Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Khilafat Movement

Khilafat activists leading a procession.

The Khilafat movement (19191924) was a pan-Islamic, political campaign launched byMuslims in British India to influence the British government and to protect the Ottoman Empireduring the aftermath of World War I. The position of Caliph after the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Istanbul and Treaty of Versailles (1919) fell into a disambiguation along with the Ottoman Empire's existence. The movement gained force after the Treaty of Svres (August 1920) which solidified the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.[1] In India, although mainly a Muslim religious movement, the movement became a part of the wider Indian independence movement. The movement was a topic in Conference of London (February 1920).

Main article: Caliphate The Caliphate is an Islamic system of governance in which the state rules under Islamic law. Caliph literally means "successor" or "representative" and emphasizes religious authority for the head of state. It was adopted as a title by the Ummayad Caliphs and then by the Abbasid Caliphs, as well as by the FatimidCaliphs of North Africa, the Almohad Caliphs of North Africa and Spain and the Ottoman Dynasty. Most historical Muslim rulers were sultans or amirs, and gave token obedience to a caliph who often had very little real authority. Moreover, the Muslim clergy, the ulema and the various Sufi orders, exercised more religious influence than the Caliph. In the Turkish Ottoman Empire though, the emperor himself was the Caliph.



Main article: Ottoman Caliphate Ottoman emperor Abdul Hamid II (18761909) had launched his Pan-Islamic program in a bid to protect the Ottoman empire from Western attack and dismemberment, and to crush the Westernizing democratic opposition in Turkey. He sent an emissary, Jamaluddin Afghani, to India in the late 19th century. The cause of

the Ottoman monarch evoked religious passion and sympathy amongst Indian Muslims. Being a Caliph, the Ottoman emperor was the supreme religious and political leader of all Muslims across the world (although this authority was titular in practice). A large number of Muslim religious leaders began working to spread awareness and develop Muslim participation on behalf of the Caliphate. Muslim religious leader Maulana Mehmud Hasan attempted to organise a national war of independence against the British with support from the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid II was forced to restore the constitutional monarchy marking the start of the Second Constitutional Era by the Young Turk Revolution. He was succeeded by his brother Mehmed VI (18441918) but following the revolution, the real power in the Ottoman Empire lay with the nationalists.

Further information: Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire See also: Occupation of Istanbul and Turkish War of Independence The Ottoman empire, having sided with the Central Powers during World War I, suffered a major military defeat. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) reduced its territorial extent and diminished its political influence but the victorious European powers promised to protect the Ottoman emperor's status as the Caliph. However, under the Treaty of Svres (1920), territories such as Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt severed from the empire. Within Turkey, a pro-Western nationalist movement arose, Turkish national movement. During the Turkish War of Independence (19191924) led by one of the Turkish revolutionaries, Mustafa Kemal Atatrk, abolished the Treaty of Svres with the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). Pursuant toAtatrk's Reforms, the Republic of Turkey abolished the position of Caliphate in 1924 and transferred its powers within Turkey to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.


in South Asia

Although political activities and popular outcry on behalf of the caliphate emerged across the Muslim world, the most prominent activities took place in India. A prominent Oxford educated Muslim journalist, Maulana Mohammad Ali Jouhar had spent four years in prison for advocating resistance to the British and support for the caliphate. At the onset of the Turkish war of independence, Muslim religious leaders feared for the caliphate, which the European powers were reluctant to protect. To the Muslims of India, the prospect of being conscripted by the British to fight against fellow Muslims in Turkey was anathema. To its founders and followers, the Khilafat was not a religious movement but rather a show of solidarity with their fellow Muslims in Turkey. Mohammad Ali and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali joined with other Muslim leaders such as Sheikh Shaukat Ali Siddiqui, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, Raees-Ul-Muhajireen Barrister Jan Muhammad Junejo, Hasrat

