Q1:

Evaluate the role of Syed Ahmed Khan in the growth of Muslim nationalism in India, and
why did he insist Muslims on the acquisition of western education?
Sir Syeds efforts to the growth of Muslim Nationalism in India
Firstly, In 1867 Hindus demanded that Urdu should be replaced with Hindi
as the official language of India. British and Hindus had been in favor of the
imposition of Hindi. This created a language controversy between the two
communities. Sir Syed on this occasion discussed this matter with the
Commissioner of Benaras and declared that creating difference and the
replacement of language would be considered an attack on the long
established old culture of Muslims. He optfully commented that in such a way
both of the communities have different culture, way of living and eating,
marriage and religion etc.
Secondly, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was aware of the fact that British would
soon introduce democracy as to get the support of the majority i.e. Hindus.
The British had to do so as democracy had been practiced in Britain. SSAK
was against such democracy by which Muslim minority would have been
dominated by majority of Hindus and having no practical representation of
Muslims on political front. He gave the idea of Two Nations so that Muslims
could be politically treated different from Hindus. This notion gave birth to
separate electorates later on.
Thirdly, Muslims after War of Independence were evolved as to be
extremely oppressed class who had been deprived of education, share in
government jobs and development in any walk of life. SSAK wanted to uplift
the political and moral status of the demoralized Muslim class so he found it
optful to gather courage in Muslims and stated his Two Nation Theory to
show them a ray of hope out of dwindling state.
Fourthly, Congress had also suggested that appointment into the government services should be
through competitive examinations since Muslims were not receiving the benefits of the
education. Sir Syed saw that as a disadvantage to them and supported the distribution of
government service posts through a quota system. He made efforts to uplift the educational status
of Muslims so that they could get higher posts in government. For that he organized
Mohammedan Educational Conference in 1886 meeting on yearly basis to discover the ways of
improvising education of Muslims. He even established Mohammedan Defence Association to
counter dominant Congress.
Why did Sir Syed emphasize on the educational uplift of Muslims of India?
Firstly, British had advanced themselves in Science and technology. For this only reason they
considered themselves superior. To remove the inferiority complex of the Muslims of India, Sir
Syed told them to get western education as it would not take them away from Islam but would
make them understand Islam in a better way. He used to convince Muslims that Quran could be

better understood through Science.

Secondly, Hindus had got an edge over Muslims by getting more jobs in Government. This was
particular in Indian Civil Service Commission where Hindus had occupied all the posts. Sir Syed
was aware of the fact that Hindus would develop a closer status to the British and the Muslims
would be left behind in every field of progression.
Thirdly, As the British were to stay longer in the Subcontinent, Muslims had to walk step by
step along with them, so to get every possible right from them. This could only become practical
when Muslims acquired western scientific education. Acquiring western scientific education
could create a soft corner for the Muslims in the eyes of British.This is why SSAK established a
scientific society in Ghazipur.
Why Sir Syed is regarded important to uplift the educational status of Muslims of India.
Firstly, Sir Syed wanted to ensure that the advantages of the British rule especially in the field of
science and technology must have been attained by Muslims to have an improved standard of
life. In order to make it practical he founded a scientific society at Ghazipur in 1863, which
worked to translate English, Persian and Arabic scientific writings into Urdu available for
general studies.
Secondly, His views about getting western education were severely criticized by Muslim Ulema.
In order to gain support of his views he used to write an Urdu journal Tehzeeb-ul-Akhlaq. In
this journal Sir Syed tried to convince Muslims for a new approach to education and played a
major part in bringing about an intellectual revolution amongst Muslims.
Thirdly, Sir Syed was greatly impressed by the style of education imparted in England during
his visit there. He wished to establish a Muslim University having the standards of Oxford and
Cambridge Universities. Lacking funds he established Mohammedan Anglo Oriental School in
Aligarh which was upgraded to a college later on. This institute remained the top-ranked among
the Muslims having an educational setup of both Islamic and Western education. Later, after the
death of Sir Syed this college was given the status of university having a leading role in making
leaders for the freedom movement.
Q2:
Discuss the nature and purpose of Khilafat Movement. Analyze the impact of Khilafat
Movement on the subsequent development of Muslim politics in India.
Nature and purpose of Khilafat Movement

Firstly, the Muslims of India had emotional attachment to Ottoman Caliphate. Many
of Indian Muslim princes had been making their rule legitimate by only seeking the
consent of Sultan of Turkey whose decision was readily agreed upon by nobles and
all. This exercise brought out little chaos, with no succession disputes, which
promoted unity not only in India and but all around the Muslim world as caliphs
decisions were uniformly accepted. By 20 th Century, Muslims of India, deprived of
the power themselves from British, looked up to the Ottoman Caliphate and Sultan
as the only surviving symbol of Muslim glory. They could not tolerate the end of
Ottoman Empire by the same British who had ended the Mughal Empire. As soon as

the British decided to overthrow Sultan of Turkey, Indian Muslims were outraged and
started the Khilafat Movement in order to protect Khalifa.

Secondly, the British, in order to win the First World War against Turkey, asked Muslims to
support them in this war. The British promised that if they won the war, they would not harm the
Turkish Empire so the Muslims supported them. However, after winning the war, they forgot
their promise and decided to punish Turkey. Therefore, the Muslims launched Khilafat
movement in order to remind the British of their promise as they were outraged on this act.
Thirdly, the division of Ottoman Empire and its distribution among victorious
countries develop the fear among Indian Muslims that their Holy places in
divided Turkey would not remain protected rather desecrated. Places like
Makkah, Medina and Jerusalem were under main threat. This was the major
element which united almost all the factions of Muslims in India to start a
movement for the sake of protection of Holy Places in Turkey by protecting
Caliphate.
Fourthly, the time when British had been ruling in India, Britain and Turkey
had been allies of each other. This partly helped Indian Muslims to develop
good relations with the British. However, during the First World War, there
was a complete reversal of allies; Turkey became an ally of Germany against
the British. When Germany lost the war, British gave the indication through
the treaty of Sevres that Turkey would meet the same fate of division of
Germany which disturbed the Indian Muslims a lot as Ottoman Empire would
have also be divided among the victorious countries. Muslims knew this
critical situation therefore, they organized themselves to strongly resist the
implementation of the treaty.
Fifthly, many Indian Muslim leaders like Maulvi Fazl-ul-Haq believed that the
decline of the Turkish Empire would have an adverse effect on the importance of
Indian Muslim community and the British may start treating them with disrespect.
Therefore, they encouraged the Indian Muslims to launch Khilafat Movement in
order to protect their image and prestige in the subcontinent.
Lastly, On top of that, the British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, clearly stated that
Turkey would also be punished just as its allies were. Upon this, the Indian Muslims
started the Khilafat movement to oppose the plans of the British as they were
outraged by such a statement.

Impact of Khilafat Movement on Muslim politics in India

Although the Khilafat Movement had not saved the Khilafat, it did bring
significant benefits to the people of India.
Firstly, the policy of non-cooperation against the British had united Muslims
and Hindus for the first ever movement against the British which shows that
the Indian people were no longer prepared to accept the British rule. This
later caused and provoked British to grant greater self-autonomy to Indians

in order to satisfy them.

