History Essay

Question:

Examine the role of the all India Muslim league in the struggle for Indian independence
between 1906 and 1935.

Planning:

Points

( Hindu Muslim unity as result of the revolt)

 Syed Ahmed and his views
 Muslim Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh
 Inception of the Muslim League as a result of the partition (Lucknow, 1906)
 Jinnah + Nehru’s support for Home Rule
 The Lucknow Pact (Superficial consultations of politicians in 1917)
 Muslim league reconciliation
 Nehru report
 Break down of Congress + AIML relations
 Jinnah’s personality (return in 1935)
 Round table conferences
 Government of India act
 Two nation theory
( Lahore resolution and Pakistan)

Perspectives

The Congress sublimated its frustrations and its own share of responsibilities for the failure in
resolving the Muslim Question by taking a convenient line that freedom should precede and
not follow the resolution of the communal problem. It began to speak of this as a basically
'economic' problem which was incapable of being resolved in a country which was in chains.
This shift of emphasis on 'freedom first' had considerable bearings on the issue of 'unity', as
evident in subsequent developments where unity was sacrificed on the altar of freedom.
Further, the changed League strategy, in the post-1937 political exigencies, sharpened the
focus on what appears, in retrospect, the most vital, critical and determining factor in the
partition namely, the nature of the central government

The demand for a combination of a weak centre and substantial Muslim representation
therein had been a persistent item in Muslim negotiations in the pre-1937 phase. In the
subsequent phase the concept of Muslim nation- hood and its complementary notion of parity
at the centre prompted the League to exert strong pressures on the government to revoke the
federal part of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided for a strong centre.
Linlithgow obliged Jinnah by giving him a veto on India's political future.

-Asim Roy

Mr. Jinnah, the leader of Muslim League, described it as thoroughly rotten fundamentally bad
and totally unacceptable. (Government of India act of 1935)
Essay:

The All India Muslim league (A.I.M.L) was founded in 1906 by a group of intellectual and
elite Muslims in Dacca, Bengal. It was built in response to the Hindus’ hostile reaction to the
partition of Bengal and the realization of a parliamentary Hindu majority. Over time, this
party became instrumental in the Indian struggle for independence and the final partition
between India and Pakistan. The All India Muslim League’s gradual decline in relations with
the British, fluctuating dynamic with the Indian National Congress, as well as rising
communalism and nationalistic sentiment, played an important role in the struggle for Indian
independence between 1906 and 1935. However, as compared to the Indian National
Congress, Nehru, and Gandhi, as well as other factors such as British policies and actions,
the A.I.M.L played a secondary role in the struggle for Indian independence between 1906
and 1935. This essay will, therefore, examine the claim stated, the relevant counters, and
extent to which it can be asserted.

The initial, strong between the AIML and the British played an important role in the changes
in legislation during the struggle for independence. The Muslim League arose out of a literary
movement at the Aligarh Muslim University. A major central figure of the movement was
Muslim philosopher Syed Ahmed Khan. Ahmed Khan, whose family had close ties with the
Indian Mughals, and who had previously worked for the East India Company, had an
unpopular opinion that the Muslims should share close relations with the British in order to
receive their rights. This is best exemplified by his statement at a speech in Meerut in 1988
wherein he says “ It is, therefore, necessary that for the peace of India and for the progress of
everything in India, the English Government should remain for many years — in fact
forever!”. This first hand, primary source is a direct reflection of Ahmed Khan’s views who
reflected that of the educated Muslims who were the leaders of the Muslim. He also
encouraged educated and elite Muslim members of society to join politics. Syed Ahmed,
amongst others, also believed that it is only under the British rule that the Muslims will
receive their due parliamentary representation. This moderate ideology was the foundation to
the formation of the Muslim league at the time of its inception. In terms of this ideology’s
contribution to the Indian Freedom Struggle, it led to the British’s inclusion of the principle
of separate candidates and electorates in the government of India act of 1919. It also included
reserved elections for the Muslims, amongst other minority groups that they deemed loyal
including the universities, landholders, and businessmen. This, in the context of the struggle
as a whole, according to Tim Leadbeater, led to a temporary end of the anarchy and chaos in
India. However, it was a confusing and unjust which led to a build-up in expectations and
demands from the Indians towards the British, the consequence of which was the civil
disobedience movement.