Mohani, Syed Ata Ullah Shah Bukhari , Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Dr. Hakim Ajmal Khan to form the All India Khilafat Committee. The organization was based in Lucknow, India at Hathe Shaukat Ali, the compound of Landlord Shaukat Ali Siddiqui. They aimed to build political unity amongst Muslims and use their influence to protect the caliphate. In 1920, they published the Khilafat Manifesto, which called upon the British to protect the caliphate and for Indian Muslims to unite and hold the British accountable for this purpose. In 1920 an alliance was made between Khilafat leaders and the Indian National Congress, the largest political party in India and of the nationalist movement. Congress leader Mohandas Gandhi and the Khilafat leaders promised to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat andSwaraj. Seeking to increase pressure on the British, the Khilafatists became a major part of the Non-cooperation movement a nationwide campaign of mass, peaceful civil disobedience. The support of the Khilafatists helped Gandhi and the Congress ensure Hindu-Muslim unity during the struggle. Gandhi described his feelings towards Mohammad Ali as "love at first sight" to underscore his feelings of solidarity. Khilafat leaders such as Dr. Ansari, Maulana Azad and Hakim Ajmal Khan also grew personally close to Gandhi. These leaders founded the Jamia Millia Islamia in 1920 to promote independent education and social rejuvenation for Muslims. The non-cooperation campaign was at first successful. Massive protests, strikes and acts of civil disobedience spread across India. Hindus and Muslims collectively offered resistance, which was largely peaceful. Gandhi, the Ali brothers and others were imprisoned by the British. However, the Congress-Khilafat alliance began withering soon. The Khilafat campaign had been opposed by other political parties such as theMuslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. Many Hindu religious and political leaders identified the Khilafat cause as Islamic fundamentalismbased on a pan-Islamic agenda. And many Muslim leaders viewed the Indian National Congress as becoming increasingly dominated by Hindu fundamentalists.


Chauri Chaura
Chauri Chaura (Hindi: , Google Earth / Wikimapia Link Urdu:

)is a town

near Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. The town is known most for an event in February 1922 during the British Raj when a police chowki (pron.-chau key) (station) was set on fire by a mob of angry citizens, killing 23 policemen inside.

[edit]History [edit]Background
In the early 1920s, Indians, led by Mahatma Gandhi, were engaged in a nationwide non-violent movement that later became known as the non-cooperation movement. The movement sought to oppose the oppression of the Indian people by British colonial power. Using non-violent methods of civil disobedience known as Satyagraha, protests were organized by the Indian National Congress to challenge oppressive government regulatory measures such as the Rowlatt Act with the ultimate goal of swaraj or independence from British rule. Though the majority of Indians supported the Non-cooperation Movement, some supporters did not share Gandhi's firm conviction that violence had no place in the struggle. Others who agreed with Gandhi in principle, lacked his discipline and inclined toward violence as an emotional reaction when they felt threatened or attacked. The increasing tension and hostility between the British ruling class and their Indian subjects meant that violence, though not sanctioned by the movement was all but inevitable.



Around the first of February, 1922, volunteers participating in the Non-cooperation Movement protested for a fair price for meat in the marketplace.[1] The demonstrators were beaten back by local police.[1] In response, a protest against the police was called for February 4, to be held in the local marketplace.[1] As February 4, 1922, arrived, approximately two thousand protesters assembled and began marching towards the Chauri Chaura bazaar. Armed police were dispatched to control the situation while the crowd marched towards the market and started shouting anti-government slogans. In an attempt to frighten and disperse the crowd, the police fired warning shots into the air but this only agitated the crowd who began pelting the police with stones.[2] With the situation getting out of control, the sub inspector ordered the police to open fire on the advancing crowd, killing three and wounding several others. Reports vary on the reason for the police retreat with some claiming that the police ran out of ammunition while others claim that fear of the crowd's unexpectedly

courageous and angry reaction to the gunfire were the cause but whatever the case, in the ensuing chaos, the heavily outnumbered police fell back to the shelter of the police chowki while the angry mob advanced. Infuriated by the gunfire into their ranks, the crowd took revenge by setting the chowki ablaze, killing the 23 officers trapped inside.[3]