Secondly, the experience gained in mass agitation, organizing processions,
conducting strikes and going to jail, made Muslim struggle for Pakistan
possible. Conducting Khilafat conferences for the cause of safeguard of
Caliphate made Muslims well experienced with the conduction of meetings
and conferences for a particular cause which they used later on in Pakistan
Movement.
Thirdly, Muslims came to know the importance of their separate identity for
their religion to fight non-Muslim leaders. This conviction encouraged them
to fight for independence even having been in smaller number compared to
Hindus.
Fourthly, the Non Co-operation Movement which was started along with
Khilafat Movement was later aptly used by Gandhi as a weapon and tool to
react against any anti-Indian move from British. So it can be said that if
Khilafat Movement would not have started Non Cooperation Movement would
not have established which paved the way for British oust in 1940s.
Fifthly, Muslims realized that they had made a certain mistake i.e. relying upon
Hindus in struggle (Khilafat Movement) for their rights which proved disastrous for
them. The lesson learnt was, they did not repeat these mistakes in future and so,
made the state of Pakistan a successful reality through independently working on
the Freedom Movement.
Sixthly, Hindus withdrew their support due to severe violence at Chauri-Chaura
incident. However, Muslims took it as an act of betrayal and therefore the gulf
between the two sides widened which strengthened the Two Nation Theory of Sir
Syed Ahmed Khan and paved way for the formation of Pakistan. This is the reason
that the Khilafat movement is also known as the fore-runner of the Pakistani
Movement.
Lastly, it deteriorated British Muslim relations as large scale protests were
organized against the British. They were forced to start a policy of repression
against the Indians especially Muslims to restore peace. Therefore, now it became
difficult for Muslims to convince their rulers to accept their political demands due to
the hatred they felt for each other.

Q3:
Give a critical appraisal of the partition of Bengal of 1905 focusing on Hindu Muslim
relations.
Why was the province of Bengal partitioned?
Bengal was a huge province of many larger divisions. British decided to
divide it due to the following reasons;

Firstly, Bengal was the largest of all the provinces in India which included
three distinct parts of Bihar, Orissa and Bengal itself. By the end of 19 th
Century it got a population of 85 million. There were ten times as many
people in Bengal as were in the whole Britain at this time. It was a huge area
to govern as one unit. Calcutta was not only the provincial capital but also
the country capital. It had not only to look after the British rule in India but
also the Bengal Presidency. The whole of the province was looked after by
only one governor. It was in order to facilitate the administration so that it
can be effectively ruled Viceroy Lord Curzon divided Bengal in to two parts.
Secondly, the strict measures taken by British after the War of
Independence made Indians having little part in governing the country. When
the role of natives was not increased for long, there began a wave of radical
nationalism. Leaders such as Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak of Poona made
impassioned speeches calling for freedom for Indian people. In late 1870s,
many secret societies developed aiming at ridding India of the British. In
1897, a British officer and his companion were assassinated. These activities
worried the British, who were forced to take strict measures. One way in
which they did this was to partition Bengal.
Thirdly, the several famines in latter half of the nineteenth century caused
the death of around fifteen million people. British found it difficult to timely
supply food to the remotely located corners of Bengal. It was therefore
natural that Bengali population became increasingly against the British. To
avoid such circumstances in future British needed effective infrastructure in
order to address such problems and to continue rule for long. This step could
only be taken effectively when Bengal would have been divided in to two
smaller provinces - west and east Bengal.
Fourthly, the services of Sir Syed Ahmed for the restoration of terms with British
seemed fruitful by the beginning of the 20 th Century. In a period of almost 50 years
of repression after WOI, British now changed their view and became complacent
towards Muslims. One such kind action was favoring the Muslim community of
Bengal by attributing a whole single division to Muslims that ultimately changed
their entire lives to prosperity.

Fifthly, Lord Curzon was very much enthusiastic to give Muslims of Bengal a
favour as he acknowledged Muslims being the main part of British Army and
land-holding a big area. Therefore, Muslims being a significant majority
beside Hindus could not be ignored.
Sixthly, the unstable political conditions in the past among Hindu Landlords
and Muslim peasants made British trade output affected. To get a greater
crop output from the lands of Bengal Muslim peasants were entirely given
East of Bengal.

Hindu Muslim Relations during partition

In the British province of Bengal before it was first divided in 1905, Muslims were a small
majority. Most Muslims lived in the Eastern districts of Bengal where they were more than threequarters of the population. In Sylhet district, for instance, Muslims were eight out of ten of the
population. There were also large Muslim populations in the capital city of the British Raj,
Calcutta, which drew migrants from across India. There were also large Muslim minorities in
Bengal's western districts. However, Hindus were the dominant community in the districts that
became the state of West Bengal in independent India after Partition.
In the east, Hindus also owned much of the land and had most of the best jobs, despite being a
small minority. Perhaps one of the most significant fault-lines in modern Bengal has been the one
between the wealthy landlord (or zamindar) and the much poorer peasants who were usually
tenants who cultivated the soil in return for a share of the crop. The fact that many zamindars
were high-caste Hindus and most peasants were either Muslims or lower-caste Hindus meant that
this conflict frequently assumed an 'ethnic' or 'communal' colouring. The twentieth century saw
the rise of mainly localised conflicts in the countryside between peasants and landlords, or
between peasants and money-lenders (many of whom, again, were Hindus).
After Bengal was reunited in 1911, Muslims were the majority community in Bengal, and from
the1920s and 30s, took on important roles in local and provincial government. Historians have
argued that this was one of the main reasons for Bengali Hindu demands for a partition (dividing
up) of Bengal in 1947.
Why was the partition of Bengal reversed?
The division of Bengal was made to administer the two parts effectively but
the opposition against the decision turned the British minds cancelling it.
There were several reasons to why partition of Bengal was reversed.
Firstly, the partition angered Hindus in Bengal. They declared the day when
partition was made as a mourning day. This partition had resulted in to two
smaller divisions of Bengal, West Bengal-dominated by Hindus and East
Bengal by Muslims. Muslims in a separate province were at greater
advantage which could not be tolerated by Hindus as their three dominant
professions were severely affected. Handful doctors from Calcutta lost many
number of East Bengali patients, lawyers from West Bengal lost their clients
and the teachers lost their jobs as local people in Dhaka University replaced
them. Partition of Bengal made Muslims more prosperous while Hindus lost
the continuous supply of raw materials from East Bengal which aggravated
Hindus to become violent. Resultantly, Hindus began larger demonstration
and protests, thus destroying the peace of the province and leading to
violent riots. In order to restore the peace of the province British were forced
to reconsider and reverse the partition of Bengal.
Secondly, Hindus tried four assassination attempts against the governor of
Bengal Mr. Fuller who had been thought friendly to Muslims. The British latter
removed Mr. Fuller but still it did not work. And Hindus even went on to make
an assassination attempt on the viceroy of the subcontinent and his wife. Sir
Curzon Wyllie, political secretary of John Morley, the secretary of state for
India, was killed in London in 1909. Attempts were made to derail trains and

blow them with bombs. These incidents put a fear in British ruling class of
another major united revolt bigger than the disunited revolt of 1857.
Therefore, British were forced to reconsider their decision about Bengal. So,
to settle this disturbing situation, King George V of Britain himself paid a
visit to India and officially cancelled the partition in 1911.
Thirdly, Hindus started Swadeshi Movement boycotting all the British
goods, jobs and courts. This worried the latter a lot as Bengal was an area,
providing the most output of revenue from agriculture and other raw
materials. The British in India were in major to get economic benefit which
they could not avoid.