It can, however, be argued that this division in electorates set up by the British was not a
consequence of their relations with the AIML, but in fact, a conscious effort to implement
their policy of ‘Divide and Rule’. The Government of India Act of 1919 followed the extreme
unrest caused by extreme unjust on the British’s end such as the Rowlatt Act and the Amritsar
Massacre. These atrocities saw an increase in nationalistic and patriotic sentiments amongst
several groups around India. It has been argued that the electoral provisions, therefore, were a
form of creating divides amongst the Indian population so as to distract them from their
increasing animosity towards the British. The Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, Cmd
9109, HMSO, 1918, states that “Division by creeds or classes means the creation of political
camps organised against each other and teaches men to think like partisans and not as
citizens”. This report was collated by the British. Its major contributors were, of course,
British officials – Montagu and Chelmsford. This eliminates any form of bias that night arise
from an Indian, more specifically, a Hindu individual. Moreover, the fact that this was an
official report released with the purpose of critiquing and suggesting policies for the British
government goes to show that the suggestions were ignored and overlooked. This contributes
to the argument as a whole which suggests that any form of provisions and electorates
provided for minorities were a conscious effort on the British’s part to try and raise civil
tensions and shift the attention away from the British wrongdoings. This is further justified if
one considers the acts carried out by the Simon Commission in 1927. The Simon
Commission, meant to review the 1919 reforms had absolutely no Indian representation. This
was highly criticized and avoided by both the Indian National Congress (INC) and the
Muslim League under Muhammad Ali Jinnah. As a result, the committee met with other
Muslim representatives which was highly publicized in order to disturb the Hindus and break
the boycott. This clearly showed that the British were taking an effort to incite communal
distress between the Hindus and the Muslims. Therefore, if it is considered that the legislative
changes were a consequence of the British’s divide and rule policy, not their relations with
the AIML, then the significance if its role to the Indian struggle for Independence is
questionable.

The constantly fluctuating dynamic between the All India Muslim League and the Indian
National Conference (INC) played a major role in India’s Struggle for Freedom. In the initial
phase of the All India Muslim League, it was hostile towards the Hindus and the INC since it
was formed as a reaction to the Hindu response to the partition in Bengal. This sentiment was
expressed by initial leader Syed Ahmed Khan, who, in the same speech in Meerut as
mentioned before, said, “I do not speak of all the Hindus but only of some — think that by
joining the Congress and by increasing the power of the Hindus, they will perhaps be able to
suppress those Mahomedan religious rites which are opposed to their own, and, by all
uniting, annihilate them.” He believed that the INC will not be able to represent the Muslims,
and therefore, must remain an isolated party. This hostility, however, changed after
Muhammad Ali Jinnah took over leadership and agreed with the leader of the INC –
Jawaharlal Nehru on the principal of Home rule which demanded increased Indian
involvement in civil affairs and a diarchy. They both united and supported Annie Besant’s
cause in 1916 and joined the home rule league. This effectively bridged the gap between the
Muslims and the Hindus. As a result, in 1916, the INC and the AIML signed the Lucknow
Pact and made this bridge more concrete. Both the parties in question wanted self-
independence from the Swaraj and had often held concurrent sessions in the past. This pact
addressed the parties’ broad objective, as well as precise details on the form of governance
after Swaraj was achieved. The pact addressed proportionality of seats in the provincial
legislative councils for Hindus and Muslims which met the AIML’s objective. Further
communal agreements such as quotas, revenue collections and loans, and passing of a bill or
a clause were further discussed. Both parties were surprisingly compromising. In the context
of the Indian Freedom Struggle, this change in dynamics between the Hindus and Muslims
and the extent to which they compromised to unite and make their objective of Swaraj
explicit contributed to the Indian Freedom struggle quite negatively in the short term. British
hostility grew as they realised that their attempts at inciting communalism would fail and that
the major groups were uniting against a common enemy. As a result, the Rowlett act, which
allowed unlimited detention by the British without trial, trial without jury and the use of
evidence illegal in peacetime. They were allowed to censor any form of seditious media and
communication in an attempt to eliminate all dissent. Leaders including Gandhi and Jinnah
revolted in response. This increasing insecurity further led to the Amritsar massacre on 13th
April 1919. General Dyer and his troops almost 380 people and wounded close to 1200 in
Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bagh as they defied his ban on public meetings. Therefore, in a shorter
time span, it can be argued that the relations between the INC and the AIML led to an
increased hostility amongst the British, a loss of rights, and a loss of lives.