In response to the police killings the British authorities declared martial law in and around Chauri Chaura. Several raids were conducted and hundreds of people were arrested. Appalled at the carnage, Gandhi went on a five-day fast as penance for what he perceived as his culpability in the bloodshed. In reflection, Gandhi felt that he had acted too hastily in encouraging people to revolt against the British Raj without sufficiently emphasizing the importance of ahimsa (non-violence) and without adequately training the people to exercise restraint in the face of attack. He decided that the Indian people were illprepared and not yet ready to do what was needed to achieve independence. On February 12, 1922 the Indian National Congress halted the Non-cooperation Movement on the national level as a direct result of the Chauri Chaura tragedy.[4]


and convictions

A total of 228 people were brought to trial on charges of "rioting and arson" in conjunction with the Chauri Chaura affair.[5] Of these 6 died while in police custody, while 172 were sentenced to death by hanging following conviction in a trial which lasted eight months.[5] A storm of protest erupted over the verdicts, which were characterized as "legalized murder" by Indian Communist leader M.N. Roy,[5] who called for a general strike of Indian workers.[6] On April 20, 1923 the Allahabad High Court reviewed the death verdicts. Nineteen death sentences were confirmed and 110 were sentenced to prison for life, with the rest sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.[7]

Simon Commission
The Indian Statutory Commission was a group of seven British Members of Parliament that had been dispatched to India in 1927 to study constitutional reform in Britain's most important colonial dependency. It was commonly referred to as the Simon Commission after its chairman, Sir John Simon. One of its members, Clement Attlee, who subsequently became the British Prime Minister would oversee the granting of independence to India and Pakistan in 1947.

The Government of India Act 1919 had introduced the system of dyarchy to govern the provinces of British India. However, the Indian public clamoured for revision of the difficult dyarchy form of government, and the Government of India Act 1919 itself stated that a commission would be appointed after 10 years to investigate the progress of the governance scheme and suggest new steps for reform. In the late 1920s, theConservative government then in power in Britain feared imminent electoral defeat at the hands of the Labour Party, and also feared the effects of the consequent transference of control of India to such an "inexperienced" body. Hence, it appointed seven MPs (including Chairman Simon) to constitute the commission that had been promised in 1919 that would look into the state of Indian constitutional affairs. The people of the Indian subcontinent were outraged and insulted, as the Simon Commission, which was to determine the future of India, did not include a single Indian member in it. The Indian National Congress, at its December 1927 meeting in Madras (now Chennai), resolved to boycott the Commission and challenged Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, to draft a constitution that would be acceptable to the Indian populace. A faction of the Muslim League, led by Mohammed Ali Jinnah, also decided to boycott the Commission. Almost Responsible Government at the Provincial Level Dyarchy should be scrapped and Ministers responsible to the Legislature would be entrusted with all provincial areas of responsibility. However, safeguards were considered necessary in areas such as the maintenance of peace and tranquility and the protection of the legitimate interest of the minorities. These safeguards would be provided, mainly, by the grant of special powers to the Governor. Federation The Report considered that a formally federal union, including both British India and the Princely States, was the only long-term solution for a united, autonomous India. Immediate Recommendations at the Centre - to help the growth of political consciousness in the people, the franchise should be extended; and the Legislature enlarged. Otherwise, no substantial change was recommended in the Centre. The Report strongly opposed the introduction of Dyarchy at the Centre. It should be noted that Simon set great store on having a unanimous report. This could only be done if he recommended no change at the centre as: the diehards were opposed to any Indian responsibility at the Centre: the

Conservative leadership would oppose any responsibility at the Centre which did not build in conservative-proBritish control (as they tried to do in the Government of India Act 1935; and, Labour would oppose the type of gerrymandering at the Centre necessary to meet the requirements of the Conservative leadership.


and death of Lala Lajpat Rai

Almost immediately with its arrival in Bombay on February 3, 1928, the Simon Commission was confronted by throngs of protestors. The entire country observed a hartal (strike), and many people turned out to greet the Commission with black flags. Similar protests occurred in every major Indian city that the seven British MPs visited. However, one protest against the Simon Commission would gain infamy above all the others. On October 30, 1928, the Simon Commission arrived in Lahore where, as with the rest of the country, its arrival was met with massive amounts of protesters and black flags. The Lahore protest was led by Indian nationalist Lala Lajpat Rai, who had moved a resolution against the Commission in the Legislative Assembly of Punjab in February 1928. In order to make way for the Commission, the local police force began beating protestors with their lathis (sticks). The police were particularly brutal towards Lala Lajpat Rai, who died later on November 17, 1928.