Fourthly, Congress supported the Hindus of Bengal in their mission to reverse the
partition of Bengal. This increased the level of resistance from Hindus. Congress
was the largest, oldest and most influential party from subcontinent. British realized
they could not ignore the fact that Hindus were a considerable majority as
compared to Muslim minority. In order to have a long lasting rule the British had to
give them some consideration. They did it in the form of cancellation of partition of
Bengal.

Lastly, Lord Curzon had been blamed for the wrong decision of partitioning
Bengal. By the end of 1905 he was replaced by Lord Minto who was famous
for his liberal ideas. Lord Curzon, originator of the idea, was no longer viceroy
so a change of policy for the British was easier.
Q4:
Write a brief note on the history of Hindu-Muslim relationship as it evolved through the
period of Muslim supremacy in India (712 to 1707)
Background
Assumption of power by the Muslims in the South Asian sub-continent indirectly served as a
signal for starting of anti-communal feelings between the Muslims and Hindus. It would be
wrong to suppose the Hindus and Muslims as people of one nation merely on account of the
accident of the Arabs conquest of Dabul, Nirun and Brahamanabad in the year 712 A.D. Ever
since the Muslims came to the South Asian sub-continent as conquerors, their glory and
superiority was occasionally vituperated by the non-Muslims in one way or the other.
Communalism even before the advent of the Muslims in the sub-continent existed. When the
British era began it did subside. Natural relationship between the Hindus and Muslims had been
altogether communal and not national. The presence of the past memories of communalism
running in the arteries of the two communities is enough to prove that they have never been a
single nation. They were two separate nations with remarkably different entities, different
episodes, culture, language, literature, customs and traditions. Both have been striving hard to
subjugate each other in all fields of life. The defeats of one have been the victories of the other,
what one has registered as a wrong against the other, the other has recorded it as its brilliant
success. The severe antagonism prevailing in the later period between the two
communities had completely brushed aside the friendly relations between the two (which were
however short-lived) while mutual hostilities were remembered and in this war of nerves, the
Hindus surpassed the other and ransacked the entire social set up thereof dragging the Muslim
community to an utter humiliation. It was against this background of intransigent attitude of the

Hindus that the Muslims rose to the occasion, galvanized themselves against the hatred of Hindu
mind and threw off the yoke of double chain of slavery, viz, British imperialism and Hindu
dominance in the South Asian sub-continent.
To study this phase in its true perspective it is necessary to retrace the era of Muslim rule in this
region which was not unfamiliar to the Muslims before the Arab conquest. Formal contacts
between Arabian Peninsula and the former, date from the ancient times. It was through trade that
peoples of these regions came in touch with one another. The first major blow to this relationship
was struck in about the year 712 A.D., when some pirates, known to be the subjects of a Hindu
Raja Dahir, the ruler of Sindh, attacked a caravan of women and children carrying gifts and
letters of goodwill for Hajjaj-bin-Yousaf, the governor of Kufa and looted it. On the refusal of
Raja Dahir of the demand made by Hajjaj he sent three expeditions against Dahir, of which the
first two failed. The last one under the command of young commander Mohammad Bin Qasim,
overwhelmed the Hindu forces and its dominance in Sindh was brought to an end. Muslims
Generosity with Hindus The new conquerors, the Muslims, instead of pursuing a course of
persecution of the conquered people, set up a broad based and liberal administrative system and
gave privileged positions to the Brahmans whose dominance they had supplanted. After
completing his mission of subduing the enemy, Mohammad-bin-Qasim made administrative
arrangements with non-Muslims, better known as the Brahmanabad Settlement. By virtue of
this the Hindus were to be treated as the people of the Book and to enjoy the protection of the
Muslim government. The policy adopted by the Muslims in reorganizing the administrative
system and in giving an equitable share to the Hindus is well described by a contemporary
chronicler: Mohammad Kasim maintained their dignity, and passed orders confirming
their pre-eminence. They were protected against opposition and violence. Each of them was
entrusted with an office, for Kasim was confident that they would not be inclined to dishonesty.
Like Rai Chach, he also appointed each one to a duty. He ordered all the Brahmans to be
brought before him, and reminded them that they had held great offices in the time of Dahir, and
that they must be well acquainted with the city and the suburbs. If they knew any excellent
character worthy of his consideration and kindness they should bring them to notice, that fovours
and rewards might be bestowed on him. As he placed full confidence in their honesty and virtue,
he entrusted them with these offices, and all the affairs of the country were put in their
charge. These offices were granted to them and their descendants, and would never be resumed
or transferred. (There cannot be any other example of giving extraordinary favour to Hindus by
Muslims) It may be recalled that in religious matters,
they enjoyed even far more
privileges. They were free to worship religion in accordance with their religious tenets, provided
this was done within precincts of their residences or worshipping places. The letter of Hajjaj to
Mohammad-bin-Qasim regarding the request of the Hindus of Brahmanabad, seeking
permission to repair a damaged temple throws light on the policy of the government in respect of
non-Muslims. He wrote: It appears that the Chief inhabitants of Brahmanabad had petitioned to
be allowed to repair the temple of Buddha and pursue their religion. As they made submission,
and have agreed to pay taxes to Khalifa, nothing more can properly be required from them. They
have been taken under our protection, and we cannot in any way stretch out our hands upon their
lives or property. Permission is given to them to worship their gods. Nobody must be forbidden
and prevented from following his own religion. They may live in their houses in whatever
manner they like. (One may like to note the great Caliph Omer-ibn-e-Khatab also passed similar
orders for non-Muslims). Yet more important settlements with the Hindus were made in Malabar
where a local Hindu ruler became convert to Islam as early as the ninth century. Not interfering

in the life of the inhabitants the Arabs made them familiar with their religionIslam. However,
it is viewed by some scholars that Shankarcharvas religious movement, certainly a Hindu
movement, had its routes in the ninth century at Malabar owing to the religious ferment caused
by the entry of Islam into that area. Thus, opened the chapter of Hindus indifference and
intolerance towards Muslims despite the fact that they were so humanely treated and duly
protected by the Muslim rulers.
Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi
The second phase of the Muslim rule and conquests dates from the entry (towards the end of the
tenth century) of Subuktigin and later his son Mahmud Ghaznavi on the soil of the Indo-Pakistan
sub-continent. Mahmuds first clash with Jaipal near Peshawar in the later half of 1001 A.D. and
then a series of severe conflicts with the Hindu Rajas (of Ujjain, Gwalior, Kalinjar, Kannauj,
Delhi and Ajmer) exhibited the true picture of Hindu animosity against the Muslims. According
to Firishta, the author of Tareekh-e-Frishta. There was great enthusiasm even among the
masses. Hindu women sold their ornaments to help the war effort, and sent their savings to the
army. The battle was fought at a place between Peshawar and Wahind.
Alberunis Verdict
One of the famous historians Al-Beruni in his book Kitab-ul-Hind clearly reflected on the
Hindu-Muslim differences relating to various aspects of life. His views are reproduced below,
which would help to understand the wide gulf that existed between the Muslims and the
Hindus: The Hindus entirely differ from the Muslims in every respect which other
nations have in common. The first difference was that of language. They totally differ
from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe, and vice versaall their
fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to themagainst all foreigners.
They call them Mlechaha, i.e., impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it
by intermarriage, or any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking
with them, because thereby, they think, they would be polluted. They consider as impure
anything which touches the wine and the water of a foreigner; and no household can exist
without these two elements. Besides, they never desire that a thing which once has been
polluted should be purified and thus recovered, as, under ordinary circumstances, if anybody
or anything has become unclean, he or it would strive to regain the state of purity. They are not
allowed to receive anybody who does not belong to them, even if he wishes it, or was inclined
to their religion. This constitutes the widest gulf between us and them. In the third place,
in all manners and usages they differ from us to such a degree as they frighten their children
with us, with our dress, and our ways and customs, and as to declare us to be devils breed,
and our doings as the very opposite of all that is good and proper. The scattered remains
of Hindus cherish the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason, too, why
Hindu science have retired far away from those parts of the country conquered by us, and have
fled to places where our hand cannot reach, to Kashmir, Banaras, and other places. And
there the antagonism between them and all foreigners receives more and more nourishment both
from political and religious sources. In the fifth place, a number of other causes has been
identified: Peculiarities of their national character, deeply rooted in them but manifest to
everybodythe Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no
science like them. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by
nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible
care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more of course,
from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no

