arrested and sentenced to six years in jail. At his trial, he delivered a memorable court speech: “I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is deliberate crime, and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.”

Why Gandhi Withdrew the Movement

• Gandhi felt that the people had not fully learnt or understood the discipline of non-violence. Incidents like Chauri-Chaura risked turning excitement and fervour into general violence — and a violent movement could easily be suppressed by a colonial regime eager to use such incidents as an excuse to unleash the armed might of the state against the protestors.
• The movement was, in any case, showing signs of fatigue — a natural consequence, since no movement can be sustained at a high pitch indefinitely — and the government seemed in no mood for negotiation.

Decline of the Khilafat Movement

• In the wake of these disturbances, the Ali Brothers began distancing themselves from Gandhi and the Congress, criticising his extreme commitment to non-violence and severing ties after the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement.
• The Khilafat struggle weakened as Muslims found themselves divided between the Congress, the Khilafat cause, and the Muslim League, and its leadership fragmented along different political lines: Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari founded the Majlis-e-Ahrar-e-Islam with the support of Chaudhry Afzal Haq, while leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad, and Hakim Ajmal Khan remained strong supporters of Gandhi and the Congress. The Ali Brothers themselves eventually joined the Muslim League.
• The central theme of the agitation soon dissipated altogether. In November 1922, the people of Turkey rose under Mustafa Kemal Pasha and stripped the Sultan of political power, transforming Turkey into a secular state — rendering the Khilafat question irrelevant. Turkey subsequently adopted a European-style legal system, granted extensive rights to women, nationalised education, and developed modern agriculture and industry. In 1924, the Caliphate was formally abolished.

Evaluation of the Khilafat–Non-Cooperation Movement

• The movement succeeded in drawing urban Muslims into the national movement, but it also communalised national politics to a degree — Muslim sentiments reflected a wider anti-imperialist feeling, yet national leaders failed to elevate this religious political consciousness into a fully secular one.
• Khilafat is often viewed as a political agitation built on a pan-Islamic, fundamentalist platform, and one that remained largely indifferent to the cause of Indian independence itself. Critics see its alliance with the Congress as little more than a marriage of convenience, while its proponents regard it as the spark that ignited the Non-Cooperation Movement and a major milestone in improving Hindu-Muslim relations; advocates of Pakistan and Muslim separatism, meanwhile, view it as an important early step toward a separate Muslim state.
• With the Non-Cooperation Movement, nationalist sentiment reached every corner of the country, politicising every stratum of the population — artisans, peasants, students, the urban poor, women, and traders alike. This politicisation and activisation of millions of ordinary men and women lent the national movement a genuinely revolutionary character.
• The movement was successful enough to break the back of British rule in India, and quite possibly served as the catalyst for the eventual struggle that culminated in independence in 1947.
• Colonial rule had long rested on two myths: first, that it served the interests of Indians, and second, that it was invincible. The first myth had already been exploded by the economic critique of the Moderate nationalists; the second was now challenged directly by Satyagraha through mass struggle. From this point on, the masses shed the pervasive fear that had once shielded colonial rule and its mighty repressive machinery.

Conclusion

The Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movements together marked the moment Indian nationalism transformed from an elite, constitutional pursuit into a genuine mass movement. By fusing a religious grievance over the Ottoman Caliphate with a nationwide programme of non-violent non-cooperation, Gandhi drew millions of ordinary Indians — across religion, class, and region — into active political participation for the first time. Though the movement was withdrawn in the wake of the Chauri Chaura violence and the Khilafat cause itself dissolved once Turkey became a secular state, the experience proved that mass civil disobedience could shake the foundations of British rule, setting the template for the larger struggles of the following two decades.