The Commission published its 17-volume report in 1930. It proposed the abolition of dyarchy and the establishment of representative government in the provinces. It also recommended that separate communal electorates be retained, but only until tensions between Hindus and Muslimshad died down. Noting that educated Indians opposed the Commission and also that communal tensions had increased instead of decreased, the British government opted for another method of dealing with the constitutional issues of India. Before the publication of the report, the British government stated that Indian opinion would henceforth be taken into account, and that the natural outcome of the constitutional process would be dominion status for India. The outcome of the Simon Commission was the Government of India Act 1935, which established representative government at the provincial level in India and is the basis of many parts of the Indian Constitution. In 1937 the first elections were held in the Provinces, resulting in Congress Governments being returned in almost all Provinces. In September 1928, Mr. Motilal Nehru presented his Nehru Report to counter British charges that Indians could not find a constitutional consensus among themselves, it advocated that India be given dominion status of complete internal self-government.


Salt March
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gandhi on the Salt March

The Salt March, also known as the Salt Satyagrahah began with the Dandi March on March 12, 1930, and was an important part of the Indian independence movement. It was a campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly in colonial India, and triggered the wider Civil Disobedience Movement. This was the most significant organized challenge to British authority since the Non-cooperation movement of 192022, and directly followed the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence by the Indian National Congress on January 26, 1930. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (commonly called Mahatma Gandhi) led the Dandi march from his base, Sabarmati Ashram near Ahmedabad, to the sea coast near the village of Dandi. As he continued on this 24 day, 240 mile (390 km) march to produce salt without paying the tax, growing numbers of Indians joined him along the way. When Gandhi broke the salt laws at 6:30 am on April 6, 1930, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedienceagainst the British Raj salt laws by millions of Indians.[1] The campaign had a significant effect on changing world and British attitudes toward Indian independence[2][3] and caused large numbers of Indians to join the fight for the first time. After making salt at Dandi, Gandhi continued southward along the coast, producing salt and addressing meetings on the way. His group planned to stage a satyagraha at the Dharasana Salt Works, 25 miles south of Dandi. However, Gandhi was arrested on the midnight of May 45, 1930, just days before the planned action at Dharasana. The Dandi March and the ensuing Dharasana Satyagraha drew worldwide attention to the Indian independence movement through extensive newspaper and newsreel coverage. The satyagraha against the salt tax continued for almost a year, ending with Gandhi's release from jail and negotiations with Viceroy Lord Irwin at the Second Round Table Conference.[4] Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha.[5] However, it failed to result in major concessions from the British.[6] The Salt Satyagraha campaign was based upon Gandhi's principles of nonviolent protest called satyagraha, which he loosely translated as "truth-force."[7] Literally, it is formed from the Sanskrit words satya, "truth",

and aagraha, "asking for." In early 1930 the Indian National Congress chose satyagraha as their main tactic for winning Indian independence from British rule and appointed Gandhi to organize the campaign. Gandhi chose the 1882 British Salt Act as the first target of satyagraha. The Salt March to Dandi, and the beating by British police of hundreds of nonviolent protesters in Dharasana, which received worldwide news coverage, demonstrated the effective use of civil disobedience as a technique for fighting social and political injustice.

The satyagraha teachings of Gandhi and the March to Dandi had a significant influence on American civil

rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., and his fight for civil rights for blacks and other minority groups in the 1960s.[9]


of Independence

Mahatma Gandhi and Sarojini Naiduduring the March.

At midnight on December 31, 1929, the Indian National Congress raised the tricolour flag of India on the banks of the Ravi at Lahore. The Indian National Congress, led by Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, publicly issued the Declaration of Independence, or Purna Swaraj, on January 26, 1930.[10] (Literally in Sanskrit, purna, "complete," swa, "self," raj, "rule," thus "complete self-rule".) The declaration included the readiness to withhold taxes, and the statement: We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth. We believe also that if any government deprives a people of these rights and oppresses them the people have a further right to alter it or abolish it. The British government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation of the masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spiritually. We believe therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain Purna Swaraj or complete independence.[11] The Congress Working Committee gave Gandhi the responsibility for organizing the first act of civil disobedience, with Congress itself ready to take charge after Gandhi's expected arrest.[12] Gandhi's plan was to begin civil disobedience with a satyagraha aimed at the British salt tax. The 1882 Salt Act gave the British a

monopoly on the collection and manufacture of salt, limiting its handling to government salt depots and levying a salt tax.[13] Violation of the Salt Act was a criminal offense. Even though salt was freely available to those living on the coast (by evaporation of sea water), Indians were forced to purchase it from the colonial government.