other race of men but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge or science
whatsoever.
Sultan Shahab-ud-Din Ghauri and Establishment of Delhi Saltnate
The Hindu-Muslim antagonism did not end with the death of Mahmud (d.1030) but rifts
continued even at the later stages. Incursions by the Ghaznavids into Hindu territory continued
even during the period of Shihab-ud-Din Ghauri. His most fateful encounter was against Pirthvi
Raj, the powerful Raja of Ajmer and Delhi. After the death of Ghauri (1206) Slave Dynasty with
Qutb-ud-Din Aibak as the ruler, established its rule over the sub-continent and the Delhi
Sultanate was established. Then came the House of Balban, the Khaljis, the Tughluqs, the
Sayyids and Lodhis who successfully ruled over India till the break-up of the Delhi Sultanate.
During this period we find a number of instances regarding the Hindu-Muslim split. After the
break-up of the Delhi Sultanate, the Hindus reasserted themselves in certain areas. For
instance, a big and important Hindu Kingdom namely Vijayanagar was established in 1336. The
Southern India at this time was in a ferment. There was a revival of Hindu power in the South
and rise of a powerful politico-religious movement in the area. In this atmosphere,
Harishan and Bukka, two brothers who had embraced Islam earlier, were reconverted to
Hinduism and instead of remaining loyal to Delhi, Harishan declared himself independent
and laid the foundation of a new capital of Vijayanagar. The decline of the Muslim empire and
the revival of Hindu military power began during this period when Muslims were excluded
from the South and Vijayanagar empire was established. Thenceforward on the whole Islam
steadily lost grounds in India till 1526, as much by the break up and idiosyncrasy of the Delhi
empire and the rise of the Hindu States, as by Hindu religious and cultural revival. The
Kingdom later became so much strong that in 1857, the kings of Bijapur and Golkanda sought
her assistance in an attack against Ahmadnagar, but the way the Hindu soldiers behaved shocked
even their confederates. They laid waste the entire country. According to Firishta: The infidels
of Vijayanagar, who for many years had been wishing for such an event, left no cruelty
unpracticed, they insulted Muslim women, destroyed mosques, and did not even respect the
sacred Quran. Another Hindu kingdom sprang up and later became powerful under Rana
Sangha at Mewar, a powerful state in Rajputana. He, later on proved a strong enemy against
Babar, the Mughal emperor while he was busy establishing his rule in India. Reviewing the
general condition of the Hindus during the Sultanate period it can be said without any hesitation
that they enjoyed all basic safeguards that minorities could expect and the non-Muslims
were allowed to preserve their economic and social structure. But this generosity was misused. It
was through this medium that they conducted the policy of suppressing the Muslims in the
economic field and this was obviously looked upon by the Muslims with dislike. The position of
the Hindu business community was much better. According to Barani, Muslims income
was altogether in the clutches of the Hindu money-lenders. The Maliks and Khans and the
nobles of those days were constantly in debt, owning to their excessive generosity, expenditure
and beneficence. Except in their public halls no gold or silver could be found, and they made no
savings on account of their excessively licentious livings. The wealth and riches of the Multani
Merchants and the Shahs (Sahukars), were from the interest realised from the old Maliks and
nobles of Delhi, who borrowed money from them to the maximum limit, and repaid their debt
along with additional gifts from their iqtas. Whenever a Malik or a Khan held a banquet, and
invited notables, his agents would rush to the Multanis and Shahs, sign documents, and
borrow money with interest. Ala-ud-Din Khalji, too, became conscious to the danger of his
government from the position and the defiant attitude of the Hindu rural chiefs and

determined to curb their powers. Barani was not at all happy with the infields. His work reflects
his bitterness against Hindus, his extremism and his acute class-consciousness. He says that by
merely paying a few Takas and the poll-tax the Hindus were able to continue their religious
traditions. While, on the other hand, if the Muslim king, in spite of the power and position
which God had given him, is merely content to take poll-tak (Jiziya) and tribute (Khiraj)
from the Hindus and preserves both infidels and infidelity and refuses to risk his power in
attempting to overthrow them, what difference will there be in this respect between the kings of
Islam and the Rais of the infidels? For the Rais of the infidels also exact the poll-tax and tribute
from the Hindus, who belong to their own false creed, in fact, they collect a hundred times more
taxes. About the privileges enjoyed by the Hindus, Barani is again far unhappy. Quoting
Jalaluddin Khalji, he says, Every day the Hindus pass below my palace beating cymbals and
blowing couch shell to perform idol worship on the bank of the Yamuna. While my name is
being read in the Khutba, as the defender of Islam, these enemies of God and his Prophet (Peace
be upon him), under my very eyes, are proudly displaying their riches and live
ostentatiously among the Muslims of my capital. They beat their drums and musical instruments
and perpetuate their pagan practices. Criticizing the account of position enjoyed by the Hindus,
Barani says: In the capital (Delhi) and in the cities of the Musalmans, the customs of infidelity
are openly practiced, idols are publicly worshipped and the traditions of infidelity are
adhered to with greater insistence than before. Openly and without fear, the infidels continue the
teaching of the principles of their false creed, they also adorn their idols and celebrate their
rejoicing during their festivals with the beat of drums and dhols and with singing and dancing.
By merely paying a few Takas and the poll-tax they are able to continue the traditions of
infidelity by giving lessons in the books of their false faith and enforcing the orders in these
books.
HINDU REVIVALIST MOVEMENTS
Bhakti Movement
In sum, the interaction of Islam and Hinduism created a new feeling amongst the Hindus and
some of their religious preachers started defensive religious movements against Islam.
Chaitanyas movement in Bengal was a revivalist movement launched to defend the faith of
Hinduism against the sweeping success which Islam was gaining. Thinking Hindus could only
see with dismay that their policy of denying spiritual food to the lower classes was, in the
changed conditions, driving them into the Muslim fold and they also realized that the Sufi
approach, with its institutions like Qawwali, producing religious ecstasy and fervour, as also the
congregational prayers of Muslims made more powerful appeal to the masses than the
meditations of the Hindu Rishis. Qawwali was therefore answered by Kirtan processions, which
engendered, and all castes amongst the Hindus and even non-Hindus were admitted to the new
spiritual life. With the great organizing genius of Chaitanya and able to men to inspire, the
movement soon passed from the defensive to the offensive. According to a modern Hindu
scholar: Vaishnavas who took the lead in converting Muslims achieved considerable success.
According to Growse, the historian of Mathura, the role of Hindu Bengal was on the similar
pattern. Similarly in the East, the Muhammadan invasion and the consequent contact with new
races and new mode of thought brought home to the Indian moralist that his old basis of faith
was too narrow, that the division of the human species into the four Manva castes and outer
world of barbarians was too much at variance with facts to be accepted as satisfactory and the
ancient inspired oracles, if rightly interpreted, must disclose some means of salvation applicable
to all men alike, without respect to colour or nationalityIn upper India the tyranny of the hope,