However, it can be argued that, in the long term, the acts contributed to a rise in nationalism
and patriotism. The Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, for example, as stated by Historian K. L.
Tuteja “ deeply influenced the subsequent course of anti-Imperialist. struggle in the country
and contributed in its own way to the strengthening of forces which posed a challenge to the
British rule in India.” This source, published in 1997 had the benefit of hindsight. However,
this source was written by an Indian Historian about an event of strong emotional
significance to the Indians, hence, the severity of it has the scope of being more bias.
Nevertheless, while its purpose was not to be objective and factual, it does reflect the general
sentiment of the Indians which was highly disturbed. This source also suggests that the
disturbance also contributed greatly to strengthening of forces against the British. This is
exemplified by the rise of Bose’s right wing nationalist movement as well as the growing
popularity of Gandhi’s Satya Graha and Civil Disobedience movement. Both of these
movements were instrumental in resisting the British rule through economic or military non-
cooperation. Therefore, it can be inferred that the larger movements, unrelated to the Muslim
League, were a consequence of the British’s atrocities and had a massive impact on the
freedom struggle.

Finally, it is also argued that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the AIML, his views and his
ideologies, also played an important role in the Indian Freedom Struggle. A revisionist
perspective on Jinnah’s contribution to the AIML is stated by Ayesha Jalal in her book ‘The
Sole Spokesperson’ wherein she says Jinnah was a “A nationalist who preferred constitutional
methods, Jinnah's moderation in politics was tactical, not strategic; he recognised the need to
keep inarticulate, but potentially disruptive communal passions at bay.” Jalal released this
book in 1994, several decades after the end of the Indian Freedom Struggle which gives her
the benefit of hindsight. However, she is American-Pakistani, which could mean she has a
slight bias in favour of Jinnah who is known as the ‘Father of the Nation’ in Pakistan.
Moreover, this source seeks to convey a revisionist point of view which is one not shared by
several historians, therefore it provides a fresh, unique taste on the subject of Jinnah. Jalal’s
statement can be seen by the concession or compromises agreed upon at a national
conference of various Muslim groups in March 1927. He agreed to getting rid of separate
electorates except in Punjab and Bengal where it was proportional to the communities and
also desired a third of the Central legislation to be Muslim. However, in 1928, the final terms
of the Nehru Report, a conference of Indian political parties, did not meet most of his
demands. Jinnah also clashed with Jayakar of the All India Hindu Mahasabha. When Jinnah
argued that support from the Congress did not necessarily mean minority rights were
protected, his proposal was rejected. Jinnah’s hopes of an all community nationalist
movement failed. Jinnah then exited the Muslim League and shifted to London. Also, what
led to the inevitable fall out was the conflicting ideology of Nehru and Jinnah. Nehru had a
modern socialist vision of an industrial economy. He was also atheist and anti-communal
which lead to a bitter personal antagonism with Jinnah. In the context of the freedom
struggle, this sequence of events led to a rise in communalism amongst the Hindus which
translated into their demands for India and Pakistan as separate Hindu and Muslim countries.
Jinnah was said to have proposed the two nation theory explicitly. This sentiment greatly
influenced the course of the Indian freedom struggle. Had the relations between the Muslims
and the Hindus not disintegrated, it can be argued that the fate of both the countries would
have been largely different.

However, it can be argued that as compared to the actions of the Indian National congress, as
well as the role of other leaders including Mahatma Gandhi and Subhash Chandra Bose,
Jinnah and the AIML played a secondary role in the struggle for Indian independence. Firstly,
it would be unfair to trace the break of the INC and the AIML on the demands of the League
entirely. Some historians such as Historian Asim Roy argues that “The Congress sublimated
its frustrations and its own share of responsibilities for the failure in resolving the Muslim
Question by taking a convenient line that freedom should precede and not follow the
resolution of the communal problem.” This suggests that the Congress shared an equal
responsibility for the break up because the avoided the issue of Muslim representation and
made excuses that it was not a priority. This shows that the Moreover, Mahatma Gandhi’s
movements including Satya Graha, which advocated against dishonourable motives such as
campaigning for the advantage of one community, Ahimsa, or non-violence, Swaraj, or self-
rule, the civil disobedience and the non-co-operation movement played a greater role in
increasing the nationalistic sentiment amongst both Hindu and Muslim populations against
the British. Moreover, the actions of the British themselves, as a result of rising insecurity,
pressure created by the world wars, and the labour government, spanning from the arrest of
Gandhi to the disappointing government of India Act of 1935, also contributed majorly to the
temperament of the Indian people and the Indian Freedom Struggle as a whole. This plainly
goes to show that, as compared to these development, the role of the All India Muslim
League was secondary.

Therefore, by examining the assumption that the Muslim league had a major contribution to
the Indian Freedom Struggle from 1906-1935, it can be inferred that while the Muslim
League did have a significant contribution to the struggle, including relations with major
involved parties such as the British and INC, legislation with regards to the Muslims, and
minority factionalism and communalism. However, there were other factors such as the
British’s divide and rule policy, their hostility towards India, the INC’s conflicting ideology,
and leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru, whose contribution exceeds that of the AIML.