of salt as protest focus

Initially, Gandhi's choice of the salt tax was met with incredulity by the Working Committee of the Congress,

Jawaharlal Nehru and Motilal Nehru were ambivalent; Sardar Patel suggested a land revenue boycott

instead.[15][16] The Statesman, a prominent newspaper, wrote about the choice: "It is difficult not to laugh, and we imagine that will be the mood of most thinking Indians."[16] The British establishment too was not disturbed by these plans of resistance against the salt tax. The Viceroy himself, Lord Irwin, did not take the threat of a salt protest seriously, writing to London, "At present the prospect of a salt campaign does not keep me awake at night."[17]

Main article: Satyagraha

Gandhi on the Salt March, Sarojini Naidu on the right.

Mahatma Gandhi, along with many members of the Congress Party, had a long-standing commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience, which he termed satyagraha, as the basis for achieving Indian independence.[19]

Referring to the relationship between satyagraha and Purna Swaraj, Gandhi saw "an inviolable connection

between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree."[21]He wrote, "If the means employed are impure, the change will not be in the direction of progress but very likely in the opposite. Only a change brought about in our political condition by pure means can lead to real progress."[22] Satyagraha is a synthesis of the Sanskrit words Satya (truth) and Agraha (holding firmly to). For Gandhi, satyagraha went far beyond mere "passive resistance" and became strength in practicing nonviolent methods. In his words:

Truth (satya) implies love, and firmness (agraha) engenders and therefore serves as a synonym for force. I thus began to call the Indian movement Satyagraha, that is to say, the Force which is born of Truth and Love or nonviolence, and gave up the use of the phrase passive resistance, in connection with it, so much so that even in English writing we often avoided it and used instead the word satyagraha....[23]


to Dandi

On March 12, 1930, Gandhi and 78 satyagrahis set out on foot for the coastal village of Dandi, Gujarat, over 390 kilometres (240 mi) from their starting point at Sabarmati Ashram. According to The Statesman, the official government newspaper which usually played down the size of crowds at Gandhi's functions, 100,000 people crowded the road that separated Sabarmati from Ahmedabad.[38][39] The first day's march of 21 kilometres (13 mi) ended in the village of Aslali, where Gandhi spoke to a crowd of about 4,000. At Aslali, and the other villages that the march passed through, volunteers collected donations, registered new satyagrahis, and received resignations from village officials who chose to end cooperation with British rule.[40] As they entered each village, crowds greeted the marchers, beating drums and cymbals. Gandhi gave speeches attacking the salt tax as inhuman, and the salt satyagraha as a "poor man's battle." Each night they slept in the open, asking of the villagers nothing more than simple food and a place to rest and wash. Gandhi felt that this would bring the poor into the battle for independence, necessary for eventual victory.[41]


civil disobedience

Gandhi at a public rally during the Salt Satyagraha.

Ghaffar Khan with Mahatma Gandhi.

Mass civil disobedience spread throughout India as millions broke the salt laws by making salt or buying illegal salt.[18] Salt was sold illegally all over the coast of India. A pinch of salt made by Gandhi himself sold for 1,600 rupees (equivalent to $750 at the time). In reaction, the British government incarcerated over sixty thousand people by the end of the month.[47]

Poona Pact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Poona Pact refers to an agreement between the lower caste Untouchables (then called Depressed Classes, now referred to as Dalits) of India led by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and the upper caste Hindus of India led by Mahatma Gandhi that took place on 24 September 1932 atYerawada Jail in Pune (now in Maharashtra), India.