or even the wish, that conquerors and conquered could ever coalesce in one common faith. The
attitude of the Bengal Vaishnavas towards Islam and Muslims in the words of Prof. T. Ray
Chaudhri was that, there was an element of opposition to Muslim influence in Chaitanyaism
seems almost certain. The Premayilasa referred to Muslim rule as the root of
Advaitaprakasa, the spread of Muslim ways of life was deplored. Jayanada mentioned the
adoption of Muslim habits by Brahmans as one of the aspects of the manifold degradations
characteristic of Kali age. Not only this but they tried to bring economic pressure against the
Muslims as well. Sayamananda, who converted a number of Muslims asked the Raja of
Narayon not to employ Muslim porters as was the usual custom there. Even those Vaishnawas
whom the Muslim rulers had exalted to the highest offices in the state regarded their patrons as
Mlechchas and considered themselves as fallen because of there contract with the Muslim.
According to a modern Hindu writer: As regards their faith and belief the Chatitanyaites
were eager to prove the superiority of Krishna to other gods and godesses of the Hindu
pantheon. As regards their attitude to Islam it was one of contempt, if not of positive hostility.
However, in fact, the movement in Bengal was marked by a comparative
indifference to social problems and inequities which were among the chief concerns of the
movements originating from the composite influences of Hinduism and Islam. It is to be born in
mind that it was a Hindu revivalist movement, which launched a counter attack against Islam and
tried its utmost to slow down the pace of Hindu conversions to Islam, specially in West Bengal.
As told by Roy Chaudhri, In West Bengal the very classes whose counterparts in the east were
converted to Islam in large number, remained within the Hindu fold, no doubt to a great extent
due to Vaishnava influence. Still more has been said by a renowned scholar, S.M. Ikram, that
the Vaishnavas was even greater. They not only arrested the spread of Islam in West Bengal,
but what was perhaps even more remarkable, the spiritual of the literary renaissance created
by the Vaishnava Sadhus and poets created an atmosphere in which the local Muslims as
contrasted with those in the distant north, where a different situation prevailed, came
under Hindu influences, and outside the cities, Muslim orthodoxy did not spread till the
nineteenth century. Bhakti Movement, to some extent, tried to take up the cause but it ended
in failure. A real rapprochement between the Muslims and the Hindus was impossible. A
Chinese Wall divided the two communities, in spite of the work of the saints, the Sufis and
savants like Amir Khusro. However, in the words of Dr. I. H. Qureshi: In the political and
administrative sphere, in so far as the Bhakti Movement strengthened the forces of conciliation
between the rulers and the ruled, it rendered great service. It also made it possible to
communicate the main message of Islam to the Hindu masses, but the sum total of a few, small
sects, some of which even turned against Islam. The path of sincere syncretism also ended in a
blind alley. Although the very two major communities Muslims and the Hindus have lived
together on the same soil but interaction of Islam and Hinduism has produced very little effect on
the religious life and the aspects of life on each other. According to Prof. R.C. Majumdar, It
touched merely the fringe and the external elements of life and even as such, the influence was
confined to a small section of Hindus and Muslims of India. There was no rapprochement
in respect of popular or national traditions, and those social and religious ideas, beliefs, practices,
and institutions which touch the deeper chord of life and give it a distinctive form, tone, and
vigour. In short, the reciprocal influences were too superficial in character to affect materially
the fundamental differences between the two communities in respect of almost everything that is
deep-seated in human nature and makes life worth living. So the two great communities,
although they lived side by side, moved each in its own orbit, and there was as yet no sign that

the twin shall ever meet.

Ibn-e-Batutas Verdict about Hindus
A renowned scholar, Ibn-e-Battuta, finds the gulf of relationship between the two
communities very distinctively. He accounts: The Hindus and the Muslims lived in separate
quarters and as entirely separate communities. The Hindus maintained no social
intercourse (inter-action) with the Muslims by way of inter-dining or inter-marriage. They
regarded to touch of the Muslims or even the scent of their food as pollution. If an innocent child
happened to eat anything of which Muslim had partaken, the Hindu elders would beat him and
compel him to eat cows dung which according to their belief purifies. Besides, he suffered
many serious inconvenience owing to Hindu attitude towards Muslims and fell victims to this
inhuman behaviour at their hands many a time. However all efforts at bringing Hindus
and Muslims on a united platform by media of even religious activities also failed and, therefore,
in such an atmosphere, a real rapprochement between them was impossible. Not much larger
number of the followers could be directly attracted by mystic movements and the truth is that
both the communities had been divided by a Chinese Wall. In the light of one of the scholars
approach, the number dwindled very appreciably in course of time and the two orthodox
religions showed no visible sign of being seriously affected by the sudden intrusion of
radical elements. They pursued their own tenor, resembling the two banks of a river, separated by
the stream that flows between them. Attempts were made to build a bridge connecting the two,
but ended in failure. Even if there were any temporary bridge, it collapsed in no time.
Babur Era
Even during the Mughal regime the broad split of ideological as well as religious differences
continued. Babur, the founder of the great Mughal Empire in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent
was the foremost King amongst the long Mughal line of emperors who met a tough
resistance at the hands of the Hindu Rajas. His achievement in founding the Mughal Empire was
not against the last of the line of Lodhi kings in India but it was against the strong headed
Rana Sangha and his confederates in which the superiority of the invader was divided in a
pitched battle fought at Kanwaha in 1527. During Baburs reign, Hindus imposed their
grudge against the Muslims and at one time it is reported that a few mosques were destroyed by
them in some parts of the State. During the period of Akbar, the Hindus enjoyed much powers
and other facilities due to his liberal religious policy. He bestowed upon them high offices of
responsibility and is considered very often the most liberal Muslim King who ruled over India.
Though the Hindus had been serving under the Muslims at different phases yet in their sect
Muslims were universally referred to as Mlechhas (unclean) by the Hindus. Here it
would be necessary to quote the observations of Firishta. According to him the Brahmans
would show reluctance to be employees of Muslims for a long time. While writing about the first
Brahmani Rulers Prime Minister, Firishta says: It is generally held that before him the
Brahmins would not accept jobs under Muslim rulers, and by engaging themselves in
acquisition of knowledge particularly astrology, lived simple lives in villages in out of way
places and on the banks of rivers. Considering the service of the worldly people, particularly
Muslims, as degrading, they did not accept posts and jobs, and if by chance, anybody associated
with the people of position on account of knowledge of medicine, astrology, or preaching or
story-telling, he would accept rewards of farmans, but would not put yoke of service round his
neck. However, the tradition of employing Hindus in the highest offices of responsibility was
already in practice before Akbar and one cannot directly hold him responsible for this
practice. His religious policy as well as innovations have become a subject of criticism rightly

among the scholars. We cannot categorically hold him responsible to justify the balance though
indeed his major blunder was his new policy of religious tolerance. His friendliness towards the
Hindus in fact did not lead to the growth of general tolerance amongst different religions in
India. On the one hand his religious innovations offended the orthodox section of the Muslim
community while on the other his general policy encouraged certain sections amongst Hindus
to expose their aggressive attitude, defiant and intolerant spirit against Islam. For instance, a
Brahman of Mathura, rich and influential, demonstrated high-handedness against Abdur
Rahim, the Qazi of Mathura. The Brahman forcibly took possession of the building material
which the former had collected for the purpose of constructing a mosque. The Brahman utilized
the material for building an idol-temple. On the protest against this aggressiveness, when the
Qazi attempted to dissuade him from doing so, the culprit instead of hearing to the Qazi in the
presence of witnesses opened his foul mouth to curse the Prophet (Peace be upon him), and had
shown his contempt for Muslims in various other ways. This Brahman was later executed by the
Sadr which led to an outcry by the Hindus including Akbars Rajput wives who severely
criticized the Sadrs action. Here it would not be out of context to mention that this incident
could have taken place in connection with the large-scale Vaishnave temple building of
which the construction was in progress at Mathura, a great centre of the Hindu revivalist
movement referred to earlier.
Akbars Era
Akbars policy offended the Muslims and a reaction started against it. In the words of a
modern Hindu writer, If Akbar had stopped with the remission of Jizya, the prohibition of cowslaughter, the partial Hinduisation of administration and patronage to Sanskrit Literature without
coquetting with Hindu philosophy and religion, history would have exalted him to the rank of the
greatest statesman and nation-builder of the world He created no united nation, but a few
Muhammadan hypocrites and a class of slavish Hindu enthusiasts He did injustice to Islam.
The imperial throne could no longer be the symbol of unity and centre of equal attraction to both
peoples. While it attracted the Hindus, it repelled the Muslims. As referred to previously a
Hindu religious revivalist movement had also been started. Mathura had become the great
centre of resurgent Hinduism under the leadership of the successors of Chaitanya. Besides the
order of Sanyasis organized early in the ninth century by Shankra had by now organized on a
political and military platform. During Mughal regime numerous instances of conflicts
between the Hindu templers and the Muslim Faqirs are available. According to Panikkar,
During the early years of Akbars reign, armed Muslim Faqirs attacked and killed a number of
Hindu Sanyasis and though the matter was represented to the emperor by Madhu Sudhan
Saraswati, the authorities afforded them no redress. Madhu Sudhun Saraswati then initiated large
number of Kashttriyas in seven out of the ten orders (the three excluded ones being Tintha,
Assama and Saraswati) and placed on them the duty of defending religion (Charma). In Mughal
times we have numerous instances of conflicts in which these Hindus templers fought the
Muslim Faqirs. Such instances can be quoted enormously which were backed up by Akbars
Hindu officers but all his efforts at religious syncretism ended in fiasco. Of course roots of this
failure went even deeper to the fundamental differences between Islam and Hinduism and the
basic reluctance of the two communities to merge. By now the Hindus and the Muslims had coexisted for centuries occasionally in conflict and generally in peace - but they had never
coalesced. The over-ambitious attempt at a merger went against the genius of the two people and
could find acceptance only in the circle of the court sycophants. It failed, as it was bound to, but
the aggressive attitude of the Hindu revivalists and the offence which some of Akbars ill-

advised measures gave to the Muslims, compounded the failure. They led to a reaction
which was to impair even the existing basis of harmony.
Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Sanis Reaction
Akbars religious policy was severely criticised by the great saint-scholar of the Mughal
period, Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Sani (1564-1624). His Maktubat (letters) throw ample light on the
state of the Muslim community and their religion in India. Noting the deplorable plight of the
Muslims in the society at the hands of the Hindus he wrote in one of his letters that the nonMuslims carried out aggressively (ba-tariq-i-istila) the ordinances of their own religion in a
Muslim state and the Muslims were powerless to carry out the ordinances of Islam and if they
carried them out they were executed. With great anguishness he recalls those tragic days
saying that those who believed in the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) were humiliated and
were made powerless, while those who denied his Prophethood enjoyed high position and used
to sprinkle salt on the wounds of the Muslims with ridicule and taunts. The revivalist Hindu
developments greatly hurt the sensitive mind and soul of the Mujaddid who was awfully
perturbed at the humiliating state of the Muslims and Islam in the country at the hands of the
Hindus and non-Muslims who had started the persecution of the sacred religion. In another letter
throwing light on the vital issue he writes: The non-Muslims in India are, without any
hesitation, demolishing mosques, and setting up temples in their place. For example, in
Karkhet (Khurnks-Hetra) Tank there was a mosque and the tomb of a saint. They have been
demolished and in their place a very big temple has been erected. Besides, the Hindus even
resorted to enormous interferences in the observations of the Islamic principles by the
Muslims who felt themselves powerless to do so openly and freely. In this regard Hazrat
Mujaddid gives other practices which hurt the Muslims. During E Kadashi, the Hindus fast and
strive hard to see that in Muslim towns no Muslim cook sells food on these days. On the other
hand, during the sacred month of Ramzan, they openly prepare and sell food, but owning the
weakness of Islam, nobody can interfere. Alas! The ruler of the country is one of us, but we are
so badly off.
Farishtas Observance
To give another account if one were to write on this matter of the past history one would come
across many similar instances. Firishta, who happened to observe and write on Hindu-Muslim
conflict writes in one of his statements that the Hindus would enter mosques, worship idols
there and chart hymns to the accompaniment of musical instruments. The heart of His most Just
Majesty was filled with sorrow when news about this reached him. But since he had no power to
stop it, he would act as if such news had never reached his royal ears when Ali Adil Shah did
not find his forces equal to those of Nizam Shah on the battle field, he had to seek help from
Ram Raj on the condition that the Hindus of Bijapur should not be allowed to feed their fanatical
grudge on the Muslims and should not be permitted to pollute mosques. But things took quite a
different turn. The Hindus stopped at nothing in order to harm and humiliate the Muslims and to
bring about their utter ruination. A few incidents in regard to the Hindu-Muslim conflict during
the reign of Emperor Shahjahan, have been quoted in Shahjahan Nama by Abdul Hamid Lahori.
He observed, when the imperial standards reached the Gujrat suburbs in the Punjab, some
Sayyids and holy men of that town made a complaint that some Hindus had released Muslim
women in their possession and that some of them had by force converted mosques into their
residential houses. On this Shaikh Muhammad of Gujrat, a man of rare intellect was deputed to
make inquiries, and in case of the allegations being true, to release the mosques and Muslim
women from the possession of the Hindus and were given in marriage to Muslims.