To draft a new Constitution involving self rule for the native Indians, the British invited various leaders for Round Table Conferences in 1930-32.Mahatma Gandhi did not attend the first and last but attended the second of the Conferences. The concept of separate electorates for the Untouchables was raised by Dr. Ambedkar. Similar provisions were already available for other minorities, including Muslims, Christians, AngloIndians and Sikhs. The British government agreed with Ambedkar's contention, and British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's Communal Award to the "depressed classes" was to be incorporated into the constitution for governance of British India. Gandhi strongly opposed it on the grounds that it would disintegrate Hindu society. He began an indefinite hunger strike at Yerawada Jail from September 20, 1932 to protest this Award. As Gandhi's health worsened, Dr.Ambedkar was under tremendous pressure to save the life of Mahatma Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar feared that should Gandhi die due the fast there would be a severe reprisal against the depressed classes by the upper caste Hindus of India[citation needed]. A compromise, the Poona Pact, made between the leaders of caste Hindus and Dr. Ambedkar, was reached on September 24, 1932. Following is the text of the pact: 1) There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate seats in the provincial legislatures as follows: Madras 30; Bombay with Sindh 25; Punjab 8; Bihar and Orissa 18; Central Provinces 20; Assam 7; Bengal 30; United Provinces 20. Total 148. These figures are based on the Prime Minister's (British) decision. 2) Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following procedure All members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general electoral roll of a constituency will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote and four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary elections shall be the candidates for election by the general electorate.

3) The representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by the method of primary election in the manner provided for in clause above for their representation in the provincial legislatures. Central Legislature 4) In the Central Legislature 18 per cent of the seats allotted to the general electorate for British India in the said legislature shall be reserved for the Depressed Classes. 5) The system of primary election to a panel of candidates for election to the Central and Provincial Legislatures as herein-before mentioned shall come to an end after the first ten years, unless terminated sooner by mutual agreement under the provision of clause 6 below. 6) The system of representation of Depressed Classes by reserved seats in the Provincial and Central Legislatures as provided for in clauses (1) and (4) shall continue until determined otherwise by mutual agreement between the communities concerned in this settlement. 7) The Franchise for the Central and Provincial Legislatures of the Depressed Classes shall be as indicated, in the Lothian Committee Report. 8) There shall be no disabilities attached to any one on the ground of his being a member of the Depressed Classes in regard to any election to local bodies or appointment to the public services. Every endeavour shall be made to secure a fair representation of the Depressed Classes in these respects, subject to such educational qualifications as may be laid down for appointment to the Public Services. 9) In every province out of the educational grant an adequate sum shall be ear-marked for providing educational facilities to the members of Depressed Classes.

Lahore Resolution

Minar-e-Pakistan, Lahore, where the Pakistan Resolution was passed

The Lahore Resolution (Qarardad-e-Lahore ,) commonly known as the Pakistan Resolution ( Qarardad-e-Pakistan),[1] was a formal political statement adopted by the Muslim League at the occasion of its three-day general session on 2224 March 1940 that called for greater Muslim autonomy in British India. This has been largely interpreted as a demand for a separate Muslim state, Pakistan.[2] The resolution was presented by A. K. Fazlul Huq and was authored by Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Although the name "Pakistan" had been proposed by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in his Pakistan Declaration[3] in 1933, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and other leaders had kept firm their belief inHindu-Muslim unity.[4] However, the volatile political climate gave the idea stronger backing.[5]

With the beginning of the Second World War in September 1939, the Viceroy of India Lord Linlithgow declared India's entrance into the war without consulting the provincial governments. In this situation, Jinnah called a general session of the All India Muslim League in Lahore to discuss the circumstances and also analyze the reasons for the defeat of Muslim League in the Indian general election of 1937 in some Muslim majority provinces.


Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman seconding the Resolution with Jinnah presiding the session

The session was held between 22 March and 24 March 1940, at Minto Park (now Iqbal Park),Lahore. The welcome address was made by Nawab Sir Shah Nawaz Mamdot President Punjab All India Muslim League, he was also Chairman of the reception committee and personally bore all the expenses for this august gathering. In his speech, Jinnah recounted the contemporary situation, stressing that the problem of India was no more of an inter-communal nature, but manifestly an international.[6] He criticised the Congress and the nationalist Muslims, and espoused the Two-Nation Theory and the reasons for the demand for separate Muslim homelands. According to Stanley Wolpert, this was the moment when Jinnah, the former ambassador of HinduMuslim unity, totally transformed himself into Pakistan's great leader.[7] Sikandar Hayat Khan, the Chief Minister of the Punjab, was the sole author of the original Lahore Resolution,


resolution in the Sindh Assembly

The Sindh assembly was the first British Indian legislature to pass the resolution in favour of Pakistan. G. M. Syed, an influential Sindhi activist, revolutionary and Sufi and one of the important leaders to the forefront of the provincial autonomy movement joined the Muslim League in 1938 and presented the Pakistan resolution in the Sindh Assembly. This text was buried under the Minar-e-Pakistan during its building in the Ayub regime.