Shahjahans Period
Another incident of Hindu aggressiveness during this period was the usual conversion of
Muslims to Hinduism. Hinduism by then had become quite offensive absorbing a number of
Muslims in its fold. On his way back from Kashmir in the 6th year of his reign, Emperor
Shahjahan was informed that Hindus of Bhadauri and Bhimbar forcibly married Muslim girls
and converted them to their own faith. Shahjahan is said to have ordered to stop this practice
and declared it unlawful. According to Sri Ram Sharma so widespread was this practice of
converting Muslim girls to Hinduism that these orders discovered more than four thousand such
women. On the other hand, it would be surprising to note that the Hindus did not tolerate the
conversion of any Hindu to Islam. One who did so was subjected to penalties and had to face
economic losses. Until the dawn of Muslim rule, a Hindu who became a Muslim
automatically lost all claim to ancestral property.
Aurangzebs Time
Emperor Aurangzeb, on coming to the throne, gave no signs of being adversely inclined
towards any class of his subjects. But he tried to run the country in conformity to the Islamic
conjunctions and later the question of non-Muslims attracted his attention. During his eleventh
year of reign (1668) he brought forward certain changes in his policy and forbade music display
at the royal court and took other drastic steps according to strict Islamic Law and traditions. Next
year he made thorough purification of the court life and the Jiziya which had been abolished
earlier was reimposed. By now Aurangzeb had adopted the policy of regulating his
government in accordance with strict orthodox Islamic Law and many orders in furtherance
of this were issued. During Alamgirs regime, incidents of Hindus hatred against Islam are
also worthy to be quoted. In 1669, it was reported that the provinces of Thatta and Multan, and
particularly in Benaras, the Brahmans were engaged in teaching unholy books in their schools,
where Hindus and the Mussalmans gathered to learn their wicked sciences and were led
away from the right path. Orders were, therefore, issued to all the governors of provinces,
ordering the destruction of temples and schools and totally prohibiting the teaching and infidel
practices of the unbelievers. Later on the procedure was adopted of closing down rather
than destroying newly built temples in Hindu localities. However, the total ban on
construction of the new temples was adopted by later jurists. His policy of ordering the affairs of
the country according to the views of the learned Ulema was severely resented to by the Hindus
as certain orders were against the Hindus like the imposition of higher custom duties. Although
they had been exempted from a number of taxes but the reimposition of Jiziya was carefully
noted by the Hindus who showed their non-cooperation and reluctance. They resented it and
even demonstrated against it at Delhi and the rising of the Satnamis in 1672, took a religious
colour which was primarily agrarian in its origin. However, the emperor dealt with these
demonstrators. Some of the religious Hindu uprisings were noticed against him but he was
normally successful in cutting them down. At various places, the Hindus owning to their
strong position defied the Emperors orders to pay Jiziya. For instance in January 1693, when the
concerned man in the province of Malwa sent his envoy to collect Jiziya from the Jagir of one
Devi Singh but the poor fellow met a bad incident. When he reached the place, Devi Singhs
men fell upon him, pulled his beard and hair, and sent him back empty handed Earlier,
another Amin had fared much worse. He himself proceeded to the Jagir of a Mansabdar for the
collection of the tax, and in his efforts to do so was killed by the Hindu Mansabdar. Likewise,
the Hindus opposed the orders in regard to the newly-build temples. In March 1671, it was
reported that a Muslim officer who had been sent to demolish the Hindu temples in and around

Ujjain was killed along with many of his followers on account of the riot that had followed his
attempts at destroying the temples there. Bhim, a younger son of the Rana of Udapipur, a Hindu
state constantly at war against the throne retaliated by attacking Ahmadnagar and
demolishing many mosques, big and small, there in anguish against the destruction of the Hindu
temples. But at many places it is reported that very often such incidents occurred without
any provocation. During Aurangzebs reign in Gujrat, somewhere near Ahmadabad, Kolis
seem to have taken possession of a mosque and prevented Friday prayers there
Q5:
How did the establishment of Muslim League contributed towards
the emergence of Muslim Nationalism in India?
Muslim Leagues contribution towards the emergence of Muslim
Nationalism in India
The formation of AIML was a major landmark in the history of modern India. The first formal
entry of a centrally organized political party exclusively for Muslims had the following
objectives:
To promote among the Muslims of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government,
and remove any misconception that may arise as to the instruction of Government with
regard to any of its measures.
To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Muslims of India, and to
respectfully represent their needs and aspirations to the Government.
To prevent the rise among the Muslims of India of any feeling of hostility towards other
communities without prejudice to the afore-mentioned objects of the League.
With the efforts of Muslim intellectuals in the 20 th session of Mohammedan
Educational conference at Dhaka it was decided to establish Muslim League.
The success in the beginning it had was that it was able to prepare its
manifesto agreed by all the participants with no dispute.
After the Simla Delegation met the British Viceroy Lord Minto and was
promised of separate elections for Muslims, Muslim League worked so
patiently that it was able to convince the British Viceroy to constitutionalize
their demand of separate electorate in 1909. Furthermore, it was able to
convince the British about the Muslim weightage over Hindus. It was even
recognized by the ruling class Liberal Party in Britain.
Muslims had been facing losses of life and property from the hands of Hindus
during the Swadeshi Movement. The enmity between the two was thought
inevitable and lasting but Muslim League was able to prevent the hostility
between Hindus and Muslims through Lucknow Pact where they accepted the
Hindu claim of Self Government. On the other side Muslims demand of
separate electorate was conceded by Congress. That meant Muslims were
accepted as a separate community and a nation. This is considered so
important that it is thought paving the way for the formation of Pakistan.

By joining hands with Congress it was able to get fame of a major party and
status equal to of Congress through Lucknow Pact. There had been an
increasing participation of Muslims after this pact. Moreover, many of the
prominent politicians had joined it. The membership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah
was a milestone in the history of successes of Muslim League.
In 1916, Congress and Muslim League had come closer and been friendly for
the very first time. Congress was willing the Muslim demand of separate
electorate which meant that Congress also accepted a degree of partition
would be necessary for Muslims in self-governing India.
Since Congress had accepted the demand of separate electorate seats for
the Muslims in the council, it showed that Congress had accepted Muslims as
a separate community to that of Hindus. This strengthened Sir Syed Ahmed
Khan's Two-Nation Theory which later became the bases of the Pakistan
Movement.
In 1919, when the anti-Indian, Rowlett Act, was introduced by the British, it was
strongly condemned and opposed both by Congress and Muslim League with Jinnah
resigning from the Imperial Council and Gandhi starting strikes against it. HinduMuslim relations thus, improved as both communities together condemned the law
being on the same page.
In 1919, a crowd of 20,000 unarmed Indians gathered in Jalianwala Bagh (Park) to
oppose the Rowlett Act. However, the British commander, General Dyer, opened fire
on them due to which hundreds of Indians were killed. This angered both Hindus
and Muslims alike and jointly condemned this brutality from British. A common
opposition against cruel rule of British helped improving the Hindu-Muslim relations.
When British introduced Mont-Ford reforms in 1919, both Congress and Muslim
League opposed it being not up to their expectation of self-rule. Criticizing unitedly
the reforms improved Hindu-Muslim terms with each other.

There had been strict agitation from Muslim League over the support of
Muslims for Non-Cooperation Movement. Jinnah declared that the Muslims
were not ready as yet for self-rule. He resigned on this very issue from
Congress.
Muslim League by not participating in Khilafat Movement was right.
Ultimately Muslim Leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad had to admit that
they had to leave pan-Islamism. This urged Muslim leaders to go for Muslim
nationalism in India instead of pan-Islamism.
Congress since its creation was claiming to support all of the communities of
India. As the Khilafat Movement was led by Muslims not the Muslim League
so Congress thought to express to all Indian Muslims that it was deeply
concerned over the conditions of Muslims in Turkey. In this way they
propagated that Muslim League did not come to support the Indian and

Ottoman Muslims in the time of need but it was Congress only who led the
Muslims.
The Hindu anti-Muslim feelings after the end of Non-Cooperation Movement,
forced Muslims to seriously think over their safety. For that reason they
presented their own set of recommendations for the proposed future
constitution of India.
In 1927 Muslim League presented Delhi Proposals as a measure to protect
the Muslim Community in India. One of the reasons why Delhi Proposals were
presented was, Muslims feared that Hindus attempt to have more authority
in Central Government would endanger the authority of Muslims in majority
provinces. Congress was against the idea of provincial autonomy. In such a
condition Muslims could hardly struggle for their political rights. Muslims
therefore, wanted a settlement to have their authority at least in Punjab,
Bengal and NWFP. They needed now power sharing which meant a path to
freedom.
Another reason for the presenting of proposals was that Hindus were
constantly claiming that if religious protection was granted to Muslims there
was no need of separate electorate for Muslims. Jinnah was very much
concerned about such an assurance. He conditioned that with the
acceptance of Delhi Proposals.
In 1923 a splinter group of Congress Swaraj Party fought elections and won
a large number of seats. They had the policy to obstruct every move for
legislation in India. Muslims could suffer hence being neglected. On the other
hand, Hindu Mahasabha which had been a radical Hindu group started
militant activities against the Muslims in 1924. There had also been forcible
conversions of Muslims after the end of Khilafat Movement. Arya Smaj had
once again become powerful and wanted to purify Hindus of non-Hindu
elements. The growth of Hindu influence worried the Muslims and they
decided to protect their interest by presenting Delhi Proposals. That is why
the Muslim League thought to fight back.
Though the separate electorate had been granted to the Muslims, it had
attracted criticism from Congress who believed separate electorate to be an
undemocratic concession. Jinnah was particularly concerned about the future
of the separate electorates in any constitutional reform. Therefore, he called
the conference of all Muslims in Delhi and presented their unanimous
demands in Delhi proposals.
However, Delhi Proposals helped Muslims to have their say for constitution
making in India as Muslims needed to safeguard themselves against the
Hindu nationalist groups that had really endangered their identity and culture
in united India. These proposals showed the concern of Muslims regarding
the separate electorate which Congress was not ready to grant.

Delhi Proposals more or less based the famous fourteen points of Jinnah in
1929 which
formed the basis of more safety of Muslim minority and later the formation of
Pakistan.
In 1928, The Nehru Report had been presenting recommendations which
were against the interests of Muslim community. Jinnah proposed some
changes to Nehru Report in order to show the willingness of Muslims even at
least level for successful constitution making. Nehru did not consider it at all.
Therefore, Nehru report marked the end of any future cooperation between
the Congress and league. Muslims leaders were convinced that Congress
party could no more be trusted. This approach later proved useful to Muslims
in their struggle for a separate homeland.
Nehru report resulted in Jinnahs fourteen points which were to become the
basis of all future negotiations with Congress and British. Muslims who were
disillusioned got a leading direction through these demands which
significantly contributed to the creation of a separate homeland for them.
Muslim League had been divided on the issue of acceptance of Simon
Commission and Nehru Report into Shafi Group and Shoaib Qureshi Group.
The stubborn response from Congress against the suggested proposals of
Muslim League to Nehru Report convinced them of the right leadership of
Quaid. Later on the subsequent fourteen points of Jinnah for the Constitution
making reunited the separate groups as they had been for the first time a full
fledge representation of the voice of Muslims. So, it can rightly be argued
that Nehru Report indirectly resulted into the unity of Muslim League.
In the events of 1920 Muslims had divided up into a number of fractions as
some Muslims supported the Khilafat Movement whereas Muslim League did
not. On the issue of acceptance of Simon Commission Shoaib Qureshi and on
accepting Nehru Report Sir Mian Muhammad Shafi of Punjab Muslim League
worked against Jinnah. Yet, when the Nehru Report was presented, they were
quick to notice that it was not in the interest of Muslims. Jinnah's 14 points
became so important that they united all the factions of Muslim League.
The 14 points were clear statement of all Muslims demands which Muslims
believed best protected their interest. The 14 points clearly showed that
Muslims were not going to agree to Hindu dominated decisions as reflected
in the Nehru Report.
The future Indian Government Act of 1935 had been, at large comprising of
the proposals presented by Jinnah which itself was a success for Muslim
league for importantly contributing by large for constitution making and thus,
making future legislation certain in favor of Muslim community.

Jinnah's political wisdom for giving a constitutional draft on behalf of Muslims

indeed convinced British who readily accepted Quaids idea of convening
conferences in order to discuss them for future constitution.
The 14 points were adopted as a political manifesto of Muslim League who
did not compromise other than these points either from Congress and British.
This persistent approach directed Muslim League on the right path to
independence.
In 1930s, in the 1st Round Table Conference, the British agreed that Indians would be
given provincial autonomy in the new constitution. This delighted the Muslim
League as it was one of the main demands of Jinnah's 14 points which meant that
now the Muslims could protect their interests in Muslim majority areas like Punjab
and Bengal by making independent laws for themselves.
In the 2nd Round Table Conference, the British agreed and decided that N.W.F.P and
Sindh would be made provinces with their own governors. This increased the
political strength of Muslims as these both were Muslim majority areas. The same
were included in Pakistan at the time of independence in 1947. Therefore, it can be
said that the Round Table Conferences helped to design the map of Pakistan.
Gandhi took a hardline in the 2 nd Round Table Conference and refused to accept the
rights of minorities including Muslims. This displeased Muslims as they felt that
Hindus were not interested to give them their due rights. This strengthened the
Two-Nation Theory of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan which led to the formation of the
Pakistani Movement.

In the elections of 1937, Muslim league had suffered from a damaging

internal dissension in the early 1930s. This dissension was still a problem for
Muslim league. The elections of 1937 helped unify the party and resolve the
dissension. Thus, these elections are considered important.
It was the first major election that the Muslim league ever contested. The
party learnt how to contest and campaign for an election. It also realized that
it had to improve its organization and planning to get its message across
India more effectively.
The Muslim league had lost the 1937 elections. Congress was able to
establish government. Muslim League was not supported in Muslim majority
provinces as the latter did not feel threatened by Hindu domination. After the
elections of 1937 Congress rule was to prove oppressive for Muslims in
generating support for the Muslim league which it was able to cash in the
next elections of 1945.
It was to embark upon the path to independence as the Muslims had tested
the Congress for two years. They found it strictly against Muslim interest.
When the next elections were held, the entire Muslim community voted for
ML.
ML shed any hopes of cooperation with Congress. They now did not claim for
their safety as a minority but for complete independence. Lahore Resolution

can be cited as a sheer example to prove it.

The Day of Deliverance was celebrated throughout India by ML to show that
they were concerned about the fate of Muslims. This concern later gave them
extra advantage as Muslims grew their sympathies towards ML and voted for
them in near future local and general elections e.g. people of Punjab did not
vote for Unionist Party but ML.
Another major reason for its importance is that it was a resolution and
determination for an independent homeland. In 1940, this very homeland
had not yet been given any name. The agitation and objection of Hindu
media and their claim for naming it as Pakistan Resolution indirectly
benefitted the Muslims. Muslims all over India came to know with the catchy
word Pakistan where they could independently live without any interference
of Hindus and British. This name really brought all the Muslims closer to
favour Muslim League in its every struggle for independence.
The personal efforts made by Gandhi on the behalf of Congress for mutual
attempt to oust British from India showed that Muslim League had become
an important political party to press and influence the British for Indian
demands. The keen efforts Gandhi made to reunite with Quaid shows the
importance of Muslim League as the only representative of Muslims.
In 1946, though day had been observed peacefully yet in Calcutta there had
been clashes which indirectly alarmed the British that without settlement for
Muslims leaving India would bring riots in the country. So, the British were
forced to consider the partition of India and the establishment of Pakistan.