Muslim League Working Committee at the Lahore session

To commemorate the event, Minar-e-Pakistan, a 60 meter tall monument in

the shape of aminaret was built at the site in Iqbal Park where the resolution was passed.

23 March is a national holiday in Pakistan, celebrated as Republic Day to

commemorate Lahore Resolution as well as the day in 1947 when the country became the first Islamic Republic in the world.[13]

GandhiIrwin Pact
GandhiIrwin Pact refers to a political agreement signed by Mahatma Gandhi and the then Viceroy of India, Lord Irwin on 5 March 1931 before the second Round Table Conference in London. Before this, the viceroy Lord Irwin announced in October 1929, a vague offer of 'dominion status' for India in an unspecified future and a Round Table Conference to discuss a future constitution. "The Two Mahatmas" as Sarojini Naidu described Gandhi and Irwin had eight meetings which lasted for a total of 24 hours. Gandhi was impressed by Irwins sincerity. The terms of the "Gandhi-Irwin Pact" fell manifestly short of those which Gandhi had prescribed as the minimum for a truce.[1] Below were the proposed conditions.

Discontinuation of the civil disobedience movement by the Indian National


Participation by the Indian National Congress in the Round Table


Withdrawal of all ordinances issued by the British Government imposing

curbs on the activities of the Indian National Congress

Withdrawal of all prosecutions relating to several types of offenses except

those involving violence

Release of prisoners arrested for participating in the civil disobedience


The removal of the tax on salt, which allowed the Indians to produce, trade,
and sell salt legally and for their own private use. It is fair to record that British officials in India, and in England, were outraged by the idea of a pact with a party whose avowed purpose was the destruction of the British Raj. Winston Churchill publicly expressed his disgust "at the nauseating and humiliating spectacle of this one-time Inner Temple lawyer, now seditious fakir, striding half-naked up the steps of the Viceroys palace, there to negotiate and parley on equal terms with the representative of the King Emperor". In reply, the British Government agreed to 1. 2. 3. Withdraw all ordinances and end prosecutions. Release all political prisoners, except those guilty of violence. Permit peaceful picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops.

4. 5.

Restore the confiscated properties of the satyagrahis. Permit the free collection or manufacture of salt by persons near the

sea-coast. 6. Ban was lifted over the congress.

The Viceroy, Lord Irwin, was at this time directing the sternest repression which Indian nationalism had known, but he did not really relish the role. The British civil service and the commercial community were in favour of even harsher measures. But Premier Ramsay MacDonald and Secretary of State Benn were eager for peace, if they could secure it without weakening the position of the Labour Government; they wanted to make a success of t6he Round Table Conference and they knew that this body without the presence of Gandhi and the Congress could not carry much weight. In January 1931, at the closing session of the Round Table Conference, Ramsay MacDonald went so far as to express the hope that the Congress would be represented at the next session. The Viceroy took the hint and promptly ordered the unconditional release of Gandhi and all members of the Congress Working Committee. To this gesture Gandhi responded by agreeing to meet the Viceroy. Gandhis motives in concluding a pact with the Viceroy can be best understood in terms of his technique. The Satyagraha movements were commonly described as "struggles", "rebellions" and "wars without violence". Owing, however, to the common connotation of these words, they seemed to lay a disproportionate emphasis on the negative aspect of the movements, namely, opposition and conflict. The object of Satyagrahawas, however, not to achieve the physical elimination or moral breakdown of an adversary, but, through suffering at his hands, to initiate those psychological processes which could make it possible for minds and hearts to meet. In such a struggle a compromise with an opponent was neither heresy nor treason, but a natural and necessary step. And if it turned out that the compromise was premature and the adversary was unrepentant, there was nothing to prevent the Satyagrahi from returning to non-violent battle.